GWML Electification

[phil-b259]

Phil - no, the IEP fleet is still a mixture of Bi-mode and electric (there are due to be a handful more electric and a handful less bi-mode compared to the original numbers, but still a split) - as there are still many routes that will not be fully wired.

 

Refurb HST's are supposed to be the solution for the majority of trains West of Exeter, but like Adrian i'd also expect the Weston workings to be handled by a Bristol based bi-mode.

 

Thanks for the update

 

Mind you I would have thought it cheaper (and thus more attractive for the treasury) to make the GW order a straight electric order as far as the IEP is concerned. Looking at the bigger picture though, as East Coast needs some bi-modes for the Aberdeen / Inverness run (and possibly Lincoln - there is talk that Hull will be getting wires as an add on to the already published Trans-pennine scheme) having some Bi-modes for the Great Western routes actually makes the Bi-mode variant a more viable option as a whole.

[Edwin_m]

Bi-mode is necessary for Worcester and Cheltenham workings as well as the extensions to Weston, Carmarthen etc. They will also have to work the main Bristol and South Wales routes when these are diverted off the wires such as via Westbury or Gloucester, though this will probably be late evening or Sundays when there is some slack in the fleet. 

Edited December 30, 2013 by Edwin_m

[ForestPines]

Absolutely not! It is EH which decides what structures should be proposed for listing, and they would ignore any local government boundaries. It is the entire structure which concerns them.

 

They propose it to the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport (though I think it's actually one of the junior Ministers who decides, in the SoS's name, whether or not something should be listed).

I think you missed my point slightly! EH - and indeed the DMCS - only have jurisdiction over some of the Severn Tunnel. If EH don't want it listed but Cadw do, does only part of it get listed?

[Glorious NSE]

From the (2011) franchise replacement consultation document*.

 

The size and make-up of the new IEP fleet will be capable of delivering the following indicative modelled service pattern. Within the contractual commitments of the IEP programme the franchisee will have flexibility as to how the fleet is operated on a day-to-day basis:

 

* 4 trains per hour (tph) London–Bristol Temple Meads; 2 tph running via Bath and 2 tph running via Bristol Parkway. Some of the Parkway trains would extend to Weston-super-Mare and, in the peaks, to Taunton;

* 2 tph London–Cardiff, with 1 tph serving Swansea, and 1 train per day extending to Carmarthen;

* 1 tph London–Worcester, with some extensions to Great Malvern and Hereford;

* 1 tph London–Cheltenham;

* 1 tph (most hours) semi-fast to Westbury, with some extensions to Exeter and one mid-day round trip to Paignton.

 

 

 

 

 

Non-IEP InterCity services

The remainder of the InterCity service will likely need to be delivered by alternative rolling stock. These services could include:

* trains between London and Plymouth and Cornwall, and the majority of trains between London and Paignton;

* any sleeper services;

* any additional long- or middle-distance trains that cannot be resourced by IEP trains; and

* special events trains to serve events such as Cheltenham Races or Glastonbury Festival.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2013 by Glorious NSE

[Fenman]

I think you missed my point slightly! EH - and indeed the DMCS - only have jurisdiction over some of the Severn Tunnel. If EH don't want it listed but Cadw do, does only part of it get listed?

You're right, I did miss your point. Intriguing question!

 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

Bi-mode is necessary for Worcester and Cheltenham workings as well as the extensions to Weston, Carmarthen etc. They will also have to work the main Bristol and South Wales routes when these are diverted off the wires such as via Westbury or Gloucester, though this will probably be late evening or Sundays when there is some slack in the fleet. 

 

Many of us will have followed the writings of Roger Ford on the subject of bi-mode IEP. It is a shocking waste of money!

[The Stationmaster]

I'm very puzzled about why anyone should think about listing the Severn Tunnel?  Maybe the tunnel portals - they're visible and not bad to look at;  and definitely the exterior appearance of Sudbrook pumping station - and its rail approach - plus possibly any original machinery remaining therein.  But why the tunnel itself, very few people have seen it although it does contain some very nice brickwork especially in the drainage channel for The Great Spring and that particular bit is well worth preserving and maintaining in that state but why the rest of it, it's covered in muck?

[Glorious NSE]

Many of us will have followed the writings of Roger Ford on the subject of bi-mode IEP. It is a shocking waste of money!

