Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

I think we are in for some interesting times ahead - maybe a rerun of the Dutch AnsaldoBreda http://dutchreview.com/news/fyra-the-dutch-high-speed-rail-debacle/. Given the all the recalls of Japanese cars over recent years, the decline of Sony and the hapless way the Japanese have handled Fukushima I have little confidence in the Japanese ability to deliver a quality train that can meet the somewhat muddled/over optimistic requirements of the the clowns at DaFT !

 

Keep those Class 91 and MKiV coaches they may well be needed

 

XF

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think we are in for some interesting times ahead - maybe a rerun of the Dutch AnsaldoBreda http://dutchreview.com/news/fyra-the-dutch-high-speed-rail-debacle/. Given the all the recalls of Japanese cars over recent years, the decline of Sony and the hapless way the Japanese have handled Fukushima I have little confidence in the Japanese ability to deliver a quality train that can meet the somewhat muddled/over optimistic requirements of the the clowns at DaFT !

 

 

I'm afraid I don't agree. 

 

Many of these issues you have picked up on reflect the Japanese corporate culture (which itself has proven to be a national scandal), as opposed to an across-the-board reduction in build quality. Granted, Toyota has had a very difficult period recently, but there have also been recalls Citroen, Renault, Ford...the list goes on. Perhaps because it is because they have such a good reputation for reliability it proved to be such as shock. Also, Japanese vehicles are consistently (even now) ranked towards the top of reliability and owner satisfaction.

 

In general, the quality of Japanese train design is exceptionally high and I cannot think of any country, with the exception of Germany, which has such a consistent track-record; particularly high-speed trains. If anyone can produce a train that meets the no doubt endless list of requirements DaFT have, the Japanese can. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I don't agree. 

 

Many of these issues you have picked up on reflect the Japanese corporate culture (which itself has proven to be a national scandal), as opposed to an across-the-board reduction in build quality. Granted, Toyota has had a very difficult period recently, but there have also been recalls Citroen, Renault, Ford...the list goes on. Perhaps because it is because they have such a good reputation for reliability it proved to be such as shock. Also, Japanese vehicles are consistently (even now) ranked towards the top of reliability and owner satisfaction.

 

In general, the quality of Japanese train design is exceptionally high and I cannot think of any country, with the exception of Germany, which has such a consistent track-record; particularly high-speed trains. If anyone can produce a train that meets the no doubt endless list of requirements DaFT have, the Japanese can. 

And Germany's recent reputation in high-speed train building is not exactly sparkling...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick post on cascades, from a recent FGW business brief :

16 HSTs to be refurbished for Pad - Pz services and MOST LIKELY but NOT DEFINATE, 165/6 fleet for PLY - PZ TT upgrade 2017. 158 leasing costs are much more than 165/6s apparently......... .

 

That explains why Cornwall very rarely sees a Class 158 these days!

 

XF

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Just a quick post on cascades, from a recent FGW business brief :

16 HSTs to be refurbished for Pad - Pz services and MOST LIKELY but NOT DEFINATE, 165/6 fleet for PLY - PZ TT upgrade 2017. 158 leasing costs are much more than 165/6s apparently......... .

Would that be because of the near universal route availability of the 158 versus the 165/6, thus making it more easiliy re leased.

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

For all I think the IEP program and the politics behind it are a scandal the one thing I don't doubt is the capability of the Japanese to manufacture a world class train. Unfortunately we will not be getting their top end train but even so it should still be a well engineered and reliable train based on experience. The railway system of Japan is easily the most efficient and best operated I have ever experienced, and by quite a margin, I believe their Shinkansen lines are operating pretty much at the limits of what is possible with existing technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. the comparison with Fyra I expect IEP to be a total disaster but for entirely different reasons to Fyra's failure. A lot of the Fyra problems were simply AnsaldoBreda's fault, for which they have plenty of form, they've encountered reliability problems on similar projects and they seem to have an "interesting" approach to customer service: the Danes foundone of their undelivered C4 sets in the Libyan desert... A gift from AB to Gaddafi!

