Great Western Coffee Shop

Has there been any offical word on the Pembroke Coast Express, one of the services which highlights how flawed the IEP idea is?

Well it would be great to see electrification to Cheltenham, Worcester/Hereford and to Penzance as well as the cross-country route to link Bristol - Birmingham -Nottingham - Sheffield which would save us from this bi-mode malarkey.

Also, would be a good use of public money instead of the High Speed rail link to Birmingham.

The construction train being built will electrify 1.6 Km in an 8-hour shift. Bristol to Penzance is about 250 Km, meaning less than 6 months for the lot, if you do it in one go. Make electrification an ongoing project, and you will only need electric trains next time round.

What will happen in reality is that the current project will be finished in 2016, and the government will crow about the flash new trains on the GWR. In 2040, they will be given yet another refurb, as passengers begin to protest about them being slow and dirty. Provision of a new fleet will be put out to tender. Then there'll be another general election, and the incoming lot will cancel that because the outgoing lot spent all the money. Someone will say "If only we had electrified the whole line in 2012, we wouldn't need hybrid nuclear / clockwork now". Sound familiar?

The December Structural Reform Plan updates were published on the No 10 website today.

The DfT plan notes on page 4 that 'Delays to securing planning permission and the need to conclude commercial discussions with the Agility Trains consortium and their banks has resulted in a delay to commercial close of May 2012.'

http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DFT-srp-december-20111.pdf (http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DFT-srp-december-20111.pdf)

Good. Scrap the Bullet Poo-tube Shinkansen Railbus idea completely and use the ^20k per vehicle per month (in excess of the leasing costs for whats being used now) into buying something decent in electric only format. Keep HST's running until the wires extend to Swansea & Plymouth (including diversionary routes) and more of the something decent is built to replace them.

If we have to have EMU's then might I suggest a class 180 bodyshell mounted on B5000 bogies, powered with the Pendolino package? I'd prefer Alstom AGV but I suspect thats a step forward too far.

I'd suggest that the 'something decent in electric only format' could still be a Hitachi product to keep them sweet (Alstom considered legal action when Semiens got the contract for new Eurostar trains didn't they, and they were never even given prefered bidder status), and keep the politition's promises of the Newton Aycliffe assembly plant.

Also from WNXX tonight is that the for the new GW franchise holder has been delayed til Jan/Feb2013.

Sorry, anthony215: I don't quite follow that?  :-\

I thought the contract was extended slightly until the end of April 2013, because of the Easter blockade?

That is what I had thought however it seems other people including some who are normaly correct have said it has been pushed back to July 2013 so i am trying to get a firm answer.

Date quoted for GW franchise implementation is now 21-07-2013. Design freeze for IEP now quoted as being around December 2012. One would hope that they are going to get some kind of dimensionally correct 'Mock up' of the interior on display at some point before that for passengers and user groups to try for size and pass comment on. Remember folks that this is the future of long distance travel on the GW.

From the same normally very accurate source over at wnxxforum.com;

I very much look forward to seing the mock up hitachi come up with if they do decide to build one.

Just think Voyager with a higher floor, a longer whippier wobbly body and an even larger gin palace engine under the coach. You won't be far out...
 >:(

I suspect you have more chance of knitting fog. DfT appear to be presenting IEP to the TOC's as a fait accompli, with that in mind I very much doubt the end users of the rail service, the passengers will get any input into the interior layout etc.

Just think Voyager with a higher floor, a longer whippier wobbly body and an even larger gin palace engine under the coach. You won't be far out...
 >:(

I thought the contract was extended slightly until the end of April 2013, because of the Easter blockade?

I'm just imagining the posts that would have been made on this (and other) forums if the internet was around in the early to mid 70's (yes TJ, I know about ARPANET before you pipe up  ;))

There would have been posts decrying the introduction of these new fangled HSDTs on the 'Western' and rose tinted descriptions of how great the then current rolling stock and locomotives were. Heck, I'd've probably joined in by saying I was sad to see the Diesel Hydraulics going off to the knackers yard.

Embrace the future I say. Look forward to the new. I am.  :D

That's said, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that IEP isn't Voyager MK2!

Ancient Chinese curse it says "May you live in interesting times."  ;) :P ;D

Embrace the future I say. Look forward to the new. I am.  :D

That's said, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that IEP isn't Voyager MK2!

Ancient Chinese curse it says "May you live in interesting times."  ;) :P ;D

Two nods to modern rolling stock design:

1)  The 180s.  I'd forgotten just how much leg room you get in standard class.  For my money the right combination of tables and airline seats for a long distance train and all seats having a good view out of the window.  Though in many ways a lovely carriage, Mk2's with nothing but table seats were not so good when you wanted to have a little privacy and not play footsy with the person opposite.  Oh, and I hate fixed armrests!

A year or two ago , a locomotive hauled train of (I think MK2 coaches) ran regularly from Taunton
Many passengers believed that this was "all first class" or looked in vain for steerage. Being presumably used to modern DMUs, they could not believe that the large and well spaced seats, every seat at a table, could be steerage class !
No doubt they enjoy the modern DMUs now used in that service.

It's official, Thanks to Uncle Roger for the information.

IEP has won the HST replacement contract.

Make up of the order to be confirmed. Following so-called standstill period to be signed 20th July.

IEP appears to be an inevitability now. From a normally impeccable source on WNXX;


Some positive murmurings about OHLE to Swansea though.

Not a cause for regoicing at all in my view.
Mainline services to be downgraded to DMUs, even if these can also use electric power.
I stand by my earlier remarks about the likleyhood of bus style seating layout, reduced legroom, minimal catering, and shorter trains.
Voyager mark 2 :'(

Unless someone has protested, the IEP contact has been awarded. Suspect that DfT may save the announcement for the GW franchise ITT launch

It's interesting to note that noises from Govt. regarding HS2 have recently gone decidedly quiet. The cynic in me sees the Govt. saying, 'look what we're doing for the existing rail network'.

No mention whatsoever for HS2 in Network Rail's next Control Period......

Looks like it's going ahead then (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/07/25-intercity-express-gets-green-light.html)

Can't see why anyone ever thought it wouldn't go ahead. 

Lots of hot air in rail forums was never going to stop the DfT.

(Fixed your link by the way...)

The DfT official announcement is here:  http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20120725a/

Paul

Provision of 21x 9-car electric trains and 36x 5-car bi-mode trains for Great
Western Main Line into passenger service each weekday (369 vehicles)
Provision of 12 x 5-car electric trains, 10 x 5-car bi-mode trains and 13 x
9-car bi-mode trains into passenger service each weekday for East Coast
Main Line with an option for a further 30 x 9-car electric trains. (227 vehicles
with options for a further 270 vehicles)
http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/medialibrary/2012/07/25/a69090fb/20120725-Hitachi_announces_financial_close_of_IEP_FINAL.pdf

and no compromise on leg-room

That bit should please 'Broadgauge'!

We shall see !
"No compromise on leg room" when compared to what ? a modern high density suburban multiple unit probably !
Probably just slightly worse than an "improved" HST, and a lot worse than a proper HST.

I doubt that a 5 car bi mode will be an improvement over an 8 car HST, and yes I know that in theory two 5 car units can be attached, but experience with voyagers and adelantes suggests that single unit operation will be the norm.

How will a station like Oxford cope with IEPs splitting into two bits?

Quite often, a XC Voyager is hot on the heels of a FGW service and commuters won't be pleased if they have to queue outside the station to wait for the uncoupling, especially if they are standing (common on XC).

Rather than a "range of options" which does not really mean anything at all, I would like to know the following hard facts
1) what % of seats, in each class, will be facing seats at tables, and what % will be bus style.
2) What is the seating pitch in inches/cm, for the bus style seats, and is this more, or less than on a proper HST, in each class
3) At the table seats, what are the dimensions of the table, and are these dimensions greater or smaller than on a proper HST
4) At the table seats, what is the gap between seat and table edge, and is this greater or less than the gap on existing trains.
5) What is the internal width of the vehicle at table height and at 1M above table height , and is this more or less than on an HST.

6) Will there  be a proper kitchen, suitable for preparing full, freshly cooked meals on board.

They'd have to operate the timetable differently - it isn't a big deal, happens routinely all over the 'Southern'.

If growth in passenger numbers continues, then a 9 car new train will be MORE overcrowded when introduced than an 8 car HST is at present.

You could also run 2x5 cars.  I expect that the limiting factor is more likely to be platform length rather than train length. 

I think Mr Roger Ford is going to be busy over the next few days having a look through this if he hasnt already.

More tables than an FGW HST or XC Voyager?  That cannot be serious.  What will broadgage possibly make of it?

Paul

*Why do you need 2 disabled toilets (or "easy access" as the new PC word) on a 5 car train...
*Why more than 1 uneasy access toilets per coach...
*... when there is room for just 2 bikes and NO guard's van for luggage (4 bikes on a 8/9 car train)

We're making the same mistakes again! Surely it is now widely agreed that there needs to be a decent sized van for luggage and bikes!

FGW HSTs currently have two toilets per coach, having any less would seem a bad thing to me.

*... when there is room for just 2 bikes and NO guard's van for luggage (4 bikes on a 8/9 car train)

Surely it is now widely agreed that there needs to be a decent sized van for luggage and bikes!

Says who?  And where are they widely agreeing it?  ::)

I can't See any point of a 5 car set, I would of thought they learnt the lessons when they bought the Adelante.

Guy

Where will surfboards be held in the summer on Newquay services?

... has anyone addressed the question of platform clearance at stations which are on a curve - e.g. Worcester Foregate Street?  The extra 3 metres coach length could cause problems, especially with the gap between the train and the platform.

Gauge clearance for IEP on the following GWML sections and other associated routes:
Core routes:
o London to Cardiff/Swansea;
o London to Bristol/Weston Super Mare/Taunton;
o London to Gloucester/Cheltenham;
o London to Oxford/Worcester/Hereford; and
o London to Newbury/Westbury/Exeter;
Diversionary routes
o Westbury to Bath Spa;
o Gloucester to Severn Tunnel Junction;
o Cardiff to Bridgend via Barry;
o Castle Cary to Exeter via Yeovil; and
o Reading to Waterloo. :o

Great, so they'll have to shave off some of the platform at WOF. So how big will that make the gap? At the moment it's around 2 feet wide and 2 feet up on platform one.

Why not just keep the HSTs and 180s?

I think the HSTs will be life expired ere too long, although I think they were/have been brilliant. But there's no reason decent size guard's vans (or equivalent) couldn't be built in. Trouble is nobody cares about cyclists and there's no mail/parcels to carry any more because it mostly goes by road/air. Mad......

Why not just keep the HSTs and 180s?

I bet that in the 1960s there were people, probably btline's forebears, asking what was wrong with the steam engines. You got to move with the times, my friend.

Indeed, we need a decent replacement, with more seats, more luggage space, higher top speed, faster acceleration and improved comfort.

Indeed, it seems as seats have to be uncomfortable these days! Never mind about DVT, as long as they are safe in the event of a crash.

Nothing wrong with Driving Van Trailers, all sorts of bulky items may be conveyed therein !
All new trains should have them !  :)

I bet that in the 1960s there were people, probably btline's forebears, asking what was wrong with the steam engines. You got to move with the times, my friend.

