In my opinion Bi-Modes have killed electrification

[Chris Butler]

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.

I don't think that is correct, but please correct me if I am wrong. The previous regulations had a UK exemption (they allowed compliance with the EU regulations if the requirements of the British Standard were met). That British Standard was changed and so the new EU regulations, in effect, had no UK exemption.

Derogations were available (from national governments) for any (not just UK) projects that were too advanced to retrofit the new regulations. The ORR effectively blocked those derogations in the UK (and, at the same stroke, effectively killed off justification for future projects to relax the new EU regulations) by documenting that they saw a real risk from applying the existing British clearances (despite no record of any incident ever having arisen). As a result projects in progress had to apply the new regulations and future projects are unlikely to apply lower standards because the required risk assesments would need to contradict the ORR's written position and no director of a state company has any incentive to expose their judgement to that kind of 'second guessing' if there were ever an incident.

Projects underway were obviously affected badly by the need to rework issues (although the new regulations came in in 2015, so NR had ample warning), but future projects will also be significantly impacted. I think your logic that an extra 10cm more clearance doesn't cost too much has some validity. However some of the increases in clearances are far bigger (e.g. 75cm) and you ignore the fact that the extra clearances requires work to be done at locations where none was required previously (as opposed to requiring only incremental adjustments to work already required).

Of course, as I said, the electrical clearance issue nowhere near fully explains NR's dismal project planning, management and execution although is takes some of the blame.

 

[Will Mitchell]

Is this whole issue not ultimately a consequence of the botched privatisation of BR? Are we not simply paying a heavy price now for the loss of engineering skills which occurred during that time? Electrification was standard procedure for BR despite their tight budgetary constraints. To me this is just a classic case of British short termism: Selling-off national assets for short term profit without considering the long term consequences; a complete lack of vision or coherent strategy around transport; endless deference to the road lobby despite the evidence; a purely ideological and counter-intuitive privatisation of a strategic industry which no other country has sought to replicate.

 

[Wivenswold]

There's a lot of policies that directly affect me that are the fault of this useless Brexit-obsessed government. My only hope is that a better one comes along in a couple of years.

Not a fan of Tory policy at the best of times but this government is so hopeless that they're even an embarrassment to my Tory-voting friends.

 

[47802]

There's a lot of policies that directly affect me that are the fault of this useless Brexit-obsessed government. My only hope is that a better one comes along in a couple of years.

Not a fan of Tory policy at the best of times but this government is so hopeless that they're even an embarrassment to my Tory-voting friends.

And of course the Socialist Republic of the United Kingdom with an economy like Venezuela under Corbyn and Marxist McDonnell wouldn't be an embarrassment at all.

As far as I can see I don't a massive benefit over electrifying Cardiff-Swansea its not a high speed section, the Bi-modes can run it perfectly well and there's only limited Local services that could go EMU.

And for those moaning about MML seem to be forgetting there will be a brand new High Speed Electrified line to the Midlands and the North called HS2 but its a case of many on here want it all ways.

It would seem to me that with the large number of 1st gen Sprinters that will need replacing soon, that priority should be busy non electrified commuter routes to the major cities like the Cardiff Valleys leaving aside the debate as to whether or not that should be heavy or light rail.

If we go back to the original point have Bi-modes killed electrification then yes it may have had some effect in some instances, but lets look at the alternatives. If GWR had gone with pure EMU's then firstly we would be in a right mess at this point in time, and secondly you likely find that the number of off wire services would be greatly reduced with either limited Diesel Dragging. retention of aging HST's and a lot of Diesel under the wire running or new DMU's also with much Diesel under the wire running.

Diesel under the wire running is something the anti Bi-mode brigade choose to ignore even though on the East Coast in particular Diesel under the wire running should be massively reduced, it should also be remembered that both the East Coast and GWR Main Line have very limited or non existent Electrified Diversionary routes, and it a damn site simpler to use a Bi-mode train that can switch over power sources, than try and arrange some Diesel dragging.

 

[whhistle]

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?

Clearly not.
But then heavier? By how much? A nominal amount in the grand scheme of weight? So much so that replacing track may just be a way load cheaper than electricification.
You should write and ask him his opinion on that, then report back? Just address it "Chris Grayling, Houses of Parliament, London". It'll get there.