 

The problem with IEP, so far lies at the DfT. They were so besotted with Hitachi (they make the bullet trains don't you know ;)) and the new plant up at Newton Ayrcliffe that they just let Hitachi name their price - there has been some firefighting at DfT which lead to a limited reduction in costs but this is still going to be extortionate.

 

Not content with running up a massive bill, the specs for the project defy logic as well. 26 metre carriages are a false economy; the route clearance work will be very expensive and they'll still have dire route availibility. The addition of the Bi-modes will probably lead to a compromised design for the whole fleet as I imagine Hitachi are unlikely to create two substanstially different body shells for the electrics and bi-modes... We'll also lose the buffet car on the bi-modes, relying on trolley service. Finally, for a design being used to replace the 125s the refurbishment of 16 HSTs to continue the PAD-PZ services looks to me like a failure.

 

So far IEP is the only procurement that I've come across that the industry has condemned so strongly. See Roger Ford's articles in Modern Rialways and this article by an anoynmous author who "works for one of Britain's major transport companies". http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2013/dec/06/intercity-express-programme-high-speed-rail. As a side note, allegedly First had already arranged an HST replacement with Siemens which had to be canned and afterwards they also tried to convince the DfT to go for Alsthom's modified Pendolino bid which also failed.

Edited by m0rris
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think in fairness Roger Ford has never doubted the competence of Hitachi or the quality of their products, his well observed commentary has focused on the appalling handling of the whole project by DaFT, from specification development, procurement to finance. His opinions on this one hit the nail on the head IMO. Which doesn't however mean that the train will be badly built or poorly engineered.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why 158s never venture to Cornwall is surely down to the way they're diagrammed, irrespective of leasing costs? The 158's are concentrated on the Cardiff-Portsmouth corridor and based at Phillips Marsh, hence why they very rarely stray. The furthest they get West is Exeter as Exeter crews still retain one 158 diagram to help with traction knowledge. I believe it does a Cardiff-Taunton, runs ecs to Exeter and then does a couple of trips on the Exmouth branch. Don't forget that 158's used to be commonplace in Cornwall up until around 2007 when FGW cascaded their ex-Wales & West 158's to Northern/EMT/Scotrail, in fact they regularly turned up on the Exeter triangle on stopping diagrams as well as the Cornish branches as they had so many of them when they initially received the TPE batch!  

 

The 165's/166's will not be enough to cascade any 158's away, unless they keep 150's in lieu, however if FGW is left with a 150/165/166 fleet, this means they have no relatively comfortable long-distance DMU's for Cardiff-Portsmouth, Brighton/Weymouth-Malvern for example. Of course, we don't know what the make-up of the West fleet will be, but I'd wager a bet on 153's (these are confirmed as being DDA modded by FGW, most likely based at Laira for the Cornish branches), 158's staying as now, with 165/166's doing Bristol/Exeter Metro, and anything in between, replacing the 143's and 150's.  

 

16 HST sets works out about right - presumably 14 diagrams, hourly Plymouth services works out at about 8 diagrams, so the current 1tp2h extensions to Penzance should take it up to about 12 sets. Add in a few peak-time extensions to/from London, that seems to be your 14. Lastly, this just proves what I've always thought - HST's will last forever!  ;)  :rolleyes:

Edited by NXEA!
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why 158s never venture to Cornwall is surely down to the way they're diagrammed, irrespective of leasing costs?

 

Definately - but Paul's comment is comparing additional 166s for the new/improved Cornish stopper service versus leasing additional 158s.

 

 

 

The furthest they get West is Exeter as Exeter crews still retain one 158 diagram to help with traction knowledge. I believe it does a Cardiff-Taunton, runs ecs to Exeter and then does a couple of trips on the Exmouth branch.

 

From memory it's not an Exmouth any more, but a Paignton.

