In my opinion Bi-Modes have killed electrification

[Dave1987]

Grayling has announced that electrifying Cardiff-Swansea is not "worth it" because of the bi-modes. So it's now pretty much confirmed that bi-modes are killing off future electrification in this country. Makes me extremely sad and angry. Makes my hatred of the whole idea even worse.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...ensible?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Cardiff-Swansea wires ‘not sensible’

Electrifying the railway between Cardiff and Swansea was not a sensible thing to do, according to Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling.

In a House of Commons debate on Great Western electrification on April 19, Grayling said: “Spending hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and causing massive disruption to passengers to enable the same trains to travel on the same route at the same speed to the same timetable as they do today was not actually a sensible thing to do.”

He said the decision was made with Prime Minister Theresa May.

Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) claimed that Government didn’t consider the west of Wales worthy of investment.

Grayling responded: “We made the decisions about electrification on the Midland Main Line and the line between Cardiff and Swansea on the simple basis that spending hundreds of millions or billions of pounds to achieve the same journey times in the same trains was not sensible.”
On bi-mode trains, he said: “The trains on the Great Western route are already in operation, delivering services to people in Swansea, for whom it is a great and important investment.”

This is of course completely contrary to those forum members who claimed that bi-modes would encourage more electrification. You give Government ministers an excuse to get PR for shiny new trains without doing the infrastructure upgrades and they will take it. IMO Bi-modes are the worst thing ever to have happened to out rail network.

 

[D365]

I'm the last guy who would ever side with Chris Grayling, but bi-modes didn't cause the problem. There was never any chance that MML was going to be completed this decade.

Arguably we'd be even further up s**t creek without the 800s. ScotRail wouldn't be getting their HSTs, the Sprinter cascade would have been put back further...

I don't agree with not finishing the Great Western, but I feel it was the governing bodies that went off-track in 2015. The industry was never going to be ready to take on any further work at that point.

 

[Class465fan]

Grayling has announced that electrifying Cardiff-Swansea is not "worth it" because of the bi-modes. So it's now pretty much confirmed that bi-modes are killing off future electrification in this country. Makes me extremely sad and angry. Makes my hatred of the whole idea even worse.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...ensible?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


This is of course completely contrary to those forum members who claimed that bi-modes would encourage more electrification. You give Government ministers an excuse to get PR for shiny new trains without doing the infrastructure upgrades and they will take it. IMO Bi-modes are the worst thing ever to have happened to out rail network.

The f**king moron should be sacked. Doesn't he realise that Bi-modes are more heavier than a regular diesel due to having electric equipment/Diesel equipment all together leading to problems with the tracks?

 

[Domh245]

Bi-modes have saved the bacon of the DfT, given the massive overspend and delay of electrification schemes which have made it completely impractical in the current climate.

Once Grayling leaves the DfT/the current government is replaced, hopefully they'll reassess the relative costs of electrification, realise that the bi-modes are good for short term "look at us buying you new trains" and terrible for long term costs, and start electrifying again. There will always (certainly in my hopefully 50-70+ year life time) be a need for diesel units for serving places like Penzance, and for things like that, bi-modes are brilliant, but the current attitude of using them in place of a properly electrified, sustainable railway will come to a halt at some point.

 

[HSTEd]

I remember when large portions of this forum scoffed at me for suggesting that bi-modes would break the back of the electrification programme........

Of course many will still claim that bi-modes are apparently awful for operating costs, despite the fact that the likes of France/SNCF has decided to purchase huge numbers of them for TER services and appears delighted.

The network effect, such as it ever existed, is now completely dead.
I doubt there will be any significant electrification beyond already committed schemes.

 

[D365]

I remember when large portions of this forum scoffed at me for suggesting that bi-modes would break the back of the electrification programme........

It wasn't the bi-modes that caused the setbacks to the electrification programme. Quite the opposite, the 800s have meant that unit cascades can still take place.

Seriously, what would the alternative have been? More brand new diesel locomotives?

Clearly less wasteful than these blasted bi-modes

 

[Crossover]

There will always (certainly in my hopefully 50-70+ year life time) be a need for diesel units for serving places like Penzance, and for things like that, bi-modes are brilliant, but the current attitude of using them in place of a properly electrified, sustainable railway will come to a halt at some point.

The one that really grates with me is Windermere - surely that bit of electrification would have been done and been on par cost wise with the conversion of 319's to Flex units...

 

[HSTEd]

It wasn't the bi-modes that caused the setbacks to the electrification programme. Quite the opposite, the 800s have meant that unit cascades can still take place.

