My ideas to help cope with the interim between now and a possible decarbonisation of the railway

[Energy]

That's really a moot point then .
The issue at hand would be whether $SoftwareSupplier has the code and is able to modify it. Which is very much non-trivial.

What incentive is there for Alstom though, is it worth it to them to modify 20 year old software?

 

[Rhydgaled]

The ECML PSU2 upgrade will provide enough power to allow all paths operated on the ECML to be operated by electric traction with a healthy spare capacity for future growth/train lengthening. The ECML was always tight on spare power capacity, and there were issues in getting the original electrification signed off - the reports into the electrification are on the Railways Archive site and make interesting reading. The timescales aren't strictly set by the railway here - there's some DNO/grid issues to resolve, but it's going to be 2025 before everything can be timetabled on electric north of Doncaster.

Thanks, the option of XC going bi-mode in 2025 is feasible then; if the ECML power supply wasn't going to be able to handle it before 2030 there would be basically zero point replacing the 22x fleet before then.

The situation with ordering more AT300 bi-mode stock is that it really is just XC who could justify another order, anything ordered after that, such as additional units for TransPennine, should be deliverable as a straight EMU (with or without that single diesel engine).

I agree, in terms of LDHS bi-modes I think it should be one order for XC (for delivery in 2025) or nothing. Even then a 30 year life would mean operation until 2055. For the same reason I feel that a ban on any new diesel-fitted trains should be introduced by 2030 at the absolute latest, preferably 2025 (meaning the last orders for diesel bi-modes for regional and suburban services need to be placed soon). The single diesel engine is a daft idea if you ask me, extra weight and maintainance implications for limited value given that it can only be useful if the wires are disabled for some reason and a 700 (or other pure EMU) isn't blocking the route onwards. Batteries for hotel power if the wires are disabled would make more sense to me, assuming a battery-EMU is a simpler peice of kit than a electro-diesel.

The reality, of course, is that getting the core of the XC network wired is going to be a 2030 aim, rather than a 2025 aim, but even with a continuous route electrified from south of Birmingham to York via the MML, there will be significant mileage at either end of the route which won't see electrification before 2035 to 2050 - that's everything north of Edinburgh, which stops LNER cascading their Class 800 stock, and it's everything south west of Bristol, which stops GWR cascading their Class 800 and 802 stock.

Everything north of Edinburgh (as far as XC and LNER are concerned) is due to be wired by 2035 and it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to keep at least some of the 22x going until then. Given that East Coast had 14 IC125s for not many off-wire services I'd surmise that Scotland completing electrification to Aberdeen and Inverness would free up either the 13 9-car Azumas or the 10 5-car sets. Admittedly that won't replace many Voyagers (in fact, if the 800's performance on diesel is insufficient for XC, you'd only just manage to withdraw XC's IC125 fleet (you'd get 5x 8-car (6-engine) bi-modes for XC out of the 10 5-car Azumas)). There's a lot to do west of Bristol, which as you say won't be finished before 2050, but GWR have other bi-mode routes which could be wired sooner. With Didcot-Oxford, Swindon - Bristol T.M. - Bristol Parkway and Cardiff - Swansea wired the plan was for GWR to have 21 class 801s instead of the 9-car bi-mode 800s. On the basis that GWR ordered 7 additional 802s to cover an hourly Oxford service (originally planned to be 387s), I'm assuming that wires to each of those three destinations (Swansea, Oxford, Bristol) would allow 7 9-car bi-modes to be replaced by 7 9-car EMUs. Thus if you wired up Bristol and Oxford you would release 14x 9-car bi-mode units. If GWR cascaded them internally, each 9-car set could replace a pair of 5-car sets (10-car 800 capacity is much the same as a 9-car). Thus GWR would lose 28x 5-car 800s and gain 14x 9-car EMUs (potentialy using the driving vehicles from 14 of the 'lost' 800s). XC would gain either 28x 5-car 800s or 14x 8-car (6-engine) 800s. GWR would then have the following Intercity fleet:

• 14x 9-car EMU (working Paddington to Oxford and Bristol Temple Meads)
• 21x 9-car class 800
• 8x 5-car class 800
• 22x 5-car class 802
• 14x 9-car class 802

At this point, GWR would still need bi-modes for Cardiff-Swansea, Oxford-Worcester/Hereford, Swindon-Cheltenham, south of Bristol (through to Penzance) and along the Berks & Hants route. They would still have a total of 30 5-car and 35 9-car bi-modes to work those services; is that sufficient?

