IEP - How to make the DfT see sence and scrap bi-mode

[Golden Gripper]

The DfT appears to be against the coupling and uncoupling of diesels to electric unit because of the time factor.

What time factor? I heard the rumour as well; that Phillip Hammond has been told it takes eleven minutes to attach or detach a locomotive. This is based on the time it takes 57s to attach to Pendolinos. However, the Pendolino was never built to be attached to a locomotive except in an emergency. Try telling those south of the Thames that it takes eleven minutes to attach or detach two trains!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It wasn't just that, there was also the issue that Hitachi seemed to not want to build a locomotive and by that time Hitachi had been selected as preferred bidder for the IEP so underfloor engines were the only option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A 57 wouldn't have the same acceleration that an HST currently has. Bristol to Exeter has a 110 mph section and this could at some time be increased to 125 mph. There is also a 100 mph section west of Exeter although this is of course only 5 mph faster than the maximum speed of 57. Loco hauled trains are not great for the Devon banks though as they can't match the performance of a multiple unit.

I only said that 57 conversion was a cost effective response. A new build of diesel locos with increased power and speed is obviously better, but more expensive. It's a trade-off which you go for, but it's still cheaper, and environmentally cleaner, to go for an off the peg solution using locomotives (and I hope the whole of our train buying policy is not going to be dictated by the Devon Banks).

 

[Zoe]

and I hope the whole of our train buying policy is not going to be dictated by the Devon Banks

It would be stupid to order something underpowered though for the Devon banks.

 

[Golden Gripper]

It would be stupid to order something underpowered though for the Devon banks.

I would agree with you, but we're not ordering something specifically for the Devon Banks. Either we're doing a 'cheap and cheerful' 57 conversion, which would obviously cost in timings, or a new build which could be as powerful as you want.

I don't know what the installed diesel power on the bi-mode IEP is going to be, but I doubt whether it would be the same as the electric motors provide. Remember, the more power you want the heavier the train will be, not just in the engine but also in the extra fuel required for a more powerful diesel. That has to be hauled all the way to Paddington, Kings Cross etc under the wires. The heavier the train the more electric it will consume and the worst the performance under the wires. Will the DfT want that extra cost and loss of performance for the well loaded electrified section so as to provide superlative performance on what are by definition comparatively lightly loaded unelectrified sections? I hope not for my taxes sake.

By building a separate diesel locomotive we can, of course, be more generous with the power and weight, since the train is only carrying the weight of the diesels on the unelectified section, not all over the country.

 

[Zoe]

I would agree with you, but we're not ordering something specifically for the Devon Banks. Either we're doing a 'cheap and cheerful' 57 conversion, which would obviously cost in timings, or a new build which could be as powerful as you want.

Or you could just retain HSTs on the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route (that can cope with the Devon banks) for up to another 25 years and use bi-mode IEP with underfloor engines for Swansea/Worcester/Hereford/Cheltenham.

 

[Bevan Price]

What it says on the tin. How can we pursuade the DfT that we need to do a propper job of wiring and allow InterCity rail to contribute to our 2030 and 2050 carbon reduction targets by not ordering any more diesel power units for trains that exceed 100mph?

This summer holiday, let us save the railway from the wastefull IEP bi-mode before DfT sign the order for bi-modes.

?

The problem for everyone is that when "THEY" have decided that their "good idea" is right, it can be almost impossible to stop "THEM" proceeding , no matter how good are any counter-suggestions. Hence, we have a Cambridge - St. Ives busway, and an even dafter proposal for a busway to take over the Leigh end of a closed railway, disgorging buses onto an already overcrowded road system for the final 7 or 8 miles into Salford & Manchester, when ideally the trackbed should be reinstated as a railway (that it was stuoid to close), or (second best) maybe as a Metrolink extension from Eccles.

So, whilst a steady 15 to 30 year pursuit of electrification of all except minor branch lines would be sensible, we are likely to be saddled with bi-mode trains because "THEY" have decided that it what the railways need.

