Speculation: Class 222 to GW in the long term?

[Paulinbelper]

Hey Great Western....Dont do it...You'l regret it. Do the right thing and refurbish the HST's for ever.!.

Not likely. The upcoming PRM/TSI requirements will require major surgery to the Mk3 coaches which have a finite fatigue life, which will be reached sooner on the GW sets as they are the oldest. HST's may soldier on for another 10 years or so, but beyond that they will have to be replaced.

 

[tbtc]

if the 222's are not used by GW, where else would be sutable?

Not MML as that would be mostly electrified and even if they stayed there during CP6 most of the rest of the routes are liekly to be wired up before then end of it.

Not XC, as they are not compatiable with the trains that they already have and XC will be looking for some fo their their own IC EMU's at about the same time anyway.

Not EC, as they are getting IEP.

Not Greater Anglia as a chuck of their network is electrified and the trains that they need for the other routes wouldn't be much slower than the 222's given the line speed limitations.

Unlikely to be WC as they are likely to run out of non electrified routes soon and would result is slower trains as the 222's don't tilt although it would enable the 221's to move to XC, although depending on the operator of the next franchise XC may benefit anyway.

Maybe Chiltern, but they wouldn't need all of them.

Possibly TransPennine Express, but then some of their routes will be electrified at about the same time freeing up their current DMU's to provide capacity enhancements on their remaining routes.

A single or a number of open access operator(s) are also not likely as there would be too many 222's for them to use them all.

Maybe Scotland and/or Wales would find a use for a number of them, but do they really need 7 coach IC class trains?

None of the South East operators would want then due to their lack of capacity compared with what they run at present (and most routes are electrified anyway), and most of the other operators wouldn't really want IC class trains nor would they need them to be that long (although a number of people within the Northern franchise area would be very glad to see one turn up rather than some of the trains they currently have!).

This is true - we are going to have more high speed DMUs by the end of CP5 (i.e. EMUs running Manchester - Southampton, London - Sheffield) than we'll need - something that people demanding we build extra DMUs for XC tend to miss.

One advantage of 222s for the GWML is that you could portion work to Cornwall on most services. However, nothing is guaranteed and this is all speculation.

 

[The Ham]

This is true - we are going to have more high speed DMUs by the end of CP5 (i.e. EMUs running Manchester - Southampton, London - Sheffield) than we'll need - something that people demanding we build extra DMUs for XC tend to miss.

There are also some noticiable gaps in the XC network (as well as other line where IC class trains run - i.e. to Hull) which could be likely to be wired up in CP6, further increasing the number of spare class 22x's and possibly even freeing up all of the class 180's.

One advantage of 222s for the GWML is that you could portion work to Cornwall on most services. However, nothing is guaranteed and this is all speculation.

Yes it is all speculation, but the speculation is based on reasonable assumptions (so knowing the DfT it will never happen).

 

[cjmillsnun]

EMT do the right thing and order more 222s to get rid of the HSTs would be better

Oh god no. I'd rather sit in a Mk3 than have the vibrations from an underfloor engine.

 

[KA4C]

Those who think trains to or in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset cart air around need to pay the region a visit.

Quite, or even use the regions trains once in a while

 

[The Ham]

Quite, or even use the regions trains once in a while

...and when I next do will I see the IC125's all fuller than 72% full (the percentage which would mean that a 7 coach 222 would be able to carry that number of passengers)?

Also it should be noted that those of us which have suggested the use of 222's to Cornwall have suggested that they run every hour rather than every 2 hours, which means that even if the trains are currently more than 72% full (then because of the extra services) there will be at least (assuming a 5 coach 222's every hour over 1 IC125 every 2 hours) the same capacity. This is without the increase which would be seen by using any of the 7 coach sets and/or even by running any of the services as 10 or 11 coach trains which could be done at a later date as passenger numbers grow.

The other advantage of being able to split trains is it could result in more direct trains from some of the branch lines.

For instance rather than running 6 trains a day each way on the line to Newquay there could be the same number of services at Newquay however they would join up with a service from Penzance and run to/from London. This would also mean that there would be another DMU which can be used to boast capacity elsewhere in the region.

Another example would be running part of the service to Falmouth (in the same way as to Newquay above), even without making the service more frequent (as this would require more works on the line, which may not be justified for the time being) it would be more attractive than at present as less passengers would have to change trains and it would increase the capaciy of some services, which would further boast passenger numbers on this line.

