Speculation: Class 222 to GW in the long term?

[Nym]

Do you work at bombardier?

Do you know if concept work on a 222 has been carried out?

Do you actually have any evidence that a 222 bi-mode is any more credible than the clearly dead in the water 220 bi-mode?

And if you want to know what the 700kw MTU powerpack for IEP looks like, go here http://www.mtu-online.com/japan/pre...mages/cHash/d80e54016f174fbb726c9d6b2a33061f/ and click on the download link next to the second picture down

Thanks for answering my questions there...

 

[Martin222002]

For example, 222s use Bombardier systems, not Alstom ones.

Can I ask which exact systems you are referring to? The only one in particular that I know of is the TMS, which is a Bomardier fitted one instead of the Alstom fitted one on the 220s and 221s, and if it is that how does that make the 222s anymore viable in making bi-modes than 220s and 221s?

 

[tbtc]

I find it very hard to believe that no concept work has been carried out for the addition of PTSO/PTFO coaches to the 222 fleet...

Maybe they have, maybe they haven't, all that matters is that it seems to have come to nothing - they've not even come up with some grandiose title for it (like they did for Project Thor).

If nobody can come up with a workable solution to put panto-coaches into over seventy five Voyagers (meaning that the WCML bidders were planning to buy replacement trains instead) then I don't hold out great hopes of anyone putting them into the twenty-something 222s at an economic price.

Keep believing though.

 

[Nym]

Maybe they have, maybe they haven't, all that matters is that it seems to have come to nothing - they've not even come up with some grandiose title for it (like they did for Project Thor).

Perhaps because it may not have reached the hands of Project Managers?

If nobody can come up with a workable solution to put panto-coaches into over seventy five Voyagers (meaning that the WCML bidders were planning to buy replacement trains instead) then I don't hold out great hopes of anyone putting them into the twenty-something 222s at an economic price.

Keep believing though.

At no point have I said (recently) if it will or won't, should or shouldn't happen, I have only commented on the viability of the modifications being carried out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can I ask which exact systems you are referring to? The only one in particular that I know of is the TMS, which is a Bomardier fitted one instead of the Alstom fitted one on the 220s and 221s, and if it is that how does that make the 222s anymore viable in making bi-modes than 220s and 221s?

TMS, Wiring, Control Systems and several other things that don't come to mind on a saturday afternoon...

 

[Rhydgaled]

Did they actually have a source for that or were they just stating an opinion?

As far as banging heads was concerned they were definately just stating an opinion, and probably a tounge-in-cheek one at that. However, as jimm has posted a link to, evidence of the 700kw MTU diesel engines Hitachi are planning to use was definately available.

Well we could go through all the incidents on the ECML and WCML over the years but that would be very boring.

I don't know about emus in europe, but several of the most recent designs of electric locomotives being offered by leading European manufacturers are fitted with 'donkey' engines.

'Donkey-engines' or 'last-mile' engines? While they are essentially the same thing physically, the implied useage is different. The 'last-mile' engine in a diesel locomotive is intended to allow the loco to haul a train over short off-wire sections, like non-electrified freight terminals on an otherwise wired network. I think it closer to the bi-mode concept than the psudeo-electric IEP. I still don't think much of the 'last-mile' engine idea, if there's only a mile to wire up why not do the job properly, but it makes marginally more sense than IEP 'electrics' which would hardly ever need to use the engine.

No-one in their right mind would suggest using a five-car IEP on a peak-hour Cotswold Line express (except you, because it seems to justify your 'opinion'), yet another reason why FGW have raised the issue with DafT. Any sort of 22x formation will not do the job either - full stop.

If FirstGW have raised the issue with DaFT then good. However, given that you are also using the insulting form of the accronym you will understand that I see the DfT as anything but 'in their right mind' and hence am not sure they will listen to FirstGW or anyone else trying to inject some sense into IEP. Because of this, and the fact I haven't seen anything from DfT that informs me of updated plans, I am currently baising my opinion of IEP on the information that DaFT has ordered (for GW) a small fleet of 9-car psudeo-electrics and a lot of 5-car bi-modes and nothing else.

What's your next reason for not buying bi-modes going to be?

Carefull, I might start saying why we should buy some bi-modes, just not IEP ones. One of my arguments is that any route with an Intercity service of sufficient frequency should be electrified as soon as possible. Buying anything diesel-powered for Intercity duties therefore delays the acheivement of that goal. However, regional-express duties use shorter, slower trains, which consume less fuel and tend to serve lines with lower frequencies for a greater proportion of mileage. Therefore, they are much further down the priority list for wiring, and hence it is less likely that all will be wired within the 30-year lifetime of any new stock.

So if we need to buy any diesel-powered trains they should not be Intercity ones but something like bi-mode class 158s. We might not even need that though, ROSCOs are apparently unwilling to invest in any DMUs at present due to uncertanty about electrification, while DaFT are ordering IEPs for lines that are high up the electrification priority list. I say avoid building new diesel trains if and where we can, and Intercity seems the most likely service group where it can be avoided.

 

[HSTEd]

The IEP's self recovery capability means that Thunderbird locomotives are no longer required for dealing with electrical supply failures.

That probably means a significant reduction in delays caused by electrification related failures, as you no longer have to wait for the thunderbird to arrive. (Also the associated costs).

 

[The Ham]

Neither will 5-car IEPs. My opinion is that 22xs on GW IC services is far from a great idea, but given that the Coltswolds line is 5-car IEP teritory otherwise I would say that if any GW IC route must have 222s that'd be the best route for them (provided they come in at least 7 or 8 car lengths to beat the seating capcity of the IEP alternative). Really, on GW, a 222 would only be fit to replace long-distance class 150 workings or perhaps a 5/6-car 222 would have more seats than a 3-car 158? but they look like a better option than IEP to me.

7 coach 222's have 236 standard class and 106 first class and 16 tip up seats (358 total seats).