 

[Greenback]

What time factor? I heard the rumour as well; that Phillip Hammond has been told it takes eleven minutes to attach or detach a locomotive. This is based on the time it takes 57s to attach to Pendolinos. However, the Pendolino was never built to be attached to a locomotive except in an emergency. Try telling those south of the Thames that it takes eleven minutes to attach or detach two trains!

I read that somewhere as well. I wish I could remember where, one of the magazines proobably. Seven minutes was given as a typical time. I don't know what tests were done, or on what evidence that time was based!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Or you could just retain HSTs on the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route (that can cope with the Devon banks) for up to another 25 years and use bi-mode IEP with underfloor engines for Swansea/Worcester/Hereford/Cheltenham.

Or you could go for the cheap, cheerful and enviromentally more sound solution for the routes where it works better and still retain IC125s on the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route. None of this would work without IC125s lasting much longer on that particular route.

The problem for everyone is that when "THEY" have decided that their "good idea" is right, it can be almost impossible to stop "THEM" proceeding , no matter how good are any counter-suggestions. Hence, we have a Cambridge - St. Ives busway, and an even dafter proposal for a busway to take over the Leigh end of a closed railway, disgorging buses onto an already overcrowded road system for the final 7 or 8 miles into Salford & Manchester, when ideally the trackbed should be reinstated as a railway (that it was stuoid to close), or (second best) maybe as a Metrolink extension from Eccles.

So, whilst a steady 15 to 30 year pursuit of electrification of all except minor branch lines would be sensible, we are likely to be saddled with bi-mode trains because "THEY" have decided that it what the railways need.

THEY decided they were going to sell off all the UK's forrests, THEY then amitted they got that one wrong. We need to make them see they have got IEP wrong. The question is how, how do we make them see that and how do we find the money for the extra wires that are needed (or at least show that, despite costing more capital wise the investment is much better value for money).

 

[Zoe]

Or you could go for the cheap, cheerful and enviromentally more sound solution for the routes where it works better and still retain IC125s on the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route. None of this would work without IC125s lasting much longer on that particular route.

Why not retain HSTs on the Worcester and Hereford also then as they will run a significant distance without wires. The Cheltenham route could also use HSTs that leaves only Swansea needing bi-mode.

 

[ainsworth74]

I read that somewhere as well. I wish I could remember where, one of the magazines proobably. Seven minutes was given as a typical time. I don't know what tests were done, or on what evidence that time was based!

I seem to recall that in Informed Sources (found within Modern Railways) it was determined that this 7 minutes figure was generated by civil servants in the DfT taking the time for a 390 and 57 to couple up and adding a few minutes 'just in case'.

His feeling (and several railwaymen he spoke to) was that in fact if you used a locomotive and EMU that were designed to work together day in day out (unlike the 390+57) you could do it in a couple of minutes maybe even less.

 

[tbtc]

Surely, as a Climate Scientist, you would object to electric trains using extra power to lug tonnes of dead metal (diesel engines) around under the wires so they can be fired up for the few extra miles when the wires end

I dunno why this argument (about the weight of carrying all that diesel fuel for bi-mode trains under the wires) has taken off so much, I see it everywhere.

Face it, for a train which is roughly 200m long (e.g. full length HST, Pendolino, 225, IEP, any long distance express), carrying maybe 500 people, the weight of the diesel tank isn't going to be *that* significant - its not like they have to haul a coal tender around.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It was originally to be a larger order completely replacing IC125's and most of the 225's as well. Was scaled back to just the GWML and a few for the East Coast.

Funny how we go round in circles - it was meant to be a larger order of 225s back in the 1980s, but by the time the order was finalised it was cut (with HSTs having to make up the difference) - something I really regret in hindsight given the distance East Coast HSTs have to do under the wires.

Plus ca change...

 

[starrymarkb]

Or you could just retain HSTs on the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route (that can cope with the Devon banks) for up to another 25 years and use bi-mode IEP with underfloor engines for Swansea/Worcester/Hereford/Cheltenham.

Will they last another 25 years? 65years service is a big ask....