If Bristol-Plymouth were prioritised the majority of XC services in Devon could be run using pure EMUs. It probably wouldn't be ready by 2035, so some 22x would remain until around 2040 in that scenario, but the number of bi-modes ultimately required by XC would be less, so they'd need fewer cascades. How's this for an XC fleet in the latter half of the 2030s (before much of their network south of Derby has been wired)?

• 5x 8-car class 800 (ex-LNER)
• 14x 8-car class 800 (ex-GWR)
• 33x 5-car class 810 (ex-EMR) or 25x 9-car class 810 (new-build) - replacing all class 220s
• 30x 5-car class 221s (including about 7 units on Cardiff - Nottingham)
• 13x 5-car class 222
• 10x 7-car class 222

That's probably more units than required actually, meaning more of the 221s could go.

Even MML electrification doesn't allow replacement of Class 810 diesel stock with a pure EMU as all the diversionary routes will still need electrification before you can seriously consider cascading bi-mode units away from EMR.

Sure, bi-mode is a nice-to-have in some respects if you have unwired diversionary routes, but unwired diversionary routes didn't stop the ECML (and the WCML north of Preston) receiving straight-electric trains (with no plans to do differently in the WCML case). As an aside, do LNER's off-wire routes in England run on Sundays?

Yes, the savings are insignificant - you're selling a specialised rail traction engine which only has part of its service life left into a market which is trying to cut down on the use of internal combustion for public transport. You'll get more weighing them in for scrap than selling them into the rail traction market, and any savings you make in track access charges and maintenance costs will then be taken up hiring in locomotives to drag those units around the remaining unelectrified parts of the network.

In other words, converting bi-modes to straight-electric is going to be unattractive to the TOCs/ROSCOs/Government so we need to be careful not to end up with too many of them otherwise we'll be carting engines and fuel around all over the network (until nearly 2060 if you keep ordering more after 2025). Or worse; leaving government with an excuse not to electrify (we don't need to wire that route, the diesel bi-modes using it have another x years life in them and there's nowhere useful we can cascade the bi-modes to).

Virgin and Avanti have the Class 221 units which came in rather useful running on the GSWR route into Glasgow when the northern WCML was shut at Lamington.

TPE don't, they have 397s. HS2 classic compatibles won't be divertable without a loco to drag them either. I suppose TPE do have 802s, but I guess they are either not cleared or the crews that sign 802s don't sign the WCML.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Thanks, the option of XC going bi-mode in 2025 is feasible then; if the ECML power supply wasn't going to be able to handle it before 2030 there would be basically zero point replacing the 22x fleet before then.

Yes

I agree, in terms of LDHS bi-modes I think it should be one order for XC (for delivery in 2025) or nothing. Even then a 30 year life would mean operation until 2055. For the same reason I feel that a ban on any new diesel-fitted trains should be introduced by 2030 at the absolute latest, preferably 2025 (meaning the last orders for diesel bi-modes for regional and suburban services need to be placed soon). The single diesel engine is a daft idea if you ask me, extra weight and maintainance implications for limited value given that it can only be useful if the wires are disabled for some reason and a 700 (or other pure EMU) isn't blocking the route onwards. Batteries for hotel power if the wires are disabled would make more sense to me, assuming a battery-EMU is a simpler peice of kit than a electro-diesel.

That is the route First Group took with their Class 803s.

