D854_Tiger

The government needs to get a grip on this whole franchising malarkey else they're creating a free pass for Calamity Corbyn to unleash his snowflake mates, from the student union bar, onto our railways. So what have they done, they sent in Chancer Grayling a political buffoon, unsure of what he is saying and with little idea of how to say it

The appeal to this government of twenty five year franchises is that it would be a great way to take the wind out of the sails of the party opposite, their big ideas for renationalisation and a key manifesto policy. Politically it would be a very smart move, once they've worked out a way to make a franchise last more than a year that is.

Personally, I believe 2 + 4 (some will be 2+5) is f*****g ridiculous. I am looking forward to it immensely.

Judging by the number of class 802s GW has ordered they (or the DfT) must have big plans to increase the frequency of their services over the WoE route. One magazine suggested there would be scope (under consideration) for an hourly London - Westbury (and probably Frome) IET service, covering all the stops between Newbury and Westbury, though class 800 as some of the class 802s are now being ear marked for the Cotswolds routes eventually (wonder why). There was also talk of some of these Westbury trains running through to Trowbridge and even Bristol. Another hourly service would cover the stops between Westbury and Exeter, leaving the WoE express services to be either non-stop, one-stop or two-stop between Exeter and Reading. London - Plymouth would be served half-hourly by these faster trains for most (if not all) of the day. That came from some press release GW sent out but with the health warning that the final timetable is still being finalised. Commuter traffic has grown exponentially over recent years on the Westbury route, similar to the Cotswold Line, these railways are no longer the rural backwaters they were deemed to be back in the 1960/70 dark ages when rationalisation was the order of the day.

Indeed and the class 159s were a standard design intended for and deployed across the entire network.

Someone let the kids lose with crayon box again. That livery says to me, "This is what happens when good design meets the group standard and the group standard is allowed to win four nil." It reminds me of a broken kaleidoscope.

The notion you could ever have centralised planning, for the long term, under our political system is largely pie in the sky, most especially when you fail to back that up with longer than seven years for a franchise commitment. It always did sound rather half hearted, at least going back to letting the TOCs and the ROSCOs all go their own separate ways is being honest about it.

I feel your pain.

Well GA are ordering bi-modes and one reason why more trains from London don't go to say Yarmouth has always been the lack of wires, then how much difference is there between a class 444 and an all electric class 801, apart from top speed, they are both EMUs. BR certainly viewed the former GE lines as worthy of similar equipment to other IC routes, class 47s, class 86s and class 90s plus mk3. It just seems to me, here we are three orders in, and the concept of a standard IC design has already gone out of the window, however, I guess the test of the IEP concept will be what gets ordered for the MML and whatever comes next on XC. My guess is that Hitachi will not be given a free pass, will have to compete and why not, but, if so, that does rather blow a hole in the whole IEP concept of a standardised national fleet and beg the question why anyone bothered.

I've warmed a little to the West Midlands livery but only because it is reminding me of the old Birmingham Corporation Bus livery. I noticed a London Northwestern Railway class 350 the other day bearing the new company's name had been qualified by Operated by West Midlands Trains. So now we are to have trains calling at Reading operated by TfL and trains calling at Wembley Central operated by West Midlands trains. Blimey, these new mayors do like their empire building but does it have to be a twenty paces.

I suspect the class 802s will mostly be called cheaper.

I would be most interested to understand how the GA Norwich route differs from the GW Bristol and Cardiff routes. The look pretty similar to me, apart from a noticeable lack of wires on two of those routes, and one might believe ideal for this standard IC train design we have been promised and paid through the nose for. I'm sorry but a standard IC train design that turns out to be not so standard is either a failed design or is a mistake that is now being scuppered by the kind backtracking that strongly suggests a**e covering. I will tell you what it looks like to me someone thought the IEP was good idea, it wasn't and it turned out to be an expensive mistake and the current bunch of incumbents are engaged in damage limitation over an idea they find it hard to really care about because it wasn't their idea. The one saving grace the IEP has going for it, currently, and keeps politicians attention focused is that it's built over here but other train builders are about to do the same thing and unless those IET leasing costs come down ....

The original GW IET timetable proposal envisaged four trains per hour to Bristol, two of which would be limited stop (Parkway and Swindon or Reading) and one of which would be extended to Exeter or Paignton. I have read nothing since or noticed cancellation of train orders to suggest that is no longer the plan. How hard would it be to extend a second Bristol train say to Plymouth, running non-stop to Exeter, and substituting a class 800 with a class 802. I am not suggesting the Westbury route should be run down, quite the contrary, but not every train needs to go to the far West to maintain its level of service. It's probably academic to talk of further electrification but the via Bristol route is the obvious one, not least with its potential for knock on effect for further XC electrification. Of course, if that were the case, places like Wooton Basset would probably need flying junctions and Swindon to Didcot four tracking but, forgive me for pointing out, that is exactly the kind of thing that has been happening on both the WCML and ECML as they have been upgraded. We seem to be forgetting that the class 802s will be bi-mode, well what's the point of that just to get to Newbury, how many tanks of diesel full could be saved going via Bristol (not to mention emissions) and let's also see how the track access charge debate pans out. If lowering that pantograph turns out to be more expensive than keeping it up, I know which way I would want to send my trains, most especially if it turned out to be quicker as well.

You only have to read the media that comes out of the West Country's main population centers to know I am not the only one obsessed by the end to end journey time. Particularly, the good people of Plymouth who have long complained that, in national terms, they have been hard done by in terms of rail infrastructure.

Many railway lines run through areas with great potential for solar power. I think we should be told where they are in the UK so we can book our package holidays.