As such, rather than running down services in Cornwall, by using the 222's it could quite signifcantly improve services. Which, as it should bring significant growth in passenger numbers, could make the case for electrification and the reopening of some of the closed branch lines a lot stronger.

 

[Hairy Bear]

Just be aware that we frequently have problems coupling these up, day in day out. When the computers dont want to talk to each other, diodes blow , circuit breakers trip for no reason, you ain't going nowhere !!.
We even have problems uncoupling them. There just not consistently reliable to be considered a viable unit in this modern world.

 

[Goldfish62]

Those who think trains to or in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset cart air around need to pay the region a visit.

Quite!:roll:

 

[met331]

you have of course overlooked the option that EMT will retain them and use them on the Liverpool-Norwich service. It would speed up times by upwards of 30minutes and they are already passed for the route.
The conversion course is pretty easy and the depot at Etches Park is already there.
The current thinking is that Etches park is unsuitable for electrification due to subsidance.
The 5 car sets would be perfect for Liverpool - Norwich and the 4 cars would be suitable for skegness or lincoln routes.

 

[asylumxl]

Unlikely though. Running heavier 125mph units on such a route probably doesn't make economic sense.

 

[MCR247]

you have of course overlooked the option that EMT will retain them and use them on the Liverpool-Norwich service. It would speed up times by upwards of 30minutes and they are already passed for the route.
The conversion course is pretty easy and the depot at Etches Park is already there.
The current thinking is that Etches park is unsuitable for electrification due to subsidance.
The 5 car sets would be perfect for Liverpool - Norwich and the 4 cars would be suitable for skegness or lincoln routes.

They would speed up journey times by over 30 minutes?! Are you sure? :?

 

[met331]

which route lincoln and skeggy probally fair fetched but Liverpool-Norwich would see major advantages. Sheffield-Nottingham increased speeds, Grantham - Peterborough 125mph running. Plus 1st class offering and slght capacity increase.

 

[43074]

you have of course overlooked the option that EMT will retain them and use them on the Liverpool-Norwich service. It would speed up times by upwards of 30minutes and they are already passed for the route.
The conversion course is pretty easy and the depot at Etches Park is already there.
The current thinking is that Etches park is unsuitable for electrification due to subsidance.
The 5 car sets would be perfect for Liverpool - Norwich and the 4 cars would be suitable for skegness or lincoln routes.

I didn't know Derby Etches Park was unsuitable for electrification.

A 5-car 222 doesn't equal the number of seats on a 4-car 158 (A 5-car 222 has 192 Standard and 50 First (242 Total) whereas a 4-car 158 has 292 Standard seats). Therefore when you factor in the track access for a heavier unit, that can't run at Sprinter speeds, then it is not economically viable at the current time.
However, that's not to say it's not impossible though - I would imagine a bit of track renewal and train reconfiguration could sort this out - plus Norwich to Liverpool services could use the Up/Down Fast on the East Coast Main Line relieving capacity there.

I will also point out that a 4-car 222 has 148 Standard and 33 First (181 seats total), whereas a 2-car Class 156 has 148 Standard Class seats in total. The replacement of a 156 with a 222/1 would only amount to a 2% capacity increase per service. And when you factor in money and weight blah blah blah, this makes less sense than providing Meridians for Norwich to Liverpool.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

which route lincoln and skeggy probally fair fetched but Liverpool-Norwich would see major advantages. Sheffield-Nottingham increased speeds, Grantham - Peterborough 125mph running. Plus 1st class offering and slght capacity increase.

See above. A 5 car Meridian replacing a 4 car 158 actually represents a 18% decrease in capacity per service, because a 5 car Meridian has 242 seats, whereas a 4 car 158 has 292 seats.

 

[Goatboy]

Also it should be noted that those of us which have suggested the use of 222's to Cornwall have suggested that they run every hour rather than every 2 hours, which means that even if the trains are currently more than 72% full (then because of the extra services) there will be at least (assuming a 5 coach 222's every hour over 1 IC125 every 2 hours) the same capacity.

This is the same logic that got XC into trouble capacity wise 11 years ago...

It is partially true but it will always remain the case that if X number of people like to use the 12:00 from Anytown to Somewheretown in favour of the 14:00, making it half the size and providing a 13:00 departure as well won't result in half the people on the 12:00 and half on the 13:00.