Speaking of platform lengths has it been determined if 2 x 5 car IEP (260 metres) will fit into the platforms at Paddington yet, bearing in mind a 2+8 HST is only 218 metres long and a 2+9 is only 231 metres long....

When BTLine mentioned "DVT" my mind immediately thought he was referring to "Deep Vein Thrombosis", one of the medical conditions you can get from sitting in squeezed up seats on public transport, usually thought of as applying to aircraft but also to trains. I did not evben think that "DVT" meant Driving Van Trailers".
Perhaps we could be clearer when using abreviations that could have different meanings such as David Cameron's use of "LOL".

When BTLine mentioned "DVT" my mind immediately thought he was referring to "Deep Vein Thrombosis", one of the medical conditions you can get from sitting in squeezed up seats on public transport, usually thought of as applying to aircraft but also to trains. I did not evben think that "DVT" meant Driving Van Trailers".
Perhaps we could be clearer when using abreviations that could have different meanings such as David Cameron's use of "LOL".

I think Broadgage was taking the Michael but sadly a little too subtle I think!!!

Chilterns refub is only what fgw should have done in the first place.

Chiltern have refurbished their Mk3's for a further 15 / 20 years use hence the greater scope of the modifications. I understand some of the toliets have had to come out to make way for the power operated doors, which may not neccessarily be a good thing.

And importantly, Chiltern aren't using locos that are nearly 40 years old.

And importantly, Chiltern aren't using locos that are nearly 40 years old.

Couple of IEP related jobs at FGW going if anyone interested:

https://firstgroup.hua.hrsmart.com/ats/js_job_details.php?reqid=5888 - IEP Service Delivery Project Manager
https://firstgroup.hua.hrsmart.com/ats/js_job_details.php?reqid=5886 - Project Interface Manager (IEP and Electrification)

If anything the GRP driving cabs are probably the weakest point now.

Chiltern Railway's multi million pound refurbishment has included installing automatic doors between coaches, which cuts out all the noise. There is no need for vestibule doors, as the new exterior doors keep out the noise and there are no openable windows. This also prevents doors slamming onto commuters as they queue with their luggage to alight.

There is no need for 2 toilets per carriage - that's overkill. Chiltern have removed one to allow for these improvements.

Some luggage racks have gone, but cases can be slid between rows of seats, thanks to Chiltern's excellent layout of all tables. The overhead racks also take a lot more than most modern trains.

There is no need for 2 toilets per carriage - that's overkill.

Southern Stag mentioned about coach A on FGW HST sets where the toilet was removed to be used as a trolley store. Didn't FGW say they were going to put that toilet back once it was decided to discontinue at seat trolley service in Std?

Wasn't there talk of some work on a new cab being designed after 43041 hit a tree, near enough destroying the cab?.

I have seen one Coach A with the toilet reinstated but that's it. The new Coach Es, converted from buffet carriages, only have one toilet, the other area being used for extra luggage space.

I've never had to queue excessively long for loos on Chiltern or other TOCs with one toilet or LESS per coach.

If anything the GRP driving cabs are probably the weakest point now.

I have encountered one First class 'coach H' trailer with the power car end toilet reinstated as well.

With one coach per toilet I fear that the toilets are going to run out of water on Penzance services. It's not that unusual currently to find a toilet out of water in Cornwall but there are plenty of the train to choose from.

Yes, but just because London to Penzance is longer, it doesn't mean there is a double need for loos.
Chiltern also have fewer seats per coach.

One per coach is still enough in my opinion. Esp with an indicator in the coach so you can see if it's occupied. Until I see queues on Virgin/XC/Chiltern I'll won't change my mind.

Isn't the ex-toilet in Coach H actually used for other purposes though, unlike the ex-toilet in Coach A. Train Managers seem to be able to use it to make PA announcements and to contact the driver. Mainly used on the sets with the micro-buffets.

I didn't think that IEP units were intended to run the Devon and Cornwall services, so is there a need to provide toilets that will cope with a 5 hour 45  minute run?

Could 2+9 or 2+10 climb Rattery Bank after a standing start from Totnes?  I know the 2+9s used on the Summer Newquay services do - but they are not booked to call at Totnes.

If 2+9 at least is cleared for the route then I'd assume (dangerous, I know!) they'd be fine starting from Totnes. After all there's the potential to be signal checked for whatever reason even if they aren't calling.

I will find out what the instructions are for 2+9 HST's over the Devon Banks. I have a feeling they are not permitted west of Newton Abbot on one enghine though.

I always thought that 2+9 was the max for an HST set though I guess if the MTU engines are more powerful than the previous Valentas that might not apply anymore?

Not certain what the ultimate limit is.
It would depend on the route.
An HST on one engine will still eventually reach 125 on level track, so presumably a lot more than 9 can be handled with both engines working.

Whilst the new MTU engines have a greater potential output than the Valentas that they replaced, AFAIK this does not help since the limiting factor is not the engine HP but the capacity of the main generator and traction motors that were retained.

I seem to recall that when the East Coast mainline HST power cars were re-engineered at Brush shortly after the Great Western ones it was to a higher standard than Great Westerns power cars in that in addition to receiving new MTU diesel engines they also received a larger brush radiator/cooler group together with all new control electronics with better anti-wheelslip control maybe something that could be incorporated into a future Great Western life extension along with possibly a higher rated MTU/traction alternator and traction motors combination to deal with 2+9 or 2+10 HST sets if it was cost effective.

An HST on one engine will still eventually reach 125 on level track, so presumably a lot more than 9 can be handled with both engines working.

So franchise wise on the the Paddington/Penzance route it all seems to boil down to whether the next TOC thinks its ok market wise to soldier on with a train whose performance remains largely frozen in a 1970s time warp or does it justify seriously uprating the HST power cars to improve their performance.Or do you go for say Meridians released by Midland main electrification or even more IEPs.

Ultimately its all down to cost and what the market/Government will bare of course.

No it wont. 110 - 115 is as much as you will get and thats after about 25 miles or so. ;)

Also, it's worth saying that most of these operating rules are based on a worst case scenario, i.e. during leaf-fall, and what seems perfectly possible in fine weather soon changes when conditions are different.

Or do you go for say Meridians released by Midland main electrification or even more IEPs.

Quite. It has been known for 2+8 HST's to get stuck on the Devon banks with both engines running / providing full traction power in extremely poor rail conditions. The operating rules governing running them on one engine over the Devon banks are there for sound reasons based on operational experience.

How heavy is a TS compared to a TGS anyway?

The MTU engines are indeed limited by the power input of the alternator / rectifier / traction motors they are attached to. The 16V4000R41 is in essence a 1800 rpm engine derated to produce the same BMEP at 1500 rpm to give the required power output. Furthermore below 40 mph the traction system is power limited even further in order to keep traction motor currents at a reasonable value, the more current you put through the motors the more heat is created in the motors themselves. You aren't putting anything like 1775 rail HP down until you hit 40 mph, the actual rail hp diminshes with speed below that speed value. It does on all diesel electric locomotives but it is more noticeable with HST due to the higher mechanical axle gearing needed to achieve 125mph running without running the motors at ridiculous rpm figures.

43167-170 were trial fitted with Mirrlees MB190 engines set to 2400 flywheel bhp at 1500 rpm, a major rectifier fire caused the power output to be reduced back to the usual 2250 at 1500 rpm.

There are two other reasons why you may not run the MTU at 1800 rpm, one being the mechanical properites of the alternators themselves and the other being the three phase AC ETS / Auxilary systems which will not accept current at 60 hz / 1800 rpm due to the mechanical /electrical properties of the various motors and devices fed from the supply on both the power cars and the trailers.

MTU is to supply diesel powerpacks for Intercity Express Programme.Having provided an engine for test bench trials at the Hitachi plant in Kasado, Japan, MTU has now finalised a novel design designated 12V 1600 R80L and rated at 700 kW.
  By way of comparison the Voyager fleet is powered by the Cummins QSK19 of 560 kW (750 hp)

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/mtu-to-supply-diesel-powerpacks-for-intercity-express-programme.html

The pure electric trains are also set to be fitted with one Powerpack each for auxiliary power. Depending on their length, bi-mode vehicles will each have three (five-unit trains), four (eight-unit trains) or five (nine-unit trains) Powerpacks. Prior to today^s announcement, Hitachi has already started intensive tests at their own facilities in Japan using a Powerpack prototype specially prepared by MTU for the joint project. The test program focused on fuel consumption, noise and vibration, power and exhaust emissions.

MTU's own press release (http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/press/detail/news/tognum_is_preferred_supplier_for_hitachi_super_express_train/cHash/188f746cafa8d8a80a314659e520d898/) gives more detail.

I make that 3.5MW for a nine-car train.

A good idea to fit one diesel 'Powerpack' to the electric units. As long as it'll generate enough oomph to haul a set when there are the inevitable OHLE failures....

Will there really only be 5 diesel engines under a 9-car bi-mode, would that have enough power to reach Aberdeen and Inverness?

The thought occurs to me that if, after 2019, electrification continues, then the bi-mode trains could have some of their diesel power packs removed, to lighten them and improve efficiency.

A good idea to fit one diesel 'Powerpack' to the electric units. As long as it'll generate enough oomph to haul a set when there are the inevitable OHLE failures....

The International Railway Journal also states "The first train for Great Western will be completed in June 2014, and test operation on the British network is due to begin in May 2015.

I presume that movements at low speed within depots would also be under diesel power, thereby saving the costs and hazards of electrification in depots.

However, we believe that residents concerns are mostly unfounded. Considering noise: To quote Monday's report in the Evening Post, "...train mechanics will have laptops not wrenches ," and maintenance will be indoors in soundproofed buildings. Train movements outside the depot will be electrically-powered, so there will not be the noise of engines. The existing earth mound between the site, the South Wales Main Line, and adjacent houses provides a natural sound barrier, and could be planted with trees. One would imagine that the current background noise levels from near-by roads (Hatchet Road, the ring road, the M4 & M5), and the planes that use Filton Airfield night & day, will be considerably higher than any noise from the proposed depot. Local residents will also be used to overnight rail freight passing by their homes on the South Wales main line, which have done so for over a century.

Regular use of the diesel for movement within depots would ensure that the machinery is kept in good working order and does not fall into disuse.

Regarding post 162, and the possible problems in accessing such a large underfloor engine for maintenance, perhaps the intention is to remove the complete engine/alternator/cooler group even for relatively minor attention ?

As the transmission is electric, not mechanical, complete removal might be relatively easy as cables are much easier to dissconect than mechanical drive units.

Crickey, not long then!

I assume the MTU engine will be a 'dry sump' unit with a seperate oil tank, de-areator and scavenge pump in order to reduce the overall height and increase the clearance beneath the lowest part of the engine.

Thank you for that heads up FremlinsMan.

I think though it is very short notice for most, if not all, of us.

Just the sort of event I'd like to attend if I'd had more notice.

However, if you, FremlinsMan, or other Coffee Shop members, do attend, then please do report back here.

I can't make it, so I'd also like to hear a report back. I assume IET members get a few week's notice of such events, but I only got the e-mail about this yesterday around 3:00.

While we are on the IEP topic, I have noticed over the last few months that 7 bells of whatsit is being knocked out of North Pole Depot this must be development works for IEP?

