What comes after the HST?

[HSTEd]

We can come back to it when the other routes with a higher BCR have been completed. (XC Network Core included, so the full benifits can be realised for XC Cornish services to Plymouth and Penzance)

It is highly likely that a case for Plymouth and Paignton (which are the logical ends of the electrification in my opinion, Exeter would require stripping the hourly service from Plymouth in favour of a bi hourly one, using locomotives to work all services on the route is silly in my opinion) would require the XC core network to be done anyway. (Indeed Plymouth and Paignton comes out with a BCR of 3.1 once the XC core is done)
Once the teams are in place in the South West is seems reasonable to do everything you can in the region rather than setting up a staging area, doing the first phase, then packing everything up and shipping to the Midlands and then coming back a couple of years later and setting up a staging area again.
So it they should go all the way.

But then I would have a dedicated South Western HOOP team doing the XC route south of Birmingham, the WEML and the Cornish routes.

 

[Nym]

The thing is, if you say you only need bi mode or locos for the Plymouth - Penzance section, that means that only half of the services to Plymouth would use wires if they went that far, this can be pulled all the way back to Bristol with the same argument.

I'm drawing the line at Taunton because this then covers the frequent extensions to Weston and the commuter services into Bristol.

Since 1tph LDPE is extended to Plymouth and 1tp2h to Penzance, wiring to Plymouth would mean only being able to change over 1tp2h LDPE services, and that is utterly pointless. If you keep it back at Taunton, then you have a larger fleet of locomotives, and can benifit from economies of scale on this. Not to mention the benifits from using this kind of scheme to sleeper stock requirments.

 

[Zoe]

The thing is, if you say you only need bi mode or locos for the Plymouth - Penzance section, that means that only half of the services to Plymouth would use wires if they went that far, this can be pulled all the way back to Bristol with the same argument.

All the services would use the wires as far as Plymouth, you wouldn't stop using them at Exeter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since 1tph LDPE is extended to Plymouth and 1tp2h to Penzance, wiring to Plymouth would mean only being able to change over 1tp2h LDPE services, and that is utterly pointless. If you keep it back at Taunton, then you have a larger fleet of locomotives, and can benifit from economies of scale on this. Not to mention the benifits from using this kind of scheme to sleeper stock requirments.

It would be 2 tph from Taunton to Plymouth as Cross Country services would also benefit from electrificaiton as would local services between Exeter and Newton Abbot if the branches were also electrified. As I say above, all the services to Plymouth would use the wires and then bi-mode or locos used for the service to Penzance.

 

[Nym]

Read carefully what I've put above and consider rolling stock orders and benifits and then think again.

Wires to Plymouth only means half the services use them for their full route and can therefore be EMUs, therefore reduces the benifit as you might as well attach the loco at Taunton for both of them.

And how would XC services benifit if you wire to Plymouth before the XC core, it's all about doing it in the right order!

 

[Zoe]

And how would XC services benifit if you wire to Plymouth before the XC core, it's all about doing it in the right order!

I don't expect any electrification to Plymouth in the immediate future but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all and if Bristol to York is fully electrified then Cross Country services to Plymouth would clearly benefit from electrification.

 

[Rhydgaled]

We are generally only talking about bi-mode to replace DMUs though, aren't we? Which is an improvement.

Note that I said the trains would have to already exist as DMUs. Any new build Intercity units can and should be EMUs. All that's needed is for the government to commit to a decent rolling electrification programme. Building Intercity DMUs was an almighty mistake in the first place, and we certainly don't need any more Intercity units with diesel engines, just EMUs and locos (and looking further into the future (around 2030-2045) some unpowered coaching stock to replace sleepers, mark4s and surviving mark3s).

The only suituation where I might be pursuaded that some new bi-mode or DMU units should be built is if they are 75/90/100mph regional units with corridor connections (like 156s and 158s) to replace 156s and/or 158s on some routes to release more of them for other routes (or replace 153s) or outer-suburban units like LM's 172s to replace Pacers and 150/1s (and 150/2s if they need replacing, but the /1s are less useful and should go first). Any new-build Intercity stock should be electric (EMU or class 91-like locos with coaches and DVTs) with diesel loco haulage beyond electrifcation.

To be honest, we don't need bi mode

Not new-build Intercity bi-modes anyway. As I've already suggested, IC125s should be kept running everything from PAD that goes beyond Taunton except the extensions of Westbury semi-fast which would be 180s. The class 22x fleet can be converted to bi-mode with some used on PAD - Cotswolds services and PAD - Westbury semi-fast and the others working with XC (and any parts of Midland Mainline that don't get fully electrified).

 

[WatcherZero]

How would it effect the economics of rail in the Cornwall area that the Government has refused to include the extra services sponsored by it and sponsored locally in the base franchise specification of Great Western saying if the council wants them to continue in the next franchise it has to find the money itself? Surely if the local connections suffer this then knocks on to the intercity connections too.