5 coach IEP have (based on the draft layouts, as that all we have to go on at the moment) 270 standard class and 45 first class (315 total seats).

Now although that means that the 5 coach IEP's have less seats than a 7 coach 222, once the train reaches Oxford it will only be able to joing up with a 4 coach 222 resulting in 7+4 coach 222's running togeter would have about 515 seats. Compare this with 2x5 coach IEP's which will have 630 seats. That is over 100 seats less from Oxford to London per train.

As I said further up this thread it is possible that (because of the extra electrification since the intiial IEP design) that GW could see 9 coach bi-modal replacing some of the 5 coach bi-modal trains so that longer peak hour serives could be run.

Add to that the possibility that GW could have places like Weston-super-Mare (about 35km of extra wiring) wired up early CP6 to enable that to use the proposed electric IEP's there maybe ways to work aound (for a short time) such gaps in the number of 5 coach bi-modal IEP's which would be cause by having a number of the longer bi-modal trains.

For instance to have 4x9 coach bi-modal IEP's it would mean that there would be 8x5 coach electric IEP's. Now although this reduces some of the flexibility of the 5 coach fleet, one way arround that would be the option of running splitting services to Swansea, where the train devides at Cardiff. Which could enable a more frequent service to Swansea than would be possible with a 9 coach service, whislt maintaning the capacity to the east of Cardiff.

4 longer bi-modal IEP's should be enough to cope with the larger peak hour passenger demands, whilst still providing enough shorter IEP's to run all the off the wire services that would be needed.

Unfortanatly, no matter how much you wish otherwise, IEP's are the best trains available for the Cotswold's line in that they can split to cope with the quiter off peak passenger numbers, they are able to run using electric traction where there are wires (which more than offsets the slight amount of extra energy needed to carry engines around), they have the possibility of having enough capacity for the peak hour passenger loadings into London and doesn't require a micro fleet.

 

[jimm]

Thanks for answering my questions there...

You want answers then, do you?

1. No, I don't work at Bombardier. Do you?

2. I don't know if any concept work on a 222 was carried out - seems unlikely to me given the very specific remit given to the engineers was to look at 220/221 variant. Do you know? It would appear not...

No matter what minor electrical/software differences there are between 220/221 and 222s, I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the biggest problems encountered in the Project Thor design process was the fairly fundamental one of trying to weave power cables the length of the train to get the electricity to the traction motors, which will clearly apply just as much to a 222.

If FirstGW have raised the issue with DaFT then good. However, given that you are also using the insulting form of the accronym you will understand that I see the DfT as anything but 'in their right mind' and hence am not sure they will listen to FirstGW or anyone else trying to inject some sense into IEP. Because of this, and the fact I haven't seen anything from DfT that informs me of updated plans, I am currently baising my opinion of IEP on the information that DaFT has ordered (for GW) a small fleet of 9-car psudeo-electrics and a lot of 5-car bi-modes and nothing else.

Once again you neatly illustrate my point about you either never reading other posts, or failing to remember them. I posted what follows below earlier this year.

The invitation to tender document issued last summer contained the following - and bear in mind this is from civil servants, who are cautious in the extreme about saying anything about anything. From them, this is as good as saying 'we understand what you are saying and accept you have a point'. Otherwise, DafT wouldn't even have felt the need to mention it.

However, under Schedule 8 of the MARA [Master Availability and Reliability Agreement] the Secretary of State can vary the MARA (and TARA [Train Availability and Reliability Agreement]) in certain circumstances and to the extent that a Bidder wishes to develop proposals that may involve:
alteration of the Rules of the Fleet and/or Rules of the Depot;
changes to the maintenance or any facility where the maintenance provider carries out stabling of the IEP Fleet or minor or routine maintenance of the IEP Fleet;
re-marshalling of the sets comprised in the IEP Fleet as long as this is still compliant with the Train Technical Description and the Train Technical Specification (as both terms are defined under the MARA);
minor changes to the performance capabilities of a set or any vehicle comprised in a set;
and changes to the passenger environment of a set (including in respect of the catering areas).

Full document is here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3596/invitation-to-tender.pdf


As I said yesterday, any attempts to reshape the fleet have been stymied at present by the delay to the GW franchise but I have no doubt that as soon as some sort of agreement is concluded, someone within FGW will be cracking on with this issue - the management's current mantra seems to be that they are looking to what will be needed in 20 years' time, not just in the short term, or the next franchise period, and they know that five-car IEP sets, whatever the propulsion system, will not work on certain trains at certain times of the day on certain routes now, never mind in 2030.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Now although that means that the 5 coach IEP's have less seats than a 7 coach 222, once the train reaches Oxford it will only be able to joing up with a 4 coach 222 resulting in 7+4 coach 222's running togeter would have about 515 seats. Compare this with 2x5 coach IEP's which will have 630 seats. That is over 100 seats less from Oxford to London per train.

That assumes there is a second IEP waiting at Oxford to double the formation. If the full IEP service proposals published some time ago (3tph Bristol, 1tph Weston-S.-M., 2tph Wales, 1tph Cheltenham, 1tph Coltswolds and 1tph Westbury) are delivered then the number of diagrams doesn't look sufficient to run any doubled up IEPs, unless the hourly PAD-Oxford fast that doesn't go onto the Cotswolds (which I guestimate as 3 diagrams) is not an IEP service. Even then, three diagrams is going to leave fair number of solitary 5-car IEPs out and about, given there don't seem to be enough 9-car electrics for the Bristols, Swanseas and Cardiffs.

Add to that the possibility that GW could have places like Weston-super-Mare (about 35km of extra wiring) wired up early

This is one of my gripes with IEP. Without IEP, Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham might have a good chance of seeing wires in CP6. With brand new IEPs on these routes they might have to wait until IEPs are life-expired for wires. The logicall thing to do I suppose would be cascade bi-mode IEPs to XC (although 5-car units are probably not long enough there either) but (perhaps unless you confined them to the Plymouth-Edinbrugh core) the IEP's longer coaches would make that an expensive move due to route clearance. What Weston-S.-M. and Cheltenham need is a stop-gap measure for a few years (assuming IC125s can't get a short exemption to allow their unaccessible doors to remain in use until those routes are wired), IEP bi-mode is much more of a long-term solution which could jepordise electrification*.