Seriously, what would the alternative have been? More brand new diesel locomotives?

A handful of additional DMUs?
Because there would have been a continuous order of carriages every year in any sane system.

We also would not have bet all the cards on the magical new 25kV technology that Network Rail claimed was ready for the GWRM, despite it never having been tested on an operational route.

There would have been schemes using legacy Mark 3 type 25kV equipment, and probably third rail, with suitable safety modifications.

Clearly less wasteful than these blasted bi-modes

Did I ever say they were wasteful?
I merely pointed out that the bi mode becoming feasible was always going to destroy the business case for electrification in the current economic climate.
I don't like bi modes not because they are wasteful(which they are obviously not) but because I want to secure the transport system against future fuel shocks. Therefore the objective has to be Swiss levels of electrification.

 

[Mikey C]

Cardiff to Swansea by itself always seemed a bit of an "extravagance" unless far more lines in South Wales were also electrified, as the wires would get very little use otherwise. There are probably schemes elsewhere with much better benefit, e.g. the London and Birmingham ends of the Chiltern mainline with diesels running on busy commuter routes into Marylebone and Snow Hill.

At least bimodes mean that we won't have diesels running under the wires, having IC125s running all the way from Kings Cross to Edinburgh is pretty poor really.

 

[D365]

Because there would have been a continuous order of carriages every year in any sane system.

There's your problem

As for the type of electrification, there was no other choice, not with the requirement to support 2x125mph and 3x110mph EMU operation. Perhaps too much was being asked in one go.

 

[HSTEd]

There's your problem

As for the type of electrification, there was no other choice, not with the requirement to support 2x125mph and 3x110mph EMU operation. Perhaps too much was being asked in one go.

Well yes, but I do want to know who the hell thought that was actually a reasonable specification?
Why do we need to have doubled up units at 125mph?
The saving in carriages (from splitting) was minor, once additional cab/crumple zones are considered, and the result has been to drive the price of the infrastructure through the roof.

Even if splitting was a good idea, it would have been cheaper to develop a 25kV bus autocoupler, and more useful in the future.

 

[47802]

I think the bottom line is Network Fail has killed electrification with their massive overspend and massive delays.

Was Cardiff-Swansea ever really a strong case it wasn't part of the original plan, and given GWR now has all Bi-modes anyway I'm sure better priorities can be found.

 

[tbtc]

I'm the last guy who would ever side with Chris Grayling, but bi-modes didn't cause the problem. There was never any chance that MML was going to be completed this decade.

Arguably we'd be even further up s**t creek without the 800s. ScotRail wouldn't be getting their HSTs, the Sprinter cascade would have been put back further...

I don't agree with not finishing the Great Western, but I feel it was the governing bodies that went off-track in 2015. The industry was never going to be ready to take on any further work at that point.

Bi-modes have saved the bacon of the DfT, given the massive overspend and delay of electrification schemes which have made it completely impractical in the current climate.

Once Grayling leaves the DfT/the current government is replaced, hopefully they'll reassess the relative costs of electrification, realise that the bi-modes are good for short term "look at us buying you new trains" and terrible for long term costs, and start electrifying again. There will always (certainly in my hopefully 50-70+ year life time) be a need for diesel units for serving places like Penzance, and for things like that, bi-modes are brilliant, but the current attitude of using them in place of a properly electrified, sustainable railway will come to a halt at some point.

I agree with both of the above posters.

The public sector bits of the railway have killed electrification. Network Rail not doing jobs on time and on budget. The decision to start wiring the GWML without worrying about where the actual cables were underneath the ground in the first place. The moving goalposts about clearances. DfT agreeing to things and then not delivering. The politicians who changed their minds about commitments. If these bits had worked properly then electrification would be a success and we'd already see wires to Oxford/ Bristol (and Windermere etc) by now.

BUT, it was a shambles, with various bits of public sector failing. Just like many/most big infrastructure projects. Easy to blame 800/801s, but they have turned out to be the one thing that has gone right. As the above two posters have said, without bi-mode the whole thing would be significantly worse - we'd have hundreds of brand new electric carriages parked up without ever going into revenue earning service because the wires had only been done piecemeal towards Didcot etc.

Remember the "390s would have been much cheaper than 800s" arguments a couple of years ago (from people who were comparing the leasing costs of 390s against the full service package that the DfT agreed to for the 800s)? Imagine if we'd ordered hundreds of Pendolino carriages... how would the railway looks now? Would they be doing London to Didcot shuttles, where passengers would change for Bristol/ Cardiff? Would they be sat idle at Old Oak Common (etc)? ScotRail wouldn't be getting HSTs from GWR, just like Grand Central wouldn't be getting 180s (which means Northern wouldn't be getting the ScotRail 170s and East Midlands wouldn't be getting the GC HSTs), plus the Sprinter cascade that @D365 refers to. The whole railway would be choked for capacity, as the hundreds of unused 390 carriages sat idle. And this is what people would prefer?