Everything north of Edinburgh (as far as XC and LNER are concerned) is due to be wired by 2035 and it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to keep at least some of the 22x going until then. Given that East Coast had 14 IC125s for not many off-wire services I'd surmise that Scotland completing electrification to Aberdeen and Inverness would free up either the 13 9-car Azumas or the 10 5-car sets. Admittedly that won't replace many Voyagers (in fact, if the 800's performance on diesel is insufficient for XC, you'd only just manage to withdraw XC's IC125 fleet (you'd get 5x 8-car (6-engine) bi-modes for XC out of the 10 5-car Azumas)). There's a lot to do west of Bristol, which as you say won't be finished before 2050, but GWR have other bi-mode routes which could be wired sooner. With Didcot-Oxford, Swindon - Bristol T.M. - Bristol Parkway and Cardiff - Swansea wired the plan was for GWR to have 21 class 801s instead of the 9-car bi-mode 800s. On the basis that GWR ordered 7 additional 802s to cover an hourly Oxford service (originally planned to be 387s), I'm assuming that wires to each of those three destinations (Swansea, Oxford, Bristol) would allow 7 9-car bi-modes to be replaced by 7 9-car EMUs. Thus if you wired up Bristol and Oxford you would release 14x 9-car bi-mode units. If GWR cascaded them internally, each 9-car set could replace a pair of 5-car sets (10-car 800 capacity is much the same as a 9-car). Thus GWR would lose 28x 5-car 800s and gain 14x 9-car EMUs (potentialy using the driving vehicles from 14 of the 'lost' 800s). XC would gain either 28x 5-car 800s or 14x 8-car (6-engine) 800s. GWR would then have the following Intercity fleet:

• 14x 9-car EMU (working Paddington to Oxford and Bristol Temple Meads)
• 21x 9-car class 800
• 8x 5-car class 800
• 22x 5-car class 802
• 14x 9-car class 802

At this point, GWR would still need bi-modes for Cardiff-Swansea, Oxford-Worcester/Hereford, Swindon-Cheltenham, south of Bristol (through to Penzance) and along the Berks & Hants route. They would still have a total of 30 5-car and 35 9-car bi-modes to work those services; is that sufficient?

If Bristol-Plymouth were prioritised the majority of XC services in Devon could be run using pure EMUs. It probably wouldn't be ready by 2035, so some 22x would remain until around 2040 in that scenario, but the number of bi-modes ultimately required by XC would be less, so they'd need fewer cascades. How's this for an XC fleet in the latter half of the 2030s (before much of their network south of Derby has been wired)?

• 5x 8-car class 800 (ex-LNER)
• 14x 8-car class 800 (ex-GWR)
• 33x 5-car class 810 (ex-EMR) or 25x 9-car class 810 (new-build) - replacing all class 220s
• 30x 5-car class 221s (including about 7 units on Cardiff - Nottingham)
• 13x 5-car class 222
• 10x 7-car class 222

That's probably more units than required actually, meaning more of the 221s could go.

You make the mistake of assuming the bi-mode stock on the ECML is only for north of Edinburgh, the reality is it's for other destinations such as Harrogate, Hull and Huddersfield. They also enable the Carlisle diversions, emergency diversions via the GN/GE Joint Line etc. You may be able to justify reducing bi-mode units by single digit numbers but until all destinations and all diversionary routes are electrified, it simply doesn't work going all electric.

Sure, bi-mode is a nice-to-have in some respects if you have unwired diversionary routes, but unwired diversionary routes didn't stop the ECML (and the WCML north of Preston) receiving straight-electric trains (with no plans to do differently in the WCML case). As an aside, do LNER's off-wire routes in England run on Sundays?

ECML had the IC125 sets and (more easily) loco haulable IC225 sets. And yes, the Carlisle diverts for LNER are both Sat and Sun this month and next.

