Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 => Topic started by: Chafford1 on January 13, 2012, 08:10:00 pm



Title: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chafford1 on January 13, 2012, 08:10:00 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on January 14, 2012, 09:57:24 am
Great hopefully someone in the DFT will see sense and ditch  the bi-mode option and go for the full electric fleet with more electrification.


Also perhaps gives the opportunity for angel trains etc to push their alternative to Hitachi's proposal.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on January 16, 2012, 09:40:24 pm
Same date the pre-qualifiers for the GW franchise are
announced.Any connection I wonder.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on January 18, 2012, 05:22:16 pm
Has there been any offical word on the Pembroke Coast Express, one of the services which highlights how flawed the IEP idea is?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on January 18, 2012, 09:15:17 pm
IEP to go ahead.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/business/9479051.Osborne_confirms_Newton_Aycliffe_Hitachi_plant_on_track/
CHANCELLOR George Osborne tonight confirmed that plans to bring a high-speed train manufacturing plant to County Durham were on track.Today the Government said it hopes to reach "financial close" on the contract within weeks.Speaking on board a Hitachi-built Shinkansen bullet train in Tokyo, Mr Osborne confirmed that construction of the factory is due to start later this year and the first trains due to roll off the production line at Newton Aycliffe as planned in 2016.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on January 18, 2012, 09:27:52 pm
Has there been any offical word on the Pembroke Coast Express, one of the services which highlights how flawed the IEP idea is?

I think you can safely say that consideration of the Pembroke Coast Express doesn't register on the radar at all of anyone involved in the contractual negotiations of ICE, nor probably of the GW franchise reletting either. So I'm not sure why you're expecting there to be any official word about it.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on January 18, 2012, 09:35:31 pm
The Pembroke Coast Express highlights the fact that 26m coaches is going to cost on a per-route basis to get the routes cleared. The cost of clearing to Pembroke Dock could rip this important service out of action.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on January 18, 2012, 09:48:42 pm
FGW (or their successor) will have a lot of spare HSTs come electrification. Only a medium term solution (the HSTs can't go on forever!), but one that should see the PCE remain in the Summer timetable.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on April 19, 2012, 08:41:12 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on April 19, 2012, 10:20:25 pm
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.

North of Bristol makes sense now. Southwards will not be so cost-effective, but shows why the electrification crew shouldn't be disbanded after the main job is done. A slow creep to Weston-s-Mare, then Taunton, then Plymouth, and you'll get to Penzance one day. Each bit that opens will reduce the bi-mode usage.

Let's face it, and I know the first bi-mode hasn't been built yet, but they will be obsolete come 2040. Carry on electrifying, bit by bit, or someone is going to have to spend a lot of money in one big lump yet again some time in the future. This is what should have been done after the big projects finished, around 1991. We wouldn't have had to keep running out of date diesel units for as long as we have, and there wouldn't have been angst over spending over ^700m in one go. Government policy is to move towards electricity for all forms of vehicle over time, so why not?

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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on April 19, 2012, 10:59:36 pm
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?
National electrification is at risk I fear, for the similar reasons of the mid 1990's, NR is in the process of being broken up, driven by McNulty, into route business with "commercial alliance" with the TOC's there is a real risk that National co-ordination and drive will fade away.   Abandoning NR company standards is being looked at, allowing the Route / TOC group to do their own thing


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on April 21, 2012, 09:41:04 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on April 21, 2012, 09:51:54 pm
Those of you who still think IEP / Shinkansen Poo Tube is a good thing might like to mull over this from a most knowlegeable colleague posting on WNXX;

Quote from: Mollosssus
1. We have been told IEP is about creating jobs. Around 200-300 semi-skilled jobs assembling trains in Newton Aycliffe, Durham. The trains will actually be built in Japan and shipped over semi-complete with things like seats and various other sub assemblies bolted on in the UK. The high value components such as traction equipment and coach bodies plus the high skill assembly tasks will be kept in Japan. A design office is to be set up in Durham to design Hitachi Trains for the UK and European markets. European market? Since both markets are already over-supplied from domestically based manufacturers, does anyone think Japanese companies will be able to sell trains there when Japan is a closed market for trains from Europe?

2. IEP is to be built using a complex mixture of private and public finance in a PFI contract that is already proving to be mind bogglingly expensive. PFI is falling out of favour with all right thinking economists. So far the DfT has admitted, grudgingly, that it has spent ^33m on consultants for this train, and has for the most part ignored their advice. Not one vehicle has been ordered yet, possibly because NOT ONE SINGLE PROFESSIONAL RAILWAY ENGINEER OR SENIOR MANAGER WANTS IT OR HAS PUBLICLY SUPPORTED IT!

3. The specification for this train has changed beyond all recognition as inexpert civil servants keep changing the design, what should have been a simple straightforward electric train has become a complex expensive nightmare of a train totally unlike any other Inter-City train in the World.
The basic design was to replace 8 - 9 coach HST trains. So they design a train based on 5 coach sets. There is no corridor between the sets, so in busy times when two are coupled to make 10 cars, they need two lots of traincrew. Two lots of buffet staff, and yes, two guards! So much for the McNulty report about reducing costs, this civil service train will probably end up causing fares to rocket and could even see other services cut to pay for it. It's so pricey that electrification plans for the lines out of Paddington to the West and South Wales have had to be cut back. So the design is changed yet again and the numbers to be ordered cut back, yet again.

4. IEP is to be mostly bi-mode. To use the correct term, Electro-Diesel. The electric train will run on electric power when on the electrified line, but will have diesel engines under 60% of the coaches to run on non-electrified lines. That means that for most of the time it will be lugging around 24 tonnes of diesel engine, fuel, ancillaries etc. that is just dead weight. Wasteful use of energy, higher track access charges and very expensive maintenance costs. Electric trains are much cheaper to maintain and cover far more miles per breakdown than diesels. But a train that has to mix both types of traction with big costly to maintain diesel engines below the floor will be an accountants, as well as an engineers nightmare to maintain. Of course when running off the electric lines, which we cannot afford to modernise because of IEP costs, it will run on these underfloor diesels. They will be noisy for passengers sat over the top of them, and the installed power will be barely enough for them to travel much past Exeter. As a result we are having to spend many millions rebuilding the 36 year old High Speed Trains currently employed to see another 20-25 years service.

5. There is a much better and cheaper alternative. We know what it costs to run the electric Pendolino Trains from Euston to Glasgow and Edinburgh. They are reliable, popular and even now repeat orders are being built to meet demand. The version required for use on lines currently planned for IEP would be even cheaper because the tilt mechanism used to Scotland will not be needed on the straighter lines on the Western and Eastern regions. Using a full size UK version of the Pendolino (the tilting trains have a smaller cross section) one gets a perfect fit for the main lines of the UK. The Pendolino is assembled in Italy, but the high value work, the traction equipment and other items requiring skilled labour to both build an maintain for the next 40 odd years is UK based, particularly in the North West around Preston. These trains could also be maintained in the current depot facilities saving many millions building new facilities for the IEP. Bombardier build high speed trains and locomotives around the World, but especially in Europe. They too have a UK spec. train on the drawing board ready to go into production, and a factory in Derby desperate for work with around 2000 jobs under threat if the Japanese are allowed to build their factory.

6. At a time when the Government is telling the rail industry to cut costs, at the same time the Department for Transport is telling the industry it has to use a train specified by a team of inexpert civil servants, that will cost around ^20,000 more per month PER VEHICLE, to operate compared to the alternative. The Train Operators are also being told that from now on they will be in charge of specifying new trains. They don't want IEP, so why are the Govt. still persisting with this nonsense?


Might even use that as a template for a letter to my MP...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on April 22, 2012, 12:30:16 am
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. However, the electric-only part is important, counting the East Coast sets that's almost enough money saved to wire to Swansea just in the capital cost of diesel engines. Since they would be electric-only, you would also reduce the number of routes you need to clear for the 26m coaches to save more money, and all that before you scrap the PFI business and just buy the damn things.

There is a long list of extras you would need, for example you'd need over 100 pantograph cars to convert the 22x fleet to bi-mode and do something (either give XC more Intercity 125s to cascade Voyagers or wire Crewe-Chester, buy more Pendos for ICWC and give XC the 221s from ICWC), to provide a fleet of about 12 5-car bi-mode class 220 units for the Cotswolds line services in place of IEP bi-mode. All that will make it more expensive than IEP, but money spent on electrification and new electric trains is much better spent than on diesel engines and creative accounting (PFI).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on April 22, 2012, 01:52:08 pm
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.
You need to take into consideration that the Hitachi factory is merely going to be an assembly plant for kit made elsewhere, thus its not the golden opportunity that it might first appear to be job's wise. Pendolino uses UK made kit (made in Preston) for its high value traction electonics, even if the trains are assembled elsewhere in Europe. IEP will be maintained in new depots, there is no garantee that those employed currently at the existing depots will transfer and at least two of the current depots will close.

I'm not sure how its possible to remain a 'preferred bidder' when the specification for the IEP has been re-written umpteen times as Roger Ford and others have pointed out many times. The original IEP contract can hardly be worth the paper its written on, ths is what happens when the Civil Service design railway trains...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on June 20, 2012, 11:01:03 pm
Looks like contract for IEP wont be signed til at least the end of July.

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



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on June 21, 2012, 09:45:27 pm
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?  :-\


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on June 21, 2012, 10:30:31 pm
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?  :-\


A post on WNXX  stating that the contract was supposed to be signed in July with the design freeze on IEP in December 2012.
 
Another post stating that the holder of the GW franchise was supposed to be annouced in Decmber 2012 but has been pushed back to Jan/Feb 2013 (Howver I thought the annoucement was always around March 2013 anyway?) with the  new operator taking over in July 2013 rather than April 2013 because of the easter blockade of Reading.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Super Guard on June 23, 2012, 11:13:41 am
I thought the contract was extended slightly until the end of April 2013, because of the Easter blockade?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on June 23, 2012, 04:13:22 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on June 24, 2012, 10:55:19 am
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;


Quote
2.17 Negotiation and Award
Following bid evaluation and clarification, the Department reserves the right to negotiate
with one, some, or all Bidders.
Historically, even though the Department is likely to have decided after its evaluation and
clarification process that one or two bidders are in a leading position, no indication of this
is provided to bidders, nor any public announcement made until actual contract award and
signature.
On the GW competition, because of the interaction with IEP, the Department reserves the
right to indicate to a bidder(s) that its bid is not considered to be a leading bid and that it
need not engage with the IEP design process any further.
Because such a decision is almost certain to become known anyway, the Department may
well decide to make a short formal announcement in this respect. So doing will not in any
way prevent the Department from re-engaging with that Bidder should the Department
subsequently find it is unable to contract with the two (or more) bidders that were originally
considered to be lead bidders.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on June 24, 2012, 12:47:09 pm
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;


Quote
2.17 Negotiation and Award
Following bid evaluation and clarification, the Department reserves the right to negotiate
with one, some, or all Bidders.
Historically, even though the Department is likely to have decided after its evaluation and
clarification process that one or two bidders are in a leading position, no indication of this
is provided to bidders, nor any public announcement made until actual contract award and
signature.
On the GW competition, because of the interaction with IEP, the Department reserves the
right to indicate to a bidder(s) that its bid is not considered to be a leading bid and that it
need not engage with the IEP design process any further.
Because such a decision is almost certain to become known anyway, the Department may
well decide to make a short formal announcement in this respect. So doing will not in any
way prevent the Department from re-engaging with that Bidder should the Department
subsequently find it is unable to contract with the two (or more) bidders that were originally
considered to be lead bidders.