Blame people for what went wrong, sure. But you can't blame bi-modes for the railway's failure to do the infrastructure improvements that it promised to do (which then gave politicians cold feet about other schemes).

Not surprising that people in the industry want to try to point the finger at the privately built trains, rather than the publicly built infrastructure. If anything, we should be grateful that the trains are so good that they can do 110mph on diesel (despite only being specified to do 100mph). The Government have got off lightly!

The f**king moron should be sacked. Doesn't he realise that Bi-modes are more heavier than a regular diesel due to having electric equipment/Diesel equipment all together leading to problems with the tracks?

Well, yes, bi-modes are heavier. Just like running full length HSTs all the way to Hereford/ Penzance (etc) is heavier than portion working 800s.

In the grand scheme of things, the weight of the fuel tanks is one of these things that gets over-hyped - from the same alarmists who were worrying about the millions of pounds of clearance work required to accommodate 26m 800/801 carriages on the GWML (something that they seem to have gone fairly quiet about). If you have a 260m train with best part of a thousands passengers on board then the diesel fuel underneath is essentially a rounding error compared to the overall weight.

 

[Domh245]

Of course many will still claim that bi-modes are apparently awful for operating costs, despite the fact that the likes of France/SNCF has decided to purchase huge numbers of them for TER services and appears delighted.

I think you make one of my point for me! They've ordered them for TER services, not TGV or Intercités! I've nothing against bi-modes being used on regional services, in fact I think it is the right thing to do given the current environmental challenges facing the railway and it is something of a shame that the only ones we've seen so far have been the Anglia regio-flirts, and the 769s. Using bi-modes to justify not electrifying lines that would otherwise make sense to electrify (MML), because there is some pre-existing wiring and trying to appear green is important in the current political climate isn't acceptable.

As for the points about operating costs, they obviously will more expensive to operate for a variety of reasons, but
a) On TER services they aren't pounding around at 125mph, the wear and tear is considerably lower (I can't remember if it is a square relation or higher) at lower speeds
b) Sometimes you have to rob Peter to pay Paul. They may be more expensive to run in track access costs (but not necessarily overall depending on the relative prices of Diesel and Electricity, and the miles racked up on each mode) but you are lowering emissions. Electric/Hybrid cars are much more expensive than pure diesel cars, but are (by and large) better for the environment, similar thought process.

Easy to blame 800/801s, but they have turned out to be the one thing that has gone right.

I don't think that's necessarily true, the IEP units haven't been without their problems. I think it'd be fairer to say they've gone the least wrong.

 

[D365]

I don't think that's necessarily true, the IEP units haven't been without their problems. I think it'd be fairer to say they've gone the least wrong.

They’re clearly not Hitachi’s worst either.

 

[47802]

I think you make one of my point for me! They've ordered them for TER services, not TGV or Intercités! I've nothing against bi-modes being used on regional services, in fact I think it is the right thing to do given the current environmental challenges facing the railway and it is something of a shame that the only ones we've seen so far have been the Anglia regio-flirts, and the 769s. Using bi-modes to justify not electrifying lines that would otherwise make sense to electrify (MML), because there is some pre-existing wiring and trying to appear green is important in the current political climate isn't acceptable.

As for the points about operating costs, they obviously will more expensive to operate for a variety of reasons, but
a) On TER services they aren't pounding around at 125mph, the wear and tear is considerably lower (I can't remember if it is a square relation or higher) at lower speeds
b) Sometimes you have to rob Peter to pay Paul. They may be more expensive to run in track access costs (but not necessarily overall depending on the relative prices of Diesel and Electricity, and the miles racked up on each mode) but you are lowering emissions. Electric/Hybrid cars are much more expensive than pure diesel cars, but are (by and large) better for the environment, similar thought process.


I don't think that's necessarily true, the IEP units haven't been without their problems. I think it'd be fairer to say they've gone the least wrong.

Considering the complexity of the train and the fact they are having to perform a role they were not originally specified to perform I think they are doing pretty well.

 

[Dave1987]

Cardiff to Swansea by itself always seemed a bit of an "extravagance" unless far more lines in South Wales were also electrified, as the wires would get very little use otherwise. There are probably schemes elsewhere with much better benefit, e.g. the London and Birmingham ends of the Chiltern mainline with diesels running on busy commuter routes into Marylebone and Snow Hill.