In other words, converting bi-modes to straight-electric is going to be unattractive to the TOCs/ROSCOs/Government so we need to be careful not to end up with too many of them otherwise we'll be carting engines and fuel around all over the network (until nearly 2060 if you keep ordering more after 2025). Or worse; leaving government with an excuse not to electrify (we don't need to wire that route, the diesel bi-modes using it have another x years life in them and there's nowhere useful we can cascade the bi-modes to).

I said the savings are insignificant and don't add up when you still need to haul electric units around with diesel locomotives for diversions - if/when all of the ECML diversionary routes are electrified and you can divert over the GN/GE or the Tyne Valley on electric, there will be a far better business case for removing the diesel engines and converting the stock to a comparable standard to the Class 801 units. There was a lot of number crunching to see if a loco plus EMU approach could be made to work for IEP, and yes, DfT were not keen on the plan but even then, there was no way to build a convincing business case for procuring locomotives to drag EMUs around.

TPE don't, they have 397s. HS2 classic compatibles won't be divertable without a loco to drag them either. I suppose TPE do have 802s, but I guess they are either not cleared or the crews that sign 802s don't sign the WCML.

As you point out, TPE have stock that could be used in a situation such as Lamington reoccuring.

 

[The Ham]

Thanks, the option of XC going bi-mode in 2025 is feasible then; if the ECML power supply wasn't going to be able to handle it before 2030 there would be basically zero point replacing the 22x fleet before then.

I agree, in terms of LDHS bi-modes I think it should be one order for XC (for delivery in 2025) or nothing. Even then a 30 year life would mean operation until 2055. For the same reason I feel that a ban on any new diesel-fitted trains should be introduced by 2030 at the absolute latest, preferably 2025 (meaning the last orders for diesel bi-modes for regional and suburban services need to be placed soon). The single diesel engine is a daft idea if you ask me, extra weight and maintainance implications for limited value given that it can only be useful if the wires are disabled for some reason and a 700 (or other pure EMU) isn't blocking the route onwards. Batteries for hotel power if the wires are disabled would make more sense to me, assuming a battery-EMU is a simpler peice of kit than a electro-diesel.

Everything north of Edinburgh (as far as XC and LNER are concerned) is due to be wired by 2035 and it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to keep at least some of the 22x going until then. Given that East Coast had 14 IC125s for not many off-wire services I'd surmise that Scotland completing electrification to Aberdeen and Inverness would free up either the 13 9-car Azumas or the 10 5-car sets. Admittedly that won't replace many Voyagers (in fact, if the 800's performance on diesel is insufficient for XC, you'd only just manage to withdraw XC's IC125 fleet (you'd get 5x 8-car (6-engine) bi-modes for XC out of the 10 5-car Azumas)). There's a lot to do west of Bristol, which as you say won't be finished before 2050, but GWR have other bi-mode routes which could be wired sooner. With Didcot-Oxford, Swindon - Bristol T.M. - Bristol Parkway and Cardiff - Swansea wired the plan was for GWR to have 21 class 801s instead of the 9-car bi-mode 800s. On the basis that GWR ordered 7 additional 802s to cover an hourly Oxford service (originally planned to be 387s), I'm assuming that wires to each of those three destinations (Swansea, Oxford, Bristol) would allow 7 9-car bi-modes to be replaced by 7 9-car EMUs. Thus if you wired up Bristol and Oxford you would release 14x 9-car bi-mode units. If GWR cascaded them internally, each 9-car set could replace a pair of 5-car sets (10-car 800 capacity is much the same as a 9-car). Thus GWR would lose 28x 5-car 800s and gain 14x 9-car EMUs (potentialy using the driving vehicles from 14 of the 'lost' 800s). XC would gain either 28x 5-car 800s or 14x 8-car (6-engine) 800s. GWR would then have the following Intercity fleet:

• 14x 9-car EMU (working Paddington to Oxford and Bristol Temple Meads)
• 21x 9-car class 800
• 8x 5-car class 800
• 22x 5-car class 802
• 14x 9-car class 802

At this point, GWR would still need bi-modes for Cardiff-Swansea, Oxford-Worcester/Hereford, Swindon-Cheltenham, south of Bristol (through to Penzance) and along the Berks & Hants route. They would still have a total of 30 5-car and 35 9-car bi-modes to work those services; is that sufficient?

