IET rumours....

[irish_rail]

OK, so I've heard the following messroom gossip today, not sure how accurate it is, but apparently its come from quite high up.

GWR are looking at reducing a number of 9 car sets to 7 car sets by removing 2 coaches and placing the 2 removed coaches into a number of 5 car sets to make up a fleet of 7 car sets, so overall a reduction in number of 9s and 5s but a creation of 7s.

Now before all the usual people poo poo this, it has apparently come from a pretty decent source, however, we must always take what we hear in the messroom with a pinch of salt....

Anyone able to elaborate?

 

[Horizon22]

It's not something I've heard at all, so sounds very much like rumours. The time taken to adapt services would take even more IETs out of service.

That being said, it might be useful on services like Oxford / Worcester. But then there would be 3 different lengths of train, which would be even more inconvenient operationally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be a very good idea, but I suspect the various contracts are too complex to actually do it.

 

[pdeaves]

It sounds to me like 'wouldn't it be nice if...' has morphed into 'this is happening'.

 

[swt_passenger]

Goldilocks and the 3 IETs. This one’s tooooo long. This one’s tooooo short. This one’s just right…

 

[irish_rail]

It's not something I've heard at all, so sounds very much like rumours. The time taken to adapt services would take even more IETs out of service.

That being said, it might be useful on services like Oxford / Worcester. But then there would be 3 different lengths of train, which would be even more inconvenient operationally.

I'd add the padd to Exeter/ Plymouth stoppers may work as 7s too.
For me the loss of 9s would be the biggest downside of this proposal.

It would be a very good idea, but I suspect the various contracts are too complex to actually do it.

Not if they did the 802s.

 

[Horizon22]

I'd add the padd to Exeter/ Plymouth stoppers may work as 7s too.
For me the loss of 9s would be the biggest downside of this proposal.


Not if they did the 802s.

You'd also have 5/7/9 cars, 10 or so of which would be 9-cars which can make things even more complex.

 

[Neptune]

It’s amazing how often messroom gossip that has come from a ‘reliable high up source’ is 99 times out of 100 complete rubbish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s amazing how often messroom gossip that has come from a ‘reliable high up source’ is 99 times out of 100 complete rubbish.

I think the problem is that discussions very easily go from "X is a good idea" (which it absolutely is - double 5-car working is an utter nuisance for passengers and crew alike, and there's no option for a capacity between 5 and 9/10) to "X will happen" (which it probably won't).

 

[irish_rail]

It’s amazing how often messroom gossip that has come from a ‘reliable high up source’ is 99 times out of 100 complete rubbish.

Judging from who it came from it almost certainly isn't absolute rubbish, its almost certainly at very least been discussed. Whether or not it would happen is of course another matter.

 

[Mag_seven]

The last thing we need on GWR is a 7 car turning up on a 9 car or 10 car diagram. I've seen 9 / 10 car trains full and standing before now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The last thing we need on GWR is a 7 car turning up on a 9 car or 10 car diagram. I've seen 9 / 10 car trains full and standing before now.

It'll happen, but it's better than a 5-car turning up. You could do it the way Avanti do and have the bits 7s and 9s don't have in common as unreserved space.

 

[Mag_seven]

It'll happen, but it's better than a 5-car turning up. You could do it the way Avanti do and have the bits 7s and 9s don't have in common as unreserved space.

If they were to do anything I'd much rather see 80% of the fleet 9 car with a small fleet of say about 20 5 cars for lightly used services.

 

[irish_rail]

It'll happen, but it's better than a 5-car turning up. You could do it the way Avanti do and have the bits 7s and 9s don't have in common as unreserved space.

Exactly. 5 vice 9 or 10 is not exactly uncommon, and a 7 would usually cope in a way the 5s can't.

If they were to do anything I'd much rather see 80% of the fleet 9 car with a small fleet of say about 20 5 cars for lightly used services.

