Great Western Coffee Shop

From another forum,"An interesting answer from the Minister, Chris Mole on 28 January
2010. It looks as if the pre-series IEP has been cancelled".

'Norman Baker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport
what estimate his Department has made of the financial savings that
would result from cancelling (a) the East Coast pilot fleet of the
Inter-city Express Programme and (b) the Inter-city Express Programme
East Coast depot. [314076]

Chris Mole: The 'pilot fleet' or Pre-Series Trains concept no longer
applies.

Roger Ford's Informed Sources preview out today now has the first batch of IEP described as 'Package 0', and it seems to be for '1 for 1' replacement of the ECML HST fleet, with full length bi-modes. 

The original 'pre series' idea provided for a selection of different train lengths and modes.

There is then package 1, ECML 180 DMU and Cambridge/Kings Lynn 365 replacement.

Packages 2,3 and 4 then cover the GWML and its electrification.

Apparently there are further changes to the design to be discussed in forthcoming articles, presumably these will provide the detail on stuff like the 2nd transformer in the full bi-modes, which has been mentioned recently.

Not really relevant to this area, but he is suggesting that the cancelled order is the remaining Pendolino lengthening, which is only an option.

Paul

Let's hope that all this untried technology works pretty well out of the box then!  At least the users of the WCML won't be the first route to have to iron out any teething problems on.

I'm not sure how much really will be untried technology. Apart from the diesel generator, surely nearly eveything else on the train can be found on the 395s ruunning on HS1, or on other Japanese trains?  Intercity style doors on the corners are the main visible detail not present on the 395s - hardly cutting edge technology?

Paul

Well that is really short sighted IMHO if that is the case. The production line is open so why not invest in future capacity and finish the job by lengthening the entire fleet. To do it later would be a huge cost and therefore unviable.

It's more about the reliability of the diesel engine on the bi-mode trains - only one engine needs great reliability. With HST's you can struggle on with one engine most of the time and Adelantes/Voyagers (and to a lesser extent Turbos/150/158's etc.) regularly suffer engine failures which aren't really noticeable due to the other engines on the train.

Also, the on train systems will need to be able to adapt with being powered from the wires one minute and the diesel generator the next - pretty much unproven on a high speed train as far as I know?

We'll see - hopefully the temptation to over-engineer the train (as with the Adelante) will be resisted, but with these trains being unique in some areas, to expect them to work out of the box might be asking a little too much?

Looks like DafT has finally noticed what a monster they have created, though apparently the delay is all the fault of the financial markets

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8538222.stm

Lord Adonis's statement

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/adonis20100226

Nice high-powered, reliable, work-out-of-the-box German electric locomotives and new hauled coaches anyone?

It's a nice idea but I reckon they'd get some unplanned re-gauging the first time they encountered one of our bridges or tunnels...

Lets just order some trains similar to 395s, and get the knitting up. Job done.

while they are at it reinstate the order for 172's plus add on some more to improve capacity and enable older rubbish like pacers and 153's to be scrapped (talking great western region here)

Far too sensible, we'd be better spending ^x billion on consultations about possible train designs with as much exotic equipment as possible.  :-X

I hope that what is basically a souped-up Japanese suburban emu isn't the future of intercity rail travel in the UK. Even extending the life of HSTs yet again has got to be better than that.


Both Bombardier and Siemens have indicated they would have no trouble shrinking down their current standard European electric loco designs into UK loading gauge bodies if it was worth their while to do so. Eurostar is of course a shrunken TGV, Virgin Pendolinos are a shrunken version of the Italian original, and the body of an SET coach was planned to be almost as big as those of the tilting versions (diesel and electric) of German ICE trains. Give someone a big enough order and they'll do what's needed to squeeze under British bridges.

IF DafT hadn't taken what began life as an HST replacement programme and tried to solve just about every rolling stock issue going, from replacing outer-suburban London commuter trains to the HST and Class 91s, come up with frankly bizarre stuff like fitting diesel shunting engines into express electric trains and defying the laws of physics when it came to the supposed performance of the bi-mode version running on diesel power, then we would probably have ordered some new trains, based on proven technology, several years ago, with the prospect of some of them entering service in the near future, rather than the UK taxpayer and assorted trainbuilders wasting time and countless millions of pounds, euros and yen on the railway equivalent of reinventing the wheel.

All this delay because of one man waiting when its best for him to call a general election. I don't want to go off topic but if there is one thing the Americans have got so right is fixed terms between elections. This country needs to have an election so whoever forms the next government can get on with this and many other issues that need sorting that are kicked into the long grass until it suits Gordon to give us our say.

There's an interesting documentary doing the rounds one on of the channels on Sky about the KTX (Korean Express Train), the first build of trains for their new HS line, opened in in 2004, was basically an enlarged TGV (picture of one of the beasts here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/KTX.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/KTX.jpg) ).  Though a forward thinking country like Korea already has a newer model already on the tracks and a third generation 400kph+ model making its d^but in the near future.  Their initial line from Seoul to Busan is about 200 miles in length, so not too dissimilar to a line from London to Manchester and on to Leeds that the Tories have been pushing, and has been built on very challenging terrain.


I actually thought that was quite a sensible idea as it would provide enough power to get the train to the nearest station in the event of overhead power failure, or off of the main line in the event of a power connected train failure, or to be able to move itself within the confines of a non-electrified depot or sidings.

While I am no Labour voter, and have no time for that fool we currently have "leading us", it was pretty obvious that after he bottled calling an election after Blair left, and his continued unpopular rating, it was never going to be anything but a 5-year term.  The same applied of course to John Major in 1997.

