Dripping IEP attempts to pair with Maidenhead juice; can't get it up.

[Pilot]

and I believe the 22xs could be easily converted.

There certainly was a proposal to convert the Voyagers to Bi-Modes a few years back, however, it was never followed through with. Certainly would have helped to ease Capacity issues on the XC routes somewhat as well if it had gone ahead. Virgin's fleet of 221s used to do the Birmingham to Edinburgh services, all the way under the wires, always thought that was a waste for them. They now seem to have been concentrated on the North Wales Coast now though, so at least they have a use for the diesel power.

You can read a little more about the proposals, and perhaps why they didn't go ahead here.

[JamieLei]

If we go back 5 years, there was immense opposition to the idea of bi-mode. Partly because of the obvious impacts on the business case for electrification (Modern Railways indeed wrote an article a few months ago titled, 'Bi-Modes killed my electrification'. And then also because carrying round loads of heavy diesel, only to use it on the last appears wasteful.

I'm not an engineer, but I think it has to do with the evolution of DEMUs. The e-Voyager plan sounded attractive because the trains already have electric motors in them (hence they're a DEMU, not a DMU). This means that the only function of the diesel engine is to produce electric power; as opposed to producing movement. If you already have an electric motor, then why not modify it to be able to take an electric feed directly.

Why didn't we have AC bi-modes before? After all the Class 73s have been around for donkeys years. Makes sense...and I believe the 22xs could be easily converted.

Again not an engineer, but I suspect that AC traction has come on leaps and bounds, hence why the Cl.455s are being re-tractioned as AC rather than DC. I don't understand the reasons why, but it must be better in some way.

[Chris]

If we go back 5 years, there was immense opposition to the idea of bi-mode. Partly because of the obvious impacts on the business case for electrification (Modern Railways indeed wrote an article a few months ago titled, 'Bi-Modes killed my electrification'. And then also because carrying round loads of heavy diesel, only to use it on the last appears wasteful.

I think the main downsides of bi modes are that capital costs of the rolling stock are higher, running costs are higher, maintenance is more expensive and the units will be less reliable. Also the higher weight of the units leads to higher track wear.

Essentially bi modes are the cheapskates option to avoid electrification - costs are low in the short term but over the long term will be higher.

[JamieLei]

I don't necessarily think that all electrification is equal however. Electrifying a bit of a 4-train railway with 20 trains per hour per line is obviously a fantastic business case. But a two track railway with 3 trains per hour, probably has a poorer business case. And despite what Labour were saying recently about there being 'absolutely no downsides whatsoever in the construction phase', try asking the people living next to - and using the line - how much they enjoy their weekend service being decimated for a few years

I'm not against electrification; generally personally for it. But it's recognising that some bits of electrification have stronger strategic and economic cases than others.

[Dave]

And unless you’re going for POWER OF INFRASTRUCTURE shots, it buggers every photo you’ll ever take.

[Kevo00]

Last week's 'Azuma' test run to Inverness seems to have got the enthusiasts foaming on the 'Scottish Railways' Facebook page. But it appears to have been a success, running a very long way without wires on the Highland Main Line.