Yes I noticed that last Wednesday.  I think the building being demolished is the old bogie inspection shop.  Noticed a lot of track had been lifted on the sidings adjacent to the main maintenance building as well and some of the signalling has gone (I tested and commissioned that way back in 1992 - crikey was it really that long ago :o :P).

From a draft signalling plan I have seen there will be two separate and diverse connections off the GWML at the Ladbroke Grove end and these pass through the site of the current North Pole Depot sidings at that end hence the need to demolish the building mentioned above.

The building being raised to the ground was the stores building, the wheel lathe is the building nearer Barlby Road. 

I agree with Rhydgaled regarding the adequacy of 5 car IEP trains. On the Cotswold Line peak hour services are run by 8 car HSTs and are very full to standing before Oxford. I do not see how a 5 car IEP even with each carriages higher seating capacity could take all the present people let alone the ever increasing numbers using the CL. A double 5-car IEO would be so slow, having to make 2 stops to load and unload at the short CL platforms so that travel time could easily take 20 minutes longer.

I would agree with those who doubt the adequacy of 5 car trains to replace crowded 8 car ones, the inevitable high density/new train seating layout and slightly longer vehicles will cram a few more in, but I still fear gross overcrowding.

As an outsider to this conversation (heck, I would love a one carriage train every 2 hours - different league), I do wonder about more but shorter trains.  Did wonders for Portsmouth Harbour to South Wales - so much so that they had to be made longer again at the new frequency.   So - 2 x 5 car per hour from Paddington carrying on past Oxford to Moreton-in-Marsh, with one beyond there to Hereford?

The contract requires additional vehicles to be slotted in easily up to 12 coaches long.
...
Bi modes are easily converted to electric by removing engines!!

There is little weight gain by having engines, as the electric only stock needs batteries to provide hotel power in the event of OHL failure and these are about the same weight as the engines (I found this quite difficult to comprehend.)

Bi mode in that form are slightly less powerful than electric with a blancing speed of 117mph, against 125mph for electric.

3.8 Performance
TS261 The IEP Trains must have a maximum service speed of at least 125mph and shall be able to achieve that speed on the whole of the IEP Network. The requirement to be able to operate at 125mph applies during operation in Standard Mode and Locomotive Hauled Mode.
It is accepted that 125mph may not be achieved under the following circumstances:
^ on adverse gradients;
^
in excessive headwinds;
^
in the case of an IEP Train containing Bi-mode IEP Units operating in Self Power Mode;
^
in the case where more than 312m of the IEP Train length comprises of Electric IEP Units;
[...etc.]

I would presume that the requirement for the auxillary engine(s) to run for 6 hours when loco hauled is because either an ETS loco is not compatible with the electrics of the new trains, or to permit use of a freight loco not equiped with ETS.
As the new trains are intended to be self contained, they probably dont even have ETS jumper cables to obtain current from a loco.

As regards batteries versus diesel engines for back up power (whether for limited traction or for on board power) batteries are usually the best option for limited power or short run times with a diesel engine being prefered for longer durations.
A battery to supply on board services for 6 hours will be about twice the weight and cost of one for 3 hours. An engine will be the same but need only a larger fuel tank.

A battery even if not much used will still need replacing every few years, a diesel engine given only limited use should last the life of the train.

3.18.3 Locomotive Hauled Mode
TS1746 For Locomotive Hauled Mode, the IEP Trains must meet all mandatory standards, the passenger environment must meet all parts of this Appendix A and where reasonably practicable the IEP train must meet all other requirements in this Appendix A, taking into account that there will be no communication between the IEP Train and the Locomotive other than that inherent in the definition of a Locomotive.

N004 Locomotive:
Means one or more vehicles, other than IEP Vehicles, capable of independent movement, which presents the following interfaces to an IEP Train:
Coupling: Screw coupling (refer to RSSB web document SD001 ^System Data for Mechanical and Electrical Coupling of Rail Vehicles^) with the possibility of a drop head or swing head Buckeye attachment, and buffers.
Brakes: Twin pipe air brake interface (in accordance with UK national practice, refer to Railway Group Standard GM/RT2045, Issue 2, April 2000 ^Braking Principles for Rail Vehicles^)
Electric Train Supply: None.
Through Electrical Controls: None.

I agree with Rhydgaled regarding the adequacy of 5 car IEP trains. On the Cotswold Line peak hour services are run by 8 car HSTs and are very full to standing before Oxford. I do not see how a 5 car IEP even with each carriages higher seating capacity could take all the present people let alone the ever increasing numbers using the CL. A double 5-car IEO would be so slow, having to make 2 stops to load and unload at the short CL platforms so that travel time could easily take 20 minutes longer.

THere's two solutions really - either more services (eg every 30 minutes in each peak rather than hourly) or longer platforms. Both work, the latter is cheaper (one-off cost)

THere's two solutions really - either more services (eg every 30 minutes in each peak rather than hourly) or longer platforms. Both work, the latter is cheaper (one-off cost)

Then again, nor have platform extensions been mentioned.

Whoever decided that was completely ignorant of the Cotswold Line and all the short platforms...

Nevertheless, the Western Route business plan published only a few months ago does explicitly state that Cotswold Line services will be operated by 10 car bi-mode IEPs, and as there's no evidence that these have been ordered, they must surely be 2 x 5 cars in multiple?

THere's two solutions really - either more services (eg every 30 minutes in each peak rather than hourly) or longer platforms. Both work, the latter is cheaper (one-off cost)

I have to say I have softened my attitude to IEP recently. Having read the spec, they do generally have the right idea such as seats around tables, adequate luggage space etc... DfT may not know how to build trains, but they do have a good idea of what it is like to travel inside of one.

Agreed with NSE. The problem seems to be that the IEP has a specification that is trying to deal with many different train needs and thus with so much compromise necessary, doesn't satisfy everything.

I have to say I have softened my attitude to IEP recently. Having read the spec, they do generally have the right idea such as seats around tables, adequate luggage space etc... DfT may not know how to build trains, but they do have a good idea of what it is like to travel inside of one.

Seems the Swansea - London services are non stopping between Newport & Reading.

Which leaves Swindon (and connections into Swindon) to Cardiff as hourly, verses half hourly currently.  :-\

Which leaves Swindon (and connections into Swindon) to Cardiff as hourly, verses half hourly currently.  :-\

I can't find it right now (maybe IndustryInsider can help?), but I've read a DfT document that suggests when IEP is introduced there will be three fast trains per hour from Paddington to Oxford, the IEP document above seems to not acknowledge this.

I can't remember seeing any reference to 3tph to be honest. 

A mock up timetable produced by the DFT has appeared on  the Wnxx forum which will interest a few members on here.

Great Western

London Paddington to	Typical journey time today from / to London Paddington	Journey time on class 800 series from / to London Paddington	Time saving
Reading	25	23	2
Oxford	58	53	5
Worcester Shrub Hill	139	120	19
Cheltenham Spa	135	112	23
Bristol Parkway	81	71	10
Bath Spa	87	79	8
Bristol Temple Meads	105	83	22
Cardiff	121	104	17
Swansea	178	159	19

Source: DFT (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains)

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has today (18 July 2013) confirmed a ^1.2 billion order for more state-of-the-art trains to transform rail travel on one of Britain^s busiest intercity routes.

The 270 carriages will be manufactured in Britain by Hitachi Rail Europe at its new purpose-built factory in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, as part of the government^s overall ^5.8 billion Intercity Express Programme (IEP).

The latest order for the trains, called the class 800 series, will be operational on the East Coast Main Line from 2019 and will deliver significant benefits to passengers, including boosting capacity by 18 per cent, improving train reliability by a factor of five and cutting journey times between London, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh by up to 18 minutes.

The order is a boost for Hitachi^s North East manufacturing facility and its 730 planned jobs. It will further enhance the factory^s ability to win lucrative rail contracts across Europe and give the UK another runner in the global race to build the world^s best trains.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said:

By signing this deal we have provided further proof of our determination to transform Britain^s railways into a world-class operation through continued investment and state-of-the-art technology.

This new order for class 800 series trains is part of the government^s commitment to invest in our nation^s infrastructure. This will not only deliver significant benefits to passengers by further slashing journey times and bolstering capacity, but will also stimulate economic growth through improved connectivity between some of Britain^s biggest cities. This is good news for rail passengers and for British manufacturing.

Hitachi has recently completed a deal to build its Newton Aycliffe factory with a local development firm Merchant Place Developments and has said that it will be operational from 2015 with full production starting in 2016.

Alistair Dormer, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hitachi Rail Europe, said:

This follow-on order by the Department for Transport is great news for passengers on the East Coast Main Line who can look forward to quicker journeys travelling on high-quality trains, with more seats and passenger space, built to the latest safety standards. This order is a tremendous boost for Hitachi Rail Europe^s new factory with its 730 future employees in County Durham and for the British supply chain. This order extends firm orders at the factory until the end of the decade with significant capacity remaining available for further UK and export contracts actively being pursued.

Last year the Department for Transport agreed an initial order for 596 carriages with Agility Trains, a consortium of Hitachi and John Laing. As well as building the new state-of-the-art manufacturing facility, Hitachi is also planning to construct maintenance depots in Bristol, Swansea, west London and Doncaster, and will upgrade existing maintenance depots throughout Britain to service the class 800 series trains.

The first batch of class 800 series trains will enter revenue-earning service on the Great Western Main Line in 2017 and on the East Coast Main Line in 2018.

Notes to editors


To follow the announcement follow the Department^s Twitter account at twitter.com/transportgovuk.

Intercity Express Programme written ministerial statement by the the Secretary of State for Transport.

The Intercity Express Programme (IEP) was launched in 2005. The key driver for the programme is the need to replace ageing intercity trains which were introduced in the late 1970s to early 90s and would require significant investment to continue in operation.

The programme will deliver a comprehensive package of improvements to intercity train services on the East Coast and Great Western routes. New faster, more reliable, and higher capacity class 800 series trains will facilitate improved frequencies and journey times, relieve crowding and improve the passenger experience. There will be electric-only (class 801) and bi-mode (class 800) variants of the class 800 series, enabling them to operate on both electrified and non-electrified routes.

This new order has a total contract value of around ^1.2 billion covering the design, build, finance and maintenance over a 27.5 year period. This is part of the wider ^5.8 billion programme for the class 800 series fleets that will run on the Great Western and East Coast Main Lines.

The new trains will be capable of running at 140 miles per hour, which would lead to further journey time reductions, although operation at this speed will require signalling and infrastructure upgrades.

The government announced in July last year that it had agreed a contract with Agility Trains to supply and maintain 596 carriages as part of its Intercity Express Programme. The Secretary of State has now exercised a phase 2 option for an additional 270 carriages, bringing the total to 866.

The full train fleet will comprise 122 complete train sets, some five-vehicles long and others nine-vehicles long. A class 800 series train has a higher seating capacity than existing units in its class. A 9-car train will have wider aisles and 131 more seats than the equivalent Intercity 125 High Speed Train (HST) and 188 more seats than a comparable off-the-shelf new 9-car train, with no compromise on leg-room. For an equivalent 200 metre train, the class 800 series train provides over 30% more seated capacity than an existing diesel Intercity 125 (HST). By 2030, following the deployment of the rolling stock on the East Coast and Great Western routes, there will be a 40% increase in morning peak seats on main line services into Paddington and a 28% increase into King^s Cross when compared with the May 2011 timetable.