If Bristol-Plymouth were prioritised the majority of XC services in Devon could be run using pure EMUs. It probably wouldn't be ready by 2035, so some 22x would remain until around 2040 in that scenario, but the number of bi-modes ultimately required by XC would be less, so they'd need fewer cascades. How's this for an XC fleet in the latter half of the 2030s (before much of their network south of Derby has been wired)?

• 5x 8-car class 800 (ex-LNER)
• 14x 8-car class 800 (ex-GWR)
• 33x 5-car class 810 (ex-EMR) or 25x 9-car class 810 (new-build) - replacing all class 220s
• 30x 5-car class 221s (including about 7 units on Cardiff - Nottingham)
• 13x 5-car class 222
• 10x 7-car class 222

That's probably more units than required actually, meaning more of the 221s could go.

Sure, bi-mode is a nice-to-have in some respects if you have unwired diversionary routes, but unwired diversionary routes didn't stop the ECML (and the WCML north of Preston) receiving straight-electric trains (with no plans to do differently in the WCML case). As an aside, do LNER's off-wire routes in England run on Sundays?

In other words, converting bi-modes to straight-electric is going to be unattractive to the TOCs/ROSCOs/Government so we need to be careful not to end up with too many of them otherwise we'll be carting engines and fuel around all over the network (until nearly 2060 if you keep ordering more after 2025). Or worse; leaving government with an excuse not to electrify (we don't need to wire that route, the diesel bi-modes using it have another x years life in them and there's nowhere useful we can cascade the bi-modes to).

TPE don't, they have 397s. HS2 classic compatibles won't be divertable without a loco to drag them either. I suppose TPE do have 802s, but I guess they are either not cleared or the crews that sign 802s don't sign the WCML.

The other problem with cutting the number of bimodal trains for any TOC too much is that it restricts the ability to use one to sub for a straight electric train of there's problems.

Whilst 2025 is an ideal cut off for new bimodals I suspect that there's a balance to be had, for instance if by delivering some later than this out allows some of the higher speed sections of lines to be electrified then you could then reduce the number of engines required per train to then reuse those released engines in other units.

As an example of the wires reach Plymouth and a 5 coach 80x with two coaches with diesel engines under could keep to time West of there you could then relocate some of those engines into XC 80x trains ordered later.

As such you'll have 2030 trains but with 2018 engines, that means that it doesn't matter that the trains will last past 2050 as the engines won't.

On the 5 coach 80x's you could go from 3 to 2 coaches with diesel power much quicker than you could go to straight electric versions, as if they can only do (say) 70mph off the wires this would be enough to be able to use them on diversions without too much of a time penalty in too many cases.

The 810's with their increased number of engines for the MML, could also see those numbers per train reduce as more of the faster line sections get wired up. Again giving you a pool of engines which would be older than the trains which they were being used in.

The other thing to remember is that there's going to be a need for some bimodals which do some fairly long runs, but only use diesel for limited sections potentially getting close to 2050. One such example could be the WofE line, where it could be useful to put off the electrification of the line so that more of it could be redoubled before electrification is undertaken to reduce costs.

Given that it's likely to a line which needs new units and in fairly large numbers (at least for a single line) fairly soon (due to the age of the 158/159's, circa 1990, which run on it), even if that just allows them to be used elsewhere for a few years to get more electrification done elsewhere to replace older units (such as the 150's), then it would make sense to give that all bimodals and electrify that line late. Especially given that currently (and until there's much more redoubling) there's only 1tph West of Yeovil.