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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on June 25, 2012, 08:42:19 am
I very much look forward to seing the mock up hitachi come up with if they do decide to build one.
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...
 >:(


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on June 25, 2012, 04:44:06 pm
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'm just enjoying traveling on 125s whilst we still have them. As pointed out by Roger Ford on Twitter earlier, 40 years ago this month the first prototype HST rolled out and it's still going strong. On the ECML their failure rate is lower than the class 91s that replaced most of them back in the early 90s. Says it all really.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on June 25, 2012, 08:28:25 pm
I very much look forward to seing the mock up hitachi come up with if they do decide to build one.
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...
 >:(


And the seats just slightly closer together, and slightly fewer tables, and no catering, except perhaps a trolley on selected services.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on June 27, 2012, 04:25:03 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on June 27, 2012, 09:20:50 pm
I thought the contract was extended slightly until the end of April 2013, because of the Easter blockade?

Amazing how Easter can catch so many people by surprise, despite 2,000 years' notice.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on June 28, 2012, 10:29:10 am
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

I remember the old (pre HST) trains on the Western, and elswhere.
The old trains were normally longer, and had more legroom, more tables, more luggage space, and opening windows.
The HSTs were a backward step in regard to train length and seat spacing, but some considered this a worthwhile trade off in view of the substantialy reduced journy times. The introduction of A/C was a decided advantage in hot weather.

The fact that HSTs are now widely regarded as among the best trains on the network, shows just how far standards and expectations have fallen.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 28, 2012, 10:48:11 am
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!

2)  Class 172s.  I took a trip on one of the new Class 172s of London Midland a couple of months back.  Excellent leg room and 2+2 seating on what is a brand new suburban train, though train lengths have had to be extended and on some trains could do with being extended more (but not operationally possible due to platform lengths at present).  There are now complaints from commuters that there aren't enough seats in the peak hours - despite there being more carriages on many services.  Proves that sometimes you just can't win!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on June 28, 2012, 12:20:09 pm
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

Your going to be bitterly dissapointed then. ;)

Anyone who thinks a new underfloor engined Intercity style cart is going to be an improvement on HST wants their bumps felt. Its all about bums on seats and I doubt DfT are that concerned about the comfort of those bums that are seated.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on June 28, 2012, 12:23:41 pm
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!

The 180's were the best of a bad bunch (above the underframe and between the cabs anyway) and far superior to the 22x.

IEP would appear to be the long wheelbase lovechild of a class 395 and a class 221 and I'd be very surprised if thats exactly what you end up with. Same width as the Voyager / 158 / 153 apparently.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on June 30, 2012, 12:26:22 am

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.

Ah, the Orient Express! It worked cardiff to Taunton, IIRC. I caught it to Weston from BTM many times. It was smoother, quieter, and more comfortable than the regular DMUs, and I didn't know it had been taken away.

I caught a similar train from Blackpool to Manchester some few years back, that did have a first class carriage, although the train was shown as standard class only in the timetable. So I sat in it with my mate, the only two in the whole carriage, with no problem. The conductor didn't mind. Standard class was standing room only, and not much of that either. You have to think these things through, sometimes.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on July 10, 2012, 01:28:13 pm
IEP appears to be an inevitability now. From a normally impeccable source on WNXX;

Quote
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.

Some positive murmurings about OHLE to Swansea though.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on July 11, 2012, 06:59:11 pm
IEP appears to be an inevitability now. From a normally impeccable source on WNXX;

Quote
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.

Some positive murmurings about OHLE to Swansea though.

Er, rejoice?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 11, 2012, 10:24:01 pm
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 :'(


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on July 12, 2012, 11:14:43 am
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 :'(
It has been decided that the Western has had it too good for far too long. All these splendid comfortable HST's roaring round in profusion while other passengers have to make do with truck engines on steroids roaring away under narrow cramped saloons. Now it is our turn to have standards reduced / dumbed down to the levels of the rest of the post 1996 replacement Intercity train fleets I'm afraid.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on July 12, 2012, 07:39:27 pm
Not rejoice, then.  :(


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 23, 2012, 11:39:30 am
Roger Ford tweeted this, this morning....

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 25, 2012, 10:08:15 am
Just been released today!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20120725a/ (http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20120725a/)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: homsar on July 25, 2012, 10:09:49 am
Looks like it's going ahead then (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/07/25-intercity-express-gets-green-light.html)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 25, 2012, 10:10:55 am
and no compromise on leg-room

That bit should please 'Broadgauge'!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 25, 2012, 10:22:34 am
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......

I do agree it's gone a little quiet regarding HS2, but that might partly be due to the huge amount of work sitting in the DfT's inbox.  HS2 is not a Network Rail scheme, yet, so they will not be making references to it, though the HLOS released last week makes two references (at least) to HS2:

'The strategic intent is to develop the network in a way that will enable it to shoulder demand until High Speed Two (HS2) becomes operational, but is then able quickly to adapt and integrate around the high capacity HS2 corridor.'

'The Secretary of State wishes the industry to prepare for the future and, to this end, is providing ^140 million over CP5 to fund innovation and the development of potential enhancement schemes for CP6 (2019/20 to 2013/24) including all necessary work on development of the linkage of High Speed Two with the existing rail network.'


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 25, 2012, 10:47:44 am
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 25, 2012, 10:53:27 am
Apart from the interfaces with the exisiting network, HS2's core route may well remain in separate ownership to NR anyway, like HS1 - (notwithstanding NR have the maintenance contract).

As you say the main project isn't HLOS subject matter - that's why there is a separate HS2 company, again like set up for CTRL1/2 (later HS1), and HS2 has a separate funding line outside NR...

Pointing out its absence from the HLOS as a poosible sign it is being sidelined is clutching at straws, I think.

Paul

 

 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: homsar on July 25, 2012, 11:08:15 am
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

Thanks, I fixed the fixing of my link. (Why can't forum software agree on whether url tags need quotes or not?)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 25, 2012, 12:07:49 pm
The agreed electrification of Cardiff to Swansea is very important in that it allows for there to be far more Electric only sets, rather than Bi-Mode.  I can't find the exact figures, but I think GW were only getting around 10 full electric sets and around 45 5-car bi-mode trains in the pre-HLOS specs.  The electrification of Swansea to Cardiff has now enabled this to be shifted to 21 electric units (189 vehicles) and 36 bi-mode units (180 vehicles), so there will be more electric carriages than bi-mode ones.  The valid point is made that diesel engines can be removed from the bi-mode units if more routes become electrified, Swindon to Cheltenham, Bristol to Weston, Newbury to Plymouth etc.

There's one other thing I've spotted.  I thought that in every specification released so far, the GW electric sets were to be 8-car trains, and the ECML sets 9-car trains - equivalent to the current number of carriages on each respective route.  Today's press release seems to say that all electric sets will be 9-car, so that's an additional carriage to help with capacity as well all of the carriages being 26 metres as opposed to 23 metres.  That's a 234 metre long train, compared with today's GW HST sets which are 216 metres and if a bi-mode runs as a 10-car formation you're looking at 260 metres - major platform works at Paddington will be needed!

It remains a very expensive way to get some new rolling stock, but with the South Wales trains now able to be all-electric it is far from a disastrous situation if you ask me.  Many questions still have to be answered though!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on July 25, 2012, 01:09:03 pm
A few questions based on the news release from the DfT.

They plan to build 92 sets.  How many HST sets are there at the moment?  Will these sets be used in the same way as the existing HSTs in that the power cars, which I assume have higher maintainence requirements than the coaches, are swapped about between sets.  If that is the case would it not make sense to have a few more power cars than coach sets?

The new coaches are three metres longer - will that affect route availabilty?  (It will certainly affect how many coaches will fit on the platform at smaller stations.)

They mention building new depots at Bristol, Swansea and West London - which by chance is where FGW have three of their HST depots which will presumabley become redundant.  Could not savings be made by some staged conversion of these sites?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 25, 2012, 01:23:36 pm
'92 sets' does not easily compare with the number of HSTs at all, as not all GW HSTs are being replaced, and many of the 5 car units will run in pairs, with splitting and joining - for instance at Oxford for the Cotswold line.  Also, all the numbers are in service daily, so there'll have to be enough extras to cover maintenance, maybe another 12% or so?

The IEPs do not have power cars, they will be fixed formations and the diesel engines are underneath.

ECML only has 13 HSTs at the moment, yet they are getting many more trains than that, some of which are all-electric, and keeping their existing 225s as well.

Hitachi view of numbers:

Quote
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


'Route availability' and gauging changes have always been part of the project, the trains don't have to fit the existing infrastructure as it is today, because it will be altered over the next few years.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 25, 2012, 02:31:41 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 25, 2012, 03:01:07 pm

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.

"TS1560 It is an essential requirement that a range of solutions are provided for seating areas, which
will provide a style and density of seating to suit the intercity and inter-urban service types
for both Standard and First class..."

You are always pretty consistent with your out and out pessimism, whatever the evidence to the contrary.

Quote
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.

The number of units is rising, yet the number of paths down the mainline isn't - so AFAICS single unit operation cannot be the norm.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on July 25, 2012, 03:15:28 pm
As far as I know off peak there will be plenty of single unit operation, it's always been mentioned that the sets could be doubled up in the peak to provide 10 carriages. Running them permanetly doubled up would be even more stupid as you lose so much passenger space with the redundant cabs in the middle and require almost double the crew. You need two guards, and at least two customer hosts and two first class hosts.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 25, 2012, 03:36:30 pm
"TS1560 It is an essential requirement that a range of solutions are provided for seating areas, which
will provide a style and density of seating to suit the intercity and inter-urban service types
for both Standard and First class..."

You are always pretty consistent with your out and out pessimism, whatever the evidence to the contrary".

My pessimism is born of long experience regarding other new or refurbished trains.
Statements about a "range of solutions" and "to suit both intercity city and interurban services" do not fill me with hope.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 25, 2012, 08:55:22 pm
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).

Fingers crossed the Varsity line upgrade with Evergreen 3B will mean the current station is ditched and one fit for purpose it built with at least 4 through platforms plus bays both sides.

Regarding catering, I doubt they'll be buffets, just a trolley - so no need for extra customer hosts if there are two coupled together.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Milky Bar Kid on July 25, 2012, 11:40:28 pm
The new franchisee will have a say on plans on seating, i remember seeing plans a while ago for the provision of kitchens on the 9 cars.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on July 26, 2012, 11:06:39 am
Re the comment on Oxford platform problems, hopefully by 2017, major improvements to increase capacity will be completed or well on the way to completion.
Has anyone noticed on the Hitachi video that the coaches seem to have vertical cycle racks at the end of the coach with two coaches adjoining so equipped? Very useful on the Cots Line where cycle are often carried, often beyond official capacity


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 26, 2012, 11:30:44 am
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).


