Great Western Coffee Shop

I am looking to write to FirstGW about the IEP, since they are supposed to be providing feedback to DfT and Hitachi on the design of the new trains it would be interesting to see what they think of the proposed reduction from 8-coach trains (IC125s) to 5-car IEP units. In particular, I'd like to know whether they have set up a ^Train User Review Group^ as I think was required in the canceled franchise sepecfication, and exactly what one of those is anyhow.

Who should I write to at FirstGW?

...or you could ask them what they think of the proposed extension from 8-coach 23m diesel trains to 9-coach 26m electric trains or 10-coach 26m coupled bi-mode sets?  Both of which I think will be a far more common sight on most routes and services than 5-car bi-mode ones.

I suspect standard class passengers will also appreciate the fact that IEP sets will have eight table bays per carriage in standard class.  ;D

You can read more about the spec from the DfT - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf Pages 76 and 77 have a bit more detail.

According to Roger Ford's article in the April edition of Modern Railways, the Greater Western IEP fleet specification has been changed since last Autumn because of the decision to extend South Wales electrification to Swansea. According to RM there will now be 8 x 8-car bi-mode IEOs in the GW fleet. This wwill certainly resolve some of the Cotswold Line worries as under the previous fleet proposals there would have only been 5-car IEPs in the fleet totally unsuited for peak hour Cotswold Line peak hour services currently run with often full to capacity with 8-car HSTs.

Grr!  I haven't got my copy delivered yet.  Could we have an embargo on MR articles until Friday please?   :D

Mine came in the post today.

The intercity variant had a 50/50 ratio of bays to airline seating in standard class in the 2008 version of the technical spec.   It has often seemed to me since reading that document that quite a few people have pre-emptively made their minds up that the train won't meet the spec before they've even seen one...

Paul

The IEP may meet the spec but Roger Ford has pretty comprehensively proved, over time, that it's the wrong spec.

I was only referring to the seating and internal layout in the above context...

Paul

Andrew I have read the same article and it definitely says that GW will be receiving 5 car Bi-Mode IEPs and 9 car electric IEPs.

In fact, the document I refer to in an earlier post is exactly the same one that Roger Ford references in his modern rail article.

If you read the article carefully, you'll note that he says at the bottom of page 26 the following in the IEP delivery table (my bold)....

I've got my MR copy now so you are all not annoying me any more.   ;D

I haven't read RF and his numerous tables properly (yet) but I do not understand why bimodes have to be 5 car and electrics 9 car.  Why can't they all be 5 car or the electrics 10 car (5 times 2)?  Surely that is more flexible?

Is it that a detached 5 car bimode can run on from a big place to a small place, that isn't electrified (yet!)?  However could not late-night all electrics be 5 car and early morning back 5 car?   

As far as I can tell, your assertion is incorrect. I am going from the September 2012 Modern Railways Informed Sources, where (under the heading: 'IEP - signed and sealed') the planned IEP fleet makeup was published, as follows:

• 5-car bi-mode - 32 diagrams, 36 sets
• 9-car 'electric' - 18 diagrams, 21 sets
• Total 50 -  50 diagrams, 57 sets

I threw together some timetables in Excel and came up with the following rough estimates for numbers of diagrams:
Under-Wires-Service Diagrams

• Oxford - Paddington (hourly) - 3 diagrams
• Cardiff - Paddington (hourly) - 5 diagrams
• Swansea - Paddington (hourly) - 6 diagrams
• Bristol - Paddington via Bath (half-hourly) - 7 diagrams
• Bristol - Paddington via Bristol Parkway (hourly) - 4 diagrams
• Total: 25 diagrams (note this means the above DfT order is 7 'electric' units short)

Beyond-Wires-Service Diagrams

• Weston Super Mare - Paddington via Brsitol Parkway (hourly) - 5 diagrams
• Cheltenham Spa - Paddington (hourly) - 5 diagrams
• Westbury - Paddington (hourly) - 4 diagrams
• Worcester - Paddington (hourly) - 5 diagrams (but some extend to Hereford, so 7 diagrams)
• Total: 21 diagrams (11 fewer than DfT have supposedly ordered, but apart from the Herefords no extensions beyond the regular service are included, since I think Carmarthens, Paigntons and Exeters might as well remain IC125 worked since other services on those routes will be.)