 

[Rhydgaled]

Why not retain HSTs on the Worcester and Hereford also then as they will run a significant distance without wires. The Cheltenham route could also use HSTs that leaves only Swansea needing bi-mode.

Cheltenham route is under the wires a fair bit more than it is away from them I think and, if I was correctly informed way-back that the Severn Tunnel is closed nearly every Sunday, needs to be wired if Swansea is wired.

Retaining 125s on the Worcester and Hereford route would knock the cost of the extra Pendolinios (to cascade Voyagers) off my scheme and hence would be very helpfull. However, that went down badlly (due to frequent stops, a 2+8 set being too long over the Cotswolds and a 2+5/6 set being too short between Oxford and PAD) with the members with knowledge of that area when I suggested it on another fourm (almost as badlly as my suggestion of cutting direct London services over the line to just the Herefords and using 165s/166s on the other services). They suggested that pairs of 180s running PAD - Oxford with one unit continuing onto the Cotswolds line were needed, which led me suggest Voyagers since they could perhaps have a pantograph car added and are the nearest thing to 180s I could think of that you might be able to get enough of to run the service (all 14 180s would be needed if you took that path I think).

 

[159220]

Surely, as a Climate Scientist, you would object to electric trains using extra power to lug tonnes of dead metal (diesel engines) around under the wires so they can be fired up for the few extra miles when the wires end. A better solution is for the electric trains to be dragged by diesels for the extra bit. More 57 conversions would be a cost effective solution since, generally, the lines they would be working (Exeter - Penzance, Crewe - Holyhead etc) are comparatively low speed routes, well within design speed.

Why the IEP project came up with such a complex and expensive overall solution is difficult to understand. 125mph isn't cutting edge. There are plenty of options already out there in the market place.

Aren’t passengers truly the most inconvenient for a train efficiency! All that weight they are: Body mass, Luggage, Clothing, Mobiles, Coins etc. I call that we just get rid of all passengers on all electric trains as your making the train most inefficient!! lol

Im sorry to be sarcastic, but i just couldn’t resist. This argument about diesel engines being such a shocking high weight on an electric/bi-mode train is utterly ridiculous. Bi-mode is a brilliant idea, providing both forms of power, utilising either electricity or its own power anywhere within a network. Works across Europe, across the world. It can work here.

Saying Bi-mode SETs carrying around all that engine weight is like saying Hybrid cars are pointless and unnecessary.

Really though, the biggest factor in the way of cutting climate emissions are humans and our lifestyles. So lets accept that trains carry people, weighing countless tons...the weight of the train becomes insignificant as a whole and specifically engine and fuel weight. Train transport, like any mass transport from car sharing to ships is the most sustainable form of mobility.

Ps. If we must argue that the Bi-mode SET carrying the weight of engines and fuel under the wires is a weight we should do without, why are you not arguing also that a Bi-mode SET carrying electrical transformers etc when under diesel engine power is a weight we should do without?

I call for throwing off all passengers from all trains as they are an inconvenient weight! (joke!)

 

[Nym]

Saying Bi-mode SETs carrying around all that engine weight is like saying Hybrid cars are pointless and unnecessary.

Sorry, but they are... Fuel In = Miles out...

And most hybrids use just as much if not more fuel than their non hybrid counterparts...

Namely,
Toyota Prius: 45mpg tops.
BMW 320d Efficient Dynamics: 65mpg...

 

[asylumxl]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Petrol and Diesel are very different animals.

And the argument is even less valid in terms of DEMUs, as they already have the traction equipment onboard.

 

[Nym]

Yes, but if you want to argue about the other supposedly important thing, CO2 emissions, the new generation of Diesels with DPF and Catalysts beat it there too. Not to mention how much of a pain it is to make and dispose of batteries...

 

[asylumxl]

Yes, but if you want to argue about the other supposedly important thing, CO2 emissions, the new generation of Diesels with DPF and Catalysts beat it there too. Not to mention how much of a pain it is to make and dispose of batteries...

I'm not saying that hybrid cars are good and am aware of the reality of their flaws.

But, cars and trains can't really be compared. They just operate in a completely different manner.