Personally I think the best use of the 222's is on XC. XC passengers already have low standards and low expectaitons as a result of more than a decade on noisey Voyager DMU's anyway, so it would be seen purely as a capacity increase and not a downgrade. They are not compatible with 220's or 221's but:

a) Is that really insurmountable?
b) HST's are not compatible with 221's either and XC run those

Personally I don't see this supposed massive surplus of IC DMU's appearing - just because wires are up doesn't mean they'll stop using DMU's. After all, there are numerous services today operated by DMU's under 100% electrified routes. I was on one today, infact.

 

[The Ham]

This is the same logic that got XC into trouble capacity wise 11 years ago...

It is partially true but it will always remain the case that if X number of people like to use the 12:00 from Anytown to Somewheretown in favour of the 14:00, making it half the size and providing a 13:00 departure as well won't result in half the people on the 12:00 and half on the 13:00.

Personally I think the best use of the 222's is on XC. XC passengers already have low standards and low expectaitons as a result of more than a decade on noisey Voyager DMU's anyway, so it would be seen purely as a capacity increase and not a downgrade. They are not compatible with 220's or 221's but:

a) Is that really insurmountable?
b) HST's are not compatible with 221's either and XC run those

Personally I don't see this supposed massive surplus of IC DMU's appearing - just because wires are up doesn't mean they'll stop using DMU's. After all, there are numerous services today operated by DMU's under 100% electrified routes. I was on one today, infact.

Although it follows a simmilar logic to XC, there is the possibility of more 222's than what are required to run an hourly (short form after a split) service to Cornwall and back, which was never the case with XC. Even if there is a delay of 5 years before all the 222's are avaliable to run the service at full length all the way through as they are still required on the MML for a bit there is still the possibility of more stock.

Also although I was pointing out that even by using the 5 coach trains there was enough capacity on an hourly frequnecy to cover the number of seats which the current 2 hour frequancy provide I was assuming that some services would be covered by the 7 coach sets and some of the very busy services could even be run as full length (5+5 or 7+4) trains, which would provide for greater capacity than there is at present.

It maybe possible to make the 22x's compatable, but given that XC are could be getting IC EMU's and/or ICWC may be getting rid of their 221's there is proberbly not much need to run the 222's with their 220/221 counterparts.

There was no need to make the 22x's compatable with the IC125's for 2 reasons, firstly the IC125's are only used because passenger numbers have grown (and possibly some bean counter thinking that there was money to be saved by buying a few less than where needed) as it was likey that the orriginal plan was that the 22x's would be enough to do away with the IC125's. Secondly, there is no need for the IC125's to run with any other trains as they are a full length service, whilst the 22x's are short enough that they can run paired up (e.g. 4+4, 4+5, 5+5 and 4+7).

Yes there are diesel services which run 100% under the wires, however a lot of this is due to the fact that there is insufficiant EMU's to run all the services required, yet there isn't a large enough order for the purchase of more EMU's to make it possible. Add to that the 22x's are on a lease which means that they have to be paid for even if they are not used and it makes it cheaper not to run the cheaper to buy and run EMU's, so no one is looking to buy IC EMU's until this lease expires.

Also there is the fact that the number of totaly wired up potential routes in the UK is still fairly limited and so if a TOC is going to have any sare trains they will make sure that it is one that they can use on any service (i.e. a diesel). As time goes by and more routes become fully wired up it becomes more likely that EMU's become the norm for IC services.

 

[Surreyman]

Although it follows a simmilar logic to XC, there is the possibility of more 222's than what are required to run an hourly (short form after a split) service to Cornwall and back, which was never the case with XC. Even if there is a delay of 5 years before all the 222's are avaliable to run the service at full length all the way through as they are still required on the MML for a bit there is still the possibility of more stock.

Also although I was pointing out that even by using the 5 coach trains there was enough capacity on an hourly frequnecy to cover the number of seats which the current 2 hour frequancy provide I was assuming that some services would be covered by the 7 coach sets and some of the very busy services could even be run as full length (5+5 or 7+4) trains, which would provide for greater capacity than there is at present.

It maybe possible to make the 22x's compatable, but given that XC are could be getting IC EMU's and/or ICWC may be getting rid of their 221's there is proberbly not much need to run the 222's with their 220/221 counterparts.