 

[twpsaesneg]

...the southern part of the ECML has done a similar service now with no replacement immediately apparent.

Kings X to Hitchin Junction fast lines have been completely rewired in the past 10 years, with new contact, catenary and droppers (Including upgrading the Catenary to Copper and the replacement of spanwires at headspans). Slow lines have had a series of campaign changes carried out.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

The key thing is that Network Rail has not yet demonstrated it has got a grip on electrification costs.
With some projects nearing completion (GOBLIN, EGIP, NW, Bromsgrove/Rugeley) we should get a better idea, and I hope NR, ORR or the HoC Committees will analyse the costs in detail.
Until it delivers a project close to cost and spec, and the cost bears some relation to what NR promised in its 2009 RUS (adjusted for inflation), the DfT and Treasury are not going to sign off a big chunk of new wiring.
The original figure was £650K per single track km.

Except for HS2, which being new construction is a different kettle of fish.
Scotland might do things differently (although they have not been immune from cost/time overruns).
Plus anything to do with Heathrow and Crossrail projects.
(By the way, would bi-modes on electric be allowed in the Heathrow tunnels if they were extended westwards to rejoin the GWML?)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is this whole issue not ultimately a consequence of the botched privatisation of BR? Are we not simply paying a heavy price now for the loss of engineering skills which occurred during that time? Electrification was standard procedure for BR despite their tight budgetary constraints. To me this is just a classic case of British short termism: Selling-off national assets for short term profit without considering the long term consequences; a complete lack of vision or coherent strategy around transport; endless deference to the road lobby despite the evidence; a purely ideological and counter-intuitive privatisation of a strategic industry which no other country has sought to replicate.

Continental railways use contractors for electrification projects, just like we do.
In fact we have used some of the same contractors (Spanish and Austrian, to name but two sources).
Even in BR days, people like Balfour Beatty did the main part of the construction work. BR did the maintenance afterwards.
And although we talk about electrification, much of the work/cost is in prior resignalling, which has always been contracted out.

 

[47802]

Continental railways use contractors for electrification projects, just like we do.
In fact we have used some of the same contractors (Spanish and Austrian, to name but two sources).
Even in BR days, people like Balfour Beatty did the main part of the construction work. BR did the maintenance afterwards.
And although we talk about electrification, much of the work/cost is in prior resignalling, which has always been contracted out.

Well indeed that's clearly a problem with electrification much of the infrastructure is clapped out and inadequate and you need to really bring it up to standard before you electrify, you only have to look at Blackpool-Preston for instance replacement of the antiquated signalling, new track layouts at stations and junctions, new and remodelled platforms etc.

 

[Mikey C]

Looking back, a missed opportunity (presumably due to the chaos the rail industry was in during the mid 90s) was to not continue the electrification westwards from Heathrow Junction when that section was done for Heathrow Express.
I'm not suggesting the whole GWR network should have been electrified then, but surely doing the commuter routes would have been desirable (e.g. how the Bedpan commuter route was done leaving the inter city services with diesels), especially as the long term plan would have been for Crossrail to serve them anyway.
As it was the DMUs continued running under the wires, other than the token Heathrow Connect service which didn't start until several years later

 

[jimm]

Dave 1987 and HSTEd before you - yet again - tout around your tedious joint theory about how bi-modes have killed electrification I would suggest that you read the National Audit Office report on its investigation into how Chris Grayling killed off Midland Main Line electrification - along with Swansea and Windermere.

If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, then the current issue of Private Eye has a quick summary of how the cost benefit ratio for the MML project was magically made to look far worse than the original projections, by stripping out various projected benefits used the first time around that, if used during the review process, could have been expected to show the scheme as still offering medium to high value for money.

Before cancelling MML, Grayling was told, plain as day, by his officials that a bi-mode design able to deliver the speed and acceleration needed to meet the MML timetable when running on diesel power did not exist - and that had not changed in July when the public announcement was made, four months after he took the decision.

The full NAO report and a summary are here:

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/inves...o-cancel-three-rail-electrification-projects/

PS: I did particularly like these two...

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.

Why do we need to have doubled up units at 125mph?

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

'Becoming feasible'? I refer you to the EMD FL9 locomotive, first built in 1956 for the New Haven Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_FL9

The first French B81500 bi-mode units were built in 2004 - three years before the DfT issued the initial specification for a bi-mode IEP train.