There's the potential for some limited use of bimodals post 2050, as such having an end date of some of them as being 2060 probably isn't too much of a problem. However they would need to be fairly limited in numbers and could probably work on a 810 style train (i.e. 24m coaches).

As such having a mixed order book of 80x's and 810's until 2030 could be worth doing, especially if there's limited new diesel engines being used in some of the latter units other than those which are likely to be needed for a short time after 2050.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The other problem with cutting the number of bimodal trains for any TOC too much is that it restricts the ability to use one to sub for a straight electric train of there's problems.

Whilst 2025 is an ideal cut off for new bimodals I suspect that there's a balance to be had, for instance if by delivering some later than this out allows some of the higher speed sections of lines to be electrified then you could then reduce the number of engines required per train to then reuse those released engines in other units.

As an example of the wires reach Plymouth and a 5 coach 80x with two coaches with diesel engines under could keep to time West of there you could then relocate some of those engines into XC 80x trains ordered later.

As such you'll have 2030 trains but with 2018 engines, that means that it doesn't matter that the trains will last past 2050 as the engines won't.

On the 5 coach 80x's you could go from 3 to 2 coaches with diesel power much quicker than you could go to straight electric versions, as if they can only do (say) 70mph off the wires this would be enough to be able to use them on diversions without too much of a time penalty in too many cases.

The 810's with their increased number of engines for the MML, could also see those numbers per train reduce as more of the faster line sections get wired up. Again giving you a pool of engines which would be older than the trains which they were being used in.

The other thing to remember is that there's going to be a need for some bimodals which do some fairly long runs, but only use diesel for limited sections potentially getting close to 2050. One such example could be the WofE line, where it could be useful to put off the electrification of the line so that more of it could be redoubled before electrification is undertaken to reduce costs.

Given that it's likely to a line which needs new units and in fairly large numbers (at least for a single line) fairly soon (due to the age of the 158/159's, circa 1990, which run on it), even if that just allows them to be used elsewhere for a few years to get more electrification done elsewhere to replace older units (such as the 150's), then it would make sense to give that all bimodals and electrify that line late. Especially given that currently (and until there's much more redoubling) there's only 1tph West of Yeovil.

There's the potential for some limited use of bimodals post 2050, as such having an end date of some of them as being 2060 probably isn't too much of a problem. However they would need to be fairly limited in numbers and could probably work on a 810 style train (i.e. 24m coaches).

As such having a mixed order book of 80x's and 810's until 2030 could be worth doing, especially if there's limited new diesel engines being used in some of the latter units other than those which are likely to be needed for a short time after 2050.

I'm not specifically disagreeing, but just remember points like the South Devon Banks need power because of the line gradient, not because of the line speed, likewise for routes such as the Highland Main Line (until it gets what it truly needs, 25kV AC OLE).

We all know the bi-mode units are heavier and use more energy, but it's not significantly more energy. The units, when running on electric have very good regenerative braking ability and the increased mass of the bi-mode units results in an increased regenerative braking return to the grid. I'm sure someone will have the actual consumption figures on a like for like basis for an 800 and an 801 unit on the same diagrams, but as I've said previously and will say again, the savings to be had from ditching bi-mode stock are tiny compared with the additional costs (energy, track access, hire, training) of provisioning diesel locomotives for drags.

Also, with regards to re-doubling and electrification - it's only an issue if you let it be or specifically make it an issue. If you include passive provision, such as the necessary structures (TTCs or portals) where you would place S&Cs, and don't put mast foundations where you'll later want to put track* then it's only a relatively small amount of work. The MML OLE structures chaps have worked well with the four tracking chaps, there were TTCs up before there was track under them, and for plain line, it's a mast at the side of the track, it makes only a modicum of difference to re-doubling (mainly making sure you don't damage the adjacent OLE when installing track panels with a Kirow etc).

* This isn't actually a massive problem for the West of England line - there's mainly signalling troughs and cabinets on the old second track alignment so we wouldn't be putting foundations anywhere near that anyway.