 

 

 

but I'd wager a bet on 153's (these are confirmed as being DDA modded by FGW, most likely based at Laira for the Cornish branches),

 

Swapping a 150 for a DDA modded 153 would be a substantial capacity drop though, so I can't see that being viable. Most of the Cornish branches have gone from single car to two car operation.

 

How are they DDA-ing the 153s? The most sensible suggestion i've heard so far is to convert them back to 155s! 

 

 

 

replacing the 143's and 150's.

 

I can't see FGW getting shot of the 150s, and again, it's fascinating that there is no official angle on getting shot of the 143s either...

Edited by Glorious NSE
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The reason why 158s never venture to Cornwall is surely down to the way they're diagrammed, irrespective of leasing costs? The 158's are concentrated on the Cardiff-Portsmouth corridor and based at Phillips Marsh, hence why they very rarely stray. The furthest they get West is Exeter as Exeter crews still retain one 158 diagram to help with traction knowledge. I believe it does a Cardiff-Taunton, runs ecs to Exeter and then does a couple of trips on the Exmouth branch. Don't forget that 158's used to be commonplace in Cornwall up until around 2007 when FGW cascaded their ex-Wales & West 158's to Northern/EMT/Scotrail, in fact they regularly turned up on the Exeter triangle on stopping diagrams as well as the Cornish branches as they had so many of them when they initially received the TPE batch!  

 

The 165's/166's will not be enough to cascade any 158's away, unless they keep 150's in lieu, however if FGW is left with a 150/165/166 fleet, this means they have no relatively comfortable long-distance DMU's for Cardiff-Portsmouth, Brighton/Weymouth-Malvern for example. Of course, we don't know what the make-up of the West fleet will be, but I'd wager a bet on 153's (these are confirmed as being DDA modded by FGW, most likely based at Laira for the Cornish branches), 158's staying as now, with 165/166's doing Bristol/Exeter Metro, and anything in between, replacing the 143's and 150's.  

 

16 HST sets works out about right - presumably 14 diagrams, hourly Plymouth services works out at about 8 diagrams, so the current 1tp2h extensions to Penzance should take it up to about 12 sets. Add in a few peak-time extensions to/from London, that seems to be your 14. Lastly, this just proves what I've always thought - HST's will last forever!  ;)  :rolleyes:

 

As someone has written already, the 165/166s will need some fairly serious refurbishment before redeployment. It is therefore quite possible that they could be fitted with more comfortable 2+2 seating for the longer distance jobs. I think that clearance will be an issue on some routes though. Brighton took  a bit of work for 158s I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the Turbos will be refreshed - at least on the inside and these will complement the current 150/153 fleet as too big for the branches. Hayle viaduct is being done feb ish to allow the bigger stuff back down this far such as 158, 165 - 170 and MANORS !!! This will all take time don't forget and subject to whatever is used on the current Turbo routes WORKING !!

 

The current HSS TT has an allocation of 16 sets for PZ/PLY - PAD services and is the number quoted by my management for refurb. The interiors will be more suited to the journey unlike at present which management have admitted last year was " wrong " !

Edited by Cornish Triang Paul
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey. I see smileys have no place in your world, that you can be so easily insulted! Let me try to explain in ways you won't find insulting, since I do try hard not to be offensive.

 

Parts of Paddington may indeed already be electrified, but there will be a lot more work to be done there as part of the GWML scheme; of course that will have to take account of its Grade 1 listing.

 

You now mention the 2* listing of Culham (something I also wrote about, though you don't seem to have picked up on that. Unless you're now just quoting selectively, of course... :) ).

 

And you are right, I have quoted the EH definitions of the gradings; that's because EH is the statutory agency responsible for listing. Their overall definitions have legal meaning. Paraphrasing of definitions in a report commissioned by a prospective developer is of less significance than the legal meaning applied by the relevant statutory body.