* Unless you use old engines under the IEPs instead of brand new ones, so you can throw the engines away after just 7 years use. I doubt those brand new 700kw MTU lumps could be ditched after such a short time.

For instance to have 4x9 coach bi-modal IEP's it would mean that there would be 8x5 coach electric IEP's.

Only 4 longer bi-modes, at the cost of shorter electrics? That doesn't seem to solve anything much.

Unfortanatly, no matter how much you wish otherwise, IEP's are the best trains available for the Cotswold's line in that they can split to cope with the quiter off peak passenger numbers, they are able to run using electric traction where there are wires (which more than offsets the slight amount of extra energy needed to carry engines around), they have the possibility of having enough capacity for the peak hour passenger loadings into London and doesn't require a micro fleet.

Maybe they would be the best trains for the Cotswolds line, but they are far from the best trains for anything else. This means that, if they are used, they would be a micro-fleet. I would also contend that 7/8-car bi-mode IEPs are probably better for the Cotswolds than 5-car ones, forget splitting IEPs.

Assuming for the moment that:

1. 222s can't be converted to bi-mode and aren't coming to the GWML
2. The GW Intercity fleet is going to consist only of IEPs, IC125s and class 180s
3. The line to Westbury/Taunton is not electrified west of Newbury.
4. The Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen workings are transfered away from Intercity Great Western and operated to Bristol/Cardiff/Portsmouth instead of Paddington using diesel-hauled mrk3s
5. A stop-gap measure is used for Weston-S.-M. and Cheltenham until they are wired

I would suggest the following GW IEP fleet:

• At least 36 9-car electric IEP diagrams, without the 'donkey engine' currently planned
• 7 IEP bi-mode diagrams for the Cotswolds line, in at least 7-car formations
• 4 more bi-mode IEP diagrams of the above length for the Paddington - Westbury semi-fast (minus the extensions futher west)

Even if the electrification isn't a rolling programme and stops at what has been confirmed the ratios are all wrong, it should be around 25/26 electric diagrams (including the Oxford fasts) and arround 21 bi-mode diagrams (again, longer than 5-car) rather than DaFT's 18:32 ratio with 9-car bi-modes.

A nice way of doing a stop-gap measure, I think, would be refurbished mrk3s and new electric locos, swapping the loco for a 57/47/67 at Swindon/Bristol until the wires are extended. After then the electric locos could run the whole distance and you wouldn't need the 57s/47s anymore.

 

[HSTEd]

Bi-mode IEPs on GW could always just move further west and take over the Cornwall runs and be replaced with electric IEPs (possibly using donated bi-mode vehicles from a couple of disbanded sets) if Weston Super Mare is electrified.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Bi-mode IEPs on GW could always just move further west and take over the Cornwall runs and be replaced with electric IEPs (possibly using donated bi-mode vehicles from a couple of disbanded sets) if Weston Super Mare is electrified.

Maybe, I think the lines might have been (incorrectly in my view) included in the IEP route clearance programme.

Still, I don't think IEPs would be appropriate for Paddington to Devon/Conwall runs, at least not without significant extension of wires towards Conwall and lengthing to 9-car sets with a kitchen+buffet available to first and standard class (something which needs sorting on the 9-car electrics too).

 

[tbtc]

One of my arguments is that any route with an Intercity service of sufficient frequency should be electrified as soon as possible. Buying anything diesel-powered for Intercity duties therefore delays the acheivement of that goal

The GWML sees direct London services to Carmarthen, Pembroke, Newquay, Paignton, Hereford etc.

At the moment these places don't see sufficient frequency to justify full electrification. How would you deal with that?

Maybe they have, maybe they haven't, all that matters is that it seems to have come to nothing - they've not even come up with some grandiose title for it (like they did for Project Thor)

Perhaps because it may not have reached the hands of Project Managers?

So it's so top secret that it only exists on the back of an envelope somewhere at Bombardier and some conceptual blue sky thinker hasn't thought it significant enough to even make a project manager aware?

Excuse my scepticism.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is one of my gripes with IEP. Without IEP, Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham might have a good chance of seeing wires in CP6. With brand new IEPs on these routes they might have to wait until IEPs are life-expired for wires

You complain about the environmental cost of carrying diesel engines under the wires, but you'd rather run diesel trains all the way from London to Swansea/ Bristol etc?

It will always be possible to electrify further - bi-mode just allows us to run electric trains under the electrified parts in the meantime.

 

[Nym]

So it's so top secret that it only exists on the back of an envelope somewhere at Bombardier and some conceptual blue sky thinker hasn't thought it significant enough to even make a project manager aware?

It can be excused, but as one is an Engineer that is lumbered with Project Managers in a previous job, I can tell you, they didn't know half the work we did internally within the Engineering Team.

 

[jimm]

That assumes there is a second IEP waiting at Oxford to double the formation. If the full IEP service proposals published some time ago (3tph Bristol, 1tph Weston-S.-M., 2tph Wales, 1tph Cheltenham, 1tph Coltswolds and 1tph Westbury) are delivered then the number of diagrams doesn't look sufficient to run any doubled up IEPs, unless the hourly PAD-Oxford fast that doesn't go onto the Cotswolds (which I guestimate as 3 diagrams) is not an IEP service. Even then, three diagrams is going to leave fair number of solitary 5-car IEPs out and about, given there don't seem to be enough 9-car electrics for the Bristols, Swanseas and Cardiffs.