In an ideal world yes, but the thing with the suggestion I've heard is that no new vehicles need building, so no real expenditure, just moving the vehicles about a bit.
For sure GWR have way way too many 5 car sets and 10 car trains are a completely wasteful exercise. 58 x 5 car trains is far too many for whats needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they were to do anything I'd much rather see 80% of the fleet 9 car with a small fleet of say about 20 5 cars for lightly used services.

A sensible world would build some new 9s (or even 7s) and send the 5s to XC or even TPE who want more 80x, but it's not a sensible world

 

[TheBigD]

It’s amazing how often messroom gossip that has come from a ‘reliable high up source’ is 99 times out of 100 complete rubbish.

Only 99???

 

[irish_rail]

A sensible world would build some new 9s (or even 7s) and send the 5s to XC or even TPE who want more 80x, but it's not a sensible world

You there! Stop talking sense !

 

[Irascible]

Out of curiosity, is there anywhere that'd fit a 12-car other than Paddington p1?

 

[JKF]

Out of curiosity, is there anywhere that'd fit a 12-car other than Paddington p1?

Pretty sure it could be done at Temple Meads as the platforms are very long there.

 

[stuu]

Out of curiosity, is there anywhere that'd fit a 12-car other than Paddington p1?

Taunton too, might need a bit of resurfacing first

 

[Xavi]

Taunton too, might need a bit of resurfacing first

Newton Abbot too

 

[43055]

OK, so I've heard the following messroom gossip today, not sure how accurate it is, but apparently its come from quite high up.

GWR are looking at reducing a number of 9 car sets to 7 car sets by removing 2 coaches and placing the 2 removed coaches into a number of 5 car sets to make up a fleet of 7 car sets, so overall a reduction in number of 9s and 5s but a creation of 7s.

Now before all the usual people poo poo this, it has apparently come from a pretty decent source, however, we must always take what we hear in the messroom with a pinch of salt....

Anyone able to elaborate?

If this was to happen I wonder which vehicles would be transferred as the 9 cars have 2? Trailer vehicles.

It's not something I've heard at all, so sounds very much like rumours. The time taken to adapt services would take even more IETs out of service.

That being said, it might be useful on services like Oxford / Worcester. But then there would be 3 different lengths of train, which would be even more inconvenient operationally.

The MML survives with 3 lengths of 222 and the 180's (and HST of two lengths before that).

 

[Horizon22]

Out of curiosity, is there anywhere that'd fit a 12-car other than Paddington p1?

What sort of 12 are we talking? Paddington regularly gets 12-car 387s on many platforms and they fit at places like Reading too

 

[JonathanH]

What sort of 12 are we talking? Paddington regularly gets 12-car 387s on many platforms and they fit at places like Reading too

12-car 387 is somewhat shorter than a 12-car IET. I'm not sure where a 12-car IET formation would fit.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not surprised it's being discussed, it's am obvious option - not one I'd go for personally - I'm sure people will mention some five coach services that they feel could do with an extra couple of carriages, but by the same token we presumably need an equal number of nine coach trains that could cope okay with a couple of carriages being removed from them, which sounds like it'll cause arguments... are there many diagrams that never see a nine coach train look that busy?

I think the problem is that discussions very easily go from "X is a good idea" (which it absolutely is - double 5-car working is an utter nuisance for passengers and crew alike, and there's no option for a capacity between 5 and 9/10) to "X will happen" (which it probably won't).

Were't you arguing that double sets (of 185s) would make "a decent direct swap" for ScotRail's HSTs recently?

A sensible world would build some new 9s (or even 7s) and send the 5s to XC or even TPE who want more 80x, but it's not a sensible world

You don't need to build any new rakes, just some additional coaches - why would GWR order new nine coach trains and then cascade away the five coach ones, when they could just order additional carriages for the five coach trains?

Let XC's problems be directly solved, rather than relying on cascades (see also the regular suggestions that EMR get another new set of trains so that the 810s that they haven't got yet can move to XC...)

