cary hill Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 So once again the East Midlands gets urinated on by central government, but I'm not really surprised as the region is near the bottom of the pile when it comes to funding for things like health and education. Another penalty for living in a London-centric country I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted July 20, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) Surely we're getting to the stage where it makes more sense all round for small self-contained branches? Might be easier to charge at Oxenholme though. The trains will run from madchester on 25kV so would be fully charged when they enter the branch. A run down the non electrified branch to Windermere would use battery power so a charge point there would make sense. Once back at Oxenholme they would be back under the wires. I wonder what's happening about upgrading the branch as currently a return journey takes around 45 minutes and the branch has no passing places. Daft quote 4 trains an hour, that would entail at least two passing points. It is a double trackbed but has been single and slewed so a lot of disruption to come. Keith Edited July 20, 2017 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 It is a double trackbed but has been single and slewed so a lot of disruption to come. But, to quote the DfT, none of the disruption of electrification... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted July 20, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 20, 2017 Well I do think not electrifying MML, Cardiff- Swansea and Windermere is a mistake . But on the other hand the rail industry has itself to blame , we can't keep shelling out for Electrification projects that run over in time and hugely on cost. I fear the GW Electrification , but also EGIP has poisoned the well for Electrification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 The good side of going for bi-mode trains is that the electrification can be extended in small chunks at a later date, without having to replace any of the rolling stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted July 20, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 20, 2017 The good side of going for bi-mode trains is that the electrification can be extended in small chunks at a later date, without having to replace any of the rolling stock. Whilst that is undoubtedly a possibility and may happen for key parts of the network, the issue is really whether or not the political will is there later for more electrification. And of course if the infrastructure companies with electrification skills and expertise will still be available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted July 20, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 20, 2017 Once again shows the problem of starting a scheme from the London end. If WCML had started work from Euston instead of Manchester they probably would never have got north of Bletchley. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Once again shows the problem of starting a scheme from the London end. If WCML had started work from Euston instead of Manchester they probably would never have got north of Bletchley. I had heard that it was a deliberate ploy by BR to ensure the scheme was completed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 What a cobble job. Wouldn't a better solution be battery-electric conversions? Modern compact battery technology makes this a worthwhile option You could even have a charging point in Windermere station used during turnround to top up the battery ready for the journey back to Oxenholme. Basically you end up putting in the power supply for OHLE (think about it...) but not the masts for the branch. Whilst not as costly as going the whole hog, it'll still be a substantial fraction of the cost. Converting the 319's (or whatever) to include batter operation would be similar cost to the bi(tri)-mode conversion of the 769 that is happening anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D854_Tiger Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 I guess the government might argue that bi-mode IEP will do perfectly well for the MML untill HS2 gets built and that they have already promised to accelerate the timetable for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 When studying for my first degree, I remember seeing a "Transport 2000" map which showed routes which (in an ideal world) would be electrified. This, of course, included the MML. Now over 40 years later, I somehow doubt if the entire MML up to Sheffield (and realistically beyond) will be completed in my lifetime. Hope to be proved wrong though..... Looks like I've been proved correct...... But as the politicians would say, everything is really "tickety-boo." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Boar Fell Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Question is, if the new fleet will be Bi-Modes, where do the 222s go? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 What I fail to understand, is where the fairness and competition is coming from in the rolling stock procurement, unless the government has an as yet unexercised option to add more electro-diesel multiple units to the already 1222 vehicle-strong Hitachi 8XX series orderbook. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Boar Fell Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) What I fail to understand, is where the fairness and competition is coming from in the rolling stock procurement, unless the government has an as yet unexercised option to add more electro-diesel multiple units to the already 1222 vehicle-strong Hitachi 8XX series orderbook. Unless I am very much mistaken*, I don't think anywhere it has actually said it will be IETs/800s? But 'Bi-mode Intercity Trains does kind of give that impression... *Said in the voice of Murray Walker Edited July 20, 2017 by Wild Boar Fell 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 What I fail to understand, is where the fairness and competition is coming from in the rolling stock procurement, unless the government has an as yet unexercised option to add more electro-diesel multiple units to the already 1222 vehicle-strong Hitachi 8XX series orderbook.Anglia are also buying bi-modes but built by