This is one of my gripes with IEP. Without IEP, Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham might have a good chance of seeing wires in CP6. With brand new IEPs on these routes they might have to wait until IEPs are life-expired for wires. The logicall thing to do I suppose would be cascade bi-mode IEPs to XC (although 5-car units are probably not long enough there either) but (perhaps unless you confined them to the Plymouth-Edinbrugh core) the IEP's longer coaches would make that an expensive move due to route clearance. What Weston-S.-M. and Cheltenham need is a stop-gap measure for a few years (assuming IC125s can't get a short exemption to allow their unaccessible doors to remain in use until those routes are wired), IEP bi-mode is much more of a long-term solution which could jepordise electrification*.

* Unless you use old engines under the IEPs instead of brand new ones, so you can throw the engines away after just 7 years use. I doubt those brand new 700kw MTU lumps could be ditched after such a short time.

Only 4 longer bi-modes, at the cost of shorter electrics? That doesn't seem to solve anything much.

Maybe they would be the best trains for the Cotswolds line, but they are far from the best trains for anything else. This means that, if they are used, they would be a micro-fleet. I would also contend that 7/8-car bi-mode IEPs are probably better for the Cotswolds than 5-car ones, forget splitting IEPs.

Assuming for the moment that:

1. 222s can't be converted to bi-mode and aren't coming to the GWML
2. The GW Intercity fleet is going to consist only of IEPs, IC125s and class 180s
3. The line to Westbury/Taunton is not electrified west of Newbury.
4. The Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen workings are transfered away from Intercity Great Western and operated to Bristol/Cardiff/Portsmouth instead of Paddington using diesel-hauled mrk3s
5. A stop-gap measure is used for Weston-S.-M. and Cheltenham until they are wired

I would suggest the following GW IEP fleet:

• At least 36 9-car electric IEP diagrams, without the 'donkey engine' currently planned
• 7 IEP bi-mode diagrams for the Cotswolds line, in at least 7-car formations
• 4 more bi-mode IEP diagrams of the above length for the Paddington - Westbury semi-fast (minus the extensions futher west)

Even if the electrification isn't a rolling programme and stops at what has been confirmed the ratios are all wrong, it should be around 25/26 electric diagrams (including the Oxford fasts) and arround 21 bi-mode diagrams (again, longer than 5-car) rather than DaFT's 18:32 ratio with 9-car bi-modes.

A nice way of doing a stop-gap measure, I think, would be refurbished mrk3s and new electric locos, swapping the loco for a 57/47/67 at Swindon/Bristol until the wires are extended. After then the electric locos could run the whole distance and you wouldn't need the 57s/47s anymore.

And yet more of the same.

Though I did like the way that now the message that DafT will consider longer bi-mode IEPs has finally got through, you have latched on to that without even batting an eyelid.

Topped off with the bit about 47s and 57s. FGW seem to find it hard enough to keep their 57s running for a couple of sleeper services a night. But apparently they'll be fine being hammered up the hill from Stroud to Kemble day in, day out...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It can be excused, but as one is an Engineer that is lumbered with Project Managers in a previous job, I can tell you, they didn't know half the work we did internally within the Engineering Team.

So you've no idea what has or has not gone on at Bombardier then.

 

[HSTEd]

The FGW 57s are a disaster in reliability terms, I expect they will be under the axe when the 68s arrive.

 

[The Ham]

That assumes there is a second IEP waiting at Oxford to double the formation. If the full IEP service proposals published some time ago (3tph Bristol, 1tph Weston-S.-M., 2tph Wales, 1tph Cheltenham, 1tph Coltswolds and 1tph Westbury) are delivered then the number of diagrams doesn't look sufficient to run any doubled up IEPs, unless the hourly PAD-Oxford fast that doesn't go onto the Cotswolds (which I guestimate as 3 diagrams) is not an IEP service. Even then, three diagrams is going to leave fair number of solitary 5-car IEPs out and about, given there don't seem to be enough 9-car electrics for the Bristols, Swanseas and Cardiffs.

PAD-Oxford would proberbly still work timing wise with an EMU as compared with a IC125, esp. if they can do a LM and run them at 110mph.

Also the number of IC 125's is 58 with 17 of those being retained for cornish services, leaving 41, if you compare this with 39 IEP's (assuming all 36 of the 5 coahes are running doubled up in addition to the 21 sets of 9 coach IEP's) then there is very little difference in the number of units. However some services can be run as single length 5 coach trains, meaning that there is more than enough trains; unless you can prove that there are not enough units.

Also when proving that there are not enough IEP's you need to bear in mind that due to faster journey times (up to 22 minutes faster between Bristol and London) will result in need for less trains to cover the same frequency of service.

This is one of my gripes with IEP. Without IEP, Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham might have a good chance of seeing wires in CP6. With brand new IEPs on these routes they might have to wait until IEPs are life-expired for wires. The logicall thing to do I suppose would be cascade bi-mode IEPs to XC (although 5-car units are probably not long enough there either) but (perhaps unless you confined them to the Plymouth-Edinbrugh core) the IEP's longer coaches would make that an expensive move due to route clearance. What Weston-S.-M. and Cheltenham need is a stop-gap measure for a few years (assuming IC125s can't get a short exemption to allow their unaccessible doors to remain in use until those routes are wired), IEP bi-mode is much more of a long-term solution which could jepordise electrification*.

* Unless you use old engines under the IEPs instead of brand new ones, so you can throw the engines away after just 7 years use. I doubt those brand new 700kw MTU lumps could be ditched after such a short time.

The IC125's which will be running to Cornwall will only be able to do that for a fairly short time (hence the discussion about 222's being used on that route). Electrification of the lines mentioned are likely to still go ahead, as it will still be cheaper to run IEP's under electric traction. However it allows the electrification of some non IC lines to be done quickly so as to free up more short DMU's with only a few short exceptions to keep the pacers going for a year or two.