And the decision to go ahead with GW electrification, including bi-modes for routes extending beyond the wires, was taken in 2009, ie after the bank crash which was the root cause of the "current economic climate".

Why do the French and Germans have doubled-up TGV and ICE units running at 200mph plus? To better balance seating capacity across busier and quieter parts of the day/routes.

The French have 36 years' experience of TGV operation. They have still not developed a 25kv bus autocoupler - might that not be a clue to the feasibility, or otherwise, of creating such a device?

 

[Warwick]

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?

No he doesn't know. He's just fell for the charms of a snake oil salesman. But he's not the only one.

 

[HSTEd]

Dave 1987 and HSTEd before you - yet again - tout around your tedious joint theory about how bi-modes have killed electrification I would suggest that you read the National Audit Office report on its investigation into how Chris Grayling killed off Midland Main Line electrification - along with Swansea and Windermere.

He killed it off because the cost estimates that Network Rail were producing were obviously horrifyingly unrealistic.
The new electrification scheme ended up far more expensive than traditional techniques instead of delivering the savings that the businesses cases were built on.

They ran the numbers again using realistic numbers and came up with an awful business case result.

If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, then the current issue of Private Eye has a quick summary of how the cost benefit ratio for the MML project was magically made to look far worse than the original projections, by stripping out various projected benefits used the first time around that, if used during the review process, could have been expected to show the scheme as still offering medium to high value for money.

Assuming you trust any of the cost estimates.
And they are all certifiably junk at this point.

Before cancelling MML, Grayling was told, plain as day, by his officials that a bi-mode design able to deliver the speed and acceleration needed to meet the MML timetable when running on diesel power did not exist - and that had not changed in July when the public announcement was made, four months after he took the decision.

Why would a 125mph electrodiesel exist when noone needs one to exist?
Is he supposed to be able to magic a train from drawing board to ready for production in four months?
Especially when noone outside the department even knows yet?

'Becoming feasible'? I refer you to the EMD FL9 locomotive, first built in 1956 for the New Haven Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_FL9

A third rail electrodiesel is not a 25kV electrodiesel.
We've had third rail electrodiesels in Britain for 50 years or more, we have not had 25kV ones.

The first French B81500 bi-mode units were built in 2004 - three years before the DfT issued the initial specification for a bi-mode IEP train.

So the DfT was pretty quick to adopt 25kV electro-diesels when they became available then?

EDIT:

A B81500 is 1500V only, and is thus not a 25kV bi mode. It is thus much closer to a Class 73 than a 25kV bi mode.
The first 25kV Bi mode I am aware of, B82500, only entered service in 2007.

And the decision to go ahead with GW electrification, including bi-modes for routes extending beyond the wires, was taken in 2009, ie after the bank crash which was the root cause of the "current economic climate".

That is not the "current economic climate" i was referring to.
I was referring to the belief that world trade and free markets are eternal and we need take no steps to hedge against a repeated oil crisis or similar event.

Why do the French and Germans have doubled-up TGV and ICE units running at 200mph plus? To better balance seating capacity across busier and quieter parts of the day/routes.

I wasn't aware the French were running huge numbers of 130m TGVs, or the Germans were running huge numbers of 130m ICE-3s
As has been repeatedly demonstrated on these forums, the rolling stock savings from using 5 car lashups instead of 9-cars with similar seating capacities is marginal, on order of 20%.
This must then be weighted against other costs, and the fact that this specification has partially been responsible for billions of pounds of cost overruns on the GWML and elsewhere.

The French have 36 years' experience of TGV operation. They have still not developed a 25kv bus autocoupler - might that not be a clue to the feasibility, or otherwise, of creating such a device?

why would they need one?
The French railway situation is entirely different to that prevailing in the UK, copying solutions wholesale from other places is not a good idea.

 

[delticdave]

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.

I'm wondering why using the OHLE as used on HS1 wasn't considered for the Great Western?
It seems to be quite suitable for the older Eurostars using both pantographs at 180 mph &
2 x 6-car Javelins, again using two pantographs at 140 mph.
It's simple catenary with single masts albeit quite closely spaced, & it's based on proven French
technology.