Grand total 46 diagrams versus DfT's 50. Assuming DfT's intentions to send IEPs to Carmarthen, Paignton and Exeter add two or three bi-mode diagrams, there's only one or two 5-car bi-mode diagrams left over to make up 10-car formations, and remember they are 7 9-car diagrams short of being able to run all the wholely under wires services with 9-car units. This probably means ALL IEP services that extend beyond the wires being 5-car throughout, with some under-wires diagrams also being 5-car bi-modes working alone.

If the fleet has changed to include some longer bi-modes, that'd be helpful.

I would personally say around 11 bi-mode IEP diagrams are needed, each at least 7-cars, for Westburys and Worcesters/Herefords. My opinion is the Cheltenhams and Westons should remain IC125 worked for a few years until wires can be extended to cover them, when the class 43s would be replaced with electric locos and new DVTs added on the other end.

Anyway, back to topic, who do I write to?

The "under the wires" to Oxford assumption you make is the fasts will be IEP units, elsewhere on the electrified network such journeys are done with EMU's

Roger Ford?

That's not meant to be facetious. But if his information is correct, rather than journalistic supposition, then he must have lines to Hitachi, DfT, the TOCs involved et al. I suspect though, if he has genuine sources who have given him the heads up on the composition, technical specifications, internal layout and diagrams, he won't be giving up those sources.

It's equally possible he doesn't have any more information than in is the public domain or his sources are only giving the limited current picture. Things can and do change. 

Once again, please read the document I linked to above. It is the very same document that Roger Ford is commenting about in his recent article.

With respect your figures are nothing more than guesstimates.  As 'Electric Train' says, I personally doubt that the Oxford-Paddington services will be operated by IEP's, and are much more likely to be 4-car (or 8 in the peaks) EMUs in whatever form we get them - especially if cleared for 110mph.  Also, I doubt Westbury to Paddington on an hourly basis will come to fruition in the final timetable - I can see occasional services from Westbury filling in the gaps for the HST services on longer distance routes as per now, and if (as may well happen) the wires extend to Westbury then a 4-car 110mph EMU operated service would again take my money if I was a betting man.

I can't see there being three trains an hour from Bristol to London throughout the whole day either - yes, until late morning and from mid-afternoon onwards, but all day?   I doubt it.  Also, diagrams don't work how you describe - sets end up going all over the place throughout the day in order to gain maximum efficiency from them, so perhaps less units will be required than your calculations suggest?  Also, do those calculations take into account the planned reduction in journey times?


All of which means the above quote, is, in my opinion, a little rash.  There will be some services where a 5-car Bi-mode will be adequate, even with a further increase in passenger numbers (off peak Cheltenham's and Worcester's, and late evening services from Cardiff and Bristol to London for example), but I'll stick with my previous comment, that I think the majority of Bi-Mode trains will be 10-car - at least for the busier part of the journey.

The current 2tph two BRI trains plus one via BPW. I've heard discussions at FGW and DFT people talking that.

I think Oxford fasts will be cascaded EMUs too, probably from 'Thameslink' stock (319s?), apart from those that go on to Cotwolds or Banbury, which will be 5car bi-modes (2x5 possibly to OXF, splitting there)

Is the 4 tph from Bristol (2 each way), first mentioned in the GW franchise consultation, definitely a non-starter now then?


Paul

oooh, I don't know....is the size of the currently-proposed fleet the same as was suggested in that piece you quote from?

Haven't a clue really - there's so many variants flying around.

I dare say the DfT are waiting for Rhydgaled to make his final decision...

Paul

No need to be sarcy Paul!   ;D 

As an example, if I am getting the 1430 from BRI to PAD in 2018, will it be a 5 car electric from Platform 1 or will it be a 10 car electric?  In other words, how much off peak variance is envisaged in capacity.  I mean, at present, the HSTs are all a standard 8 cars are they not (or is it 7, I am not an enthusiast   ::)  )?

BRI will have the 9car electrics. It was Oxford likely to have EMUs...

Ah, so the electrics will always be 9 car (sorry about the 10 car mistake), even if hardly anybody is on board, ever, at that time of day?

No difference from today's HSTs - except one more carriage.  That's the thing with fixed formation trains.

In that case they are very likely to be electric only, though any of the through services from Weston (and perhaps Taunton) will have to be bi-mode, though given they are likely to be peak trains then I would have thought they will be 10-car bi-mode trains (at least for the busy bit between Bristol and London).