Also as discussed before when the engines are no longer needed they can be moved onto new IEP (or for that mater potentially any new train) as more are ordered. For instance once there has been enough electrification that routes you suggest have been done then there are enough IEP engines to convert enough of the existing GW fleet to electric traction that the services to Cornwall could also be covered without the need for any additional engines. Espicially if some of the services run as 5 coach trains beyond Plymouth and many of the exsting 5 coach sets are extended to 9 coaches long.

Only 4 longer bi-modes, at the cost of shorter electrics? That doesn't seem to solve anything much.

4 sets of bi-modal 9 coach trains is nearly 20% of the 9 coach GW fleet, yes it's not much, but it proberbly is enough to cover the peak hour services that it needs to. If not then they could be increase to 5 at the cost of there being 10 sets of 5 coach electric trains or 6 but then 12 sets of 5 coach electric trains. Yes having more short electric IEP does mean that they are less versitile than them being bi-modal, but then it does make the case for electrification of the lines you listed above a higher proirity.

Yes there are potential problems with the exact order that has been advertised as being placed, however there are ways around it. Including the possibility that the franchisees end up using or some of the follow on order (which was supposed to be used for the replacement of IC225's) to lengthen the 5 coach trains (which are having some their engines used to provide longer bi-modal trains) up to 9 coach electric sets.

Maybe they would be the best trains for the Cotswolds line, but they are far from the best trains for anything else. This means that, if they are used, they would be a micro-fleet. I would also contend that 7/8-car bi-mode IEPs are probably better for the Cotswolds than 5-car ones, forget splitting IEPs.

Assuming for the moment that:

1. 222s can't be converted to bi-mode and aren't coming to the GWML
2. The GW Intercity fleet is going to consist only of IEPs, IC125s and class 180s
3. The line to Westbury/Taunton is not electrified west of Newbury.
4. The Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen workings are transfered away from Intercity Great Western and operated to Bristol/Cardiff/Portsmouth instead of Paddington using diesel-hauled mrk3s
5. A stop-gap measure is used for Weston-S.-M. and Cheltenham until they are wired

1. 222's running to Cornwall do not need to be bi-modal, infact as the electrificaion stands it would proberbly not result in much benefit to convert them.
2. The IC125's which are runing to Cornwall will proberbly be phased out at some point towards the end of CP6/early CP7.
3. The line to Westbury is likely to be electrified by some means or more IEP's will be ordered as Newbury is a slightly odd place to stop the electricfiation, espically if the commitor EMU's will be running 110mph (plus?)
4. taking these services onto the Portsmouth service would result in at best stagnation in passengers numbers, whilst using 5 coach IEP still running to London (with their faster journy time) will result in an increase in passenger numbers.
5. Bi-modal in a stop gap, however it is one which results in a standarised fleet.

I would suggest the following GW IEP fleet:

• At least 36 9-car electric IEP diagrams, without the 'donkey engine' currently planned
• 7 IEP bi-mode diagrams for the Cotswolds line, in at least 7-car formations
• 4 more bi-mode IEP diagrams of the above length for the Paddington - Westbury semi-fast (minus the extensions futher west)

Your suggestion only works if most of the GW is electrified (other than beyond Newbury and the Cotswolds line) or is soon to be electrified with suitable locos to haul the electric IEP's off the wires. Although if Loco Hauling were to happen the "donkey engine" would mean that there wasnt the need for the Loco to shunt the empty IEP into sidings, nor would it be needed to provide hotel power, therefore such an engine become MORE useful under your proposal than under what is currently suggested!

Even if the electrification isn't a rolling programme and stops at what has been confirmed the ratios are all wrong, it should be around 25/26 electric diagrams (including the Oxford fasts) and arround 21 bi-mode diagrams (again, longer than 5-car) rather than DaFT's 18:32 ratio with 9-car bi-modes.

The order for the IEP's for GW is 21 electric (9 coaches) and 36 bi-modal (5 coach)

A nice way of doing a stop-gap measure, I think, would be refurbished mrk3s and new electric locos, swapping the loco for a 57/47/67 at Swindon/Bristol until the wires are extended. After then the electric locos could run the whole distance and you wouldn't need the 57s/47s anymore.

Electric locos, as suggested would either mean running them with a loco at each end (expensive) or would require a DVT at one end with a generator (and ideally a pantograph) to provide housekeeping power (also expensive), unless you drag a class 43 around with you all day (not a great idea, as it would use more power than carrying around a few engines under the train).

The issue with the IC125's is not the class 43's as they have fairly new engines in them; the issue is the mark 3 coaches, which kind of makes your suggestion not workable.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The GWML sees direct London services to Carmarthen, Pembroke, Newquay, Paignton, Hereford etc.

At the moment these places don't see sufficient frequency to justify full electrification. How would you deal with that?

Carmarthen and Pembroke I have already answered in this thread, divert the London services to Bristol/Portsmouth instead. Hereford is the reason the Cotswolds needs the bi-mode (otherwise the hourly service to Worcester would make it a stronger candidate for wires) and the other two are on the route west of Newbury that is currently not planned for wiring and hence would remain IC125 worked for now.

You complain about the environmental cost of carrying diesel engines under the wires, but you'd rather run diesel trains all the way from London to Swansea/ Bristol etc?

No, I wouldn't run diesel trains from London to Swansea/Bristol. Why would I, they're being wired?

taking these services onto the Portsmouth service would result in at best stagnation in passengers numbers, whilst using 5 coach IEP still running to London (with their faster journy time) will result in an increase in passenger numbers.

Firstly, Pembroke Dock will not see IEP, it isn't being cleared, so as things stand it would be IC125 or class 180. Secondly if passenger numbers increase you'd need more than 5 coaches. In my opinion the extra capacity provided by these services is more important than the fact they are a through London link.

Bi-modal in a stop gap, however it is one which results in a standarised fleet.

No it isn't, the expensive diesel engines make it a fairly long-term solution. Bi-mode with engines pinched from 22xs might be a stop-gap, but I doubt that's possible.