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

Oh and why would it only affect 'commuters'?   ::)

Paul



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 26, 2012, 11:52:08 am
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.

All I just quoted from the original train technical spec is one paragraph from 9 pages. 

There is information about required seating dimensions, ratios of tables to airline etc.  I can't copy the table as text, but I've linked through to the document:  http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100104171434/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ieptraintechnicalspecifi.pdf

It's table 2 on page 47 that gives some of the dimensions and ratios, but there are many details of interior features, (such as luggage stowage requirements), throughout section 6, on pages 40-49.

If that's the way the train is specified, it ought not to be a million miles different.  You aren't ever going to get an exact replica of a 1980s HST carriage.

Now if you were to say they might not build that, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion.  Problem for me is that your posts are tending towards stating as fact that it will be more like a suburban EMU, and you've absolutely no evidence at all...

Paul



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 26, 2012, 07:12:19 pm
They'd have to operate the timetable differently - it isn't a big deal, happens routinely all over the 'Southern'.

True, but Oxford is busier in train movements:platform compared to most of the SN places where trains divide. Also, on SN the second train often goes elsewhere, but at OXF we'll have to wait for the train to be checked and locked before it trundles up to the sidings, possibility crossing other lines on the flat.

Of course, they could send the second train up to Banbury (and Stratford?), but then that would hold XC up even more.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 27, 2012, 09:33:18 am
Interesting link in post 56, thanks.
The specification SOUNDS OK, if they are actually built like that, about which I have my doubts !
As pointed out, the TOC will have flexibility, and I cant imagine that FGW or a future TOC would use this flexibility to add more tables, or better catering, or to increase seat spacing.
Changes are invariably for the worse, as may be seen from the recently "improved" HSTs.

Such downgrades are invariably justified on the grounds that they improve capacity.
It is worth noting that it will be some years until the new trains come into service.
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.
Therefore the same arguments could be applied, remove the tables and downgrade the catering in order to improve capacity.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on July 30, 2012, 05:03:09 pm
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.

The trains will be longer remember (26 not 23m, although there will be cab space in the leading vehicles) and there will be an increase in survices.  BRI will get extra London trains via Parkway which should mean Bath and Chippenham getting more seats on the trains from/to BRI. 

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on July 30, 2012, 06:21:38 pm
Another thing that bugs me is that Cotswold line trains will not get faster if splitting occurs.

I think* Network Rail demand that there is a 7 minute dwell for splitting. As such, even when the Oxf - Pad time goes down to 50 minutes, only 3 will be passed onto the Cotswold line. Not good enough.

*Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on July 30, 2012, 06:24:57 pm
You could also run 2x5 cars.  I expect that the limiting factor is more likely to be platform length rather than train length. 

Another limiting factor, unless and until signalling improvements, is paths.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on August 26, 2012, 11:54:51 am
Just seen this on the DFT website concerning the provisional layout of the IEP trains:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/draft-iep-train-layouts/

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

Somthing spotted so far is that there is no buffet although more tables in standard class


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 26, 2012, 12:17:40 pm
More tables than an FGW HST or XC Voyager?  That cannot be serious.  What will broadgage possibly make of it?

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 26, 2012, 12:37:43 pm
I think Mr Roger Ford is going to be busy over the next few days having a look through this if he hasnt already.

They aren't really significantly different to the layouts he'd already published last year, at a first look the 5 and 8 car drawings seem almost identical to what's in the June 11 issue of MR - seat number variations are in single figures.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 26, 2012, 02:23:08 pm
Well, seeing as table seats do not align with each other across the aisle, I assume that at least half of tables will not align with windows.  ::)

Actually if you look hard enough, you can see where the pillars are, and sure enough pretty much all tables are at a pillar

Just like FGW's HSTs.

Nice one - well done!

 >:(


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 26, 2012, 02:30:01 pm
*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!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on August 26, 2012, 04:29:51 pm
Luggage and bikes don't buy tickets.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: FlyingDutchman on August 26, 2012, 04:36:27 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 26, 2012, 07:01:32 pm
More tables than an FGW HST or XC Voyager?  That cannot be serious.  What will broadgage possibly make of it?

Paul

Broadgage would observe that firstly the seats without tables still outnumber those with tables, and more importantly that the layout is only provisional.
Still plenty of time for improvements.
If passenger numbers continue to grow, then by the time that these trains enter service they will be more overcrowded than HSTs are now. The same arguments will therefore be applied, that tables and catering should be removed and more seats crammed in in order to provide "thousands of extra seats"


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 26, 2012, 07:15:31 pm
*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!

You need 2 disabled toilets per train because at least one will probably be out of order.
Normal toilets ditto, 1 per coach available and one out of order.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on August 26, 2012, 07:31:59 pm
FGW HSTs currently have two toilets per coach, having any less would seem a bad thing to me.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on August 26, 2012, 07:57:46 pm
FGW HSTs currently have two toilets per coach, having any less would seem a bad thing to me.

The 5 car sets have 5 toilets (of which two are easy access) - 1 loo per 54 travellers
The 10 car sets have 11 toilets (of which two are easy access) - 1 loo per 48 travellers
Both set types have carriages with 0, 1 and 2 loos in them.

Before I jump to any conclusions (other that the fact that people who need easy access can hold themselves far better on a longer train  ;D ), what are the figures for current trains - HST, Adelante and 3 car 158s  - the unit used for comparable longer journeys - it may be 2 in some coaches, but I think As in an HST only have one, the other being a locker room?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on August 26, 2012, 08:03:24 pm
HSTs have 11 or 12 toilets for an 8 carriage train, of which 8 or 9 are in the 4 or 5 Standard Class carriages.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 26, 2012, 08:47:06 pm
*... when there is room for just 2 bikes and NO guard's van for luggage (4 bikes on a 8/9 car train)

Why are you assuming each bike space only takes 1 bike?  On a XC voyager they get four in two spaces even with their tilt profile - IEP should have more space than that surely?

I'm sorry but 'guard's vans' are ancient history - no way you're going to get a guard's compartment at the expense of seating capacity.  But without the tilt profile, the overhead racks throughout the train should be useable - they certainly are on the 395s (Javelins).

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on August 26, 2012, 09:57:43 pm
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?  ::)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on August 26, 2012, 10:05:58 pm
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?  ::)

If cyclists want larger trains to carry their bikes are they prepared to pay for the additional cost, or are they expecting the rest of us to do so?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 26, 2012, 11:52:50 pm
Or the gov pays to encourage cycle travel to improve the environ and cure congestion! ;)

Guard's vans are heavily used where they still exist (holiday trains, Uni term start/end dates).
Having them also means you can cram more seats in the saloons.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 27, 2012, 10:22:30 am
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

Agree entirely, we arguably have enough short trains, it is proper full length inter city trains that are needed.
There will of course be some services for which a short train will suffice, but refurbished voyagers and adelantes will be around for many years yet.
Whilst of course short trains can be coupled together, this is often less satisfactory than a full length train.
2 trains each of 5 cars will probably cost more than a single 10 car one.
2 trains each of 5 cars will either have fewer seats or be longer than a single 10 car one.

There is more chance of proper catering being viable on a 10 car train rather than on 2 short ones.
Less staff will normaly be needed for a proper 10 car train than for 2 short ones.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 27, 2012, 04:12:44 pm
Where will surfboards be held in the summer on Newquay services?

Agree that the 5 car should be axed. If a train is empty offer lower fares (advance/super off peak) for the section that is quieter.

Look at the roads, whilst we have congestion, there is NO excuse for short or empty trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 27, 2012, 04:27:41 pm
Where will surfboards be held in the summer on Newquay services?

Irrelevant in the near future.  As discussed many times previously, IEPs are not going to be used on the Devon and Cornwall services.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 28, 2012, 10:08:15 am
Purely coincidental, but possibly a little worrying for Cotswold Line growth:

Total number of proposed standard class seats on a 5-car IEP:  270
Total number of seats on a Class 165 Turbo: 270

Though of course most Cotswold Line services are/will be in the hands of Class 180s (226 standard class seats + 16 tip-ups) or Class 166s (243 standard class seats).  The First Class provision is better with the proposed IEP layout giving 45 first class seats, compared with 42 on a Class 180, 32 on a Class 166 and 16 on a Class 165.

Given that running two IEP's on the Cotswold Line will be impossible, there's not really a huge increase in seating to cover a whole generation of growth, though it could be partially offset by running more trains with further re-doubling.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 28, 2012, 11:44:50 am
True, i forgot about D+C. But there is still no where near enough luggage space. I am actually shocked, as I would have thought the penny would have dropped by now...

Regarding the Cotswold line - this indeed is worrying. At peak times, I can't see any more trains, so the only extra ones will be during the day, when the trains are less full.

Of course, the Thames Turbos can be wedged at weekends and on shoulder peak services, hence the use of HSTs.

Having trains splitting at Oxford will increase journey times and decrease reliability. Plus how often will a unit get poached for another route, leaving a 5 car all the way to London? Why not use 8 car units, SDO and cheaper tickets to sell the seats?

Can we keep the HSTs please?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: CLPGMS on August 28, 2012, 12:09:12 pm
In addition to the question of short platforms on the Cotswold Line and the need for full HST type diesel trains during peak times, 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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 28, 2012, 02:04:01 pm
... 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.

Quote
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

...is a CP4 enhancement project, with design activities ongoing, and work on the ground starting Dec 13.  So yes, it has been addressed.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on August 28, 2012, 02:34:01 pm
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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 28, 2012, 04:17:39 pm
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 would presume that any excesive difference in height between platform and train will be eliminated as part of the works.
Not much can be done though about the horizontal gap which will indeed be worse with longer vehicles.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on September 01, 2012, 09:26:28 pm
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......


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 02, 2012, 09:11:28 am
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......

I do not see why the HSTs should soon become life expired, the power cars have recently be re-engined, and the coaches are said to be in good condition, not just comesticly, but structurally.

I agree entirely that it is a mistake to build the new trains without decent sized gaurds vans.
Cycling is increasing as road fuel costs rise, congestion worsens, and the health benifits of cycling become known.
On commuter routes it is perhaps reasonable to suggest that commuters should keep a cycle at the station, or perhaps one at each end, or make use of a hired cycle.
On longer distance routes used by holidaymakers this is not feasible and more cyclists will wish to travell with their machines.
Providing space does cost money, and I dont see why cyclists should not pay for taking a cycle on a train.
Similar arguments apply to surfboards and other bulky articles.
IMHO it is reasonable to charge for conveyance of such, but to effectively prohibit it is unreasonable.

Also due to rising road fuel costs, and enviromental concerns, it is probable that mail, light freight and parcells will return to the rails, during the life of the new trains.

This is also an argument for full length trains.
Providing a proper van on a 10 car train seems reasonable.
Providing 2 such on two 5 car units coupled together, not only wastes space but could result in time wasting confusion as to in which van articles have been/should be stowed.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: dog box on September 02, 2012, 10:54:43 am
As i read on another forum......The Future is Plastic and not very Fantastic


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 03, 2012, 11:08:46 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 03, 2012, 11:25:27 pm
HSTs are good. Very good.