There was no need to make the 22x's compatable with the IC125's for 2 reasons, firstly the IC125's are only used because passenger numbers have grown (and possibly some bean counter thinking that there was money to be saved by buying a few less than where needed) as it was likey that the orriginal plan was that the 22x's would be enough to do away with the IC125's. Secondly, there is no need for the IC125's to run with any other trains as they are a full length service, whilst the 22x's are short enough that they can run paired up (e.g. 4+4, 4+5, 5+5 and 4+7).

Yes there are diesel services which run 100% under the wires, however a lot of this is due to the fact that there is insufficiant EMU's to run all the services required, yet there isn't a large enough order for the purchase of more EMU's to make it possible. Add to that the 22x's are on a lease which means that they have to be paid for even if they are not used and it makes it cheaper not to run the cheaper to buy and run EMU's, so no one is looking to buy IC EMU's until this lease expires.

Also there is the fact that the number of totaly wired up potential routes in the UK is still fairly limited and so if a TOC is going to have any sare trains they will make sure that it is one that they can use on any service (i.e. a diesel). As time goes by and more routes become fully wired up it becomes more likely that EMU's become the norm for IC services.

The 222s could be reconfigured to different car lengths, some were originally 9 car I recall.
The priorities would seem to be: -
1. Displacement of DMUs (170s on Cross country) + the few remaining Cross country HST, the wins here are cascades of 170s to other TOCs.
N.B the seating capacities aren't too positive although first Class in 222s could be reduced and std increased.
2. Displacement of remaining HST fleet, the wins here are replacement of last ageing HSTs, with dump toilets, slam doors etc.
It seems highly likely that Newbury - Paignton/Plymouth would be wired in CP6 and presumably operated by more Electric/Bi-Mode IEPs.

 

[IanXC]

I've always thought that ScotRail would be a good home for the 222s. Aberdeen and Inverness to the Central Belt are routes where the is sufficient political pressure, and it would seem will, to stump up the cash to go from 170/158 operation to 222s. Plus there are increasingly speed limits suitable for the top of their performance and demand for a full IC first class.

The wider network benefit is the likelihood that along with the electrification projects planned, a very significant portion of SR's 156/158/170 fleet could be cascaded.

 

[jopsuk]

How big a fleet would be needed to operate the Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness/Aberdeen service using single units for all services (say 6-car formation)? Obviously at the moment they use units in multiple on diagrams that interwork with E-G, Central belt local and (I think) the Inverness-Aberdeen service, so that flexibility would be lost- though much of that's going electric anyway.

 

[tbtc]

Personally I don't see this supposed massive surplus of IC DMU's appearing - just because wires are up doesn't mean they'll stop using DMU's. After all, there are numerous services today operated by DMU's under 100% electrified routes. I was on one today, infact.

CP5 will see the line from Manchester to Southampton electrified - this could "save" ~twenty Voyagers.

Add on the Voyagers "saved" by electrification of the gaps on Blackpool/ Bolton - London (and the likelyhood of Hull - Selby being done by the start of CP6 or at least converted to bi-mode IEP) and the twenty seven 222s "saved" on the MML and you've probably got fifty-something 125mph DMUs "spare". Plus then the FGW 180s would presumably be replaced by bi-mode IEP too.

There are some DMUs running services wholly under the wires. These are...

• The Virgin service from Birmingham to Glasgow/ Edinburgh (which both Virgin and First proposed to replace with EMU operation)
• The Lymington branch (a fairly trivial irritation that is probably the "least bad" option)
• The handful of Morpeth/ Chathill stoppers that don't run from the Metro Centre (which I'd put into the same categoty as the Lymington 158s)
• Some interworking services where a DMU fills in for an EMU on a duty to use stock efficiently before going off to do another duty (e.g. Northern use the occasional DMU on "Shipley" services where the diagram works onto something else)
• Temporary work due to EMU unavailability (could always potentially be the case)

...not a *huge* issue in the long term.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What are they going to replace on the GW? 158s? cant see them displacing HSTs

Using 222s to suplement the class 158 fleet, allowing some long-distance class 150 runs to become 158 or 222 operated, might not be a bad idea, except for the fuel economy concerns of using an intercity DMU (class 222).

One of the other things that was highlighed at the time was that the 222's can split, so shorter trains (with less air being carried arround) can run in Cornwall.