Electric locos, as suggested would either mean running them with a loco at each end (expensive) or would require a DVT at one end with a generator (and ideally a pantograph) to provide housekeeping power (also expensive), unless you drag a class 43 around with you all day (not a great idea, as it would use more power than carrying around a few engines under the train).

I am assuming a DVT, with passenger carrying capability. I don't see why you'd need a pantograph or generator.

The issue with the IC125's is not the class 43's as they have fairly new engines in them; the issue is the mark 3 coaches, which kind of makes your suggestion not workable.

Mrk3s are supposedly good until 2035, even if you get rid of them in 2030 you could keep the electric locos and just replace the coaches with new mrk5s.

 

[tbtc]

No, I wouldn't run diesel trains from London to Swansea/Bristol. Why would I, they're being wired?

...because I thought that you wanted to keep running direct trains from London to Carmarthen/ Weston etc.

Now you are saying that you want to run Carmarthen DMUs under the wires from Swansea just to Bristol?

Mrk3s are supposedly good until 2035, even if you get rid of them in 2030 you could keep the electric locos and just replace the coaches with new mrk5s.

IIRC the quote was that 2035 was the absolute maximum for HSTs - if you threw buckets of cash at them to keep them going - not that 2035 was their natural lifespan.

Unfortunately a lot of people seem to have read this as "HSTs can go on and on forever".

As has been explained by The Ham, the modern engines in the HSTs have many years ahead of them, its the coaches that are going to be the problem.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Now you are saying that you want to run Carmarthen DMUs under the wires from Swansea just to Bristol?

Or Portsmouth. And not a DMU, loco and coaches, unless you can find a long enough 158 formation to do the job. Remember I said it's the additional capacity provided by the London services west of Swansea that's important in my view. Not going to London cuts the under wires journey length, but if you stop at Swansea to avoid under-wires running completely some journeys will require more changes than if you get to somewhere like Bristol, it's a compromise of sorts.

If you think we need to keep the London service, I maintain that the best way to do that is DVT + coaches + loco, swapping between diesel and electric locos at Swansea. IEP doesn't look like it will get to Pembroke Dock anyway, so either my suggestion of running the Pembroke Coast Express (and friends) to/from Bristol/Portsmouth or using LHCS with loco-swaps avoids running an IC125 or 180 all the way from London to Pembroke Dock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

IIRC the quote was that 2035 was the absolute maximum for HSTs - if you threw buckets of cash at them to keep them going - not that 2035 was their natural lifespan.

How much was thrown at Chiltern's to fit power doors? How much life do you need to get out of them to make going beyond 2020 financially worthwhile? Is getting them to 2035 all that expensive compared to fitting power doors? How much cheaper to run would mrk3s be compared to the alternatives?

 

[The Ham]

How much was thrown at Chiltern's to fit power doors? How much life do you need to get out of them to make going beyond 2020 financially worthwhile? Is getting them to 2035 all that expensive compared to fitting power doors? How much cheaper to run would mrk3s be compared to the alternatives?

It depends on how much life is left, Chiltern has finished fitting power doors to their Mark 3's so even if they only last to 2019 that is 6 years of use out of them. Given each DMU coach is rumored to cost £110,000 per year "Chiltern" could have trown £500,000 per coach and still been quids in, even if they were scraped in 2019. However it is likely that, given the work done to them, that they will last until later than that.

The problem with the GW Mark 3's is that they are too heaverly used to go round fitting power doors to them until there are alternitives. Either spare Mark 3's in sufficiant numbers to have 2 or 3 IC125's worth out at a time (otherwise it would take far too long) or new trains, which are also going to be some time away. You then have the problem that there is a good chance that not all the Mark 3's will be of a good enough state to work on them and those that are left you then need to ensure have a long enough life span to make the costs worth the investment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Firstly, Pembroke Dock will not see IEP, it isn't being cleared, so as things stand it would be IC125 or class 180. Secondly if passenger numbers increase you'd need more than 5 coaches. In my opinion the extra capacity provided by these services is more important than the fact they are a through London link.

It curretnly isn't being cleared, that doesn't mean that it never will be, maybe they will be as other lines are wired up.

A 5 coach IEP has 315 seats or about 60% of the capacity of an IC125. Which means that there is likely to be plenty of capacity for the time being on routes which are not likely to attract too many daily commutors.

No it isn't, the expensive diesel engines make it a fairly long-term solution. Bi-mode with engines pinched from 22xs might be a stop-gap, but I doubt that's possible.

The engines are long term, but as has been said before they can be used in future orders of IEP to provide more trains to run services beyond where they currently run.

I am assuming a DVT, with passenger carrying capability. I don't see why you'd need a pantograph or generator.

Without the DVT provding hotel power then every loco swap would plunge the whole train into darkness, which there are proberbly some H&S rules about. It would also make the Loco swap easier as there wouldn't need to be a power supply between the loco and coaches.

 

[sprinterguy]

Assuming for the moment that:

1. The GW Intercity fleet is going to consist only of IEPs, IC125s and class 180s

1. 
   Not that it is necessarily significant, but the lease agreement on the 180s with the Great Western franchise is up at the end of 2016. I can't imagine why GW would hold on to a tiny micro-fleet of five 180s when they'll have a shiny brand-new fleet of IEPs to cover the exact same work.

 

[jimm]

Hereford is the reason the Cotswolds needs the bi-mode (otherwise the hourly service to Worcester would make it a stronger candidate for wires) and the other two are on the route west of Newbury that is currently not planned for wiring and hence would remain IC125 worked for now.