 

[Nym]

Yes I know, check under my name on the left and you might be able to guess why....

Hybrid trains really won't work, too many batteries or flywheels needed, anyway, yeah, I don't think hybrid anything is the way forwards.

Bi Mode maybe, but it needs to be well designed, and we need to have a use for the bi-mode units long into the future, not just in the short term (remove the diesel units) but a long term use for them over the next 40+ years.

The extremities of the network will never be electrified so I suspect they will have a home there.

But I would also like to see the 22x fleet converted to bi-mode rather than making new units, as the life of LDPE Diesel Only units does seem to be extremely limited, I'd rather have an EDMU fleet converted from existing stock, having 30 or 40 years left in it (and also the ability to run at EPS speeds) rather than a brand new build, meaning that when the HST fleet is removed from service, there will only be one large and one small fleet of LDPE diesel stock left in the country. Namely 180 and 22x series units.

If the Midland Mainline where electrified then by 2025 (6 years from the GWML completion) the 222 fleet would no longer be needed there, nor would the HST fleet. Meaning that the entire fleet of HSTs can then be withdrawn. Non electrified services in the Great Western area would be operated by the 222 fleet, newly extended with their pantograph cars. The cascade and services would look like...

222/x fleet to ICGW, operating all off wires services.
220 fleet extended to 6 car EDMU units and remain in operation with ICXC, extra capacity would be appreciated I'm sure.
221 fleet remains split as is now, with all units extended to 6 or 7 car EDMU, (4 to 6 and 5 to 7), all of ICWC units to be the 7 car type. XC to have a mix as is now.
IXWC would have enough units to run their off wires services, some in doubled up formation, with additional 390s as required for on wires routes, and more services added to the route map, such as Euston - Birmingham - Shrewsbry etc.
XC may recieve some additional units from ICWC, but with the extra space on the units would re-instate a proper kitchen, and if some routes where electrified within the XC network, and the IEP dual voltage, use IEP units on these routes that are all electric. Such as Manchester - Reading - Heathrow?


PS: Favouring conversion of the 22x series isn't just wanting to put work at Derby, it's more to do with residual value. It will cost more to develop a new bi-mode unit for the IEP series, it will also mean more diesel LDPE stock kicking about, that simply won't be needed in large numbers soon if Electrification continues. If the Midland Mainline is completed to Leeds and Doncaster then there will be no need for as much Diesel stock as is proposed, it can all be covered by the 22x and 180 fleets.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If we must argue that the Bi-mode SET carrying the weight of engines and fuel under the wires is a weight we should do without, why are you not arguing also that a Bi-mode SET carrying electrical transformers etc when under diesel engine power is a weight we should do without?

I agree with that point a little. The majority of the gubins would probablly be needed on a DMU anyway but you are correct that the pantograph and a few other bits is unecessary weight off the wires just as a diesel engine is unecessary weight under the wires. This is why I jumped straight to suggesting push-pull LHCS on here, you can leave the loco with all the weight for the electric power system behind and swap it for a loco that has diesel engines but none of the electrical gubins it doesn't need. However, I think swapping locos at a through station takes more than double the time it would to do a drag. Thus this method is only practical in a few places where there is a long dwell time anyway (a reversal, which slows down attaching a loco for a drag slightly, helps a bit too).


That leaves us with dragging (or bi-mode) for most services. If you start with a DMU the extra weight you need to add to make a bi-mode is a fair bit less than the amount of weight you need to add to an EMU to make it into a bi-mode. That is why, if you are going to have a multiple unit and drag system, it generally will be an EMU dragged by a diesel loco rather than a DMU dragged by an electric. Weight is one problem with the bi-mode, the other is cost. Electrification is supposed to deliver reduced track and train maintenance costs. The track wear reduction is at least in part due to less weight, something you throw away with bi-mode, and the train maintenance saving is lost because you still have to maintain the diesel engines (though they'd be run less than if you ran DMUs under the wires).

Bi-mode does have its advantages over plain diesel trains, but proper electric trains have even more.