But they are getting long in the tooth. Come the introduction of IEP the oldest HST power cars and Mk3 carriages will be passing 40+ years of sterling service, much beyond their designed life span.

Yes, they've been re-engineered (MTU engines) and patched up (new interiors) to continue providing that sterling service, but that cannot go on indefinitely. The fixtures and fittings of both the Class 43 power cars and the Mk3 carriages are currently, just, fit for purpose, but the chassis, bodywork and much of the mechanical and electrical equipment is now seriously old technology. Good technology, but nonetheless old.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 04, 2012, 08:42:32 am
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.

Those who asked "what was wrong with steam engines" might well have been right !
Electrification was and still is the way forward for busy routes, but steam certainly had a part to play for secondary routes.

Many relatively new steam locomotives were scrapped and replaced with first generation generation DMUs and diesel locomotives, these had a very poor record of reliability initialy.


I would certainly prefer an old HST to a new train, unless the new train was better than an HST.

If the new trains are longer, and have a more spacious internal layout, and are more reliable, and cheaper to run with this reflected in lower fares, then I would welcome them.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 04, 2012, 11:57:04 am
Umm, I'm actually very supportive of progress thank you.
I am one of those people who actually favours the knocking down of old and unsuitable buildings/bridges etc. to replace them with one for the times.
However, the replacement needs to be BETTER.

From what I can see, the proposed IEPs will offer little improvement, as such I would support keeping the HSTs.
They have:
-more seats
-more luggage space, including a vital guard's van (I really can't believe this has been missed off after the last 10 years of FAILED train design)
-only come in full length mode, so no splitting adding time to Cotswold line journeys
-have 23m carriages, so less gap between the train and the platform edge

If there were a worthy replacement, I would favour scrapping all HSTs today! So please do not paint me in such a way.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 04, 2012, 12:30:59 pm
Seats, luggage space and carriage length don't make them go though. Or keep them going. Or keep them going in a cost effective and fuel efficient way.

All we've seen on IEP interiors is a base design. What actually rolls out of Paddington for the inaugural passenger service in a few years is unknown.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on September 04, 2012, 02:30:00 pm
HSTs have done very well but they are not up to current standards. If they were kept they would have to be made to comply with the disability standards and whilst this could be done, at a high cost no doubt, there would still be many issues. Doors would have to be replaced. Toilet retenion chambers would have to be fitted and heaven knows what else. It might be justified to invest in some of the present fleet to serve, the far west of England with many of the remaining fleet being retained for spares etc. but to keep a 40 year old fleet goingdoes not seem to be a wise option.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 04, 2012, 03:01:59 pm
Indeed, we need a decent replacement, with more seats, more luggage space, higher top speed, faster acceleration and improved comfort.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 04, 2012, 05:22:44 pm
Indeed, we need a decent replacement, with more seats, more luggage space, higher top speed, faster acceleration and improved comfort.

More seats, possibly, just move them closer together "thousands of extra seats"
More lugage space ? no way, luggage space is VERY last century.
Higher top speed, most unlikely as 125 is the present maximum line speed, and no one will pay for higher speed capability that might never be used.
Faster acceleration, probably for the electric version, less likely for diesel or bi-mode.
Improved comfort ? as compared to a proper HST no way. Voyager mark 2 more likely, at best.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 04, 2012, 05:35:27 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 04, 2012, 10:47:04 pm
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 !  :)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 05, 2012, 01:09:11 pm
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 !  :)
Or not as the case may be.

Problem being of course that you have platforms of a suitable length in order to ensure that the DVT is platformed so that people can get the luggage into and out of what is in effect a non passenger carrying vehicle.


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....


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 05, 2012, 01:10:36 pm
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.
Probably just as well we didn't have the interweb when the GWR narrowed the track gauge from 7' 0 & 1/4" to 4' 8 &1/2"...
 ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 05, 2012, 02:28:25 pm
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....

They definitely won't fit in some of the platforms without modifications, though I think they'll be little or no modifications required for platforms 1, 2 and 3.  Other platforms are currently less than 260m in length, the 'main line' ones ranging from 237m to 253m according to the Sectional Appendix.  Shrinking the concourse won't be easy or popular and there's not much room to play with at the far end, so the solution will be interesting!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on September 05, 2012, 04:30:06 pm
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".


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andy W on September 05, 2012, 05:43:49 pm
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!!!
Your right TLAs are the bain of our lives.

I don't see the problem with extending (even further) the life of the HSTs They are fully fit for purpose, provide good comfort (well did until First messed them up), are fast enough etc. If only they were fitted out like the 180s!!

Regarding doors I'm pretty sure they could claim grandfather rights but if you take a look at what Chiltern have achieved then upgrading the doors is feasible.

Now question II - there is a significant amount of space in the Class 43 power cars - could they upgrade them with a pantograph and the relevant transformers & rectifiers etc to make them bi-modal at a fraction of the cost of new rolling stock?

Furthermore you could run a 5 coach setup and stick a DVT (the other type Andrew1939) at the other end creating a bimodal 'Cotswold Line' setup. Or even engineer a DBSO type configuration to increase seating capacity - and allow top and tail 10 coach configurations.

Give me a propertly fitted out Mk3 any day. Chiltern demonstrate what can be done - I know it's old but if it gets you there safely, reliably and comfortably what's the problem?

By all means get new long distance rolling stock for under the wires only operation but the HST could have a great role to play in the backwaters of the Cotswolds, Hereford and Worcester.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 05, 2012, 09:53:16 pm
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".

Having checked, DVT is listed on this forum's 'Acronyms/Abbreviations (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/acronyms.html)' page. A handy reference when an abbreviation turns up in a thread that you are not sure of. By no means a complete list of railway terminology, which is why it's always best to include the full name of an acronym or abbreviation at least once in a post. If you use or come across one of these and it isn't listed, by all means Let the Mod/Admin team know and well add it to the list. Railway related ones only please! We won't be adding "LOL" to the list.... at least not until the Open Access rail service; "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Oswestry and London" gets off the ground!  :P ;) ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 05, 2012, 10:27:29 pm
I think Broadgage was taking the Michael but sadly a little too subtle I think!!!

Yes, driving van trailers=good
Deep vein thrombosis =bad


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 05, 2012, 11:51:34 pm
I meant the deep vein thrombosis but agree that driving van trailers would be good.
Chilterns refub is only what fgw should have done in the first place.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 06, 2012, 04:39:38 pm
Chilterns refub is only what fgw should have done in the first place.
I believe the original intention was that we would have been further down the IEP road (or at least some sort of HST replacement) than we are currently and the FGW HST refurbishment was done with this view in mind.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Ollie on September 06, 2012, 05:05:29 pm
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)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 06, 2012, 11:40:10 pm
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.
Chiltern have removed most of the toilets, and all of the luggage racks. They can't remain in their current position because the plug doors are larger and the toilets and luggage racks are in the way. Chiltern have fitted some toilets where a bay of seats used to be. Fitting plug doors means you lose luggage space, toilets or seats. If plug doors were fitted to MK3s being used on longer distance services presumably more seats would be removed in favour of more luggage space and toilets. Chiltern have also removed the doors separating the vestibules and saloon area, which wouldn't be ideal for a long distance train.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 07, 2012, 05:20:48 am
And importantly, Chiltern aren't using locos that are nearly 40 years old.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 07, 2012, 10:48:37 am
And importantly, Chiltern aren't using locos that are nearly 40 years old.

In fairness the power car structural parts would probably last indefinitely if the will to do so was there. One of the pluses which was lost with the MTU repower project was the fact that the engine tended to coat the insides and engine room floor with 'preservatives'. If anything the GRP driving cabs are probably the weakest point now.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 07, 2012, 02:23:39 pm
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 seats have been removed, but an extra carriage has been added, so there are loads more seats for the ballooning number of commuters. of course, all the seats are very comfortable, with fixed soft leather armrests and a low seat back to enable good views all around.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andy W on September 07, 2012, 04:26:32 pm
And importantly, Chiltern aren't using locos that are nearly 40 years old.


But how much of the class 43s are 40 years old? New engines etc.

Even if they are too old then I don't see why the locos aren't replaced and the coaches brought up to standard which has to be a more cost effective option.

Nor can I really see why they can't be upgraded to bi-modal with the existing diesels plus overhead supply. There was a trial with a battery coach but given that there will now be overhead cables then the batteries are no longer required. This would be an ideal solution for the Cotswolds.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 07, 2012, 05:32:21 pm
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)

Damn! They want someone who knows what he's doing. That's me out, then.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 07, 2012, 06:08:51 pm
If anything the GRP driving cabs are probably the weakest point now.
Wasn't there talk of some work on a new cab being designed after 43041 hit a tree, near enough destroying the cab?

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.
Class 170s have automatic doors between carriages, yet people still moan because there is nothing separating the doors and seating areas. I haven't been on one the Chiltern MK3s but there is the potential of noise from the exterior doors and when stopped at stations in the winter all the lovely cold air will be coming in the train.

There is no need for 2 toilets per carriage - that's overkill. Chiltern have removed one to allow for these improvements.
Chiltern have removed more than half the toilets, only around half the carriages have toilets now. Three rather than 9 per train. I disagree that two toilets per carriage is an overkill on long distance services. Travel in Carriage A on an HST where there is only one toilet in the nearest vestibule and you often have to wait. And the more toilets you have the less chance of them all running out of water, already something the happens quite often on London-Penzance services.

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.
In the pictures I've seen I haven't seen any luggage racks left. And it's the luggage racks which are the best at holding the increasingly bigger cases around nowadays. The Chiltern seating layout is never going to be found in FGW's MK3s, so they are going to need luggage racks. And on the Summer services to Cornwall the luggage provision on MK3s is already inadequate.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on September 07, 2012, 08:27:27 pm
There is no need for 2 toilets per carriage - that's overkill.
Not on long distance IC services it isn't. Something BR started when they bought out the MK4 with only 1 toilet per carriage and is more than welcome by the bean counting TOCs when they have introduced new trains over the last few years as less toilets to maintain saves money.

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?

Looking at the plans for the IEP sets, the amount of toilets per train isn't too bad but they aren't distributed throughout the train very evenly with quite a trek to get to some of them depending in which carriage you are sitting in. I'm sure that will change once the TOCs provide Agility with their specifications hopefully not for less toilets!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 07, 2012, 09:01:11 pm
I've never had to queue excessively long for loos on Chiltern or other TOCs with one toilet or LESS per coach.
You're average passenger may go once on a 3 hour journey or not at all.
People on shorter journeys may have to go but more likely not.

Then again, after using 150s/166s for so long you get used to going before you leave for the station. :-\


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 07, 2012, 09:11:57 pm
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?
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 08, 2012, 10:01:27 am
If anything the GRP driving cabs are probably the weakest point now.
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 a link somewhere to a new GRP driving cab design with steel pillars / frame in it intended for a class 43 but as yet there is no sign of it appearing on the class 43 fleet. I guess this depends now on who gets the GW franchise which will have bearing on what is used on the non-IEP services in the new GW franchise. I understand First intend to use a more heavily updated / refurbished HST on these trains, possibly extended to 2+9. Other operators may inflict Voyagers or Meridians on these trains which would involve higher diesel fuel consumption and reductions in seating capacity.