No. The reason the Cotswold Line needs the bi-mode is because it is a busy and lucrative route, principally from Worcester eastwards, on the back of through traffic to and from Reading and London, and that electrification is not going to be happening for some years yet. In order to maintain those through trains (whether they turn round at Moreton-in-Marsh, Worcester, Great Malvern or Hereford) you need a dual-power operation. Diesel locos have been ruled out as an option - and we've done all the stuff about the complexities of that idea previously, so don't start off on that route again - so bi-mode it is.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself yet again on the obvious link between XC electrification from Birmingham to Bristol and further GW wiring to the likes of Gloucester and Cheltenham and from Oxford to Worcester on the Cotswold Line (and on to Malvern and Hereford for GW and LM services' benefit - and no-one seems to mention the possibility of wiring the North & West route from Newport to Crewe but it is a busy route too).

You keep assuming that HSTs are going to keep running post-2017/18 to the West Country. No such decision has been taken - again the delay to the GW franchise has not helped matters here. Yes, the Chiltern project has shown what can be done and provided lots of information about the state of Mk3 bodyshells but there will need to be a lot of sums done before anyone authorises life extension or chooses another option.

Don't be surprised if Hitachi offers a competitive price for more IEPs to keep its plant busy after the initial batch of trains is delivered. Especially if it is decided that the 25kv wires should go all the way to Westbury by 2018 or 2019, giving 40 more miles of electric running if approved.

 

[The Ham]

You keep assuming that HSTs are going to keep running post-2017/18 to the West Country. No such decision has been taken - again the delay to the GW franchise has not helped matters here. Yes, the Chiltern project has shown what can be done and provided lots of information about the state of Mk3 bodyshells but there will need to be a lot of sums done before anyone authorises life extension or chooses another option.

Don't be surprised if Hitachi offers a competitive price for more IEPs to keep its plant busy after the initial batch of trains is delivered. Especially if it is decided that the 25kv wires should go all the way to Westbury by 2018 or 2019, giving 40 more miles of electric running if approved.

In addition to the option of further IEP's running to Cornwall, it could be that extra IEP's are ordered and go to the MML with the 222's then running to Cornwall (which WAS the main thrust of the discussion of this thread).

Having the 222's running to Cornwall would still mean diesels running under the wires, but for less of the time than if they stayed on the MML after it was electrified (quite possibly less time than they currently spend under the wires on the MML).

If the 222's are removed from the MML (by which ever means) then there are few other lines where they would be suitable for or would result in micro fleets as they get split between various lines. There is one other option, which would be for XC to ditch their 221's and have them replaced by 222's.

That could result in all the 221's being up for grabs in the early 2020's.

 

[tbtc]

...because I thought that you wanted to keep running direct trains from London to Carmarthen/ Weston etc.

Now you are saying that you want to run Carmarthen DMUs under the wires from Swansea just to Bristol?

Or Portsmouth. And not a DMU, loco and coaches

If you think we need to keep the London service, I maintain that the best way to do that is DVT + coaches + loco, swapping between diesel and electric locos at Swansea

If the answer is always going to be "I want to bring back loco hauled services" then there's no point in having this argument. It's not going to happen (for various reasons, which have previously been discussed).

 

[Rhydgaled]

Don't be surprised if Hitachi offers a competitive price for more IEPs to keep its plant busy after the initial batch of trains is delivered.

IEP and competitive price in the same sentence? You do know that IEP also stands for Incredibly Expensive Procurement, costing twice as much as Pendolinos? I suspect a large part of the reason for that is the PFI nonsense, so I doubt Hitachi can do much to make it cheaper.

In addition to the option of further IEP's running to Cornwall, it could be that extra IEP's are ordered and go to the MML with the 222's then running to Cornwall (which WAS the main thrust of the discussion of this thread).

Having the 222's running to Cornwall would still mean diesels running under the wires, but for less of the time than if they stayed on the MML after it was electrified (quite possibly less time than they currently spend under the wires on the MML).

If the 222's are removed from the MML (by which ever means) then there are few other lines where they would be suitable for or would result in micro fleets as they get split between various lines. There is one other option, which would be for XC to ditch their 221's and have them replaced by 222's.

That could result in all the 221's being up for grabs in the early 2020's.

222s wouldn't really be sutiable on Paddington - Cornwall services either. Returning to the main topic of this thread, I think that, if transfered to GW, the 222s would be better placed on Penzance-Bristol/Portsmouth-Cardiff services, replacing 150s and single 158s (if 5-car 222s have more capacity than the current 3-car 158s, which I'd guess they would). However, I still think the most sensible future for 220s/222s/221s is XC with the coaches reshuffled to make longer sets (are there accessible toilets in the driving vehicles? if so coupled with the crupple-zones there can't be many seats in the driving vehicles).

If the answer is always going to be "I want to bring back loco hauled services" then there's no point in having this argument. It's not going to happen (for various reasons, which have previously been discussed).

It doesn't have to be LHCS, as I said afterwards a sufficently long class 158 formation would do the job (almost as well at least, if not better). However, there are not enough 158s to go around, no other DMUs (other than 159s, also unavailable) are up to the required standard, and by 2020 they'll be quite a few mrk3s available.

 

[tbtc]

IEP and competitive price in the same sentence? You do know that IEP also stands for Incredibly Expensive Procurement, costing twice as much as Pendolinos? I suspect a large part of the reason for that is the PFI nonsense

Yes, it's expensive because of the PFI and because the IEP contract covers everything (not just the lease of the stock).

That doesn't reflect on the quality of the trains, but it does allow people to compare apples with oranges.

I'm sure that 390s could be made to cost twice as much with a bad enough contract.

 

[anthony263]

It was stated on the WNXX forum that some of the staff on that forum who work for Modern Railways magazines had spoken to Hitachi about IEP, who in fact stated that one of the reasons why the cost is so high is because of the way the stock was being procured.

 

[The Ham]

222s wouldn't really be sutiable on Paddington - Cornwall services either. Returning to the main topic of this thread, I think that, if transfered to GW, the 222s would be better placed on Penzance-Bristol/Portsmouth-Cardiff services, replacing 150s and single 158s (if 5-car 222s have more capacity than the current 3-car 158s, which I'd guess they would). However, I still think the most sensible future for 220s/222s/221s is XC with the coaches reshuffled to make longer sets (are there accessible toilets in the driving vehicles? if so coupled with the crupple-zones there can't be many seats in the driving vehicles).