Bi-mode IEPs will be serving the Cotswold line, so 1tph between Paddington and Oxford will be IEP and the other 1tph fast and the  2tph slow trains will be 110mph EMUs.

I thought the 2tph via Bath were going to be 9-car electrics and the 2tph via Parkway 5-car bi-modes. There aren't enough electric sets to have all the electric services actually formed of electric IEPs. 4 9-car trains an hour from Bristol-London each hour would obviously be a huge overkill at off-peak times anyway. There hasn't been any post-IEP timetable produced that I've seen yet but people do seem to be questioning whether some of the quoted frequencies and calling patterns are feasible. Squeezing an extra 2tph in from Swindon-London seems ambitious in the first place but IIRC the Swansea and one Bristol TM via Parkway service are also planned to be fast services, which uses up even more capacity.

That may be the conversation taking place when I heard mentions of 1 extra BRI via BPW, rather than two....


Yep, that's what I said about 6 posts abover yours!

You said that Oxford services would be cascaded EMUs, what I'm adding is that they'll be 110mph EMUs, which pretty much rules out anything cascaded (plus the other issues such as ETCS provision).

Looking ahead as to capacity overkill on the Bristol routes along with not enough paths on the GWML, I wonder if we might see trains splitting/joining in service as is a regular occurrence elsewhere on the UK railway.

Services could run as 10 car IEP to Swindon for example and then split in to two seperate services, one perhaps to Bristol TM via Bath and another to Cardiff. It's just an idea that seems to work well elsewhere.

NSE - please read the thread :-)

This is what I said, about 6 posts above the one I referred to!

I would have thought that the Westons would be better a 10 car combination of a 5 car electric with a 5 car bimode.  Pull into the present platform 3 at TM (more convenient for the planned new interchange, especially with the terminators being in the old trainshed).  Then uncouple with the Weston bimode half being at the front to go on to it.  I thought only a couple of trains were to go through to Weston anyway.  I suppose they could be the rear portion, arrive in the old trainshed and go out via the SPM Avoiding line and Pylle Hill, although perhaps that will not be electrified !.

Something else I've thought of.  Will the taxi rank be outside the old trainshed or remain at the top of the incline or will there be two taxi ranks? 

Surely the performance drag of the bimode is best halved?  (Perhaps better not to build them at all and just string the wires down to Weston?  Or, just couple up a class 67 to the Westons?  They could then run on down to Taunton.).

Another point is, if the electrics were 2 x 5, one could then run half trains in the off peak possibly?   Or one could do what was suggested above and split at Swindon, one half to Bristol and the other to Cheltenham or Swansea?

Are there to be two train managers on the 10 car bimodes?

Yes I have read your posts. Have you bothered reading my replies though? They won't be 319s! The EMUs will be new ones capable of 110mph which is the point I am making.

Thanks - Have these been specced yet, a la IEP sets? Where did you get that info from?

I thought the whole justification for the massive additional expense of the IEP bi-mode was to avoid coupling and uncoupling if they started splitting (and joining) trains that would demolish that argument.

My information is from the Great Western ITT. New EMUs should be capable of at least 110mph running. They must have provision for ETCS and SDO amongst other things which are suggested such as regenerative braking.

Now on a similar subject, whilst nothing has been explicitly said, Southern are currently procuring new EMUs and it has been stated that are not going to be used for their own services. These EMUs will be capable of AC and 110mph. Order size is for 29 to 54 four car units. The current GW Turbo fleet size is 57 units of 2 and 3 car. Some Turbos will need to be kept to service the North Downs line, Bedwyn and Greenford lines. I reckon that 54 EMUs operating on Oxford to Newbury along with the Basingstoke/Henly/Marlow/Windsor branches would provide a nice consistent 4 car off peak service along with 8 car, even 12 car peak trains from Oxford/Newbury to Paddington. I think there's a strong chance now that we have a GW management contract on our hands, that the DfT might be sending those EMUs to GW.

Separately, Porterbrook, the owners of the 319s have started looking at future options for the fleet. One of which is to have them re-geared and even shorted to three car length. With suburban stock replacement on the horizon on the lines out of Morgate and Victoria, I think there's more chance of the 319s appearing there than out of Paddington.