The new trains will contribute to a reduction in emissions and CO₂ when compared to alternatives. The class 801 trains (electric) consume 17% less energy per passenger kilometre than an existing diesel Intercity 125 HST and 12% less than an existing electric Intercity 225 train. A class 801 train (electric) will emit over 40% less CO₂ per passenger km than an HST, and almost 10% less than an IC225. On a typical journey between London and Edinburgh, a class 801 train (electric) would emit 84% less CO₂ per passenger km than a domestic flight.

The modern vehicles will offer a step-change in passenger comfort through increased leg space compared with the stock they are replacing with no compromise on luggage space and electronic seat reservations. A performance regime will encourage the trains to run reliably throughout the life of the fleet, with reliability predicted to be around 55,000 per 3-minute delay, which is over five times the rate of performance of current intercity trains.

The contractual responsibility for delivering and maintaining the trains and depots will pass to Agility, as train service provider, leaving the operator to concentrate on running services, building demand and revenues and improving customer satisfaction. Hitachi will manufacture and maintain the trains.

Deployment of the class 800 series trains on the Great Western and East Coast routes is expected to generate ^3.3 billion (net present value) in additional revenue through delivering improved journey time, services and quality of travel.

The deployment of class 800 series trains will grow and protect the key East Coast intercity rail markets in readiness for HS2 deployment from 2033.

The following figures are predicted average reductions in journey times for class 800 series trains. They are delivered by a combination of revised timetabling and increased performance of the train.

Will I like the train itself when it arrives is the only question...  ;)

Having heard the presentation to the IET at Swindon a few weeks ago and having travelled on the 395 (Javelins) I am expecting good things.  Hitachi whilst they are "building" (or should that be assembling) the units the interiors are specified by the TOC's

Brakes from Melksham, then. That will please somebody!

Pants from Somerset.  :D

Seems like its going to be very likely that the Swansea - London services will be formed of two, 5 carriage iep's between London & Cardiff with just 1 unit continuing to Swansea.

I like the mention of 140mph compatibility.  I like the mention of 120 minutes from Paddington to Worcester getting rid of all the slack.  I like the stated reduction in typical journey times to other destinations which I feared might get forgotten over time.  I like the mention (again) of increased leg room and no compromises on luggage space.  I don't like the cost and time it's taken to sort out since way back in 2005.

Will I like the train itself when it arrives is the only question...  ;)

As for the Class 91s and IC225s, I'm sure they'll be redeployed elsewhere and won't be scrapped.  Given the stalling of the eVoyager project, XC and/or the MML might end up with them.  Or the GEML are is a potential candidates to take some of them.

Once again, don't forget that class 91s have 140mph capability. If they are removed from the ECML the mrk4s could well find a new home but there is nowhere else (except maybe the GWML, but that'll have it's own IEPs) where that top speed could be used and, since they are geared for that speed, acceleration to 110mph will probably not be as good as a 90. 91s are best suited for routes with a high top speed and long distances between stops. MML XC and GEML don't cut it on top speed and XC has the additional problem of lack of wires. In terms of suitablity, IC225s on the ECML and IEPs on the MML probably makes alot more sense than the other way arround.

there is a requirement (I believe in the TSI's) for 3 hour emergency power supply for HS electric traction units

Wouldn't have been much good in yesterday's debacle at Pewsey then. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12752.0) They will have to get emergency cover in place much more quickly to avoid potentially dangerous situations with 'life support' (sorry, Star Trek influence!) systems out after 3 hours.

Once again, don't forget that class 91s have 140mph capability.

As have Pendolino's.  And despite my hopes for their 140mph capability being used on the WCML, I fear it will be many years (if at all) before it is.  ETRMS makes it possible, as it will with the IEP's, but that doesn't mean it will happen as soon as that is installed given potential issues with platforms en-route as well as track geometry.

The 140 mph capability they have never used in revenue earning service.  They and the Mk 4's will be redeployed as II said GE to Norwich which has just commenced or is about in CP5 route upgrade, the MML is also a likely candidate where speed upgrade works is already under way to get 125 working to cover more of the route than currently.

The IEP's capacity are based more on what DfT can fund, I know a lot of the funding is coming from the private sector but the DfT are part funding and  underwriting them. 
The diesel on the all electric units is actually lighter, probably requires less maintenance and more environmentally friendly than a Tonne of batteries on each carriage, there is a requirement (I believe in the TSI's) for 3 hour emergency power supply for HS electric traction units

While they haven't been able to make use of their 140mph capability for a long time the fact that they have this capability probably does impeed their acceleration somewhat. Therefore, my main point still stands, they are better suited for long-distance services at high speed with few stops.

Isn't London - Norwich is unlikely to see anything more than 110mph running? If so, wouldn't it be faster with class 90s rather than class 91s? 90s plus mrk4s seems more likely than 91s if London - Norwich gets mrk4s.

Maintainance costs of diesel engine? The real problem there is DaFT's insane spec. No other train has a requirement for 3-hour hotel power and the ability to limp to the next station does it?

As I've said before the number of times that huge delays have occurred and the service has completely melted down on the WCML and especially the ECML due to a short section of OLE being damaged means that I think this 'insane spec' is, in reality, a sensible precaution, and well overdue.

And I agree, II. Nothing impedes the smooth running of a railway more than a stalled train in the way. OLE problems are by no means uncommon, especially in extreme weather, and even though the train will only be able to make 30 mph with the diesel engine, it is still going to get to the next station more quickly than it would waiting for a rescue loco. A colleague some years back was travelling from Taunton to Bridgewater after work had the misfortune to be on a train that broke down just before the turn-off for Castle Cary. Eventually, they saw a loco run past on the other line, and thought their troubles would be soon over. But that broke down too, and couldn't turn back at Taunton. All in all, it took over 3 hours, during which time nothing could go north through Taunton. This had nothing to do with electric trains, but demonstrates what can happen. Self-rescue can only be a good thing.

And to have an emergency diesel engine means lumbering the 'electric' train with most of the disbenifits of diesel traction, primarily maintainance costs. Why bother with the capital cost of electrification if you aren't going to gain full benifit from it?

Has any other country got electric trains which have diesel engines purely 'just in case' something fails?

The diesel engine will more than likely be a lower maintenance cost than a large battery on each coach, the engine I am guessing will be "plug n play palletised" unit, the traction package is being configured so the diesel gen set can power it for emergency moves.

Personally I think its an inspired option by Hitachi something that may well have been the bid winner over the other tenderer's who may well have gone along the lines of rescue locomotives, the tender was for a supply and maintain contract unit failures will be costly to Hitachi

My bold. The proportion of incidents where self-rescue would actually work is probably quite low. If the IEP is the train that pulled the wires down it my be unable to proceed due to wires tangled in the pantograph anyway. There are also other potential failures (like brakes perhaps?) which would not be helped by having emergeny power. And to have an emergency diesel engine means lumbering the 'electric' train with most of the disbenifits of diesel traction, primarily maintainance costs. Why bother with the capital cost of electrification if you aren't going to gain full benifit from it?

Has any other country got electric trains which have diesel engines purely 'just in case' something fails? Even Chiltern's generator DVTs running with their 67s are more for noise reduction while stabled but requiring power than 'just in case' aren't they? While I've been lucky enough not to be on a failed/stuck train for any length of time, I think I'd rather have the money spent on decent-length trains and have to wait for a thunderbird once than suffer many trips in trains of inadequate length.

I don't think anything is going to persuade you that IEP is a good idea until Pembroke Dock is cleared for 26m working. Having been to the Hitachi presentation in Swindon, and after allowing for a healthy degree of sceptism, I am more encouraged. (Although I think the jury is still out on relative costs against other options.)

The proportion of incidents where self-rescue would actually work is probably quite low. If the IEP is the train that pulled the wires down it my be unable to proceed due to wires tangled in the pantograph anyway. There are also other potential failures (like brakes perhaps?) which would not be helped by having emergeny power.

Delays are allways a potential problem, and modern stock is far worse than old in this respect due to sealed windows and power operated toilets. To be stuck for several hours in sweltering heat in the dark is unacceptable and potentialy dangerous, to be stuck for the same time in lit ventilated conditions is merely inconvienient.

Do the lights go out when existing EMUs lose incoming power? I believe electric trains have some batteries (a lot less than would be needed to mach the capabilities of a diesel generator, and probably alot lighter than one) and would guess these are, in part, for emergency lighting. If my guess is correct, how long can the batteries on a normal EMU power the lights compared to the 3hr requirement of IEP?

Being stuck in the dark is potentially dangerous, I'd be supprised if current EMUs don't have provision to avoid this.
If they do, the primary benifit of IEP's generators seems to be keeping a stuck train ventilated. You actually alluded to the true cause of this problem in yor post, sealed windows. Give the driver/guard a means to open the windows and what little benifit the diesel generator gives you vapourises almost completely.

Brakes from Melksham, then. That will please somebody!

Knorr-Bremse employs 250 staff in Melksham, and a further 30 in Corsham, who will be building the braking system and providing technical support for it over the next 28 years.

Not sure what level of lighting will be provided on the electric IEPs when on emergency diesel power, but I would expect at least 50%.
Although the requirement is for 3 hours, it would seem a simple matter to extend this to perhaps 6 hours with a larger fuel tank.
Several recent breakdowns have been for more than 3 hours.

One must consider the chances of the overhead wires coming down and becoming entangled with the train. That could be several hours stopped whilst fuel is consumed to provide electricity for on board services, after which one would hope that sufficient fuel remains to run perhaps 30 miles under diesel power, with delays in route.

General Lighting (as defined in BS EN 13272:2001, ^Railway applications ^ Electrical lighting for rolling stock in public transport systems^) must be provided under all operating conditions with the exception of Real Emergency Mode, where Emergency Lighting (as defined in BS EN 13272:2001, ^Railway applications ^ Electrical lighting for rolling stock in public transport systems^) must be provided.

Depends on the definition of emergency.

d) ^Train Unable to Proceed Under Main Power Source Mode^ where an IEP Train is unable to proceed under a main power source due to either train or infrastructure failure. In particular, this mode is intended to apply when the train is unable to use the 25kV Overhead Electric Supply or failure of 60% or more of the total Self Power Source capability of a Bi-Mode IEP Train has occurred;
e) ^Train Requires Assistance from Another Train Mode^ where the IEP Train is unable to proceed under its own main or auxiliary power sources or it is impractical to do so and needs to be rescued by another IEP Train or Locomotive; and
f) ^Real Emergency Mode^ which includes incidents where damage to the IEP Train may have occurred (e.g. derailments). This may differ from the Emergency case defined in some mandatory standards.

3.18.4 Train Unable to Proceed Under Main Power Source Mode
TS1938 For Train Unable to Proceed Under Main Power Source Mode, the IEP Train must maintain at least Basic Services for a minimum of three hours.
In the case where use has previously been made of the Multiple Hauled Mode or Locomotive Hauled Mode, or in the case of a Bi-Mode IEP Train where it has previously operated in Self Power Mode, in the same In-Service period it is accepted that a shorter period may be provided.
TS1939 For Train Unable to Proceed Under Main Power Source Mode, the IEP Train must be able to perform Limited Movement while supplying Basic Services for a minimum of one hour following failure of the main power source. In the case where use has previously been made of the Multiple Hauled Mode or Locomotive Hauled Mode, or in the case of a Bi-Mode IEP Train where it has previously operated in Self Power Mode, in the same In-Service period it is accepted that a shorter period may be provided.
TS1941 For Train Unable to Proceed Under Main Power Source Mode, the IEP Train must remain able to meet the requirements of Real Emergency Mode and shall fall back to that mode once the time periods specified in TS1938 or TS1939 have been exceeded.