Split yes, allow passengers/guard/trolley to walk between units while it's moving no. Splitting in my opinion isn't a great idea if there aren't through gangways, but if there are (eg. 158s) then it is a great idea.

there is also the small matter that electrodieseling the 222 fleet is significantly more viable if combined with a transfer to GW than it is for the 220 / 221 fleet with XC. If anyone cares then I'll post up more details.

Really? If you can bi-mode-ify the 222s then let's have them (in 8/9-car rakes) on the Cotswolds line instead of IEP. Then IEP order can be 25 9-car pure-electric (no 'donkey engine') diagrams for Great Western and perhaps a few more of the same to replace East Coast IC125 under-wires diagrams and cascade a few IC225s to the Aberdeen and Inverness services with a loco-swap to a diesel at Edinburgh.

There's not a huge amount wrong with Voyagers that extra coaches and a major interior refit wouldn't rectify.

My ajustment in bold. There's one other thing wrong with Voyagers that probably can't be rectified though, abysmal fuel ecconomy. Either pantograph cars or new, unpowered, coaches to lengthen the, would be good. Alternatively, is there anything other than software standing in the way of mixing class 220 and class 222 vehicles to make longer sets? Although this would result in redundant driving vehicles, I think it'd be a good plan if EMUs replace 222s on the MML.

Maybe Scotland and/or Wales would find a use for a number of them, but do they really need 7 coach IC class trains?

Wales needs more regional express type trains, like class 158s, but no more DMUs are being built (aside from DaFT's IEPs) and I think 158s mostly run routes which are unlikely to be electrified, so not much hope of having more 158s cascaded to Wales. IC DMUs are nearer to regional express DMUs than surburban units like class 170s, so 5-car 222s would be handy especially if you can regear them to 100mph top speed (even more so if this saves fuel). Manchester - Swansea and Manchester - Llandudno could do with extra capacity. There might even be a case for first class on Swansea - Manchester.

there are numerous services today operated by DMU's under 100% electrified routes. I was on one today, infact.

What might that be? Are there many diesel DIAGRAMS that are under wires / over 3rd rail THROUGHOUT? Lymington weekdays is one, but are there any more?

 

[455driver]

you have of course overlooked the option that EMT will retain them and use them on the Liverpool-Norwich service. It would speed up times by upwards of 30minutes and they are already passed for the route.

How does that work then?

222s cannot make use of the MU speeds as the 158s do because they are too heavy so they would actually be slower.

 

[tbtc]

My ajustment in bold. There's one other thing wrong with Voyagers that probably can't be rectified though, abysmal fuel ecconomy.

They have poor fuel economy because they are 125mph units capable of accelerating as fast as an EMU (or a 75mph DMU) - the best of both worlds.

The alternative (unless we electrify everything) is to slow services down

 

[Yew]

Could some of the engines in a 222 rake be turned off, like in 185's? to increase fuel economy?

 

[Nym]

With software tweaks in Mitrac, yes.

Remember that the engines on 22x series units operate very differently to that of the 185s, even being the same power plant.

 

[jimm]

Really? If you can bi-mode-ify the 222s then let's have them (in 8/9-car rakes) on the Cotswolds line instead of IEP. Then IEP order can be 25 9-car pure-electric (no 'donkey engine') diagrams for Great Western and perhaps a few more of the same to replace East Coast IC125 under-wires diagrams and cascade a few IC225s to the Aberdeen and Inverness services with a loco-swap to a diesel at Edinburgh.

Well I never, a thread mentioning 22xs and Great Western and here you are yet again trying to foist the blasted things on the Cotswold Line, despite having been told umpteen times before that they will never ever in a million years have adequate seating capacity, even in nine-car formations, to replace the 500-seat and 580-seat HSTs currently used, never mind allow for any future growth in passenger traffic. And that the idea of adding electric traction to 22xs is pretty obviously dead and buried.

You can't get your terminology right either. The donkey engine is the small engine going in the IEP electric sets for shunting/get out of trouble if power is lost situations - nothing to do with the bi-modes.

And you can't constantly change locos on Class 91+Mk4 formations. The time division multiplex gear hates being being plugged in and unplugged frequently, which is why these trains run as semi-permanently-coupled formations, same as 90s+Mk3s on Norwich services and with 86/87/90s on West Coast expresses before Pendolinos. And aren't Mk4s another element of your plans to save the GW from IEP? They can't be in two places at once.