 

Here's what you actually wrote:

 

 

Which, within the confines of the report, may be true. But if you fail to mention the statutory protection already afforded to significant parts of this railway, all you're doing is stirring up passions by presenting a partial picture. In our short discussion we've already uncovered the fact that the biggest station on the GWML is Grade 1 listed, and the example you quoted is 2* - both, therefore, in the top 10% of all listed buildings (and, therefore, in the top <1% of all buildings in the entire country, in terms of architectural or historic merit, and given statutory protection accordingly).

 

I'm struggling to see why you would find that insulting, any more than I would be insulted by you accusing me of not checking the listings (when, of course, I had already written about them before you even replied!).

 

I do think there's a debate to be had about whether the statutory protection is strong enough; see my posting about St Pancras, for example.

 

Paul

Sir, your reference to 'tabloid journalism' is what is insulting. My post was about the Gazeteer and ITS assessment of whether structures were 'worthy' or not - this being a report prepared for Network Rail, not English Heritage. I am aware of which of the well known buildings are listed and which are not. My concern was for some of the structures which have no protection and are not considered BY THE AUTHOR OF THE ASSESSMENT to be worthy of any sort of protection. It is his suggestion, not mine, that anything worthy dates from Brunel and is already listed and it is his suggestion that buildings such as Culham are of only 'medium' significance. I have not 'discovered' that Paddington is Grade 1 listed - I've known it for years and the reason I didn't mention it was because it is not included in the Gazeteer (as far as I could tell - there are 715 pages of it to plough through). The Gazeteer does not deal with railway that comes under the earlier schemes such as Heathrow Express and Crossrail.

CHRIS LEIGH

Edited by dibber25
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of which of the well known buildings are listed and which are not. My concern was for some of the structures which have no protection and are not considered BY THE AUTHOR OF THE ASSESSMENT to be worthy of any sort of protection. It is his suggestion, not mine, that anything worthy dates from Brunel and is already listed and it is his suggestion that buildings such as Culham are of only 'medium' significance.

Can I just ask which structures you're particularly concerned about? All of the ones you mentioned in your original post are already protected by listing as far as I could see, except for Goring station.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just ask which structures you're particularly concerned about? All of the ones you mentioned in your original post are already protected by listing as far as I could see, except for Goring station.

What concerns me is the concept that nothing post-Brunel is worthy of retention. Individual structures or small groups of structures at the smaller stations - Tilehurst, Pangbourne, Goring & Streatley, Cholsey & Moulsford - surely warrant some consideration, as do some of the bridges etc. What I found worrying in the gazeteer was that, if one building had lost one canopy, that seemed to make the whole place worthless. Yet, it is quite likely that canopy would have needed to be altered for the electrification anyway. The bridge at Appleford, which is a listed Brunel structure, is of reduced interest now because the shelters on the adjacent halt were demolished and replaced with modern FGW shelters. The originals were, I think, the last 'Pagodas' in use anywhere on the network and were only removed a couple of years ago. There should be some protection for good, interesting structures AS THEY ARE NOW not just protection for something which by pure chance has survived 150 years in its original state - those we already know about and they are listed and largely safe anyway. 

As to the post above - if the Staines branch did still exist, we could have had the Airtrack connection into Heathrow much more easily - electrified and all - and we wouldn't have the M25. What a blessing that would be!!!

Incidentally - not a million miles from the GWML electrification - can someone explain to me what the Windsor Link Railway is designed to achieve? The promoters say it'll shorten the Windsor-Waterloo journey time by up to 20min and allow a 15min interval service instead of the present 30min. I can't understand how and the promoters don't say how. It involves an underground station in Windsor replacing the two present stations and would presumably require a switch from 3rd rail to 25kV at that point. It would give Slough/Maidenhead folk easy access to Waterloo and it opens up some lucrative development land in Windsor but is there another benefit from it that I'm somehow not seeing?