The IEP spec (TS1696) allows for trains to couple and uncouple in service within two minutes. The original argument in favour of bi-modes was that the DfT believed it would take nine minutes to couple a locomotive.

Agree with you that a 110mph 'new' EMU is likely to be used, but unless I've missed something, the ITT only stated that it was Network Rail's opinion that 110mph capable EMUs should be provided and that bidders should come to their own assessment of that view?  That is quite different from the 'definitely will' that you're confidently saying, even if the contents of the ITT can be regarded as relevant now anyway!

With regard to the Southern order, I agree that could very well be part of the longer term cascade plan (certainly more likely that the 319s originally pencilled in), but are they to be 110mph capable?  Again, I haven't seen the specific details confirming that, and the recent 110mph capable EMUs have all been provided by Siemens and not Bombadier who I think have yet to provide a 110mph capable suburban EMU.  Aren't Bombadier the shoe-in for this Southern order?

Not sure about Moorgate. I seemed to recall from when they were built (and a quick check on Wikipedia confirms it) that the 313s are slightly smaller than normal stock so they can squeeze into the tunnels. There are also some technical differences in the DC traction to comply with single tunnel underground regulations. Thus I would expect a new build would be more cost effective than attempting to convert existing stock, albeit more still more expensive than an off the shelf design.

The Southern press release (http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/procurement-of-new-rolling-stock/) says about the trains being 110mph capable (my bold):

I agree about what you say about Bombardier and 110mph running, however the Desiro wasn't 110mph off the shelf, and maybe it wouldn't take much more effort on Bombardier's part to produce a 110mph EMU?

My other thought was that as we know these units won't end up on Southern, whether it might be worth placing a bet on Hitachi. They are flavour of the month, and they'll be looking for more orders for Newton Heath and will been responsible for IEPs on the GWML. Could be some good synergies for them too perhaps?

Ahh, that's interesting.  I'm sure I read that press release, but didn't spot the 110mph bit.  That would, I reckon, make that order very possible to make its way onto GWML metals then as it's just about perfect!


That's another good point.  Compatible couplers would be a start synergy wise...  ;)

I wonder whether Hitachi would want to be ramping up a production line for a (relatively) small order in parallel with IEP production. Bombardier on the other hand would just run on from the existing emu order which I think finishes around the end of the year. Although that would imply availability prior to GW being sparked, units could be used on the Thameslink to enable a cascade to the NW as that project makes progress. And it could also enable 319s to be released for refurbishment for wherever they end up.

In terms of speed, I suspect making the units 110mph from the get-go will be simpler than the conversion work Siemens had to do to backfit the 350 fleet.

The DfT have decided that although it apparently takes 9 minutes to couple a locomotive to a unit it only takes 2 to couple two IEPs. The 9 minute example of course came from coupling a Class 57 to a Class 390, a bit of a cumbersome process that was never really designed to take place in service. There is no reason why a new build locomotive designed to couple quickly to an IEP unit couldn't couple as quickly as another IEP could. The Foster Review of IEP's alternative credible solutions were defeated on this phantom 9 minute coupling time.

Yes, and two sets of catering crew. So double the staffing costs. You also lose vast amounts of space because of need for the crumple zones in the two end vehicles formed in the middle of the set.

On the first point, Roger Ford of MR has written that 'Stephen Hammond was 'duped'.  It was all a mandarin's way of not extending the wires to Swansea.

On the second, this gets worse on the face of it doesn't it?  Perhaps two catering crews could be needed at busy mealtime trips.  In fairness, GW trains stop every 15 - 20 minutes or so, so a trolley person could work forward, then  nip out into the next set every other stop!  On some runs where fare evasion is rife, perhaps a qualified guard / TTI would do good business in each set?

I suggested coupling a class 67 to the 5 cars to Weston and further SW (all electric in my scenario, not 9 car only).  Could there be any conceivable reason why that cannot be technically possible or undesirable?
 

 

You'd require compatible couplers. The Class 57s which are used to rescue Class 390s, and were used to drag them in service had the same Dellner couplers as the Class 390s have. It's unlikely Class 67s will have the same couplers as IEP units. A new build of diesel locomotives designed for the job could have the same coupler and handle all brake and ETH connections through the coupler head, negating the need for further brake or ETH pipes to be connected between the IEP and the loco.