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?
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.

The 425xx trailers standards are converted from buffet cars. These coaches do not have support frames or access hatch in the roof for a toilet water header tank at the former 'counter' end of the coach so fitting the second toilet is more difficult to do. Cutting holes in MK3 coach roofs is only for the very skilled and very brave.


I have encountered one First class 'coach H' trailer with the power car end toilet reinstated as well. Contray to the view held by others regarding Chiltern Trains and their comparatively short runs from Marylebone to Birmingham I believe the toilet provision should not be reduced below current levels on the longer distance services down to Penzance etc.  It may however be necessary to provide more disabled style toilets in which case the toilet will be at one end of the coach and the saloon extended into the toilet area at the other end of the coach a la Cross Country which will involve a fait bit of redesign of the internal layout. At which point it becomes easier to fit the larger power operated doors.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 08, 2012, 10:07:17 am
I've never had to queue excessively long for loos on Chiltern or other TOCs with one toilet or LESS per coach.
Marlyebone to Birmingham isn't quite as far as Paddington to Penzance though is it?
 ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 08, 2012, 11:30:36 am
If anything the GRP driving cabs are probably the weakest point now.

Would GRP be Glass Reinforced Plastic perchance? aka fibreglass.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 08, 2012, 11:35:54 am
I have encountered one First class 'coach H' trailer with the power car end toilet reinstated as well.
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Btline on September 08, 2012, 04:55:02 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 08, 2012, 05:32:56 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 08, 2012, 06:32:41 pm
I fear the worst, with more of this sort of thing.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdyO3cOV-Tc)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 08, 2012, 07:07:45 pm
I think that one toilet per coach would just suffice provided that it was reliable and had ample flushing water and waste retention capacity.
It should be possible to reuse the only slightly dirty water from the hand wash basin for toilet flushing thereby reducing the total amount needed.

Another alternative would be 2 toilets, next to each other, and useing the same double size water tank.This being in alternate coaches only, so it is still one per coach average.
This should be cheaper, and also has the merit that if one toilet breaks, the whole of the water supply is available for the functioning one which should not run out despite the extra use.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 09, 2012, 06:49:38 am
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.

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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 09, 2012, 09:32:09 am
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.

No, not enough provision unless the toliets that remain are 100% reliable and have ample water / waste storage. There are issues as it is with the TGS (coach 'A') having had its toilet removed and passengers making their way to the country end toilet on Coach 'B' which then runs out of water somewhere near Truro.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 09, 2012, 09:35:08 am
I have encountered one First class 'coach H' trailer with the power car end toilet reinstated as well.
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.
Normally this is the case. However this coach had a fully functioning toilet in it where the trolley store should be. And as there were a set of internal end gangway doors this appears to have been either some sort of coach 'H' retrofit or someone had refitted the gangway doors to a coach 'G' and marshalled it in the Coach 'H' position in the train.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 09, 2012, 10:56:40 am
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.

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?
That's true, but I believe we're talking about a potential reduction in toilet provisions as a result of fitting plug doors to MK3s, which probably will be providing services to Devon and Cornwall.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 09, 2012, 11:16:54 am
Could the HST sets not be extended to 2+9 when the stock becomes available after IEP introduction?

That would address capacity on South West services and provide an additional toilet.

What about 2+10?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on September 09, 2012, 11:23:46 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 09, 2012, 11:30:59 am
With 2+10 you are going to have problems with platform lengths at Paddington, 2+9 is fine in most platforms. Would uprating the MTUs be an option if extra power was needed, they are currently limited to a power output way below the maximum they can give out I believe.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 09, 2012, 11:41:03 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 09, 2012, 01:16:34 pm
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.
2+8 HST's on one engine are not permitted to call at Totnes and must have a clear run from E96 signal (East of Totnes) to DM227 (top of Tigley bank). The weather / rail conditions must be conducive and no temporary or emergency speed restrictions must be in place. If the OEO 2+8 HST stop's in the section for whatever reason it is not permitted to attempt a restart on the steep rising gradient. All you will do is burn the traction motors out.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 09, 2012, 01:50:26 pm
A 2+8 HST with both power cars running, but with one at reduced power output, seems to climb away from Totnes OK, so I would expect that a 2+9 would be fine with both engines at full power.

I remember one Christmas that a non standard* 2+9 set was on the 18-03, due to stop at Totnes, which it presumably did without incident.

As it appears that some HSTs are to remain in service for many years yet, I believe that serious consideration should be given to lengthening to 2+10.
Two power cars will easily move 10 coaches on level track at 125MPH, but acceleration and ascending inclines would be impaired.
This could be overcome by the fitting of a battery bank and traction motors in one coach, another 500HP would help considerably.
This tried on a prototype some years ago, and the idea sounds worth re-visiting.

*it had TWO coach "A"s, one at each end. So counting from the London end it was A,H,G,F,E,D,C,B,A. This was most perplexing for once a year travellers who thought that the coach A at the london end was the total for steerage, and not that five other vehicles were available.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 09, 2012, 03:07:59 pm
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.
On the Western Region HSTs of more than 8 trailer vehicles on one engine only are not permitted unassisted:
Newton Abbot to Plymouth
Plymouth (Tavistock Jn allowed) to Newton Abbot
Paignton to Newton Abbot
Par to St Austell
Bromsgrove to Blackwell (Lickey Bank)
Llandeilo Junction to Cockett Tunnel (Llanelli to Swansea)
Fishguard Harbour to Clarbeston Road Junction


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on September 09, 2012, 03:15:12 pm
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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 09, 2012, 04:11:00 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Gordon the Blue Engine on September 09, 2012, 07:20:38 pm
I think perhaps that the key issue for an HST starting (or not losing speed) on a gradient on OEO is the weight of the power car.  Whatever the installed power (ie the diesel engine), and the transmission characteristics (ie max traction motor current, final drive gearing etc), the drawbar pull (or push) is limited by the weight of the power car and the adhesion limits you can expect.

The anti-wheelslip control on an HST power car is less sophisticated than on some modern 6-axle freight locomotives, and HST power cars are thus less able to maximise the adhesion available to translate into drawbar pull (or push).



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on September 09, 2012, 11:54:26 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: dog box on September 10, 2012, 09:59:27 am
partly right the ECML power cars did receive upgraded electronic and wheelslip equipment and FGW have 2 of these powercars 43053 is one of them, although every Power car fitted with an MTU Engine is fitted with a uprated VOITH Cooler Group as this is what mtu specified as being compatable with there engine


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 10, 2012, 10:02:44 am
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.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 10, 2012, 10:07:47 am
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.

You will not change the basic ability of the power cars to haul a given load over the banks merely by fitting a different wheelslip control system. You may in fact reduce it slightly as the Brush system (which is also fitted to FGW 57/6) picks up more wheelslips than the basic 'current imbalance' one used on the FGW power cars. You will however reduce the tendency for out of control wheelslips / traction motor damage although if axle 3 on a GW power car slips up to 128 mph the traction power is removed from that power car anyway. The power you can transmit to rail is ultimately limited by the adhesive weight on the rails, the gearing / spcification of traction motors used and whether the traction unit is fitted with sand or not where poor rail conditions further limit adhesion.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 10, 2012, 10:12:17 am
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.
No it wont. 110 - 115 is as much as you will get and thats after about 25 miles or so. ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on September 10, 2012, 11:10:02 am
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.We will have to wait for the winning Great Western franchise bid for the answer to that one.Also given that the line speed profile is now the limiting factor here would it matter if train performance remains unchanged on FGWs West of England main line.
   Given the transformation that is going to take place from 2017 with electrification and IEP on the rest of Great Western,performance wise the HSTs must start showing their age by then and there could be pathing  issues between Paddington and Reading on a then virtually all electric high density railway regards the slower accelerating HSTs say from signal checks.Of course ultimately its all down to cost and what the market/Government will bare of course.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 10, 2012, 11:49:51 am
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.

Of course if you go down the Meridian route (no matter how much you muck about with it a Meridian is still a Voyager in 'polished turd' format) your increased performance comes at a cost of more engines to maintain, less seating capacity per train and greatly increased fuel consumption. And more complaints about underfloor engine noise and worse luggage storage in all probability.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 10, 2012, 01:14:00 pm
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.
No it wont. 110 - 115 is as much as you will get and thats after about 25 miles or so. ;)

I concur.  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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 10, 2012, 02:02:29 pm
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.
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on September 10, 2012, 02:04:31 pm
Or do you go for say Meridians released by Midland main electrification or even more IEPs.
More IEPs than specified by the DfT is probably unlikely because of great cost of them compared to other options.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Louis94 on September 12, 2012, 10:56:14 am
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.

That is very true, I have been stuck on a service going up Rattery in this situation - sparks flying from the wheels, strangely enough a service going in the other direction was in the same situation going up Hemerdon at exactly the same time!

With regards to 2+9 HST sets, the diagram for a 2+9 set this summer involved a stop at Totnes going towards Plymouth on its next working - so can't see 2+9s being an issue providing both power cars are working, simple solution if it isn't would be to just not stop. How heavy is a TS compared to a TGS anyway?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 12, 2012, 02:00:04 pm
How heavy is a TS compared to a TGS anyway?
TS is about 1/2 tonne lighter than TGS from memory.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 16, 2012, 06:50:15 pm
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.

The engine speed would indeed have to be limited to about 1,500 RPM in order to produce 50 cycles AC for auxillary purposes.
I wonder however if the engine speed could be slightly increased up to 1,560 RPM , that would produce AC at 52 cycles which should be acceptable for 50 cycle equipment, remembering that some grid systems and many generators vary that much.
That would provide about 4% more HP, not that much, but it could make the difference between keeping time and not, with an extra coach.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Gordon the Blue Engine on September 17, 2012, 05:28:47 pm
SprinterMeister says that the Mirrlees MB190 were de-rated from 2400 to 2250 HP because of a rectifier problem. So that is the issue that needs to be addressed - I think perhaps the idea of increasing crankshaft speed is not the key issue at the moment.

Incidentally, Eurostars and TGV's have a motor bogie on the car adjacent to the power car, so that the available power can be put down through more axles with more weight for adhesion.  As has been discussed before, installed power (ie the diesel engine) is only part of the problem in maximising drawbar pull.  AL6 electric locos (high powered, relatively light 4 axle locos with unsophisticated wheelslip protection that used to work on the WCML) were known to suddenly go into wheelslip at 70mph or more with poor rail conditions.

 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on September 19, 2012, 10:15:08 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 19, 2012, 11:15:37 pm
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

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.
Quote
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.

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 19, 2012, 11:45:00 pm
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....


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on September 19, 2012, 11:55:21 pm
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

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.
Quote
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.

I make that 3.5MW for a nine-car train.
Going purely on the figures posted above and the fact that a 22x has a diesel engine under each coaches
Class 221 (or 7-car bi-mode) - 5x diesel engines at 560 kW = 2,800 kW
IEP 5-car bi-mode - 3x diesel engines at 700 kW = 2,100 kW
IEP 9-car bi-mode - 5x diesel engines at 700 kW = 3,500 kW
Class 222 6-car (or 8-car bi-mode) - 6x diesel engines at 560 kW = 3,360 kW

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

I haven't read the links, but do they say what the results of the fuel consumption and emissions tests are, how do they stack up against Voyagers and Meridians on the greenhouse-effect scale?