 

[gingertom]

I'm wondering why using the OHLE as used on HS1 wasn't considered for the Great Western?
It seems to be quite suitable for the older Eurostars using both pantographs at 180 mph &
2 x 6-car Javelins, again using two pantographs at 140 mph.
It's simple catenary with single masts albeit quite closely spaced, & it's based on proven French
technology.

agreed. This was a wheel that did not need re-inventing.

 

[mallard]

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.

And now there's no chance of it for at least the next 2 decades... Sure, 2020 wasn't achievable, but 2023-25 would have been and that's the delivery date we're looking at for bi-modes anyway.

Would you be prepared to pay higher taxes / fares to pay for electrifying the MML?

You're forgetting that diesel fuel costs money... Somewhere it was quoted that diesel fuel for the MML costs something like £65,000 per day. That approximately covers the original "£500m" cost of electrification from the 2011 business case over 20 years.

Even if costs doubled to the "£1bn" that Grayling made up (appears to be based on the cost of electrification, possibly trains, station upgrades and misc. infrastructure improvements; much of which is, or needs to be, being spent anyway; Derby resignalling alone is £200m), fuel costs are expected to increase in the longer term and reducing CO2 emissions is something that the government is subsidising in other areas.

 

[jimm]

He killed it off because the cost estimates that Network Rail were producing were obviously horrifyingly unrealistic.
The new electrification scheme ended up far more expensive than traditional techniques instead of delivering the savings that the businesses cases were built on.

They ran the numbers again using realistic numbers and came up with an awful business case result.

Assuming you trust any of the cost estimates.
And they are all certifiably junk at this point.

So in summary, you aren't interested in what the NAO report says - in essence that Grayling was looking for a way to get out of spending all of £955m on electrification work. Hence cost benefit figures were cooked in the review - or simply excluded - to get the right result to back up his 'decision' - which is a whole different kettle of fish from "using realistic numbers". Or are the people at the NAO just making it all up?

One might also note that so proud was Mr Grayling of the decision that the rest of us had to wait until July last year to find out, four months after the fact, and, happily for Tories defending marginal seats in the East Midlands, a month after the general election.

Why would a 125mph electrodiesel exist when noone needs one to exist?
Is he supposed to be able to magic a train from drawing board to ready for production in four months?
Especially when noone outside the department even knows yet?

Excuse me, you are the one saying that bi-modes have killed electrification, yet Grayling's own officials at the DfT told him that a bi-mode to the specifications required to maintain current MML timings did not exist - so how does a non-existent train kill electrification?

A third rail electrodiesel is not a 25kV electrodiesel.
We've had third rail electrodiesels in Britain for 50 years or more, we have not had 25kV ones.

So the DfT was pretty quick to adopt 25kV electro-diesels when they became available then?

EDIT:

A B81500 is 1500V only, and is thus not a 25kV bi mode. It is thus much closer to a Class 73 than a 25kV bi mode.
The first 25kV Bi mode I am aware of, B82500, only entered service in 2007.

Both the US loco (and the 1960s BR Class 73) and the B81500 are bi-modes - you did not say a 25kv bi-mode - and I'd be surprised if there was some definitive technical issue stopping a 25kv one being built much sooner than the B82500 if someone had asked for one.

French traction engineers were able to turn out quadruple-voltage B40100 express electric locos in 1964 - you make it sound as though they and their British counterparts suddenly had a eureka moment in 2007 when it came to a 25kv bi-mode.

That is not the "current economic climate" i was referring to.
I was referring to the belief that world trade and free markets are eternal and we need take no steps to hedge against a repeated oil crisis or similar event.

The world trading regime - and the current occupants of the White House, the Kremlin and the Chinese Communist Party HQ probably have a rather nuanced idea of what free markets mean to them - is not an economic climate. And Mr Grayling probably didn't give a hoot about anything remotely big picture anyway - all he wanted was a short-term fix for the DfT's budget.

I wasn't aware the French were running huge numbers of 130m TGVs, or the Germans were running huge numbers of 130m ICE-3s
As has been repeatedly demonstrated on these forums, the rolling stock savings from using 5 car lashups instead of 9-cars with similar seating capacities is marginal, on order of 20%.
This must then be weighted against other costs, and the fact that this specification has partially been responsible for billions of pounds of cost overruns on the GWML and elsewhere.