Having said that, I do agree with you re: fixed terms, and perhaps a mandatory election if there is a change to the party-leader.

It is a shame, that the only positive thing I have to say about Labour in the last 13 years is Lord Adonis, but there is no guarantee he wouldn't be "moved" in the cabinet if Labour won.

Well if it's such a great idea, why hasn't anyone else built a high-speed electric train like this? Maybe they expect them to run on electric power and can't see the point of lugging around several tonnes of engine and fuel on the off-chance they might be needed now and again in an emergency.

Or maybe once again we're right and everyone else in the rest of the world is wrong.

The Chinese have - the Polaris, at a cost of around ^1 million per carriage, about half the price of a Super Express coach:

http://www.csre.co.uk/intercity.html

http://www.csre.co.uk/files/Download/2009%20Polaris%20Data%20Sheet.pdf

A small engine and a small fuel tank (or even perhaps a battery supplied system) would be plenty sufficient for a 10mph top speed and enough fuel for, say, a 20 mile range - also the ability to provide emergency lighting and ventilation for a couple of hours in the event of a power failure - whilst appreciating that a diesel engine would not be allowed in the tunnel, how Eurostar passengers would have loved to have that little luxury over the Xmas shambles! 

Power failures cause massive disruption to electric trains, you don't have to do much searching to find plenty of quotes.  Here's a few from around the world:

"On May 25, 2006, Amtrak was hit by a power failure. The electric Acela Express and Acela Regional trains were left stranded wherever they where, including four trains stuck in the North River Tunnel under the Hudson River in New York and one in the B & P Tunnel in Baltimore."

"In Germany, Cologne-Bonn airport lost power and had to rely on an emergency generator, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported, citing a spokesman for the Cologne city government. The German rail system also suffered, with at least 100 trains stranded carrying more than 1,000 people, Agence France-Presse reported."

"In France, the power cut stopped a dozen high-speed trains for about half an hour, according to SNCF, France's national train operator."[/size]

And this one from the Railway Gazette website hints that it's not just a wacky idea we've cooked up...

"Japan's railways are demonstrating how lithium-ion batteries and double-layer capacitors can save energy, reduce diesel emissions, and even keep electric trains moving where there is no power source"


How many thousands of delay minutes might have been saved in Britain over the years?  On the ECML especially when the wires once again come down at Sandy, and fully laden trains have to sit there for hours!  In terms of the overall train weight for a full length train the added weight might be worth the sacrifice? 

I think it's a sensible idea to at least look into seriously (it might turn out not to be a great idea, but then that's not what I said).  Just because the rest of the world hasn't done something doesn't always mean it's not a good idea in principle and that we can't be successful innovators and help the evolution of the high speed train (a pretty recent phenomenon, after all) along a little.

Oh, and your increasingly belittling replies to anyone who may have a different opinion to yours, do your well reasoned and sensible arguments on most topics no favours at all!

As a former resident of Sandy for many years I appreciated your reference. You wouldn't want to sit there for 20 minutes let alone many hours. Though I spent many happy hours at the level crossing just north of the town entertaining two toddlers to give their mother a break. We once saw 13 trains pass without the barriers being lifted, much to the irritation of the waiting motorists.    ;D   

A few thoughts:

1. Auxilliary diesel power: This wouldn't be usable with the wires down because the route would be physically obstructed by broken wires and queueing trains. Loss of power at the Feeder Station mostly means switching it out and supplying its OLE from adjacent Stations through the neutral sections and operating trains at reduced power.

2. Cancelling(?) IEP: Either we need full TGV speeds with one of the several alternative train lengths possible or c125mph will do on existing lines. 125mph should be possible now with emu operation - perhaps something like the 442's, ("Wessex Electrics") might be practicable, 2, 5-car units in multiple, if power collection can be solved. That would give 10 cars, 25% more than a 125, for much the same length but much better performance.

OTC

Maybe instead of spending the money on IEP, it is inevitable that the HST is going to be life extended so why not invest a large amount of the money to allow them to run at 125mph through improving infrastructure. That way in the future when a re-thought IEP programme is actaully going to be fulfilled it can be used to its full potential.

No, that's a bi-mode train, like the bi-mode IEP. What we're talking about here is sticking a small diesel engine in the electric version of the IEP for, as Insider says, very short, low-speed moves.

I don't dispute that electric power failures cause disruption, just that if it's such a crippling problem, then surely other railways, with far more extensive electrification, thus far more risk of being disrupted by power failures, would have done this years ago.

And the flawed cost-cutting design of the ECML overhead on four-track sections, meaning a dewiring on one line can cripple all the others, is the fundamental problem at Sandy and other places. The money would be better spent on sorting out the overhead than buying diesel engines.

The current thinking and proposed designs for OHL is not to use Mk3 headspan (that is the type of OLE used on MML and ECML) but to use either portals or single structures to reduce the risk of multi track dewirements

In view of the acknowledged problems with Mk 3 headspan, is it not technically possible to use the existing uprights to carry different catenary support equipment?

Paul

Not that easy on an operational railway, measures are being taken to improve the reliability of headspans

I asked a collegue who worked on the overhead design for the channel tunnel rail link about this. She said that the problem with the BR Mk 3b OLE (that's the wires put up in the 1980's) was that it was lightweight and had poor component quality (HM Treasury again). The French system was therefore used with their spec's. They do still use headspan (wire supports) rather than portals (effectively metal bridges.). The heavier nature can be seen on the similar Heathrow express system.

If NR up-specs to portals, this will probably price electrification out for good.

Still, portals could be roofed over to make a marvellous cycle route from London to Scotland...

OTC