Independently Powered EMU to be tested

UK: A Bombardier Electrostar electric multiple-unit leased by Greater Anglia is to be fitted with two types of battery to study the feasibility of operating electric trains on non-electrified lines.

Infrastructure manager Network Rail envisages that Independently Powered Electric Multiple-Units could be used to bridge gaps on otherwise electrified routes, or could be deployed on branch lines which it would not be cost-effective to electrify.

Bombardier is to fit the Class 379 EMU with lithium (iron magnesium) phosphate and hot sodium nickel salt batteries as a test bed to determine future requirements. The EMU would then undergo testing 'off network', including on the Old Dalby test track. If successful, the train would then operate in passenger service with the pantograph lowered on an 'electrified branch line on the Anglia route, yet to be chosen'. The testing would be carried out on a 25 kV 50 Hz electrified line so that conventional power can be used if a problem occurs.

Following the trials, the EMU would be restored to its conventional condition and returned to normal service by the end of 2014. The research partners expect that any future production IPEMU would be designed from new rather than adapted from a conventional EMU, to minimise energy consumption.

The project is being funded by Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the Enabling Innovation Team hosted by the Rail Safety & Standards Board. 'As the principle funder and delivery manager, we have done a great deal of feasibility work before reaching this stage, both to define the outputs we seek from the trial and to build confidence in the project across the industry', said Network Rail's Director of Network Strategy & Planning, Richard Eccles.

David Clarke, Director of the Enabling Innovation Team, said onboard energy storage 'is a typical example of a development that's good for passengers, taxpayers and the long term future of the railway but where it is difficult for individual businesses to make the business case to invest in the technology. To help prove the business case we are funding up to 30% of the technology demonstration. We see the IPEMU project as a good example of something that will work according to the R&D but no one will invest in without seeing a full scale demonstrator. By supporting this programme we are helping to take innovation out of the lab and de-risk its potential introduction onto the railway.'

I also read this story yesterday and there appear to be a few unanswered questions.

• What is the expected range of the test trains?
• Is this a suitable option for the branch lines of the GWML?
• If proven, would battery / overhead wires bi-mode powered trains be a feasible alternative to diesel / overhead wires bi-mode trains? I suspect that even if it is proved feasible next year it will be too late to do this.

I expect the teams involved probably have their thoughts on these but are waiting until testing is complete before they give further details.

I also read this story yesterday and there appear to be a few unanswered questions.

• What is the expected range of the test trains?
• Is this a suitable option for the branch lines of the GWML?
• If proven, would battery / overhead wires bi-mode powered trains be a feasible alternative to diesel / overhead wires bi-mode trains? I suspect that even if it is proved feasible next year it will be too late to do this.

I expect the teams involved probably have their thoughts on these but are waiting until testing is complete before they give further details.

Nothing new in this idea at all in the Souther Region had battery powered unit in 1961 http://www.kentrail.org.uk/class_419_MLV.htm (http://www.kentrail.org.uk/class_419_MLV.htm) as part of the Kent Coast electrification Dover Marine and Folkestone Harbour could not have third rail

If I recall correctly, the original service outlined by the DfT for IEP included 4 trains per hour from Bristol TM to Padd and vice versa. Two of these were to run via Bath and two via Bristol Parkway, one of which was to be non-stop throughout.  I guess that this would give rise to the claimed 22 minute saving while the other trains from Parkway would be stopping at Swindon and Reading.

No doubt more detail will emerge in due course.

Stuart Baker (ex?) Network Rail gave a talk in Oxford last Monday.

He was very clear that the extra two IEPs to BRI via BPW were only stopping at those two stations. Whether that included Reading wasn't checked though....but def no DID or SWI stops.

I suppose the main purpose of the non-stop Bristol service is to remove all those passengers from other less tempting alternatives, such as the other Bristol trains that do stop at Reading etc, and go via Bath.  That then leaves more room on the latter trains for Reading and Bath etc passengers?

There may be method in their madness...

Paul

There will also be less freight going to didcot with one of the power stations being closed.

I do also hope they 4 track the route between Didcot & Swindn/Wotton Bassett as that should also help things.

I can  imagine Bristol TM being extremely packed during the peaks especially with commuters who have chosen to live in Bristol and surrounding area's and commute in  to London. Of course that would also help fuel demand for improved local services.

Finally I notice elsewhere that Siemens are reported to be offering a 115mph version of its Cl 380 emu. If this were chosen for the Great Western, with such a small speed differential there would also be an option to run these out as far as Swindon to hoover up commuter traffic from Swindon and Didcot and keep the IEP's relatively clear of middle distance commuting. Maybe a long shot.

As I mentioned above there have been official suggestions of an hourly fast Didcot-Reading-London shuttle service, with some extended to Swindon, to enable elimination of one stop  at those stations on longer distance trains. What would be less satisfactory for some in Didcot would be total elimination of all stops on the South Wales services.

Makes no difference really, it's still demand at Didcot ...

Errr....suggestion was to NOT stop at Swindon either...:-)

but 1st class is meant for business and thus each seat ought to have a proper table.

I have long held rather negative views regarding these new trains, and the recent magazine article has reinforced such views.

Well over half the seats in steerage are bus style, not facing across tables.
No catering beyond a trolley in steerage
Not enough toilets.
The wretched bus seats have even invaded first class.
A very low proportion of First class for long distance business travel.

Leg room remains to be seen, but experience with other new trains suggests that it will be worse than expected.

The stats on buffet vs trolley are interesting.

TOCs report better sales from a trolley - probably because pax don't like leaving their seats and can make on-the-spot decisions as the trolley passes....I think we've possibly seen the end of buffets.

Women *like* bus seats in general, coz they hate playing footsie under tables. Come & watch pax on Chiltern....but 1st class is meant for business and thus each seat ought to have a proper table.

I suspect that when the new trains come into use, that we will see far fewer heavily discounted first class tickets being sold.
Surely the purpose of the present heavily discounted advance first tickets is to fill first class seats that would otherwise be unused.
The new trains have a much smaller percentage of first class, therefore much less need for discounting to fill them.

I suspect that when the new trains come into use, that we will see far fewer heavily discounted first class tickets being sold.
Surely the purpose of the present heavily discounted advance first tickets is to fill first class seats that would otherwise be unused.
The new trains have a much smaller percentage of first class, therefore much less need for discounting to fill them.

"As for catering, I think the old spec of an 8-car IEP DID have a buffet in standard class. I wonder who (DfT, Hitachi, East Coast or FirstGW) made the decision to restrict buffet/kitchen facilities to first class?"

This is known as progress ! Still time for more progress.
I suspect that when the trains arrive, that "capacity will have been improved" that is at least one more row of seats, 92 per vehicle instead of 88, and one or two fewer toilets.

Can anyone save me the bother of looking it up, by telling me how the cattle class seat pitch differs between the current IEP proposal and the HST? If they have reduced it by more than about a millimetre, then that'll be the end of long-distance rail travel for me.

Yes the IEP's have more seats in each carriage compared to a hst although not by much.

Yes the IEP's have more seats in each carriage compared to a hst although not by much.

Anyway we should have a better understanding of how the IEP's will be like when the mock up is completed.

I do hope that they wont be but I can see us having some problems with the IEP's

By the way, antony215, you appear to have three grocer's apostrophes in your post...

Paul  

On the major flow (London<->Bristol) that these trains will be running on, there is expected to be a doubling of frequency. Doesn't that mean extra seats in both Standard and First?

New trains, faster journey times, increased frequency. It's all doom and gloom isn't it?  ::)

I rather think you'll find he's anthony215, Paul.  ;)

Nope, because over half of the new fleet are currently planned to be 5 carriage formations (compared to today's 2+8 IC125s).

I fear a repeat.

When (then) Virgin cross country introduced new shorter trains, I remember being re-assured that the new shorter trains would be fine due to the increased frequency.
Some years have now passed, and the cross country services are now run by someone else, but I regulary have to stand on one of the new "fun sized" trains when I probably would have got a seat on an HST or loco hauled train.

Who knows what the future holds for the CrossCountry network. There's going to be more than a handful of HST sets available from 2017 onward. Plus with further electrification there may be scope for CrossCountry Class 800s and 801s (IEP). It would certainly make sense to have a similar fleet to other InterCity operators.

At the time of the introduction of the Voyager fleet to Virgin CrossCountry, I don't think anyone predicted the huge rise in passenger numbers that would take to the CrossCountry network following the increase in frequency. With the core XC routes having a half hourly clockface service since the introduction of Operation Princess, the number of seats per hour actually slightly increased over the previous hourly (and randomly timed) core services.

Interesting times ahead for XC. Class 222s will be released by the MML electrification, and routes like Bournemouth to Manchester can be all electric. I dare say we'll see more double headed Voyager/Meridians instead of cascaded HSTs on XC routes.

Agree interesting times ahead. Re double Voyagers/Meridians can they work in multiple? Or do they fall victim to non standard coupling and control systems?

Vince Cable was there this morning. Presumably dug the first divot.

Divot very PC!

Fleet renewal funded
05 Dec 2013
(http://www.railwaygazette.com/typo3temp/pics/tn_fr-sncf-coradialiner-impression-alstom_01_df6889e57a.jpg)

FRANCE: Transport Minister Fr^ric Cuvillier confirmed on December 4 that the government had agreed a funding package allowing SNCF to proceed with an order of 34 inter-city multiple-units.

Funding worth ^510m, with an option for further investment worth ^100m, has been provided for the procurement of 34 Coradia Liner electro-diesel trainsets from Alstom, plus associated depot investment works.

As part of the government^s investment programme for SNCF^s long-distance services known as Trains d^Equilibre du Territoire, the new fleet will replace ageing locomotive-hauled Corail coaches.

Each six-car trainset would be 100 m long, with capacity for 267 passengers. Operating at up to 160 km/h under 25 kV 50 Hz or 1^5 kV DC electrification or powered by six roof-mounted 350 kW MAN diesel engines, the Coradia Liner would be lighter than SNCF's existing locomotive-hauled trains, with improved acceleration and braking and 30% lower energy consumption, Alstom says.

Is 100mph really 'express' though?

Is 100mph really 'express' though?

True - this was designed as a regional train, but the electric version can do 200 km/hr. I'm not sure if the hybrid power version could do that, in one or both modes, if you asked for one. It may be it's just never been asked for, due to the different priorities elsewhere in Europe.

But the point was really that it's not just a DafT idea - nor an entirely new one.

and yes - I did put that in the wrong thread by mistake!

So, the SNCF bi-modes are regional trains, not Intercity?

(And perhaps it would be best to take this short strand and re-spin back it into the IEP thread, please mods.)

Done! Even though I still find 'merging' scary.  :D

I guess this comes here, Mods, please n=move if necessary.