They're not, they are making up 2x8 car formations - as I am sure you are well aware - on the principles that I outline in terms of matching on-board capacity to demand at various times/places - which is no different to what will happen here once the planned pattern of full IET operations on the GW takes effect.

It's neither here nor there how long the train sets involved are - or are you now going to demand that all those four-car Electrostars running around coupled up south of the Thames should immediately be traded in for eight-car and 12-car fixed formations sets? Think of all the money wasted on all those unused cabs in four-car lash-ups...

As you know full well, not all of us share your fervent conviction that carting around dozens of coaches of empty air for much of the day, for decades to come, is a cost that is somehow justified. And are realistic enough to know that simply shouting 'electrify everything, everywhere, instantly so we don't need evil bi-modes', over and over again, is nonsense.

The cost over-runs have far more to do with things like people having to spending hours digging test holes by hand to try to find buried cables than a mixed fleet of five-car and nine-car trains being specified.

why would they need one?
The French railway situation is entirely different to that prevailing in the UK, copying solutions wholesale from other places is not a good idea.

So that TGVs could also benefit from the wonderment of running coupled sets flat out with only one pantograph raised, which would presumably save them a bob or two on setting up their catenary to allow for high-speed multiple pantograph running - which they have to do on the Lignes a Grande Vitesse.

But they haven't developed a 25kv bus autocoupler, which is probably an indication that such a device isn't worth the hassle.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm wondering why using the OHLE as used on HS1 wasn't considered for the Great Western?
It seems to be quite suitable for the older Eurostars using both pantographs at 180 mph &
2 x 6-car Javelins, again using two pantographs at 140 mph.
It's simple catenary with single masts albeit quite closely spaced, & it's based on proven French
technology.

HS1 was a new route and therefore didn't have any problems with bridge raising/track lowering or uneven wire heights.
At least 55 miles of GW is quad (or more) track, with many complications east of Didcot (junctions, stations, multiple stock/traction types, old OLE etc).
But there are plenty of examples of continental railways upgrading classic routes to 200km/h-plus with no fuss - eg the Ausbaustrecke lines in Germany.
Network Rail did hire distinguished Swiss consultants for the GW work (Furrer & Frey).
But somewhere I wonder if the idea of importing a proven European system onto the GW was anathema to NR.
They are still looking for the holy grail in the Master OLE series.
I suspect HS2 will, like HS1, use a French design (SNCF are consultants).

 

[Railperf]

The French high speed gantries do cover quad track especially on the approaches to flying junctions and passing loops (refuges). So there is no issue with the kit. Interestingly, the cross rail OLE design appears to be derived from the French HSL kit. It is interesting to note the simplicity and lightness of the design compared to the basic 2-track GWML masts and arms.

It seems the continental railways are able to use a lighter gauge truss type design for the masts rather than the huge girders we are employing.

 

[pt_mad]

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...

And another annoying one is Bristol Temple Meads. Fancy being able to take an EMU to Bristol Parkway but having to take a bi-mode to reach Bristol Temple Meads. And all that clearance work was done at Bath Spa for seemingly no reason.

 

[gingertom]

And another annoying one is Bristol Temple Meads. Fancy being able to take an EMU to Bristol Parkway but having to take a bi-mode to reach Bristol Temple Meads. And all that clearance work was done at Bath Spa for seemingly no reason.

yes a strange decision that. I'd have thought CG would have cancelled wiring to Cardiff and continued to Temple Meads. However the Severn Tunnel had already been fitted with the conductor bar so that perhaps swung it. It won't have been lobbying by Welsh politicians.

 

[pt_mad]

yes a strange decision that. I'd have thought CG would have cancelled wiring to Cardiff and continued to Temple Meads. However the Severn Tunnel had already been fitted with the conductor bar so that perhaps swung it. It won't have been lobbying by Welsh politicians.

I suppose Cardiff is the Welsh capital and so electrification between London and Cardiff is symbolic to a degree. Bristol probably not so significant. Still completely daft.

Couldn't they have electrified the line between Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads and sent some passengers services from London that way?

 

[Starmill]

Why would a 125mph electrodiesel exist when noone needs one to exist?

(my bold) Is this not a clue that there is a good reason it shouldn't exist? A specification which is cost-effective and can perform on diesel and electric at 125 according to the desired timings isn't possible. If it were, why would any electrification ever have been done?