CHRIS LEIGH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully the Staines West branch no longer fully exists and is not a scheduled to be electrified. LOL

It's the Colnbrook branch now. Everything down to Staines has gone but so has the countryside that it ran through. The Wraysbury reservoir, the M25, Terminal Five and gravel raising, have transformed an area that was rural and remote only 50 years ago. I have a photo of Poyle halt (now under M25 Junction 14) and there's grass and bushes as far as the eye can see (and that's pretty much all the way to the Staines gasometer, just visible on the horizon). Thankfully - or sadly - we've lost a lot more than a stretch of railway.

CHRIS LEIGH

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Incidentally - not a million miles from the GWML electrification - can someone explain to me what the Windsor Link Railway is designed to achieve? The promoters say it'll shorten the Windsor-Waterloo journey time by up to 20min and allow a 15min interval service instead of the present 30min. I can't understand how and the promoters don't say how. It involves an underground station in Windsor replacing the two present stations and would presumably require a switch from 3rd rail to 25kV at that point. It would give Slough/Maidenhead folk easy access to Waterloo and it opens up some lucrative development land in Windsor but is there another benefit from it that I'm somehow not seeing?

CHRIS LEIGH

 

Is the plan that Heathrow could be accessed from the ex-LSWR route, so reinstating the triangle at Slough would give a direct(ish) route from Reading to Heathrow?

 

I'd often wondered about the possibility of extending the Piccadilly line from Uxbridge via Slough & Windsor to Heathrow (i.e. creating a giant loop).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that the Windsor Link at best is poorly thought through and IMO will never happen!  A lot of work for little gain and a slow route to  London.  The amount of work tougher  associated costs can never be justified and then there is the environmental impacts. This project will go the same way as the ill thought out Watford -St Albans Light Rail proposal, just give it a few more years!

 

 The Staines West Branch closure was in retrospect a bad idea it would have been better to divert the line to the Southern Station and link into the airport as was suggested a part of the Airtrack proposal. Nothing much will happen the short term until we have an agreed strategy for airport expansion and maybe Bozo Island will prevail.

 

It is amazing how a "privatised railway" has so much intereference from the DaFT beggars as I thought that it was a free market economy? To honour of the massive failings at DaFT I propose that the first Bi-muddle IEP be named Jusitine Greening for this lady's major contribution to the rail industry in the UK!

 

XF

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that the Windsor Link at best is poorly thought through and IMO will never happen!  A lot of work for little gain and a slow route to  London.  The amount of work tougher  associated costs can never be justified and then there is the environmental impacts. This project will go the same way as the ill thought out Watford -St Albans Light Rail proposal, just give it a few more years!

 

 The Staines West Branch closure was in retrospect a bad idea it would have been better to divert the line to the Southern Station and link into the airport as was suggested a part of the Airtrack proposal. Nothing much will happen the short term until we have an agreed strategy for airport expansion and maybe Bozo Island will prevail.

 

It is amazing how a "privatised railway" has so much intereference from the DaFT beggars as I thought that it was a free market economy? To honour of the massive failings at DaFT I propose that the first Bi-muddle IEP be named Jusitine Greening for this lady's major contribution to the rail industry in the UK!

 

XF

The West Drayton service very nearly did get diverted into Staines Central in 1959, using the wartime spur at Staines Moor. I have copies of some of the paperwork and have written it up for Steam World April issue. Under the guise of avoiding building a bridge for the Staines by-pass (A30) over the branch, the WR sought to shift all the costs at the Staines end onto the SR. The SR thought that the MoT who were saving £120,000 on the bridge, might re-imburse them. In the end they all fannied around for so long that the MoT let the road contract and built the bridge anyway. You realise how close it came when you looked at the Pressed Steel DMUs where those delivered earliest had 'Staines West' on the blinds and later deliveries just had 'Staines'. Had it happened, the Airtrack link via the west curve at Staines would probably have been preferred to the Piccadilly Line extension as main line trains from Waterloo could have accessed the airport.

CHRIS LEIGH

CHRIS LEIGH

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

On state interference, hasn't Network Rail now been reclassified as a government entity and lost that odd status as a company limited by guarantee which was effectively just a way of trying to keep their debt off the government balance sheet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...