Once someone decided to disable the tilt on the XC Voyagers I suspect the idea they could be interchangeable went out of the window, mainly because of crew training and familiarity reasons. Would any XC driver, trained in the last five or six years, be allowed to drive a tilt enabled class 221 say between New Street and Manchester.

If electrification ever does reach the West Country I would put money on it being an extension of the core GW route via Bristol. As it is, with HSTs, the time penalty for going via Bristol can be as little as 20 minutes. IETs will be fifteen minutes faster between Bristol and London (allegedly) so a WoE IET might only be five minutes slower via Bristol and that assumes no speed upgrade is possible for the via Weston route, to say 125 mph, something I believe would be far less problematic than via Westbury. It might be very interesting, just as it is, to see how tempted GW will be to send more of their WoE services via Bristol, once the class 802s are available, it might even be possible to do it quicker than via Westbury, if you were to keep the stops to a minimum between Bristol and London, say just the one at Reading. I wonder how the track access charges are going to work for a bi-mode, Uncle Roger has been discussing this recently albeit in his usual acerbic way, thanks to some of the stuff he has been hearing. In theory, a bi-mode running under the wires should be charged more than both a diesel working or an electric working but I believe some a**e covering politics are in play to convince us all how eco-friendly bi-modes are and that to justify this the track access charges should reflect it.

I was just waiting for someone to ask that but best not here.

How does ERTMS handle this situation.

Any radio communication can suffer from interference, left to its own devices the atmosphere can even do that, in the right (albeit rare) circumstances, but provided a system has been designed to be fail safe the worst that can happen is stuff stops moving. Hacking into an encrypted communication is actually impossible, if the latest encryption techniques are being used, and that impossibility can be proven mathematically. Indeed, many of these latest most sophisticated techniques are nowadays supported by freely available software, available on the Internet, which has worried GCHQ sufficiently for them to prompt government into introducing legislation to make it an offence for a user not to provide the key, once the necessary warrant has been raised. An admission by the experts that even they have no solution to breaking such encryption, they face exactly the same problem breaking the dark net, so much so, they gave up trying on the sexy computer stuff and have fallen back onto more tried and trusted traditional techniques, such as follow the money and infiltration, and then surprised themselves with all the success they were having. Far more worrying for safety critical systems is the security of the wider system, what (and how) is it connected to, all the encryption in the world over the radio is of little use if there is a backdoor way in via the Internet. I once did some work for a well known Telecom operator and Internet provider (who shall remain nameless) and was offered the use of a brand new workstation, which needed its software installing. A task I offered to do and could they provide the superuser password allowing me to do so. The superuser is commonly known as 'root' the password I was provided with was r00t and yep it turned out that password didn't just get me into one workstation it got me into their entire interconnected network, one press of a carriage return and I could have outed their entire operation and corrupted all their billing data for good measure. It was the Internet equivalent of leaving the sophisticated encrypted locking mechanism of the bank vault unlocked and the bank's front door wide open. Most of the worst hacking that goes on across the Internet is very unsophisticated because why resort to deviously complex software and high order mathematics, when you can cause mischief just by looking up the right person's Facebook page and pretty much work out their life story in five minutes and, more often than not, the passwords that go with it.

I know I shouldn't really bother my empty head having any opinion on them and leave it to the experts, it's just that my fare box and taxes are paying for them (eventually) and I'm funny that way.

I'm not so much questioning the train just the way it was specified and ordered, the harsh reality is that the DfT, in a highly questionable attempt to stop the train leasing companies ripping us off (if indeed they ever were), has arrived at one of the most expensive trains ever produced for the UK, that does nothing previous trains didn't already do, and whichever way you want to write that up ..... Oh and apparently it might have s**t seats, which is a bit like paying eight hundred quid for a suit and finding there's a great big hole where your a**e goes. I'm going to really go for it now and suggest maybe a fleet of nine car tilting Voyagers would not have been such a bad idea for the WoE main line, what Plymouth has been crying out for, for a very long time, is something a bit more imaginative that doesn't spend the first hour or so never getting past 40 mph, not the gesture of bi-mode that's mostly going to be used in one mode only, and, in the process, serve as a reminder to the West Country of what the government really thinks of them (less important than Newbury). I know Pendolinos were looked at for the ECML and the tilt might have been useful north of Newcastle. I reckon ideally for GW we should have just left it to the TOCs and the manufacturers, then we could well have ended up with something bi-mode that looks remarkably like a class 800 but surely nothing like as expensive. I really cannot understand the obsession with having a common fleet, how many times did the HST's commonality prove to be useful, how many times was that really exploited, had they serviced them all in one place maybe but they never did.

Thus far, the only TOCs that have ordered IETs are those TOCs that have been told they must have them, or follow on orders, where doing anything different didn't add up. It's very noticeable that Greater Anglia did not order them (why not) when at one time Uncle Roger was telling us the intention was that IETs were going to spread far and wide, he even specifically mentioned Kings Lynn. Supposedly there will be new (non-tilting) trains ordered for the next WCML franchise, to supplement the Pendolinos, will be interesting to see if they're IETs. It looks as if the MML is going to get bi-mode and XC is crying out for them, but again, will they be IET, given the choice. I wonder how they compare on the leasing cost and remember IET was a New Labour big idea, quite probably the current incumbents feel they need have no particular loyalty to it.

I cannot disagree with that just that by the time the DfT had finished with their input the IET had moved a long way from being a common platform. My big problem with the IET, which I'm sure is a wonderful train, is that it isn't really doing anything that existing train fleets couldn't already do, no doubt wonderful design, but take way the (questionable) bi-mode bit, and they've largely reinvented the wheel.

Well at least it matches the other end and not much point having nice lines when it's going to be at the back of the train half the time.