Modern Railways current issue, P15 reports that FGW, while requested n their Direct Award to procure EMUs to replace DMUs under IEP and confirms that the displaced 319s were their option, this has now changed with the delay in delivery of the new Thameslink stock. Due for completion by 2015, this has now been put back to 2018, meaning the 319s would have to enter service of the GWML without refurbishment.

Instead, the DfT are likely to pick the 387s ordered by Southern....see attached for news cutting

I've said it numerous times before, but once more the 387s are a very likely bet for electric Thames Valley services :-)

2+2 seating represents an improvement comfort-wise on the turbos, though, as someone on WNXX forum has pointed out, this represents a decrease in seating capacity between a cl387 4 car and 3 car cl165/166 - 224 seats in the cl387 against 256 in cl166 and 286 in the cl165. Given that Crossrail will be running the (Reading?) - Maidenhead - Paddington inner suburban services with high capacity cl345s, I'm not sure that this is an issue

particularly if the 387s are run in 8-12 car formations on the Oxford/Newbury - Paddington services in the rush hour.

I'm exactly on the opposing view, sorry! The lack of seats / toilets on Crossrail stock would, I think, give them the choice - see pax choose these 387s over Crossrail in chasing seating / toilets. So yes, the overall drop in seating levels for the inner Thames Valley will become more of a problem!


Point taken, but I still reckon there will be a drop in seating levels - and all seats are currently taken in the peaks! So even more standees than currently

Clearly an 8 car cl387 won't provide as much capacity as a 6 car turbo - though if they do (and I agree it's a big if) manage to run 12 cars on peak trains then capacity will be increased.

Modern Railways agrees, if you read what I posted - BUT they also confirm that it's only recently that the 319s have been turned down, and only because the Thameslink programme is running late & they wouldn't be available in time.

How many of the Paddington platforms can handle 12 cars?   Wouldn't that be a problem, or am I getting mixed up between cars in a multiple unit and passenger cars with locos at each end a la HST?

- BUT they also confirm that it's only recently that the 319s have been turned down, and only because the Thameslink programme is running late & they wouldn't be available in time.

As far as I know the 387s will only have 20m long coaches. That's the standard length for EMUs in this country...

For accuracy though, it's one of the two standard lengths - Pendolinos, 380s and 444s are still EMUs at 23m - there may be others.   Crossrail 345s will also have 23m carriages, as we've recently discovered.

Likewise with DMUs, a majority are 23m, but some aren't.

I think 2+2 is the right decision for the class 387 order.

Thanks for providing the link.

2+2 seating, and 104 seats at tables replacing 2+3 seating and no/very few tables?  What would 'Broadgage' think of that?  ;)----------

One must appreciate that all of this money isn't being spent on the GWML and it's branches just for things to stay the same. I'm sure post December 2016 we might see the odd short formed train as an alternative to a cancelled service, but these should be the exception, not the norm. Don't forget that the London & South East RUS anticipates 8 car EMUs in peaks becoming the norm, and in the longer term 12 car EMUs! Project that Network Rail support in their RUS documents have a habit of becoming reality.

This is a topic that puzzles me a bit. The platforms at Reading have been divided so that two trains, each five coaches long, can occupy a platform at the same time. I can understand this in the context of five coach long combinations of 165s and 166s or 5 coach long XC Voyagers but how does this work for 8 coach long trains made up of 20 metre long coaches - assuming cascaded 319s or others of the same length. As 8 coach long trains are most likely to be used at peak periods it would seem that operating capacity at the station would be reduced as only one train could be in a platform at once.

Or is this not a significant issue?

South West Trains also have a few "high capacity" class 450s that have had some (but not all) 3+2 seating changed to 2+2, as well as the removal of 1st class. 1st Class is going to be reinstated to these units when the 458/5 conversion programme is completed.

This is a topic that puzzles me a bit. The platforms at Reading have been divided so that two trains, each five coaches long, can occupy a platform at the same time. I can understand this in the context of five coach long combinations of 165s and 166s or 5 coach long XC Voyagers but how does this work for 8 coach long trains made up of 20 metre long coaches - assuming cascaded 319s or others of the same length. As 8 coach long trains are most likely to be used at peak periods it would seem that operating capacity at the station would be reduced as only one train could be in a platform at once.

Or is this not a significant issue?

Hitachi is to move its global rail business from Japan to the UK - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26657455

ITV News can exclusively reveal the final designs of a new generation of InterCity trains soon to take to the tracks across South Wales.

Work is underway on the first of hundreds of new bullet-style carriages in Japan for Great Western trains at a cost of almost six billion pounds.

With extra seats and space they should help ease the overcrowding crisis suffered by many passengers.

They will run on the mainline from London Paddington to Cardiff and through to Swansea.

Full size mock-ups of several carriages were secretly built to get the views of watchdogs and the rail industry - and the final design is about to be approved by the Government.

ITV Meridian's Mike Pearse was given exclusive access to see the train of the future.

High-speed shape of things to come


MEET the new face of express train travel in Oxford, Didcot and the Cotswolds.

This is the nose of the IEP trains which will operate Great Western high-speed services between Oxfordshire, London, Bristol and South Wales from 2017.

Construction of the first of four prototype trains is now under way at Kasado in Japan, at a factory owned by Hitachi.

The company, which made the Class 395 Javelin trains used on high-speed commuter services running between Kent and London, is building a plant at Newton Aycliffe, in County Durham, to manufacture the rest of the fleet.

The first prototype is due to be completed next month and will arrive in the UK to start tests in the autumn. High-speed trial running is expected to take place next year between Didcot and Reading, once overhead electric wires are installed there as part of the Great Western main line electrification programme.

A full-size mock-up of parts of the train was produced by DCA Design International, of Leamington Spa, to help develop the final design.

Staff from First Great Western have been involved in the project, with drivers asked to give their views on the layout of the cab. As well as the nose cone and driving cab, the mock-up includes standard and first class seating areas, toilets and the luggage and cycle racks which will be installed in the vestibules of coaches.

Two versions of the 125mph trains are on order for Great Western services, 21 nine-coach Class 800 electric trains and 36 five-coach Class 801 bi-mode, electro-diesel units. These will use electricity from overhead power cables where these are installed, then switch to underfloor diesel engines on non-electrified routes, such as the Cotswold Line between Oxford and Worcester.

After a recent visit to DCA^s workshops in Warwick, Rail Minister Stephen Hammond, above, said: ^I was very impressed with the mock-up of the Class 800/801 train, and interested to hear about the lengths that the designers have gone to in ensuring that the views of passengers and other stakeholders have been included.

^The new trains will provide passengers with an improved travelling experience. I look forward to seeing them come into operation.^

Draft seating designs show the nine-coach trains will have about 630 seats. The five-coach sets will have about 320 seats and will be able to couple together to create a 640-seat train for busy peak services.

Another 12 five-coach electric trains, 10 five-coach bi-mode trains, and 13 nine-car bi-mode trains are also on order for the East Coast rail franchise, which links London with Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland.

The IEP fleet was ordered by the Government under a ^5.8bn private finance initiative contract with Agility Trains, a consortium of Hitachi and British infrastructure management firm John Laing.

Those seats don't look they were designed for long journeys. Perhaps I'm wrong but they don't look very comfortable.

Lovely. Though nowhere for a Guard (train Manager) and catering to be trolleys only I believe. When staff were involved they mean only drivers! Did no-one ask catering staff or Train Managers. I guess not as it looks like they have no input. GW mainline Driver Only in future with trolley catering and no hot food. Delightful. At least I can have a warm cup of tea after other customers have caused disruptions.

And that is quite a cynical.....though I would argue......more accurate opinion

Agree.
Years ago I expressed very negative views about the then proposed new trains, in particular regarding seating comfort, train length, lack of facing seats at tables, catering provision and so on.
It would appear that these negative views were largely correct.
Train length, most of the new trains are shorter than HSTs
Catering reduced to a trolley.
Seating is mainly bus style with only limited tables.

And yes I know that the new "fun sized" trains can be coupled together to give a full length train, as was promised with the wretched voyagers. Two short trains coupled together are better than a single short train of course, but inferior to a proper full length inter city train. And the voyager experience suggests that single units will be the norm and double ones the exception.
Seats certainly look basic and more typical of outer suburban stock than intercity trains.

That would be good news if the case IndustryInsider. Though a kitchen does not mean Buffet. Voyagers have catering areas/kitchens but they still have trollies. Any news on Guards on trains then or am I correct in saying that they are set up with cameras at every door and TV screens in the drivers cab, so as Driver Only Operation is available

Trollies sell more than buffets do. Fact.

RMT WARNS OF ACTION OVER NEW TRAINS

A leading rail union is warning of industrial action over the introduction of new trains it said could lead to the axing of guards and buffet cars.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport union has written to the Government making it clear it will ballot for industrial action if guards and buffet cars are not retained on the new Hitachi fleet, set to be introduced on First Great Western and East Coast services.

The union said that under the Intercity Express Programme signed off by the Government, the new fleet - built in Japan and reassembled in the North East by Hitachi - has the capacity to run on driver-only operation, would strip out buffet cars in favour of more seats and could lead to the current in-house fleet maintenance being hived-off to a third party.

Mick Cash, RMT acting general secretary, said: "It defies belief that anyone in their right mind would seriously consider running these inter-city services on a driver-only basis, but the design of the fleet allows for just that in terms of the control panels.

"It is sheer profiteering to strip out the buffet cars and replace them with trolleys. Not only does that undermine the service to passengers but it also denies staff their one place of refuge and rest on these long-range routes.

"RMT is also deeply concerned about the future of the fleet maintenance, which is once again plunged into uncertainty with our members jobs and futures left in the balance.

"RMT is demanding answers and assurances from both the Government and the train companies. If those assurances aren't forthcoming we will move into dispute and begin preparations for ballots."

If the train is not built capable of DOO operation for when it is out of passenger service, they'll need guards to cover the ECS runs.

HSTs and west units are certainly not DOO enabled, yet seem to survive ECS moves without a guard...?

Although of course many of the West units as I'm sure you know still have the old DOO buttons, being fairly obvious in the 150/1s and slightly hidden in other units.

New rail depot could create 200 new jobs

Work has started on a new train depot in South Gloucestershire which will create 200 new jobs.

From 2016, the site in Stoke Gifford will maintain the new inter city trains that will replace the ageing stock on the Great Western Mainline.

Today^s report also highlights that the Department was departing from its stated policy of leaving train procurements to the industry, particularly following its decision in July 2013 to exercise an option in the original contract with Agility Trains to add 270 carriages to its Intercity Express order at a cost of ^1.4 billion. This has created confusion in parts of the industry about the Department^s role.

The Department estimates that future payments will be around ^7.65 billion for InterCity Express over 27.5 years and ^2.8 billion for Thameslink over 20 years. Contracts include the cost of the trains themselves as well as the cost of maintenance and of depots. The Department also has the opportunity to gain from future reductions in the cost of financing both procurements.

Today^s report points out that both procurements achieved levels of competition equivalent to or better than other rolling stock procurements since 2000. However, in the case of Intercity Express, the Department decided to proceed with a revised bid without rerunning the competition. The Department view is that no other manufacturer could offer better value for money but this remains untested.

Just two years after the Intercity Express procurement began, the Department decided to electrify the Great Western Mainline which meant that diesel trains were no longer needed. While the programme was designed to be flexible enough to accommodate this change of direction, the NAO recommends that the Department in future major procurements produce a detailed, integrated plan to bring together infrastructure, rolling stock and franchising strategy.