Bi Mode maybe, but it needs to be well designed, and we need to have a use for the bi-mode units long into the future, not just in the short term (remove the diesel units) but a long term use for them over the next 40+ years.

The extremities of the network will never be electrified so I suspect they will have a home there.

What do we call extremities? Swansea certainly isn't one. Pembroke Dock and Carmarthen are, but a very small fleet of diesel locos could cover the infrequent London trains (either dragging an EMU, which as I have said probablly cannot be an IEP, or swapping with 91s as I've suggested). Once you are running an Intercity train every hour, electrification starts to look like a better option (especially if there are local services in addition to that you can convert too).

But I would also like to see the 22x fleet converted to bi-mode rather than making new units, as the life of LDPE Diesel Only units does seem to be extremely limited, I'd rather have an EDMU fleet converted from existing stock, having 30 or 40 years left in it (and also the ability to run at EPS speeds) rather than a brand new build, meaning that when the HST fleet is removed from service, there will only be one large and one small fleet of LDPE diesel stock left in the country. Namely 180 and 22x series units.

I agree. As I have said, bi-mode is an improvment over a DMU, but not over an EMU. IEP could be a straight EMU, therefore sticking diesel engines in them is making them worse, however making 22xs into bi-modes is an improvment. I like this idea even more because IEP will, I think, be introduced about 15 years after the 22xs, which means the life-expiry date of the last Intercity DMUs would be 15 years earlier if you have the 22xs as your bi-modes rather than new IEPs.

 

[tbtc]

Favouring conversion of the 22x series isn't just wanting to put work at Derby

Since "British" Bombardier didn't build these "British" trains in Britain, I very much doubt they'd automatically build any extra coaches at Derby either.

Sorry to spoil their reputation as a "local" company...

 

[oattam09]

Can we keep quiet about the London Penzance line, the HSTs are lovely to travel on down here, and going past Dawlish on anything else would not be the same! They are more than capable on the banks too. I cringe at the thought of travelling on anything else...

 

[Nym]

Since "British" Bombardier didn't build these "British" trains in Britain, I very much doubt they'd automatically build any extra coaches at Derby either.

Sorry to spoil their reputation as a "local" company...

I know the're not british, but in their press release Bombardier stated that any extra carrages would be assembled in Derby IIRC, there is also the fact of everything else, mainly that we shouldn't be ordering any LDPE diesel units at all, electrifying the MML and converting the entire 22x series is a much better move. Then when XC needs capacity, electrification from Oxford to Coventry / Birmingham, and Reading down to bournemouth (where it would then change over to 3rd rail)

 

[anthony263]

Slightly off topic, but according to the western mail today, it seems the DFT forgot to take into consideration the local swanline, Maesteg and freight services from Margam when deciding whether or not to extend the wires to Swansea:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...mmed-as-flawed-over-omissions-91466-29485757/

Some in FGW have suggested about running a hourly electric service between Swansea & Bath

 

[Greenback]

Yes, the DfT has not made much emntion of the two hourly Swanline service, nor of the additional peak traisn to and from Swansea. Then again, perhaps they don't see a half hourly peak service as essential when the route is electrified?

I'm not sure how relevant the freight argument is. I suppose it depends on where the freight trains run to. If they can run throughout under the wires then it would have an impact, if they would have to switch to diesel then the benefits would reduce.

Maesteg is interesting, and so is the VoG. Are there any real plans to electrify either, should the wires continue to Swansea?

 

[anthony263]

Yes, the DfT has not made much emntion of the two hourly Swanline service, nor of the additional peak traisn to and from Swansea. Then again, perhaps they don't see a half hourly peak service as essential when the route is electrified?

I'm not sure how relevant the freight argument is. I suppose it depends on where the freight trains run to. If they can run throughout under the wires then it would have an impact, if they would have to switch to diesel then the benefits would reduce.

Maesteg is interesting, and so is the VoG. Are there any real plans to electrify either, should the wires continue to Swansea?