Stadler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted July 20, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 20, 2017 Anglia are also buying bi-modes but built by Stadler. This is true - but the GEML has a maximum line speed of 100mph. By contrast a fair proportion of the MML is 125mph now - and their may be aspirations to increase this further in future. The 800s have a top design speed of 140mph* as once ERTMS is fitted to the GWML and ECML lines, it is planned to increase the permitted speed *(The ORR / HSE will not allow speeds higher than 125mph unless some form of in cab signalling system is fitted) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Can you imagine the outcry if the M1 had been stopped at Watford Gap as the powers that be considered no one lived north of there ,the MML decision is akin to this.If only the GWR wiring had been carried out correctly we would not be in the state we are, this came about due to the lack of experienced engineers typical of everything that happens in the UK.Our roads are falling apart ,rail is being constricted to save money yet the DFT waste our precious resources on HS2.The money for the HS2 flawed project should be spread around the network for sensible upgrades to passenger and freight plus investment in the NHS etc.This decision will come back to haunt future administrations and any actions will doubtless cost a fortune ,a sad day for GB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERS Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Word is that work will be curtailed until the project is reviewed, possibly delaying any further progress by up to a year, but that is speculation. As orders for the new trains for an all electric East Mids franchise will need to be placed by early 2017 to ensure availability for services to commence in 2019/ 20, the procurement process would need to be underway by the end of 2015, based on a 12 month timescale. The likelihood of that seems remote given today's announcement. Given the position with cost and time overruns has been known for more than six months, to throw this in now smacks of a Government under pressure to cut budgets which would have been impossible to sell pre-election. Best guess now is that with HS2 on the horizon, current MML plans for electrification North of Leicester will be in doubt and North of Nottingham/ Derby under serious threat. The protests from Sheffield etc will be offset with the promise of an even better connection to London via HS2, South Eastern style, but with the penalty of having to wait until HS2 is complete. Remember, you heard it here first... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
great central Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Can you imagine the outcry if the M1 had been stopped at Watford Gap as the powers that be considered no one lived north of there ,the MML decision is akin to this.If only the GWR wiring had been carried out correctly we would not be in the state we are, this came about due to the lack of experienced engineers typical of everything that happens in the UK.Our roads are falling apart ,rail is being constricted to save money yet the DFT waste our precious resources on HS2.The money for the HS2 flawed project should be spread around the network for sensible upgrades to passenger and freight plus investment in the NHS etc.This decision will come back to haunt future administrations and any actions will doubtless cost a fortune ,a sad day for GB. A friend of mine works/worked in the Highways department of a local authority. He and his engineer colleagues are being transferred to other departments, meaning the local authority won't have a single highways engineer in their highways department which designs and maintains the road system. This means they can maintain the roads at lower cost, cos they won't be properly specified and will simply follow the instructions of the politicians in the local authority, non of whom, naturally, are highways engineers. You couldn't make it up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted July 20, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 20, 2017 Question is, if the new fleet will be Bi-Modes, where do the 222s go? Unfortunately not Vic Berry's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flapland Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Unfortunately not Vic Berry's Odd are stacked against a return of Vic Berry's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted July 20, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 20, 2017 Can you imagine the outcry if the M1 had been stopped at Watford Gap ........................ For a long time it did. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
srihaggis Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Question is, if the new fleet will be Bi-Modes, where do the 222s go? Just my oppinion / speculation / wibble (delete as appropiate), I would put money on it that they end up with XC, with the 170s cascaded elsewhere, Wales perhaps (couplings compatible with most of the pre-existing fleet) to help with the shortage, 4 coach voyagers replacing the 170s and the 222's ramping up seat availability on the core long distance routes. It's already confirmed the HST's are having the PRM Mods to enable post 2020 running. One thing that did cross my mind, if the EMT Fleet are to have bi-mode replacements, would this include the local fleet for replacement stock; in an ideal world it makes sense but we live in the UK afterall! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted July 20, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 20, 2017 The trains will run from madchester on 25kV so would be fully charged when they enter the branch. A run down the non electrified branch to Windermere would use battery power so a charge point there would make sense. Once back at Oxenholme they would be back under the wires. Don't some of them shuttle back and forth between Oxenholme and Windermere? A couple of trips up and down the branch before heading back to Manchester perhaps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Question is, if the new fleet will be Bi-Modes, where do the 222s go? They'd be rather good on EMT's Liverpool-Norwich services. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now