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....
I disagree. One hopes the OHLE on the GWML will be a reliable design, and they don't increase day-to-day electricity consumption by fitting emergency generators to electric trains in mainline Europe do they?

Now on the ECML, where the OHLE seems rather more prone to falling down than one would expect, fitting a diesel powerpack might not be a bad idea but I still think a smaller, much lighter, engine (enough to keep passengers cool/warm but not shift the train) might make more sense as it would add less to the electricity consumption than one capable of moving the train, which would likely be stuck behind a non-diesel-fitted train anyway.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on September 20, 2012, 12:25:15 am
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. The trains will enter service on the Great Western Main Line from April 2017, and on the East Coast Main Line from June 2018."

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/hitachi-selects-mtu-for-iep-engine-contract.html?channel=542#.UFpS7VG5f0Q


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 20, 2012, 09:58:12 am
Will there really only be 5 diesel engines under a 9-car bi-mode, would that have enough power to reach Aberdeen and Inverness?

One assumes that someone, somewhere has done the maths on this. Speed does not seem to be of the essence after Edinburgh. 2 hours 20 mins to cover 126 miles is hardly supersonic is it?

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. That seems to be the only difference between bi-mode and "pure" electric - the fuel tank and control systems will be largely similar whether there are 5 engines, or just the one. Looks as though MTU will still get the contract to maintain them for the full 27.5 years though.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 20, 2012, 10:41:08 am
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.
I don't think you can randomly remove 5 - 6 tonnes of engine-alternator set, fuel tank, radiator and control system from under a passenger coach without seriously upsetting the suspension / ride characteristics, Centre of Gravity / Roll axis etc. Some sort of balance weight will be required to compensate if that is the case.

I'm still very intrigued as to how you fit a large 90 degree V12 diesel engine-alternator set under a passenger coach without raising the internal saloon floor heights a fair bit. This affects things like stepping height from platform and departure angles of wheelchair ramps etc. I am also intrigued to know how you maintain access to the valve rockers, fuel injectors, 'Top Hamper' etc with the engine in situ under the coach without providing access hatches in the floor. It should be remembered that these hatches are not fitted to modern DMU's as they were found to be very ineffective in preventing fires from traction equipment on the older type DMMU's from spreading into the interior of the coach. Which is why every DMU from the 14x / 15x onwards have floors with no hatches in them. Insulating the saloon floors from radiated noise and heat could be interesting too.

It will be remembered that the Bombardier 22x were also going to use an earlier variant of MTU V12 as the power source but the factors mentioned above caused them to fit the Cummins QSK19-R as it eliminated the problems noted above.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 20, 2012, 11:39:28 am
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....

Agree, I have misgivings about the whole project, but the fitting of a single diesel engine to a nominaly electric train seems an excellent idea.
Not only will the OHLE fail, but the limited diesel power would presumably allow short term/low speed operation on non-electrified diversion routes.

Some miles restricted to say 30MPH is probably less overall delay than attaching a diesel locomotive, or transfering passengers to buses.

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.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 20, 2012, 11:45:40 am
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.

Crickey, not long then!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 20, 2012, 12:29:31 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 20, 2012, 12:42:51 pm
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.

This quote from a communiqu^ by the  Green Party (http://www.bristolgreenparty.org.uk/News/success-for-the-stoke-gifford-rail-depot.html) suggests that indoor movements will not be under elecric power:

Quote
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.

I would trust it but for at least one glaring factual error: Filton airport has not had night flying since Royal Mail moved back to Lulsgate, after their temporary use of Filton during the ill-starred resurfacing and grooving of the runway, in the winter of 2006-7. Filton has been closed weekends for the last three years, to try to make sure it loses enough money to justify closing it, apart from occasional weeked fly-ins, such as happened Saturday 15 September. See  here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gEbEqYOB4xw) for video of a two-seater aircraft passing Parkway on the way in. Other railway-related highlights to be seen include the site of the IEP depot, and at about 2m10s, one can see to the left the level crossing over taxiway Foxtrot.

Quote
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.
Spot on - exactly what is anticipated. Wouldn't there still need to be one powered line at least, for testing? I know nothing - over to the experts!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 20, 2012, 06:03:07 pm
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.

Possibly but that will mean that minor faults will incur even greater downtime penalties while the Engine-alternator set is drained, disconnected, removed from the vehicle and attended to.

While noting the comments about disconnection it should be noted that the traction output cables carry huge amperages and voltages and will not be as easy to disconnect / reconnect as some people think, with the possibility of rapid heating and fires if the connections are not remade securely.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The SprinterMeister on September 20, 2012, 06:09:58 pm
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.

Crickey, not long then!
The beginning of the end (of quiet comfortable coaches) is indeed in sight.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 20, 2012, 06:39:01 pm
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.

There's a little more detail, all above my head, and a picture, for what it's worth,  here (http://www.tognum.com/press/press-releases/presse-detail/news/tognum_is_preferred_supplier_for_hitachi_super_express_train/news_smode/images/cHash/d80e54016f174fbb726c9d6b2a33061f/) To my inexpert eye, it appears shiny.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on October 01, 2012, 05:46:48 pm
I suppose it'll be as noisy as an Adelante or Voyager and with the same inadequate space in the overhead racks.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: FremlinsMan on June 07, 2013, 09:10:11 pm
There's an IET talk about the Hitachi Super Express Train at Swindon Steam Museum next Tuesday 11th - places are limited, registration is at https://localevents.theiet.org/register.php?event=4642fe (https://localevents.theiet.org/register.php?event=4642fe)

Details at
http://www.theiet.org/events/local/168517.cfm
 (http://www.theiet.org/events/local/168517.cfm)
===

About this event
The Hitachi Super Express Train is the new generation of high speed trains that will operate on the Great Western Main Line and other inter-city routes in Britain.  This talk will cover an introduction to Hitachi and to this major project with an overview of the train^s design, manufacturer, operation, maintenance and servicing.
Speaker
Alistair Dormer, Chief Executive Officer, Agility Trains (Hitachi)
Programme

18:30  Light refreshment
19:00  Lecture starts
20:30  Close
 
Joint Event with the IMechE Railway Group

===


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on June 07, 2013, 10:19:43 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on June 07, 2013, 11:02:36 pm
I've put my name down, so will give a report in due course. And thank you FremlinsMan too.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 08, 2013, 07:35:58 am
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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: FremlinsMan on June 08, 2013, 08:12:30 am
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.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on June 08, 2013, 10:35:49 am
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.



Thanks for the heads up FremlinsMan.  It's local to me so I've registered. Happy to report back.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on June 08, 2013, 12:46:30 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 08, 2013, 05:59:21 pm
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.

Yes I guessed there would be an East facing connection onto the GWML.  The building being raised to the ground was the stores building, the wheel lathe is the building nearer Barlby Road. 


I am attending the IET event at Swindon be MIET


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on June 08, 2013, 10:38:46 pm
The building being raised to the ground was the stores building, the wheel lathe is the building nearer Barlby Road. 

Thanks for that correction ET.  It has been 20 years since I was last in the depot....... :P


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on June 10, 2013, 06:28:13 pm
There's no way I can get to Swindon tommorrow. I hope somebody asks some of the awkward questions, eg.:

Why are you trying to order a large number of 5-car trains to replace trains the current operator has just lengthened from 7 coaches to 8?

Is the reliability of the Great Western electrification really expected to be so bad that the weight of a diesel engine and fuel in EVERY new 'electric' train, and the assoicated increased maintenance costs, to allow self-rescue is justified? (I'm not sure it's even justified on the East Coast Main Line).

Wouldn't it make more sense to only have 26 metre coaches on the electric routes (since they generally have less clearance issues than the off-wire extensions, and clearance work is needed for the wires anyway)?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on June 10, 2013, 06:38:11 pm
...but he's the boss of the supplier of these trains, and those are questions for the customer. If you even asked him to comment on whether the requirement was the right one it would put him in a very tricky position, and he'd probably decline to answer.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on June 11, 2013, 09:00:27 am
I don't think it would put him in an awkward position at all. He could simply say he is providing what the customer has ordered, that the electrifcation is being  done  by another company who will no doubt comment on reliability if asked, and that the 5-car trains can be coupled, or lengthened  if the customer asks . He will then go on to explain the brand New technology involved in the brand new wonders of modern transport that his company is proud to be making, to the specification demanded by his valued customer. To whom further questions should be put.

On the matter of the diesel engines, as I understand it, there will be one or two, depending on train length. They will be enough to get it to the next station without having to wait for help, not do Penance to Aberdeen at 125 mph. I think it's a good idea, and that the weight will not impact on performance.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on June 11, 2013, 04:11:35 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on June 11, 2013, 04:51:35 pm
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.
Andrew, a 10 car IEP wouldn't make two stops at each station, the rear part if completely inaccessible simply wouldn't be available at all.

However, it would mean plenty of space for passengers travelling from Worcester Foregate Street and Shrub Hill to Oxford and beyond!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on June 11, 2013, 07:23:39 pm
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.
2 units can of course be coupled together, but if regular multiple operation is contemplated it would seem sensible to build them as 10 car trains.
I would expect a 10 car train to be cheaper than 2 units each of 5 cars.
A full length train might even have a Pullman restaurant :) I cant see that being viable on a half size train.
A proper full length train would also have first class at one end as on an HST, whereas 2 units each of 5 cars would presumably have First at random locations.

I think that the auxillary diesel engines are an excellent idea, saves wires in yards, depots and sidings, permits of reduced performance running on non electrified diversionery routes, gets you home or least to the next station when the wires come down.
Also if the train cant proceed, for example because the one in front has brought down the wires and become entangled, then AFAIK the diesels can provide power for lighting and ventilation.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on June 11, 2013, 08:14:41 pm
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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on June 11, 2013, 10:15:09 pm
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?

But unless you can use the other 5 cars for something else there is no point in splitting it at Moreton.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 11, 2013, 10:33:22 pm
It was an interesting event, joint IET IMechE, all the new trains will have at least one diesel engine even the electric only ones with these its there to provide emergency power instead of batteries and allows a 30mph emergency move.

The deployment of the trains was not discussed as that is a matter for the TOC and this presentation was about the trains and depots.  There were a lot of stats given on how reliable the 395's have been and how they maintain those and plan to maintain the IEP's

Oh and North Pole Depot gets its connection onto the GWML this Christmas"!  and they are bidding for the Crossrail  trains contract


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on June 11, 2013, 10:51:02 pm
Yes, very interesting. Here are my notes (in order of what was said, so apologies if they are a bit random):-

Bank loans will be repaid over 27.5 years.

For GW, fleet is 36 x 5 car bi mode and 21 x 9 car electric with 315 and 627 seats respectively. I was signing the attendance sheet at this point so missed what the EC fleet will be.

The contract requires additional vehicles to be slotted in easily up to 12 coaches long.