 

[Starmill]

I suppose Cardiff is the Welsh capital and so electrification between London and Cardiff is symbolic to a degree.

Given there was supposed to be an election in 2020, I always wonder how significant this is. They could have used it to say "we have electrified the Welsh railways!" in their re- election campaign.

 

[Envoy]

They are aiming for Cardiff over Bristol TM first because the south Wales mainline already had a modern signalling system whereas that into Bristol is work in progress - along with 4 tracking the line from Temple Meads to Filton. Bath is also not so straight forward due to having to take into account the historic features of the line at this location.

The line between Cardiff and Swansea does have stopping commuter trains in addition to the Class 800’s. The Maesteg service - which comes off the mainline at Bridgend - really needs to be 2 trains per hour to cope with demand at intermediate stops on the mainline.

I find it rather odd that the government are going on about air pollution and yet they are quite happy to cancel further electrification and subject passengers & staff to diesel fumes on stations. Only yesterday, the Welsh Government said that they are going to impose further 50mph speed limits on the M4 around Newport and at Port Talbot as well as the A470 in order to make cars go slower to reduce air pollution. Seems bonkers to me as surely vehicles work most efficiently at high speed?

 

[nat67]

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.

It wouldn't have mattered if the IET's has come, Scotrail was going to have the HST's anyway and they would have had to be replaced anyway to due the 2020 regulations. But what also makes this a sorry state is that Grayling no's nothing about trains, who gave him the job, I think it was a chef as they clearly didn't reference him to railways clearly. And your right about the industry as the Governing body have no clue how to run a railway.

 

[nat67]

They are aiming for Cardiff over Bristol TM first because the south Wales mainline already had a modern signalling system whereas that into Bristol is work in progress - along with 4 tracking the line from Temple Meads to Filton. Bath is also not so straight forward due to having to take into account the historic features of the line at this location.

The line between Cardiff and Swansea does have stopping commuter trains in addition to the Class 800’s. The Maesteg service - which comes off the mainline at Bridgend - really needs to be 2 trains per hour to cope with demand at intermediate stops on the mainline.

I find it rather odd that the government are going on about air pollution and yet they are quite happy to cancel further electrification and subject passengers & staff to diesel fumes on stations. Only yesterday, the Welsh Government said that they are going to impose further 50mph speed limits on the M4 around Newport and at Port Talbot as well as the A470 in order to make cars go slower to reduce air pollution. Seems bonkers to me as surely vehicles work most efficiently at high speed?

Its also funny that Grayling doesn't no any mathematics as he has said that an 10 coach IET is less mass than an 8 coach HST, which isn't true as they weigh approx 40 ton per coach against 33 ton MK3. 10 coach IET 600 ton and HST 404 ton. where did he go to school.

 

[The Ham]

Its also funny that Grayling doesn't no any mathematics as he has said that an 10 coach IET is less mass than an 8 coach HST, which isn't true as they weigh approx 40 ton per coach against 33 ton MK3. 10 coach IET 600 ton and HST 404 ton. where did he go to school.

40*10=400, where's the extra 200 from?

If it's 400 then that's less than 404.

Unless my maths is off...

 

[Domh245]

40*10=400, where's the extra 200 from?

If it's 400 then that's less than 404.

Unless my maths is off...

Your maths isn't wrong, but the IET weights that @nat67 is throwing around are wrong, although Grayling still needs to resit basic mathematics! From Roger Ford:

"So, in the world of DfT a 2+8 IC125 at 408 tonnes is heavier than a nine car Class 800 at 431 tonnes, while the lightest of all are two five-car Class 800s in multiple which are replacing the IC125s on a like for like basis and weigh 494 tonnes."

 

[The Ham]

Your maths isn't wrong, but the IET weights that @nat67 is throwing around are wrong, although Grayling still needs to resit basic mathematics! From Roger Ford:

"So, in the world of DfT a 2+8 IC125 at 408 tonnes is heavier than a nine car Class 800 at 431 tonnes, while the lightest of all are two five-car Class 800s in multiple which are replacing the IC125s on a like for like basis and weigh 494 tonnes."

Thanks, that makes more sense.

Although the total weight may be larger, I assume there's an element of point loadings bring lower which would impact on the maintenance of the track. Which could be where some of the confusion is coming from.