 

[37424]

The Main Business case for the LNER Bi-modes would be based mainly on the off wire destinations I would think, but some diversionary capability is a plus point, they have the equivalent of 18 9/10 car sets over the 15 HST sets they had but I doubt very much they will doing any loco hauled dragging of 801 around. If most of the off wire destinations get electrified in the mean time whether you would justify retaining the Bi-mode capability I don't know but by the time that happens your probably looking at East Coast long distance traffic going to HS2 anyway assuming all of it gets built of course which i'm not convinced. On the West Coast the new stock will give much reduced capability for non electrified diversions with only 13 5 car Bi-modes now but then anything north of Preston tends to fall into the carn't be bothered category these days anyway, Obviously there are now more electrified options around the North West now which helps the situation, and I guess if something like Lamington occurs then they could probably muster enough Bi-modes at the expense of off wire destinations.

I think the idea of dropping engines is a nonsense don't forget the 800 were designed to operate at reduced power unless an engine fails which allows for fault tolerance and reduced maintenance, obviously that luxury is negated on the 802's in favour of higher performance. Possibly there may be some battery pack replacement opportunity which I think LNER are looking at.

I don't believe AT300 will be ordered anytime soon for XC unless the government is desperate to give Hitachi work to stop them closing down the factory, and again I think people are being wildly optimistic at the level of electrification that is going to happen in the next 20 years.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not specifically disagreeing, but just remember points like the South Devon Banks need power because of the line gradient, not because of the line speed, likewise for routes such as the Highland Main Line (until it gets what it truly needs, 25kV AC OLE).

Fair enough, which is part of the reason I suggested West of Plymouth (to avoid Devon Banks being an issue).

Of course it could be possible to put in some batteries to replace the engines to give the trains the ability to have a bit of a boost where extra power is needed over short distances.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You make the mistake of assuming the bi-mode stock on the ECML is only for north of Edinburgh, the reality is it's for other destinations such as Harrogate, Hull and Huddersfield. They also enable the Carlisle diversions, emergency diversions via the GN/GE Joint Line etc. You may be able to justify reducing bi-mode units by single digit numbers but until all destinations and all diversionary routes are electrified, it simply doesn't work going all electric.

I wasn't suggesting LNER going all-electric with just Aberdeen/Inverness getting wires. Here's what I wrote again, with added emphasis: "I'd surmise that Scotland completing electrification to Aberdeen and Inverness would free up either the 13 9-car Azumas or the 10 5-car sets." I'm aware that LNER will still need some bi-modes for Hull etc. but before IEP I think Aberdeen was the only off-wire destination that had more than one train per day, so the 14 IC125 sets were primarily for the Aberdeen/Inverness workings. I therefore surmised that either 10 or 13 bi-modes would be sufficient for Hull/Harrogate/Lincoln etc. meaning that either 10 or 13 bi-modes could be released to XC.

Sure, bi-mode is a nice-to-have in some respects if you have unwired diversionary routes, but unwired diversionary routes didn't stop the ECML (and the WCML north of Preston) receiving straight-electric trains (with no plans to do differently in the WCML case). As an aside, do LNER's off-wire routes in England run on Sundays?

ECML had the IC125 sets and (more easily) loco haulable IC225 sets. And yes, the Carlisle diverts for LNER are both Sat and Sun this month and next.

Yes, the Carlisle diverts are done at weekends. What I meant was do LNER's Hull/Harrogate/Lincoln etc. services run on Sundays? If they don't, the bi-modes used on those routes during the week would be available on Sundays for planned diversions. Even if they do normally run on Sundays, some 800s presumably have to be 'pinched' from somewhere to facilitate Carlisle diverts on services which are normally booked for an 801 (unless they just run the 801 in 'limp home' mode between Newcastle and Carlisle).

TPE don't, they have 397s. HS2 classic compatibles won't be divertable without a loco to drag them either. I suppose TPE do have 802s, but I guess they are either not cleared or the crews that sign 802s don't sign the WCML.