Deployment is:
May 17 5 car bi modes GW
2018 5 car electric for EC
2018 9 car electric for GW
2019 9 car bi mode for EC.

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.

Acceleration of both bi mode and electric will be 0.7 m/s/s against around 0.33 for either 91+9+DVT or HST+8.

Energy efficiency is 0.0276KwH against 0.347KwH for 91+9+DVT (I wasn't sure if this was per seat.)

Fly by wire to reduce cabling and thus weight.

Track costs per seat mile 9 car electric 0.21p, 9 car bi mode 0.25p, HST+8 0.40p.

Luggage racks 365mm high against 295mm on HST.

Toilets now moved to between door and end of coach to enable positioning to be exactly the same as HST and not on the slopey bit at the end of the coach.  Designers have spent 10,000 hours on the toilet (design that is), to give something that is easy to clean and looks like a hotel toilet. Hmmm, we'll see.

Internal configuration shown had 88 standard seats of which 32 were tabled.

A lot made of local suppliers, and claim that bodyshells will be made locally by 2019 (er, but isn't that when the production run ceases?). Not true the factory will be like an iKEA plant (flat pack assembly).

First delivery for testing in 2015, and in service in 2017, with full deployment on GW by 2018 and on EC by 2019.

The MTU engine design will be much quieter than the Cummings used under Voyagers and Adelantes. Currently on test in service in Japan and proved to be very quiet.

Depots will have virtually no light pollution to be neighbourly!

Sorry for note format, but hope this has been of interest.





Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Kernow Otter on June 11, 2013, 11:32:32 pm
Very interesting, thank you


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on June 12, 2013, 08:42:06 am
A lot of this is traceable to the requirement, of course. It's worth saying that the current version on the DfT site (at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercity-express-programme-technical-specification-and-contracts (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercity-express-programme-technical-specification-and-contracts)) is version 5 (19/07/12 "Formal Issue for Contract"), and is a complete re-write from the version 1 that was linked to earlier in this thread. I think the content is similar, but it is hard to tell. One change is in terminology - they now use "train" for two (rarely more) units coupled together, where a "unit" is a set (of vehicles permanently coupled).

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.

On the points I have picked out -
The auxiliary Diesel would allow the chillers to run when OLE power fails. However, this is not a requirement. It may however be needed for everything including the chillers, for six hours, when locomotive-hauled in service (not clear to me in).

Converting to electric units by removing power packs was a requirement.

On the power and speed when Diesel-powered, the requirement is a bit ambiguous:

Quote
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.]

It appears than a single bi-mode unit when self-powered can do 125 mph, but two coupled together maybe cannot. (Note the mistaken use of "maximum" here - a word that is best avoided in specifications.)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on June 12, 2013, 09:35:59 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on June 12, 2013, 09:44:01 am
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.

Careful - the requirement is for the full passenger environment to be provided, how you do it is a design choice.  However, it is hard to see how else to do it, given this key clause:

Quote
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.

and this is the definition of "locomotive"
Quote
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.

By the way, I'm using "requirement" and "specification" as almost synonymous, which is usual these days. I tend to use "requirement" at higher levels an "specification" for more detailed technical points.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on June 12, 2013, 11:04:48 am
Electric Train and John R, Many thanks for your notes. As with many such events, they answer many questions, and raise a few more. I like what I read about the diesel motors, especially when thinking that these will not be used as a matter of course in regular passenger service on electrified lines. The 30mph capability is more than adequate. The longest gap between stations is Didcot to Swindon, at around 24 miles, a distance which could be covered at 30 mph in 48 minutes. From experience of having to wait 3 hours for rescue on a train with no air-con, I find the idea of self-rescue, albeit at a quarter of the proper speed, very acceptable.

So there will be 3 extra units compared to the HST fleet - 57 against 54, although there will be only 21 9-car units. But there will still be many of the HSTs in use on routes currently operated by HSTs, so one assumes this means the overall fleet will grow substantially, with the IEPs being used most on the heaviest routes - ie London to wherever. Of course, between Bristol and London, if there are two tph along each route to London - 2 via Bath, 2 via Parkway - and if each was a 5-car, then there would actually be space for more passengers per hour than at present. My thinking is that the bulk of services on those routes will be 9-cars. All of which, of course, is pure speculation. There will be flexibility for FGW to experiment until it finds the ideal ways of operating the routes, although doubtless the make-up of the ordered fleet is with a particular plan in mind.

I do like the figures for efficiency, acceleration, and operating costs. If true, they show that one of the main objectives of the project has been achieved, in that the energy use will have been cut markedly. The HSTs were, and still are, an absolute marvel compared to what went before, but were designed before the oil crises of the 1970s made fuel economy a major consideration. I am sure we will be treated to film of testing runs in 2015, and we will get a better idea of what we are in for then.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 12, 2013, 11:17:53 am
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 will also be interested to see how they deal with the Cotswold Line issue - funny how the Cotswold Line always seems to be the troublemaker in terms of providing a decent and sensible service!  As I think I pointed out before, the number of standard class seats on a 5-Car Bi-Mode IEP is exactly the same as on a 3-Car Class 166 Turbo - purely due to the spacious nature of the seating (Broadgage take note!), so replacing HSTs with a 10-Car Bi-Mode will be fine between Oxford and London as it will provide over 60 extra standard class seats than even the highest capacity HST formation, but on the Cotswold Line that will cause problems due to platform lengths as Andrew says.

10-Car operation can't really happen (even with SDO and only one vehicle of the second unit on the platform) without costly extensions at most locations on the route, including awkward places like Foregate Street, so for peak operation I can't see any other answer other than retaining HSTs on some of the services, unless a full length Bi-Mode Train is suddenly specified!  The same problem (to a lesser extent) will apply on the Cheltenham to Paddington route.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 13, 2013, 12:21:45 pm
As a follow up to a post from ChrisB (now lost due to the server issues) regarding platform lengths on the Cotswold Line and the possibility of operating two 5-Car Bi-Mode trains coupled together using SDO, there's currently no stations between Oxford and Worcester that have a long enough platform to accommodate a 6-Car 26m long train (as would need to be the case), so I can't see that happening.  Indeed at Hanborough, Charlbury (up platform), Evesham (up platform), Honeybourne (down platform), and Pershore, SDO will be needed to operate a 5-Car Bi-Mode IEP unless platforms are lengthened.

Whilst some services which are currently HSTs could feasibly be replaced by a 10-Car from London to Oxford and then a 5-Car beyond, I can see HSTs having to be retained on the others, or serious capacity issues will result.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on June 13, 2013, 12:48:05 pm
I cant remeber where I read it but there was talk that one of the bidders for the GW franchise had suggested cutting the number of 5 carriage bi-modes in favour of some 8 carriage bi-modes for the London Paddington - Hereford services with 5 carriages being used on similar diagrams as the class 180's are used on now apart from working in pairs between Oxford and London Paddington.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on June 13, 2013, 02:04:37 pm
"--- As I think I pointed out before, the number of standard class seats on a 5-Car Bi-Mode IEP is exactly the same as on a 3-Car Class 166 Turbo - purely due to the spacious nature of the seating (Broadgage take note!)----"

Broadgage remains very doubtful, having suffered too many  "new improved" trains that turn out to be less comfortable than those they have replaced.

I would be more interested in how the new trains compare to a proper HST (not the downgraded commuter ones) than in how they compare to a turbo, which is fairly new, nasty and not an intercity train.

If the new trains really do have a spacious seating layout, similar to a mark II, then I will be impressed. Previous experience of other new trains does not make me optimistic.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on June 13, 2013, 02:07:22 pm
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)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on June 13, 2013, 05:13:14 pm
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)

You'd think platform extensions would be cheap, but they are not.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on June 13, 2013, 05:15:52 pm
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)

Yes, but a 30 minute service will encourage more service growth and perhaps be more profitable (or less lossful depending on how the accountants do the accounting)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on June 13, 2013, 05:22:55 pm
But cost a lot more in staff & access costs.

We'll have to just wait & see


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 13, 2013, 05:50:04 pm
No increase in peak frequency would be possible without completing the redoubling, and that isn't a serious consideration on anything from NR that I've seen.  Then again, nor have platform extensions been mentioned.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on June 13, 2013, 06:01:16 pm
Then again, nor have platform extensions been mentioned.

Although there's nothing explicit in terms of station names, the 'GW IEP' section of the March update to the CP4 enhancement plans does mention the possibility of platform extensions on certain routes.  At this stage though they are just talking about 'main routes' and 'other routes'.

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?

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on June 13, 2013, 06:52:46 pm
Quote: 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?
Whoever decided that was completely ignorant of the Cotswold Line and all the short platforms. Although the trains will have selected door locking, as far as I can see there is no passenger linkage between the two 5 car sections. This means that such a train would have to draw up twice against the platform to let people leave or board the train, adding many minutes to each station dwell time - 20 to 30 minutes extra travel time bewteen Hereford and Oxford? Just not practical in my view. Someone said that you could make sure that travellers for a particular station should only board a specified part of the train - again just not practical. The notes on the meeting at Steam on Tuesday report that it will be possible to add more coaches to a 5-car bi-mode. That might be a way forward.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on June 13, 2013, 07:12:54 pm
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?

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

That would be Network Rail Western route then.   Obviously they know far less than the average man in the street...  ::)

BTW they also state that 10 car trains will be used for Cheltenham services.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on June 13, 2013, 11:26:00 pm
The GW RUS referred to the work on the IEP service patterns not being complete, but presumably it must have been done before the Phase 1 order was finalised. Has no detail about it come out? That's rather odd - at least the options should have been in the RUS, so as to compare the costs of infrastructure work, even if they are rejected. So we can only guess what is being considered.

Since the main reason to run a 2x5-car rather than two 1x5-cars is to save a path, rather than to economise on drivers, presumably it is OK to split trains for the outer part of the journey where the platforms are short. The 2x5s are only likely to run only in the peaks. That suggests:
  • You could send half a train from Oxford to Banbury
  • You could run two 1x5s close to each other to Worcester or further.
  • You could run two 1x5s from Oxford to Worcester or further, with the first half non-stop (or less-stop).
The last option helps to shorten the journey time from Worcester, which should be welcome. Stopping patterns can be adjusted to try to balance the loading. Directing pax to the right bit of train outbound could be tricky, but splitting happens elsewhere. Presumably the carriages have big displays on them, which helps.

The problem of how to help pax to board a 2x5 train in the half which has space in it has been mentioned before. IEPs are required to count pax, and indicate occupation levels, presumably for just this purpose. The indication would need to be outside, and I'm not sure it would really help much. The waiting pax would need to divide themselves according to the spare seat levels, which is tricky without someone to coordinate them.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 14, 2013, 01:03:13 am
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?

Or 10-car Paddington to Oxford and 5-car beyond.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on June 14, 2013, 09:16:00 am
Stuving says:"You could run two 1x5s close to each other to Worcester or further."
With paths on the GW main line that enable trains to follow each other every few minutes, that is possible but once you get on the CL the signalling sections are very much longer. Therefore the intervals are longer. Iyt would not be possible to do this without major signalling works at no doubt a very high cost.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on June 14, 2013, 09:39:40 am
Quoting seems to be b*gg*red....