The MML survives with 3 lengths of 222 and the 180's (and HST of two lengths before that).

EMR are bringing in one simple fleet of identical five coach 810s to replace these different types (and in the meantime appear to be standardising the 222 lengths), so they seem to prefer a simpler fleet

 

[liamf656]

The MML survives with 3 lengths of 222 and the 180's (and HST of two lengths before that).

It’s a smaller network than the GWR intercity network. EMR are also solving that by ordering a uniform of 5 coach 810s to mostly run in pairs. They’ve also expressed huge interest in reforming the 222s so that there are no 4 car trains in service. (@tbtc beat me to this!)

On a network as extensive as GWRs it’s probably wise to not introduce a further train length, it’ll make allocating a nightmare

 

[Bletchleyite]

Were't you arguing that double sets (of 185s) would make "a decent direct swap" for ScotRail's HSTs recently?

Do ScotRail require double crewing?

You don't need to build any new rakes, just some additional coaches - why would GWR order new nine coach trains and then cascade away the five coach ones, when they could just order additional carriages for the five coach trains?

Because it is thinking on a holistic basis, e.g. not having mixed age coaches in a set.

Let XC's problems be directly solved, rather than relying on cascades (see also the regular suggestions that EMR get another new set of trains so that the 810s that they haven't got yet can move to XC...)

Why?

EMR are bringing in one simple fleet of identical five coach 810s to replace these different types (and in the meantime appear to be standardising the 222 lengths), so they seem to prefer a simpler fleet

I believe they have got it wrong and passengers will suffer.

 

[Snow1964]

12-car 387 is somewhat shorter than a 12-car IET. I'm not sure where a 12-car IET formation would fit.

387s use 20m vehicles, the IET uses 26m so would need a platform about 315-320m

In old measurements that is about 1050 feet, and platforms over 1000 feet were not that common. You are talking equivalent of 15-16 mk1 carriages in total length (although a loco plus 14 or 15 have certainly been used in the past)

 

[tbtc]

Do ScotRail require double crewing?

Just seems strange that doubled up units with no corridor connection is "an utter nuisance for passengers" on GWR but replacing HSTs with doubled up units that lack a corridor connection is "decent" when Scottish passengers are involved

Because it is thinking on a holistic basis, e.g. not having mixed age coaches in a set

That'd be a valid concern if we were talking about building centre carriages for midlife stock like Voyagers but even the oldest IET are still pretty new

Why?

Because some people seem hellbent on other TOCs getting new stock to replace fairly modern stock, with the justification that XC can get the cast offs - we need to have a proper assessment of the XC franchise and the number of different markets it is trying to solve/ the long term prognosis for electrification etc, rather than it being a convenient dumping ground for other trains just so certain TOCs can get brand new ones

For example, I'd be tempted to argue that XC need something more than just five coach trains for their services (which is what you'd be cascading to them, if you had your way)

I believe they have got it wrong and passengers will suffer

We'll see

Based on the current services (half hourly from London to both Nottingham and Sheffield) there would be enough 810s to allow around half of diagrams to be doubled up - considering how few seats there are in a five coach 222 compared to a five coach 810, it doesn't seem too terrible

There are always complaints when new stock gets ordered though - it's always easy to argue that we should have longer trains

 

[TheBigD]

We'll see

Based on the current services (half hourly from London to both Nottingham and Sheffield) there would be enough 810s to allow around half of diagrams to be doubled up - considering how few seats there are in a five coach 222 compared to a five coach 810, it doesn't seem too terrible

There are always complaints when new stock gets ordered though - it's always easy to argue that we should have longer trains

For comparison, the 222s currently have...
4 car - 181 seats (33/148)
5 car - 240 seats (50/190)
7 car - 338 seats (106/232)

The 810s will have...
5 car - 301 seats (47/254)

A 5 car 810 will have an extra 25% capacity over a 5 car 222.