At least bimodes mean that we won't have diesels running under the wires, having IC125s running all the way from Kings Cross to Edinburgh is pretty poor really.

Sorry but they are ploughing millions and millions of £’s in to R&D for battery trains and hydrogen fuel trains. There is already a proven easy method of powering a train and having lightweight, fast trains..... 25KV overhead wires!! They are now looking at every excuse they can to not electrify anything. Bi-modes have given the politicians the ultimate excuse for cancelling something that’s a bit tricky. Future generations will pay the price of Graylings decisions.

 

[Dave1987]

Considering the complexity of the train and the fact they are having to perform a role they were not originally specified to perform I think they are doing pretty well.

They were an extremely expensive compromise for something that should never have been needed with proper planning. And now they are being used as an excuse for not finishing the job. They have a 27 year lease and I don’t expect any futher progress on electrification on the GW while the IEP is in service. It will be kicked into the long grass for decades now.

 

[furnessvale]

Bi modes have not killed electrification. A deliberate misrepresentation of what bi modes are technically and financially capable of achieving has killed electrification.

Grayling could equally have claimed the same results for a return to steam traction but it would have been just as big a lie.

 

[D365]

They were an extremely expensive compromise for something that should never have been needed with proper planning.

Are the DfT renowned for proper planning?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Bi-modes do mean that what wiring does exist is going to be far, far more intensively used. See that cheap and nasty ECML wiring? Now, it's going to end up powering almost every single train which runs underneath it, compared to the handful of IC225s it was originally built for. The only way you can justifiably use a bi-mode is if at least some of the busiest and fastest sections of track have not only the wires, but the power needed to run all those trains. If AT300s or the Bombardier 125mph bi-mode design end up being used on the MML and CrossCountry route, there'll be no choice but to invest in the existing wiring. The same goes for regional trains too. If bi-modes become the norm, then any electrified sections of track are going to be far more used than they are today. It'll be even more significant for battery electric trains, as they'll need to charge up from the 25kV as well as propelling themselves.

 

[hexagon789]

Grayling has announced that electrifying Cardiff-Swansea is not "worth it" because of the bi-modes. So it's now pretty much confirmed that bi-modes are killing off future electrification in this country. Makes me extremely sad and angry. Makes my hatred of the whole idea even worse.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...ensible?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


This is of course completely contrary to those forum members who claimed that bi-modes would encourage more electrification. You give Government ministers an excuse to get PR for shiny new trains without doing the infrastructure upgrades and they will take it. IMO Bi-modes are the worst thing ever to have happened to out rail network.

It was a reasonable idea initially, that you'd electrify the main trunk routes and then use diesel for operation on the secondary routes that weren't perhaps as justifiable for electrification; but I quite agree, it does seem to have given an "excuse" to not electrify many important routes (certainly for the near future it seems) and particularly in this vase of routes, such as you say Swansea-Cardiff, it's a damn shame.

 

[tbtc]

Sorry but they are ploughing millions and millions of £’s in to R&D for battery trains and hydrogen fuel trains. There is already a proven easy method of powering a train and having lightweight, fast trains..... 25KV overhead wires!!

Yes Dave, overhead electrification is a proven easy method of powering a train.

Nice and simple, eh?

Apart from the bit about actually putting the wires up to power aforementioned trains. That's the bit that the railway finds not so simple.

Between them, the various branches of Government have failed to properly electrify the GWML (which has led them to cancel the MML electrification and defer/delay other projects further north).

If we could electrify lines easily then great - but until we learn how to do so we shouldn't blame the trains that have enabled services to keep running (rather than any pure-electric option, which would have scuppered things).

You seem to keep blaming bi-modes, without considering why we haven't electrified much over the past five years - if The Railway had been able to do what it promised then Grayling would have had no need or justification for cancelling other projects. Seven years after the Control Period 5 commitments were announced, we now find that it'll take ten years to deliver most (but not all) of what should have been built in five years. In an alternative world, Network Rail would have wired everything they'd committed to by now and we'd have wires in Swansea/ Oxford/ Bristol.

We'd also have wires on routes like the Valley Lines and East-West which were also cancelled - are you blaming bi-mode for the lack of wires to Merthyr Tydfil too? Maybe, just maybe, the reason for the Valley Lines/ Marston Vale/ Electric Spine etc not being wired any time soon are the same inability to deal with infrastructure that apply on the GWML/ MML? It's just that you've got a convenient scapegoat to blame for the GWML and are conveniently forgetting that routes with no bi-modes planned also saw plans descoped?