Not too sure, i know the vale of glamorgan line is set to be wired under the valley lines electification proposal. Again I am not too sure about the Maesteg branch although it would make sense. I think the report by network rail on wiring the valley lines is supposed to be released soon, so that will be an interesting read.


While they are doing that they should modify the layout at Bridgend so that there is acess to the vale of glamorgan line from both running lines rather than trains cutting through platform 1 at Bridgend. This would also make it easier for trains from the vale of glamorgan route to Maesteg or Swansea.

There are a couple of freights per day between Margam & Llanwern. which could go over to electric, might get more use out of the class 90's and 92's

I cant see them getting rid of the extra peak hour services from Swansea to/from London Paddington because that would cause majoy overcrowding on other services.

I like the propopsed Swansea to Bath service although this would mean that the departures to Manchester/Holyhead may have to be swapped so that Manchester trains leaves cardiff at 20 minutes past the hour, but no changes in the opposite direction.

Some of the peak hour services from Swansea to Bath may have to sit in Cardiff for up to 10 minutes however. I have managed to come up with a poroposed timetable for such a service which i will try and get typed up on excell later.

 

[Greenback]

I agree that it would not be a good idea to get rid of the peak services, but it wouldn't be the first ridiculous decision made by DfT!

It would be very sensible to rearrange Bridgend's layout as aprt of any electrification works. I look forward to seeing the timetable!

 

[exile]

The differences between bi mode and alternatives are rather less than could be realised by having a more flexible "consist" where coaches can be added and subtracted to relate more closely to demand. I suspect some 9 coach pendolinos are carrying half a dozen passengers or less per coach on some services, which works out at something like 10 tonnes deadweight per passenger, or the same as if each passenger was driving their own minibus.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Personally I think all the routes with local stopping services around Cardiff should be bundled into one "ValleyLines electrification" business case, that includes the following destonations, plus the Valleys themselves:

• Maesteg
• Swansea
• Ebbw Vale
• Vale Of Glamorgan
• Cheltenham Spa

That would mean Wales&Borders would have a fleet of electric units, which they wouldn't have if Swansea was electrified without the other routes.

I'd suggest doing things a bit differently with the proposed half-hourly Maesteg, Pencoed/Llanharan/Pontyclun and Vale Of Glamorgan services. I'd suggest they be achived by running the following hourly services

• Swansea - Cheltenham Spa (All Stations)
• Maesteg - Pontyclun - Ebbw Vale Parkway - Newport (All Stations)
• Maesteg - Barry - Aberdare
• Bridgend - Barry - Merthyr Tydfil

For the faster services between Cardiff and Swansea, see this. Page 11 is the interesting one, it says the hourly London-Swansea service will be fast (non stop Reading to Newport, hence no Bristol Parkway stop). Therefore I suggest another Swansea - Cardiff fast service (calling at Neath, Port Talbot Parkway and Bridgend), extending to Bristol by taking over that part of the Cardiff-Taunton path. Perhaps this could replace the half-hourly peak London service, or only run off-peak when the slower London train terminates at Cardiff. That would by necessity still be the same stock (I suggest a 377 as a basis) as the ValleyLines fleet, since the service doesn't justify a mico-fleet of electric regional express units.

Extending that Swansea - Bristol service to Bath is an interesting idea, but are there paths for that?

 

[Yew]

Just a thought, But could you have a system where each pendolino can be separated, with one end having a small sprinter style cab on the middle coaches. As they have 2 pantographs. So that either you could run two smaller trains. Or a train at half capacity. (during the daytime virgin only offer sandwiches and tea in first right? So they could have a little trolley area with a fridge and kettle So one half has the cafebar/buffet, and the other a trolley)

 

[Schnellzug]

Why would it make sense to scrap bi-mode? i can't see anyone in government, or anyone if it was left to a purely commercial decision, envisaging electrifying the Highland line or west of, say, Plymouth at least. What's the complaint with bi-mode anyway? Hauling around the weight of diesel engines & alternators'd hardly be a significant burden considering the power of modern electric trains, and on diesel you wouldn't be needing 200 km/h on the kind of routes envisaged, so isn't this something of a constructing mountains from molehills argument?