 

[HSTEd]

The donkey engine on the IEP electrics is the same power unit as on the bi-modes I thought. (Just that having one of those engines attempting to move a 9 car set at service speeds is obviously not an option).

 

[edwin_m]

EMT have already introduced some kind of eco-mode for the 222s where some engines are shut down. No doubt there is a press release somewhere!

I think the "electric" IEPs would have a diesel engine under the floor of one car to provide the emergency get-you-home function. The bi-modes would have the same diesel engine under several cars.

 

[Kneedown]

How does that work then?

222s cannot make use of the MU speeds as the 158s do because they are too heavy so they would actually be slower.

You are correct in that they cannot utilise "SP" speed differentials, but in practice they are faster as when we take them to Liverpool on Grand National days they absolutely blitz the timings. The faster acceleration is responsible for this.
The "SP" differentials on the Hope Valley route are purely academic anyway as there are not too many places where you can actually attain 90mph in practice on a 158 due to the gradients. With this in mind, plus the linespeed improvements planned (which i can't see as being purely for the benefit of TPE) it MAY be a possibility.
I agree that the 45mph from Ely to Lakenheath could be a problem without some jigging with timings, but i believe that there are plans to eventually raise this?

 

[Qwerty133]

Have the 222s been cleared to matlock?

 

[The Ham]

Using 222s to suplement the class 158 fleet, allowing some long-distance class 150 runs to become 158 or 222 operated, might not be a bad idea, except for the fuel economy concerns of using an intercity DMU (class 222).

Not only the fuel issue but also the 158's have a higher capacity for the same length of train, so that is unlikely.

Split yes, allow passengers/guard/trolley to walk between units while it's moving no. Splitting in my opinion isn't a great idea if there aren't through gangways, but if there are (eg. 158s) then it is a great idea.

As they are IC trains, and as a lot of people reserve seats on such a service, with buffets then there are fairly easy ways to get around the problem of not being able to get from one part to the other. For instance it could be argued that having two guards for a 10/11 coach train is preferable anyway.

Really? If you can bi-mode-ify the 222s then let's have them (in 8/9-car rakes) on the Cotswolds line instead of IEP. Then IEP order can be 25 9-car pure-electric (no 'donkey engine') diagrams for Great Western and perhaps a few more of the same to replace East Coast IC125 under-wires diagrams and cascade a few IC225s to the Aberdeen and Inverness services with a loco-swap to a diesel at Edinburgh.

Sorry the Cotswolds line is stuck with IEP failing some form of major (expensive) change of plan.

There's one other thing wrong with Voyagers that probably can't be rectified though, abysmal fuel ecconomy. Either pantograph cars or new, unpowered, coaches to lengthen the, would be good. Alternatively, is there anything other than software standing in the way of mixing class 220 and class 222 vehicles to make longer sets? Although this would result in redundant driving vehicles, I think it'd be a good plan if EMUs replace 222s on the MML.

One big problem with storing driving vehicles is imagine the newspaper stories about there being dozens of unused coaches when XXX service is full and standing.

Wales needs more regional express type trains, like class 158s, but no more DMUs are being built (aside from DaFT's IEPs) and I think 158s mostly run routes which are unlikely to be electrified, so not much hope of having more 158s cascaded to Wales. IC DMUs are nearer to regional express DMUs than surburban units like class 170s, so 5-car 222s would be handy especially if you can regear them to 100mph top speed (even more so if this saves fuel). Manchester - Swansea and Manchester - Llandudno could do with extra capacity. There might even be a case for first class on Swansea - Manchester.

Hopefully CP6 will see a load of infill schemes which would allow the release of more class 158's and 159's beyond that which the currently confirmed schemes allow for. A fairly easy way to provide a few 158's is to electrify the lines between Southampton and Sailsbury (as there would be no structures to change as they'll have been done as the gauge clearance works to allow via Salisbury as a diversion route for freight) and provide SWT's with a few more EMU's to replace those services.

However ideally the best thing to do there is just to electrify all of the remaining of the SWT's routes and cascade 41 DMU's (112 coaches) to the rest of the country. Having said that, there is the risk that it could be a difficult/time consuming job to wire up between Yeovil and Exeter so it may take until at least CP7 to see the full route electrified.