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs, it's now been decided and ordered - can we avoid the "what should we have done instead" discussion (or do that on the pre-existing IEP thread?)

[Fat Controller]

I'm very puzzled about why anyone should think about listing the Severn Tunnel?  Maybe the tunnel portals - they're visible and not bad to look at;  and definitely the exterior appearance of Sudbrook pumping station - and its rail approach - plus possibly any original machinery remaining therein.  But why the tunnel itself, very few people have seen it although it does contain some very nice brickwork especially in the drainage channel for The Great Spring and that particular bit is well worth preserving and maintaining in that state but why the rest of it, it's covered in muck?

One of my grandfather's family used to have to maintain that drainage channel- my idea of the job from Hell. I do find the idea of a 'listed' tunnel somewhat curious; just hope no-one gets the same idea for a certain tunnel a bit closer to home..

[Joseph_Pestell]

Whatever the rights and wrongs, it's now been decided and ordered - can we avoid the "what should we have done instead" discussion (or do that on the pre-existing IEP thread?)

 

I understand the point you are making. But the bi-mode IEP is relevant to the question asked about Weston-s-M. More passengers could be conveyed in an all-electric IEP than on the bi-mode which will have to provide this service. That has serious implications for the viability of direct through trains.

[Glorious NSE]

Might depend on what happens in practice - which we won't really start to know for a couple of years yet.

 

Don't have the references to hand, but a 5+5 formation bi-mode shouldn't end up a lot different to a 9 car all-electric in terms of capacity, although I would suggest you wouldn't need to run all 10 cars right through to Weston all day (if at all).

[phil-b259]

Might depend on what happens in practice - which we won't really start to know for a couple of years yet.

 

Don't have the references to hand, but a 5+5 formation bi-mode shouldn't end up a lot different to a 9 car all-electric in terms of capacity, although I would suggest you wouldn't need to run all 10 cars right through to Weston all day (if at all).

 

Do what the Southern do, join a 5 car Bi-mode version to a 5 car straight electric at Bristol ;-)

Edited December 30, 2013 by phil-b259

[Edwin_m]

Last time I heard the bi-mode IEPs in the GW fleet are all to be 5-car and the electrics 10-car.  Whether a bi-mode to Weston splits/joins at Bristol or runs as two units throughout, it will have a bit less capacity than a straight electric due to the dead space in the end cars, and will also need more on-board staff. 

[Fenman]

I'm very puzzled about why anyone should think about listing the Severn Tunnel?  Maybe the tunnel portals - they're visible and not bad to look at;  and definitely the exterior appearance of Sudbrook pumping station - and its rail approach - plus possibly any original machinery remaining therein.  But why the tunnel itself, very few people have seen it although it does contain some very nice brickwork especially in the drainage channel for The Great Spring and that particular bit is well worth preserving and maintaining in that state but why the rest of it, it's covered in muck?

 

I don't think anyone is thinking about listing it, except as a theoretical exercise. Equally, some things scrub up nicely, so being currently covered in muck doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth preserving. Frankly I think it's unlikely, but I'd guess it's more likely to be considered as a scheduled ancient monument than as a listed building (the latter being much more about preserving worthy or typical architecture rather than non-building structures). And you are right, it tends to be tunnel portals rather than the tunnels themselves which are listed.

 

Not all ancient monuments are buildings, though some are, and most "archaeologically significant landscapes" * are obviously SAMs rather than being listed buildings.

 

Paul

 

* These often look like no more than a bump in the ground, or even a stain in the soil, rather than anything of any particular significance. There's a story from an army training camp on Salisbury Plain, where the squaddies got confused and "dug in" to a Scheduled Ancient Monument that was supposed to be off-limits: a field of Bronze Age barrow graves. To the lay person they look like no more than small humps. When the Army was challenged by the local Inspector, they promptly sent the squaddies back and proudly reported that all the holes had now been filled in, so it was "as good as new". Anyone with a passing acquaintance with Time Team will understand how flawed that response was. 