Maybe if lines with bi-modes planned and lines without bi-modes planned are all seeing their overhead electrification descoped then not everything is the fault of bi-modes? Dunno...

I don't think that's necessarily true, the IEP units haven't been without their problems. I think it'd be fairer to say they've gone the least wrong.

Fair point - but compared to introduction of other new trains (hello 385s!), the IET have come into service reasonably well (nothing seems to work straight out of the box nowadays!).

The majority of the problems seem to stem from lack of sufficient staff trained on them (a problem of the TOC's making) and the need to still run on diesel on some sections due to the axel counters not recognising them (an infrastructure problem which, whilst regrettable, at least there's a Plan B for, unlike if we'd ordered pure EMUs). Mechanically, the IET seem pretty good from the start - which has saved some blushes! I'm not saying the've been perfect from day one, but a lot of the problems aren't the fault of the actual trains.

 

[Railperf]

The French are proposing to cancel around 50 miles of electrification on the Calais / Boulogne to Amiens /Paris line in favour of using Bi-modes too. With SNCF, like so many rail operators just doesn't have the hard cash to spend upfront, probably when the actual cost off a bi-mode is probably negligible over the cost of an EMU. Essentially, the only difference is the extra engines /alternators fuel tanks, and some additional control wiring / control systems. I wonder what the price difference is of an Hitachi 802 vs 801 set?

 

[Chris Butler]

The issue isn't bi-modes. The issue is the almost unbelievable amount that Network Rail spend on electrification which results in electrification being almost unaffordable. The EU regulations (and ORR's failure to even seek derogations) requiring excessive clearances around conductor wires have contributed some of the cost, but far from all.

 

[Railperf]

The issue isn't bi-modes. The issue is the almost unbelievable amount that Network Rail spend on electrification which results in electrification being almost unaffordable. The EU regulations (and ORR's failure to even seek derogations) requiring excessive clearances around conductor wires have contributed some of the cost, but far from all.

Very true. But the question remains:

If bi-mode technology did not exist, how many of the now cancelled or deferred electrification projects would have gone ahead as originally planned?
My hunch is that due to financial constraints - we would probably be where we are today - except that existing or new diesel trains would continue to run under the wires - where routes are partially electrified.
So in terms of major routes such as GWR - you'd have to order a new fleet of DMU's to replace HST's for all the intercity services - with electrics really only running suburban services in from Bedwyn Didcot and Oxford.
And on the ECML, it would be even worse because you would have to order a new fleet of DMU's to run almost 400 miles under existing wires to reach places like Inverness and Aberdeen which were never going to be wired in the first place.
I'm sure that in the next few years, we will all appreciate the lack of noise and smoke once bi-modes take over all ECML services. And those living close to the wired length of the ECML will also appreciate having less pollution and noise too!

 

[Domh245]

The EU regulations (and ORR's failure to even seek derogations) requiring excessive clearances around conductor wires have contributed some of the cost, but far from all.

There were exemptions for the UK, the ORR decided not to use them! And the regulations are more of a problem when it comes to the ongoing schemes were they raised a bridge/lowered track to meet the prior standard only to have it changed before authoristation so they've had to do the same thing twice. The cost of raising a bridge an extra 100mm (eg) compared to the old clearance isn't that much - having to hire the equipment and people, closing the road and railway off, etc, is the issue with it.

 

[physics34]

fully agree with the halting of the Cardiff to Swansea electrification.

The money involved and delays that would be inflicted are not financially viable.

MML though i hugely disagree.

 

[Railperf]

fully agree with the halting of the Cardiff to Swansea electrification.

The money involved and delays that would be inflicted are not financially viable.

MML though i hugely disagree.

Would you be prepared to pay higher taxes / fares to pay for electrifying the MML? I'm not sure how the numbers stack up. but on average, how much would MML users have to pay on average over 20 years to pay for it? Would it be £10 on the price of a standard one way ticket per person per week/month/year?

 

[Domh245]

Would you be prepared to pay higher taxes / fares to pay for electrifying the MML? I'm not sure how the numbers stack up. but on average, how much would MML users have to pay on average over 20 years to pay for it? Would it be £10 on the price of a standard one way ticket per person per week/month/year?

Why the 20 year target to pay for itself? The infrastructure will remain fine for a good few decades before it'll need replacing - the WCML did around 40 years before it was upgraded (in places) - the southern part of the ECML has done a similar service now with no replacement immediately apparent.