Why would then not be suitable on the Cornish services? There's enough of them, they would be operate on a nearly self contained route, they would provide the option to run split services to cater for the very heavy passenger demand to Plymouth, they would provide comparable number of seats per service, but with the advantage of the option to run them more frequently and they are not on borrowed time post 2025.

The main problem with 222's going anywhere other than IC routes is that their track access charges would be comparable to IC class trains but on routes which were running at less than 100 mph for a lot of the time.

Yes the 5 coach 222's have 192 standard and 50 frst class and 10 tip up seats (252 total seats) compared with a 3 coach 159 which has 172 standard seats and 24 first class (196 total seats - I'm assuming that the 3 coach 158's have the same or less seats). However the track access charges per coach are 6.07ppm for a 158 compared with 10.55ppm for a 222. That means the track access charges for a 6 coach 158 is 36.42 compared with 42.2 for a 4 coach 222! As such unless the lease costs are a lot lower it just isn't worth running 222's on services where they are not used to their strengths - i.e. on IC type services.

The problem with the 222's going to XC is that they are not compatable with the 220's/221's. Meaning that there would have to be more of them to ensure that there were spares to cover as needed (which pushes the cost up). The best outcome for XC is new EMU's (maybe taking advantage of tacking on an order to which ever IC EMU's are used on ICWC) for their Manchester to South Coast services and/or more 221's from ICWC when the new franchise takes over and ditches them.

It would be fairly difficult to lengthen the 220's/221's without putting end units into store or scrapping end units.

To provide 10x7 coach 221's without doing so would mean that ICWC would give up all of their's, 20 sets being shorterned from 5 to 4 and lengthening 10 of the XC 5 coach sets from 5 to 7. That would result in 21x4coach sets, 13x5 coach sets and 10x7 coach sets (in addtion to the 34x4 coach sets of the 220's), that is a LOT (55) of 4 coach 22x's to find a use for whilst not really providing many 7 coach sets.

It may amost be better to shorten 9 more down to 3 coach sets (standard class only) which can then be run pared up with the 7 coach sets on routes where a 10 coach train is needed and/or paired up with 4 coach sets on routes where 5 coach trains are too short, which would then lengthen 3 of the other 4 coach sets to 7 coaches long. 9x3, 10x4. 13x5 and 13x7, this also means the total number of 4 coach IC sets falls to 43.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Why would then not be suitable on the Cornish services?

A number of reasons, first and foremost being the one jimm put forward for not using them on the Cotswolds:

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.

The difference is the DfT's future plans for the Cotswolds are a reduction in train length to 5-car IEPs (granted franchise bidders might make DaFT see the error of their ways there) but they are allowing the Cornwall services to keep their IC125s for the time being, and I'm pretty IC125s are more fuel efficent (at least per seat) than 22xs, thanks to that mistake we dicussed earlier of making DMUs that accelerate like EMUs.

Also, the distance involved on the Cornwall services is deserving of better facilities. Pullman dining may be nearly extinct in UK NationalRail, but look at where the last services are. I've never been on a Meridian, but I doubt the buffet car has anywhere near the capability of an IC125's, probably more of a 'micro-buffet'. You might get a similar number of seats with doubled-up 5-car 222s but at the cost of other features important to long-distance passengers.

The main problem with 222's going anywhere other than IC routes is that their track access charges would be comparable to IC class trains but on routes which were running at less than 100 mph for a lot of the time.

Yes, that's a big problem with 22xs. They are too expensive for secondary routes and don't really have enough capacity for Intercity services.

Yes the 5 coach 222's have 192 standard and 50 frst class and 10 tip up seats (252 total seats) compared with a 3 coach 159 which has 172 standard seats and 24 first class (196 total seats - I'm assuming that the 3 coach 158's have the same or less seats)

That sounds useful. Unless I'm very much mistaken FirstGW's 3-car 158s are standard-class only, so probably have slightly more seats than a 159, but that's ok you can probably convert 1st on a 222 to standard. Unfortunately there are not enough 158s to lengthen the Portsmouth-Cardiff to 4-car at the moment, and I have read there are some 150s on long distance trips in and out of Bristol (Plymouth services etc.). The 222s being more expensive is a problem, but if they took some of the Portsmouth-Cardiffs they would provide a boost in capacity, and allow other Portsmouth-Cardiffs to be 4-car 158s and/or cascade 158s to other routes/operators to tidy up those rouge 150s on what should be regional express workings.

The problem with the 222's going to XC is that they are not compatable with the 220's/221's. Meaning that there would have to be more of them to ensure that there were spares to cover as needed (which pushes the cost up). The best outcome for XC is new EMU's (maybe taking advantage of tacking on an order to which ever IC EMU's are used on ICWC) for their Manchester to South Coast services and/or more 221's from ICWC when the new franchise takes over and ditches them.

It would be fairly difficult to lengthen the 220's/221's without putting end units into store or scrapping end units.

Here's a question of mine from earlier which I don't think anyone has answered yet:

is there anything other than software standing in the way of mixing class 220 and class 222 vehicles to make longer sets?

Obviously the 221s have different bogies to allow them to tilt, so couldn't be mixed with 222/220 vehicles (I don't suppose you could even swap the bogies to make tilting 222s/220s?).

I think you could make the XC fleet (excluding 221s) up to 25 7-car and 10 5-car sets if you could put 220 intermediate vehicles into the 222 sets. I'm not sure where the accessible toilets are on 222s, but it might be better use of space if you use the 222 driving vehicles rather than 220 examples. That might not be the opitmal distribution, my methodology is rather trial and error.

 

[jopsuk]

where on the "it would be cheaper to build a new shell, take the engine and transmission from the driving coach and fit it to the new build" scale does "rebuild the driving end of a coach into a inner end" lie?