The Department awarded both contracts more than two and a half years later than intended, largely because of pauses to the procurements and the challenge of securing finance for these projects during the financial crises.

He shows that, on average, Super Express Train operators will be paying Agility Trains ^64,000 per diagrammed vehicle per month. In 2012 the Pendolinos were costing Virgin ^32,400 per vehicle per month. This is a valid comparison as in both cases the contracts are total train service provision deals combining finance, maintenance and cleaning.

I appreciate that the HSTs are nearly at the end of their life, but if IIRC the leasing costs of a Mk3 coach are something like ^8,000 to ^10,000 per coach per month. Allowing for the leasing costs of the power cars puts up the 'per coach' cost and to make the comparison more accurate the maintenance costs should be added which fGW does on its own account but which for the IEPs and Pendolinos are included in the leasing payments. Even so 'per coach' the total cost can't be much more than ^20,000 per month.

The NAO has confirmed earlier estimations that the Great Western and East Coast operators will be paying twice as much for their trains as Virgin does on the West Coast for a faster and more complex (tilting) train. And the IEP will cost around THREE times as much as the HSTs currently in use.

The unavoidable conclusion is that some combination of increased fares, reduced premiums or increased subsidy will be necessary for the operators of these trains as it beggars belief that three times the amount of work will be got out of them compared with the HSTs or IC225s.

The unavoidable conclusion is that some combination of increased fares, reduced premiums or increased subsidy will be necessary for the operators of these trains as it beggars belief that three times the amount of work will be got out of them compared with the HSTs or IC225s.


As i said in teh GWML electrifiation thread on IEPs to Banbury the 3 times work comes from the DfT's fantasy diagram group

My solution, cascade the new IEPs off the ECML and onto the newly-electrified MML. Much cheaper than another new fleet for the MML and new locos for the IC225s to go to Anglia.

The IEP is more expensive than any other option - it will, in short, be unaffordable wherever it is used. Going to a ROSCO and asking for a 125mph electric train with full maintenance cover will get you a train for less than half the monthly cost of the IEP.

Not a cause for regoicing at all in my view.
Mainline services to be downgraded to DMUs, even if these can also use electric power.
I stand by my earlier remarks about the likleyhood of bus style seating layout, reduced legroom, minimal catering, and shorter trains.
Voyager mark 2 :'(

5) HSTs can't go on forever in squadron service

Probably true, particularly for the power cars. But there were alternatives to IEP which would likely have costed a fair bit less. Of course, the criticisms 2-4 could be equally true whatever rolling stock was chosen.

Look its too late for IEP they are being built now. If the order is cancelled now it will probably cost us (the taxpayer) as much as if we had the trains.

The real test will come when TOCS are able to choose what trains they buy for increased capacity or further electrification. Will they buy IEPs or will they buy Pendelino or other offerings that other manufacturers are likely to come up with. 

Unless IEPs prove so much better than the alternative or the others become more expensive their true value will be seen and perhaps even in a proper free leasing market Hitachi will find it difficult to lease them - or have to reduce the price.  Depends on the contract that DfT have committed us all to. 

Sure, we can't cancel the contract. The contract DfT has committed us to is a 27.5 year total train service provision, proper 'free market' leasing does not apply.

1) yes, DMUs with under floor engines

On the Great Western, 32x 5-car and 18x 9-car diagrams to cover what would currently be 46x 8-car diagrams is not fit-for-purpose.

Agreed 322 IEP coaches against 368 HST coaches, however I've not been able to work out what this means in terms of seats. Also, don't forget DfT are expecting far better utilisation of the IEP sets which I think means there wil be less tains running more services.

Don't forger several HST rakes will be retained for the Cornish services, though it's likely we'll lose the Class 180s.

Agreed 322 IEP coaches against 368 HST coaches, however I've not been able to work out what this means in terms of seats. Also, don't forget DfT are expecting far better utilisation of the IEP sets which I think means there wil be less tains running more services.

Don't forger several HST rakes will be retained for the Cornish services, though it's likely we'll lose the Class 180s.

To be extra-kind to IEP, I'll use today's low-density IC125 sets with full-buffet. That, I think, provides 474 seats. A 5-car IEP is 315 seats. That's 159 fewer seats on the new 5-car trains, before the capacity of the IC125s is increased by converting first to standard. While the 627 seats on a 9-car set may make the overall seats per day figure similar to today (perhaps even slightly higher) that's no comfort to the poor souls on reduced-capacity services to South Wales and the Cotswolds, who may have an hour to wait for the next train which could also be a 5-car set (almost certainly so in the case of the Cotswolds).

I think you are right, Andrew1939 - the clue is in the name: Intercity Express Programme, not train. Maybe we forum members should lead the way with Super Express Trains. If they cost much over budget, we could dub them Super Excess Trains...

But there might be an opportunity to buy Agility Trains out of the contract. Basically the 'Total Train Service' provision contract passes all the risks, engineering and manufacture, operational and financial, onto the manufacturer. If one is unwilling to take any part of the risk of doing something then one will pay through the nose.

My understanding is that the existing Cotswold Line peak hour trains, currently normally HST125s will be replaced by double 5-car bi-mode IEPs (or SETs) with more seating. Off-peak CL services are currently mainly 5 car class 180 Adelantes with similar seating capacity to a 3-car turbo. They will, I understood, be replaced in the main by single 5-car bi-mode IEPs which should also have more seats.

And why should Hitachi be so handsomely compensated?  - Because it was not their fault, that the specification was dreamed up by civil servants with no idea how to run a railway and apparently with very little engineering knowledge. And worst of all as the Public Accounts Committee reminded us recently they were acting in contravention of government policy which is to get train operators to procure rolling stock. 

In any case, governments never act in contravention of their own policy: they simply rewrite that policy.

Slightly unfair on the civil servants involved. There will be many at DafT with sound technical and engineering knowledge, who are perfectly capable of drafting at least an outline specification. For other details, they would engage consultants, presumably liaising with Hitachi's own people once they were selected as the lead.

Given the reaction of Hitachi and the Japanese government when it was first suggested that the award should be reconsidered way back in the days of the last government I think this is no realistic.

You would not only have to compensate them for the profit they expect make over the next quarter of a century, their design and legal costs so far (given the number of redesigns and renegotiations I dread to think how much that might be) and also the factory that they have now signed a contract to build and are building in Newton Aycliffe.

If you had the remotest idea how much money that might cost you would not have suggested it I am sure.  I would certainly involve a large cut in the money spent on other railway projects to pay for it.

They would also want paying for the new and refurbished depots but I expect most of that would be used by others so that.

And after all that we would have an electrified line with no electric trains to run on it. 

And why should Hitachi be so handsomely compensated?  - Because it was not their fault, that the specification was dreamed up by civil servants with no idea how to run a railway and apparently with very little engineering knowledge. And worst of all as the Public Accounts Committee reminded us recently they were acting in contravention of government policy which is to get train operators to procure rolling stock. 

According to the ORR's website, in the document ^GB rail industry financial information for the year ending 31 March 2013^, fGW's annual rolling stock charges currently total ^68 million. Roger Ford's calculation in the August Modern Railways show the annual charge for fGW's tranche of SETs will be around ^300 million.

Do the maths.

I would love to do the maths ... but need some more data to put it into context.  And I need to ask are we comparing like for like?   As I understand it, with the trains leased for ^68 million, First then have to have service facilities to look after the trains on which they spend money.   But it's my understanding that the ^300 million includes that servicing facility and all the staff and materials involved therein. 

To do the maths ... let's look at the context.

Income: some wildly guessed figures
Annual passenger journeys say 100 million at at average of 16 pounds = 1.6 billion
Concession fees including parking, outlets, advertising space, sub contracts - guess 0.4 billion
EU and local authority payments for improved services above SLC base -

Expenditure:  and I'm not even going to guess here
Network Rail track access:
Staff salaries and benefits:
Train leasing:
Train servicing:
Fuel:
Stations:
ATOC / National Rail contribution:
Publicity and other expenditure:

And on one side and / or the other:
franchise premiums:
subsidy:

Anyone care to fill in figures?  It would be lovely to see how the 68 million (in narrow train leasing) fits against the 300 million in the future (leasing and servicing), what proportion of the total turnover that is (so proportionally how much difference it makes to farebox requirements) and how the higher utilisation that we've heard about will allow more income per seat / carriage per day to be generated. 

I can fill in some of the figures. Your are quite right that the IEP payments include maintenance and cleaning and the running of the depots - but crucially it also includes the financing costs. ...

Net franchise payments to Govt.                                                       ^165 million

It doesn't matter how one looks at the figures, this IEP procurement will be a millstone around the railway industry's neck for decades to come unless the Government can find some way to reduce the rents that the TOCs have to pay. It beggars belief that fGW can increase the income per coach per month by three times - which it will need to do to in order to pay for the train under the existing procurement regime.

A cynic might suggest that the Government are using the passengers from Swindon to subsidise jobs in the North-East - I couldn't possibly comment.

ReadingAbbey, I fear buying out the contract would cost almost as much as proceeding with the insanely expensive procurement. It is probably too late for the railway to save itself from the massive increase in costs that is coming. If so, we had better damn well make sure we are paying for something that is fit for purpose, and get the maximum benifit from the rather over-priced investment. Unfortunately it looks like the DfT's current plan will fail to acheive either, as well as being far too expensive. Somebody save the 91s, save us from 5-car SETs on services which are currently longer and save us from having to buy more new IC trains (for the MML, which might even be more 800s/801s, given they seem to be the DfT's pet trains) please.

I would hazard a guess that, under such an arrangement the rent for the SET would not be far away from those paid by Virgin for the Class 390s. These trains are comparable, both are recent designs, both have similar performance and while the Pendolino has all the tilting gear, the SET has all those diesel engines. Under such circumstances the train would be more affordable

This means, for a start, that there will probably be two or three SETs on hot standby each and every day.

Not wishing to undermine many other of your quite possibly very valid points, but, as far as the passenger is concerned, is having a small number of standby sets necessarily a bad thing to give a little more scope to recover from delays/train failures and reduce the number of cancelled trains?

Many thanks for that detailed post (I've not quoted it back fully in consideration of mobile device users!

Very useful to see my guesses turned into something less than a guess - much more clarity in the figures.   I am however going to ask is some of the staffing cost also goes across to the IEP budget.   And perhaps the elephant in the room is the franchise payments - how much and in which direction - which will have such a huge impact on the balance sheet and thus on the required income from the farebox.


Turn that on your 2013 figures (artificial, because of so many other changes, but probably the best data set we could use) into a net franchise payment of ^65 million instead, and you don't need to load it all onto fares.   Depends how greedy the government is / how much effective tax it wants to apply to train travel.


Thats assuming the same / proportionately the same franchise payment level, which is a political decision to a degree.  The commercial companies (First, Stagecoach, National Express, Arriva, Go-Ahead, SNCF and the rest) will bid based on what they are guided to believe they can do with fares.


That, surely, depends again on the sort of bid guidance and franchise payment level.   Heck, we don't yet know whether we're looking at 10 months, 3 years or 5 years from September 2015 for a likely direct award - all we do know it that by EU rules nothing can be finally signed until March 2015 on that front, and we have an election in May ...