As you point out, TPE have stock that could be used in a situation such as Lamington reoccuring.

I also suggested reasons that TPE's bi-mode stock might not be useable in such a situation.

you'll have 2030 trains but with 2018 engines, that means that it doesn't matter that the trains will last past 2050 as the engines won't.

I'd be fairly happy with that I think, if the government (who will need to pay for the electrification) know the engines aren't going to last past 2050 it should incentivise getting to the desired endpoint of a 100% electric railway (including batteries and hydrogen for a limited number of non-LDHS services).

The other thing to remember is that there's going to be a need for some bimodals which do some fairly long runs, but only use diesel for limited sections potentially getting close to 2050. One such example could be the WofE line, where it could be useful to put off the electrification of the line so that more of it could be redoubled before electrification is undertaken to reduce costs.

Given that it's likely to a line which needs new units and in fairly large numbers (at least for a single line) fairly soon (due to the age of the 158/159's, circa 1990, which run on it), even if that just allows them to be used elsewhere for a few years to get more electrification done elsewhere to replace older units (such as the 150's), then it would make sense to give that all bimodals and electrify that line late.

Waterloo-Exeter isn't LDHS, which is what most of my previous posts in this topic have focused on (partly because my knowledge of freight services, the other major priority for electrification, is very limited). A 100mph bi-mode Aventra/Civity/AT200 unit (with single-width exterior doors, not the wide ones found on most Aventras and Civties although both platforms support single-width doors) would do for Waterloo-Exeter. Think something like a 444 or 442 with diesel engines under the floor. Whereas I'm still uncertain regarding whether XC should get NEW bi-modes, I think we definately need new regional express type bi-modes. But we need them quickly, by 2030 at the very latest (2025 would be better), unless you can use second-hand engines under them to incentervise electrification to permit removal of said engines.

In fact, is there anywhere between Manchester and Bournemouth (or Cardiff and Nottingham) which is cleared (or likely to be cleared) for any speed over 110mph without tilt? If there isn't, XC could use 110mph bi/tri-modes on those routes and ditch the 221s. The big difference is that, unlike a 125mph pointy-nosed AT300 bi-mode, there are plenty of places where a 100/110mph end-gangwayed regional express unit could be usefully cascaded to. Expensive pointy-nosed 125mph trains aren't really desirable on quieter routes that don't justify investment in 125mph linespeeds.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Yes, the Carlisle diverts are done at weekends. What I meant was do LNER's Hull/Harrogate/Lincoln etc. services run on Sundays?

They do, yes. Hull is northbound-only on Sundays admittedly.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

before IEP I think Aberdeen was the only off-wire destination that had more than one train per day

No, there's ECS moves too and there's also multiple diagram which switch between electric and diesel throughout the day - there are diagrams which include a Leeds to York run which is (presently) unelectrified, there's those diagrams which include Aberdeen-Leeds of course which have at least two sections on unelectrified track, since there's Leeds to York via Church Fenton as well as north of Edinburgh.

In fact, is there anywhere between Manchester and Bournemouth (or Cardiff and Nottingham) which is cleared (or likely to be cleared) for any speed over 110mph without tilt? If there isn't, XC could use 110mph bi/tri-modes on those routes and ditch the 221s. The big difference is that, unlike a 125mph pointy-nosed AT300 bi-mode, there are plenty of places where a 100/110mph end-gangwayed regional express unit could be usefully cascaded to. Expensive pointy-nosed 125mph trains aren't really desirable on quieter routes that don't justify investment in 125mph linespeeds.

Yes, there's a reasonable amount of 125mph non tilt running on the Manchester-Bournemouth services - and for the umpteenth time in recent weeks, the WCML is not solely 110mph max for non-tilt and 125mph for tilt (EPS) stock, there's plenty of 90/125MU/125EPS type differentials out there which the Voyager fleet can take advantage of.