[Xerces Fobe2]

I that that the IEP Bi-Modal will be operationally a Bi -Muddle add they are only 5 car trains!  Anyone who has has taken a ride o a 5 car Class 180 on the GWML recently will know where I am coming from. To little to late , however how about adding a Class 91 on the end of an HST set? Keep the HST as is with jumpers ant the sharp end that connect to the Class 91.  This would make use of existing equipment and provide, IMO a better option than a Bi-Muddle IEP!

 

XF

Edited December 30, 2013 by Xerces Fobe2

[Glorious NSE]

It's a 5 car unit, it's not necessarily a 5 car train.

[RJS1977]

I think there could be uses for 5-car BiMode sets. For example, as the Fishguard and Pembroke Dock ferries sail at similar times, how about re-introducing a through boat service with Fishguard and Pembroke portions dividing at Whitland? (And yes, I'm aware that there would need to be a coach transfer at Pembroke Dock!).

[phil-b259]

It's a 5 car unit, it's not necessarily a 5 car train.

No but given the current situation where:-

 

Governments want to maximise passenger acomadation

The industry likes distributed traction - not least because of the 'get you home' possibilities it brings

Manufacturers like distributed traction

Track authorities tend to like distributed traction - it allows better weight distribution throughout the train rather than one heavy vehicle

Safety bodies have no problem with passengers travelling in the leading vehicle at high speeds

 

It is a pretty safe bet we will be talking about something similar to a class180. Namely 5x 26m coaches with aerodynamic driving ends and suitable crumple zones between the Cab and the passenger saloon.

[Edwin_m]

I think there could be uses for 5-car BiMode sets. For example, as the Fishguard and Pembroke Dock ferries sail at similar times, how about re-introducing a through boat service with Fishguard and Pembroke portions dividing at Whitland? (And yes, I'm aware that there would need to be a coach transfer at Pembroke Dock!).

Clearances on the Pembroke Dock branch are very tight and there would almost certainly be major problems trying to run an IEP on it. 

[Glorious NSE]

No but given the current situation where:-

 

Governments want to maximise passenger acomadation

The industry likes distributed traction - not least because of the 'get you home' possibilities it brings

Manufacturers like distributed traction

Track authorities tend to like distributed traction - it allows better weight distribution throughout the train rather than one heavy vehicle

Safety bodies have no problem with passengers travelling in the leading vehicle at high speeds

 

It is a pretty safe bet we will be talking about something similar to a class180. Namely 5x 26m coaches with aerodynamic driving ends and suitable crumple zones between the Cab and the passenger saloon.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here Phil - isn't all of that pretty obvious from the spec?

[RJS1977]

Clearances on the Pembroke Dock branch are very tight and there would almost certainly be major problems trying to run an IEP on it. 

 

Does this - and the fact the service isn't explicitly mentioned in the list of services referred to above - mean the end of the Summer Saturdays through service to Paddington?

 

Edit - or does it come under "Any  additional long- or middle-distance trains that cannot be resourced by IEP trains"?

Edited December 30, 2013 by RJS1977

[phil-b259]

Not sure what you're trying to say here Phil - isn't all of that pretty obvious from the spec?

 

Its OK, I think I got the wrong end of the stick as in when you said 'a 5 car train is not a 5 car unit' I had visions of a power car and 4 coaches or one power car plus 5 coaches.

[Edwin_m]

Does this - and the fact the service isn't explicitly mentioned in the list of services referred to above - mean the end of the Summer Saturdays through service to Paddington?

 

Edit - or does it come under "Any  additional long- or middle-distance trains that cannot be resourced by IEP trains"?

Unless someone pays for clearance work I assume the operator would have to find an HST or something else if they wanted to continue this working. 

[Glorious NSE]

Given the IEP trains will be cleared at least to Paignton as per the initial diagrams (and I suspect for practical reasons they will also be cleared at least to Plymouth) then diagramming additional IEP to the South West on summer Saturdays to release an HST for West Wales shouldn't be impossible to acheive.

 

(Or maybe somewhat less likely, but the kind of thing it might do rather well, would be a retained 180...)

[ForestPines]

I was discussing listing the Severn Tunnel as a theoretical exercise - and indeed it turns out that the east portal is Grade II* but the west portal is unlisted. On a similar theme there are some interesting ambiguities in the way Brunel's Wye Bridge is listed (or whether it all is!) which are likely to have been caused by Chepstow being officially moved from England to Wales in the 1970s. However this is all rather off-topic...