To get a feel for the size of the problem - the predicted annual rent for the SETs (^300 million) is about one third of fGW's total annual turnover...

If the extra money comes from fare-payers, then the DfT has procured too many SETs.  :) If it comes from tax-payers then re-doubling Thingley Junction has moved well out into the future...

That is, essentially, the choice which has to be made.

Westcountry train manufacturing suppliers chosen to supply new Intercity Express Programme

Train construction suppliers in the Westcountry have been given a boost after an international company won a Government contract for the new Intercity Express Programme.

Two Somerset-based suppliers and one firm from Cornwall are among 30 UK-based suppliers to have been chosen by Hitachi Rail Europe to build the ^5.8 billion Government project.

It comes as the Japanese company said it would source 72% of its parts, systems and operations from UK firms.

Somerset-based Brecknell Willis will supply pantographs for the new trains while, fuel tanks will come from Johnson Security, located in Gloucester, brake systems from Somerset-based Knorr-Bremse and flooring from Cornwall-based Tiflex.

Business Secretary Vince Cable MP who was in the Westcountry this week to visit the Aerohub at the Newquay airport and the innovation centre in Treliske, Truro, welcomed Hitachi^s decision.

He said: ^Hitachi^s decision to work with suppliers from across the country shows that the UK is advancing as a global leader in rail manufacturing.

^The Government is committed to helping companies attract inward investment to develop strong, coordinated and competitive supply chains here in the UK.

"We have created a new Rail Supply Chain Forum to help British businesses win work both here and abroad and I am greatly encouraged to see that world leading companies such as Hitachi are placing their confidence in UK suppliers.^

Jamie Foster, procurement director at Hitachi Rail Europe, said: ^We are delighted to be working with so many suppliers from across the UK in building our new Class 800 series trains for the Intercity Express Programme.

^Given the high requirements for quality and reliability of our trains, we were keen to work with companies that share our values in this regard.

^As the first three pre-series trains are now being manufactured in our factory, I cannot emphasise enough the high quality and quantity of services our suppliers have provided on the project thus far. We will continue working closely with each of them across the rest of the manufacturing and delivery schedule.^

Paul Goodhand, managing director of Knorr-Bremse Rail Systems UK said the Hitachi announcement was a welcome boost for his firm. He said: "We are committed and indeed look forward, to supporting Hitachi Rail Europe in their UK manufacturing efforts, not only on the initial supply and commissioning of the brake system on this exciting new train, but also on providing support through its entire lifecycle, some twenty eight years into the future."

Barry Curtis, sales manager with Flooring, Treadmaster Flooring - Tiflex Ltd, added: "This project will strengthen our relationship, give us additional opportunities to work closely on new projects in the future and promote our profile in the industry."

The Intercity Express Programme is a ^5.8bn Government project to replace the ageing Intercity 125 fleet on the East Coast and Great Western Main Lines with new high-speed trains.

Trains destined for the Great Western main line will be introduced in December 2017.

The East Coast main line will see the first new trains go into passenger service in 2018.

The final delivery of all trains for the Great Western and East Coast main lines will be completed by 2018.

And here's a picture of the first pre-production series class 800 outside the Hitachi Kasado factory in Japan.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/hitachi-class-800-trainsets-begin-testing-in-japan.html

Unsurprisingly looks very similar to the class 395

And here's a picture of the first pre-production series class 800 outside the Hitachi Kasado factory in Japan.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/hitachi-class-800-trainsets-begin-testing-in-japan.html

Unsurprisingly looks very similar to the class 395

If that were to be the case, what would other correspondents choose as a class for the IEP's? 

I was wondering a while back if these sets would be named on the Great Western.  If so, (and from a personal point of view) I'd like them to be named as a "class", rather than at random as seems to be at present on the HST power cars. 

If that were to be the case, what would other correspondents choose as a class for the IEP's?  (Kings, and other stately homes excepted!)

-------------------------

As for naming the IEP with a 'class', how about Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients? VCs for the Class 801 and GCs for the Class 800, or vice versa.

Agree multiple units ought not to be named but, if one wants to, how about Cathedrals....................(if one doesn't like stately homes)?

Agree multiple units ought not to be named but, if one wants to, how about Cathedrals....................(if one doesn't like stately homes)?

How about Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Titch for a bi-curious set? Or Pugh-Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub (the latter being the catering bit).

Oh my goodness - someone's going to suggest Thunderbirds characters next  ;D

west country sailors such as Raleigh, Drake, Howard, Collingwood, Nelson etc

And Robert Cabot (though he was originally Portuguese). And perhaps more modern sailors such as Chichester-Clarke.............

one of many famous Bristol people who came from somewhere else. That includes Brunel (Portsmouth) and Four Track, Now! (Oldham, then Cleveleys, between Blackpool and Flootweed).

Who'd want to travel in a carriage called 'bignosemac'?

<shudder>

As an aside, I once got arrested in Cleveleys. Long time ago and a very different bignosemac.  :-X

Who'd want to travel in a carriage called 'bignosemac'?

<shudder>

Would it be economical to use a HST set that will likely, in the future, have to come from Laira, for the one day a week (and in the Summer only) London<->Pembroke Dock services?

Also begs the question whether it would be economical to clear the route for the bi-mode IEPs. I hope the Pembroke Coast Express can continue beyond IEP introduction, but worry that the economic case may not stack up.

The IEP route-clearance map ...

Some time ago, the model IEP timetable was posted here, as a PDF I think. I've searched back and can't find it again. Could anyone better at searching than me remind me of the link, please?

On page 240 of the Western Route Study Draft f October 2014 or Consultation, in Appendix B
Rolling stock assumptions it lists the bimodes as:

Name	Class	Description	Assumed capacity	Location/service assumed to operate in 2019 ITSS
10-car bi-mode IEP	SET	Super Express Train - two Electric Multiple Units with five carriages fitted with diesel engines to operate on routes without electrification coupled together to form a train with ten carriages	Seats: 630 Seats + standing: 756	Hereford via Oxford to London Paddington, Cheltenham via Kemble to London Paddington

AFAIK, that's always been the party line - 10-car trains that can run half-length out of the peak if you are sure they won't get to full.

Of course you may still suspect there won't be enough 10-car trains. And you may also wonder how well they will serve short platforms.

It won't - see above from the Western Route Study...2 x5cars in the peaks.

There seems to me no solution unless DfT can be convinced that it better to have some (more)  spares for strengthening, covering failures, specials etc, plus meaning the rest of the fleet has to be less intensively used.

Plus any unit should be able to couple and work in multiple with any other unit and have corridor connections.

Have you observed South & North Cotswold HSTs in the off-peak? Very lightly loaded beyond Oxford/Reading frankly, and 5cars ought to be sufficient.

I suspect 10cars to/from Oxford where necessary, detaching/attaching one set at Oxford, which will leave ample space going forward.

Remains to be seen how the South Cotswolds copes, but aren't services there being increased?

Of course you can always pull or push your all electric train with a 3Mw diesel loco off the wires.

Isn't that what autocouplers and common control gear are  for?

OOps forgot we haven't got standard couplers or control gear.

If I knew how to work social media (which I don't), I might try to launch an online petition. As things stand though, I wouldn't get enough pepole to see it for the government to take any notice, so I'm stuck with trying to figure out how to write DfT a letter that is (a.) short enough to actually get read and (b.) effective enough to actually spur them into action to sort this out.

Have you tried writing to your MP? I have now written to mine twice on this topic asking for his assistance in getting the project modified to reduce costs, once a couple of years ago and once more recently. I both cases he forwarded it to the DfT. In the first instance I received an asinine answer from Villiers (for it was she); I am still waiting for a response to the second letter.

Do try it, even little drops of water can wear away the stone...!

But do keep the letter short, factual and to the point. The more that the MPs realise that there is unrest something might be done.

For some years I have expressed very negative thoughts about the new trains, in particular that most of them will be much shorter than HSTs, that over half the seats are bus style without tables, and that no buffet* is to be provided.

Those who hold more positive views have been known to criticise my posts "don't knock them until you've seen them"
"these are only provisional layouts and may be altered"
"short trains are fine as they can run in multiple"

As time passes it appears that my negative thoughts  were justified, indeed a recent post suggests that now or very soon that "the time for consultation has passed"
A study of proposed diagrams and time tables by respected members suggests a lot of single unit operation on routes at present served by full length trains.
Does anyone REALLY believe that a buffet will be provided*
Does anyone really believe that the order will be altered to provide more full length trains.

*And yes I know that a kitchen is planned for first class but steerage wont be allowed access and first wont need it if table service is provided. So far all practical purposes the new trains "wont have buffets"

Not very practical at this stage to reduce costs.  Even ordering more reduces the unit costs.  Cancelling the order would be prohibitively expensive at this stage.

I agree the forms of contract has increased costs and that could be changed, but IIUC Rhydgaled was suggesting cancelling the order.  That would merely mean paying Hitachi large sums of money for producing absolutely nothing and all that electrification standing idle for years while alternative stock is ordered. We have passed the point of no return and must make the best of the IEP.  

So, in other words, you have not seen proposed diagrams and timetables.  I strongly suspect those will not be the final timetables and diagrams

Perhaps we might see a re-marshalling of some of the 5-Car Bi-modes into something longer in a similar vein to what happened to the Class 222 Meridian's?  I would be surprised if some or all of the 9-Car IEPs don't get extended to 10-Car trains in a similar way the Pendolino's have been extended.

Either way, can't see how any of your many negative thoughts have yet to be justified?  I do also have concerns and if they do end up being justified I will be right behind you in being very critical.

Have you tried writing to your MP? I have now written to mine twice on this topic asking for his assistance in getting the project modified to reduce costs, once a couple of years ago and once more recently. I both cases he forwarded it to the DfT. In the first instance I received an asinine answer from Villiers (for it was she); I am still waiting for a response to the second letter.

Do try it, even little drops of water can wear away the stone...!

But do keep the letter short, factual and to the point. The more that the MPs realise that there is unrest something might be done.

While some 390s have been lengthened, the class 220s and class 221 units haven't despite an apparent need for it (except for VT lengthening their 4-car 221s to 5-car at the cost of parking the two driving vehicles). The class 222s were remarshalled into shorter formations, with IEP on the GWML it is longer formations we need and I can't see how that can easily happen without telling Hitachi we want fewer driving vehicles and more intermediates before they start on series production.

Either way, can't see how any of your many negative thoughts have yet to be justified?  I do also have concerns and if they do end up being justified I will be right behind you in being very critical.

Well, at least one prototype set has been completed. Assumming the interior layout on that unit is the same as the draft plan, does that make it too late to provide a buffet in standard for either the EC or GW fleet, or is a kitchen/buffet on IEPs moved as easily as seats?

I've not done any searching, but I think the file you are reffering to was an .xslx, which I have saved on my laptop.

What odds for retaining peak-time HSTs on the Cotswold Line?

I understand FGW have told the catering grades in the RMT that there will be no buffets on the IEP and a trolley will be provided in standard class.

Does this mean the 'draft' layouts are still in play? Because I've just noticed they don't show any wheelchair spaces in standard on the 5-car sets.

I understand FGW have told the catering grades in the RMT that there will be no buffets on the IEP and a trolley will be provided in standard class.

Be interesting to see the RMT's reaction to that.

Apologists for the new trains...