Too many pax for the CL in the peak prevents splitting at Oxford. Lenthen main stations as far as Moreton & split there may be a possibility though.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on June 14, 2013, 03:01:59 pm
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)

From experience we probably need both.  If trains are short but frequent it seems that certain trains will always be overcrowded and need to be lenghtened. With the Virgin Princess CC timetable with frequent short Voyagers it soon became apparent certain trains soon became too full.

Look at the Pendelinos now 11 cars and very frequent!

If rail is going to help fulfill the countries transport needs we are going to need both more frequent and longer trains, which will be costly.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 15, 2013, 06:00:17 pm
What has to be remembered is the IEP spec was written by that well know railway operator DfT so of course they have it correct  ;D



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on June 15, 2013, 07:09:41 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on June 15, 2013, 07:17:56 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on June 15, 2013, 11:23:56 pm
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 agree it not easy to get the spec right, the HST's don't met all that has been asked of them although they have exceeded what they were designed to do.

I also think Hitachi are putting a lot of effort in to get the IEP's right, they are the new kids on the block in Europe and I think they will set a standard that Siemens, Bombardier etc will have to match.  Hitachi also have 2 other trains they are putting forward one they have put in as the bid for Crossrail


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 15, 2013, 11:51:37 pm
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.

I tend to agree - based on what I have seen so far.  Certainly the number of tables in standard class at 8 per carriage is, in my opinion, just about the right compromise - after all, that's 49 tables giving almost 200 seats at tables per 9-car Electric Train.  Toilet provision at 11 per 9-car train is also about right in my opinion.  There can never be enough luggage space it seems these days, but difficult to be too sure without seeing the final train in person.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on June 16, 2013, 08:33:38 am
My concern is not so much the published spec, but the fact that presumably this can still be altered.
By the time that the new units come into use, growth in passenger numbers will ensure that they are at least as overcrowded as are present trains.
If, as suggested above, 5 car trains are to replace 8 car HSTs the crowding will be a lot worse from day one.

I therefore forsee calls, for example to build a "few" sets as high density in order to allow 5 car units to provide "similar" seat numbers to an HST.
Then, "why not make them all like that, a uniform fleet is so much more flexible" and of course the infamous "it is what passengers want, surveys show it"

Some years ago on these forums I stated that the new trains would consist mainly of short units with a few longer ones. A number of respected members took issue with this and felt that I was being unduly negative.
Well the order for the GW certainly seems to consist of more half size trains than full size !
Though I grant that the short units are now 5 car and not 4 as was initialy suggested.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on June 24, 2013, 07:17:57 pm
A mock up timetable produced by the DFT has appeared on  the Wnxx forum which will interest a few members on here.

The timetable just shows the Bristol TM to London Paddington services.

According to one post although this isn't confirmed it seems there will be a micture of 9 carriage electric and 5 carriage bi-modes on the London Paddington - Cardiff/Swansea services.

Hopefully the 5 carriage bi-modes will be doubled up during the peaks although it seems the south wales services will be skipping Didcot.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on June 24, 2013, 07:42:59 pm
Very interesting. I'm guessing that you can tell the doubled up diagrams as they are shown twice, so showing where a second unit gets added.

Interesting that the north somerset services are routed via Parkway, thus speeding up journey times to Paddington, though will make a lot of people very unhappy who currently commute from west to east of Bristol (including me). Now I clearly have a vested interest here, but I would have thought that the additional services should be the Bristol starters, as that layers on additional services but retains existing journey opportunities.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on June 25, 2013, 06:16:50 pm
This is another timtable which shows all the GW services with IEP which is well
worth having a browse through.

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



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on June 25, 2013, 07:37:51 pm
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.  :-\


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on June 25, 2013, 09:11:05 pm
Interesting. I am curious about the bi-mode trains (making me bi-curious - not a word to Mrs FTN! please). Seems that two 5-car bi units leave Paddington together, under electric power. At Bristol, they separate, with one continuing to Weston. Does the other one do anything whilst its partner is away? Presumably if it did, another driver would be needed. Also, it looks like one poor bi unit ends up at Weston overnight. Seems odd - if it goes to the depot at Filton, it looks like it goes empty, which seems like a wasted revenue opportunity. Why not have a Weston to Abbey Wood service? Although then, we would need a conductor.

I like the look of the diagrams, which see some of the the trains running almost 1000 miles per day. Not the finished product, I know, but nice to know we are making the best use of the expensive kit.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on June 25, 2013, 09:29:52 pm
The unit left behind at Bristol could turn round and form a working back to London.

Currently units work ECS from Bristol out to Weston and Taunton early in the morning, and similarly back late at night, so the position will be similar, albeit to a different depot a few miles north.

One other thing I noticed on the north somerset services is an hourly gap in the morning, with no service in the place of the current arrival into Temple Meads just before 8am. This is the busiest service, with fairly high seat occupancy in standard class, so I suspect the timetable has been developed on paper with little thought as to actual traffic flows.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on June 25, 2013, 09:55:44 pm
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.  :-\
In reality London-Cardiff becomes hourly as well because the service is no longer a regular half-hourly service but two services at uneven intervals with uneven journey times. 2tph off peak London-Bristol TM calling only at Bristol Parkway seems a little excessive as well, can't see many people using those at off peak times.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on June 25, 2013, 10:10:08 pm
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.  :-\

Didcot has no direct trains to Bristol Parkway & onwards for five hours from half threeish to half eightish in the evening. Know a few people who do this journey who wouldn't be pleased at that (and the lack of a direct service in the morning before 9:30 too).

The peak service to & from London is given at about half the current frequency. Some of the current stops could be considered as capacity driven but a half-hour frequency is a bit sparse as a commuter service - the off peak service is double this. Maybe the idea would be for the Oxfords to stop in this period ...

No wonder there are the caveats about stopping pattern & frequency on the title page.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on June 25, 2013, 10:17:29 pm
And doesn't leaving stops out of a service gobble up paths too?  Shouldn't we be looking at a service every 10 minutes - London, Reading, Didcot, Swindon?  Fast acceleration;  extra to leave 5 minutes after the the regular pattern,  express to Reading then 1 on to Worcester or there abouts, 1 to Penzance, 1 to Newbury Bedwyn Westbury, 1 to Oxford, 1 to Taunton or Weymouth (alternating?) via Trowbridge and 1 to Cheltenham?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on June 25, 2013, 10:18:40 pm
I should caution people against thinking these workings are set in stone.

A reminder of the first page of the document:

The train frequencies, journey times and calling patterns in this file should therefore not be regarded as a aspirations or proposals.

In addition, the fleet deployment shown in this file is only one option, and Franchise bidders will be free to propose alternatives.



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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on June 25, 2013, 10:44:49 pm
The above are the caveats I referred to.

Still having suffered through one silly DfT 'inspired' timetable at the last franchise start that took the best part of two years to recover from, seeing another even as an illustration doesn't inspire much confidence.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: aleph_0 on June 26, 2013, 01:43:15 am
Hmm. Not convinced on the Reading-Newport non-stop. but I suppose compromises have to be made somewhere, and this is just an indicative plan. In particular, if you turn up at a random time at Cardiff, for 50 minutes in the hour, the amount of time before you get to London hasn't really changed. Which doesn't seem like a huge improvement.

I guess it depends so much on the rest of the new GW timetable. Cardiff-Bristol Parkway is useful for onwards travel to north of Bristol by car, and CrossCountry connections to the North. A service from (say) Cardiff to meet the xx18 fast BPW-PAD would give Cardiff and Newport something nearer to an effective half-hourly fast service both to Bristol Parkway, and to London. But maybe it would be better to improve the Cardiff-Birmingham via. Gloucester route instead (in frequency and/or reliability).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 26, 2013, 10:30:34 am
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.  Thanks to 'anthony215' for posting those documents though as they provide an interesting insight - but (as others have said) please don't expect the final timetable and diagrams to look anything like that - I can't see 9 daily direct trains from Hereford to Paddington making the final cut for example.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on June 26, 2013, 06:39:23 pm
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. 
Found it - page 106 of the Great Western RUS. Although a couple of years old, it says:

4.3.3.2 Main line services (Great Western Main Line)
IEP trains will begin to replace the current eight-car High Speed Trains across much of the GWML network including the Oxford/ Cotswold corridor. Projected growth in demand is expected to be catered for by a substantial increase in capacity of the new train formations which will be capable of working in electric or bi-mode formations.

In addition to the higher capacity of the new trains themselves, an increase in frequency from two trains per hour to three trains per hour is currently proposed for the Oxford corridor, with through working to the Cotswold Line (from Oxford to Worcester, Great Malvern and Hereford) at standard hourly intervals.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on June 26, 2013, 06:47:39 pm
Poh, hourly intervals in the Cotswold Line.....but that doc has been superceded by the south-east RUS2 hasn't it?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on June 26, 2013, 07:53:26 pm
I don't think it's really superseded as such, the London and SE RUS definitely fine tunes certain stuff about the inner GWML, and discusses the possible service changes affecting Reading to London capacity at great length, but it doesn't seem to mention the Cotswolds at all.

I'd suggest it is more a case of one adds more info to the other...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 27, 2013, 01:23:58 pm
I can see the introduction of IEP's as being the ideal time to introduce the much heralded hourly off-peak Cotswold Line service, and the padding has been largely removed in that sample timetable that 'anthony215' posted yesterday to give some pretty impressive running times.  But whatever happens it won't end up being the timetable that we finally see as it has trains departing Evesham every hour bound for Worcester as a train the other way has only just departed Pershore on the single line!   :-\


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on June 27, 2013, 03:19:26 pm
The Great Western RUS as well as suggesting a three-times-an-hour Oxford service also had an hourly fast 'shuttle' service from London terminating at Didcot, sometimes extended to Swindon. This was 'compensation' for the removal of all Didcot stops on the South Wales services.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: gwr2006 on July 05, 2013, 07:55:19 pm
A mock up timetable produced by the DFT has appeared on  the Wnxx forum which will interest a few members on here.


Whereabouts on the WNXX forum? Thanks


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on July 05, 2013, 08:00:30 pm
There was a thread started about the toc's pushing for them to be allowed to order their own rolling stock that is  where these timetables were posted originally when the thread turned into a bit of an IEP bashing


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Red Squirrel on July 18, 2013, 10:05:39 am
Can anyone explain how the Class 800 will shave 22 mins off London - Temple Meads, but only 10 mins off London - South GloucestershireBristol Parkway?

Quote

Great Western

London Paddington toTypical journey time today from / to London PaddingtonJourney time on class 800 series from / to London PaddingtonTime saving
Reading25232
Oxford 58535
Worcester Shrub Hill 13912019
Cheltenham Spa13511223
Bristol Parkway817110
Bath Spa87798
Bristol Temple Meads1058322
Cardiff    12110417
Swansea17815919

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

       


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on July 18, 2013, 10:41:05 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on July 18, 2013, 11:11:45 am
This morning the DfT have confirmed an order for IEP trains to be used on the ECML.

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

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on July 18, 2013, 11:14:23 am
Along with the DfT announcement, they have also released some pictures of what the IEP exterior and interior will look like.

I've seen exterior pics before, but never interior ones. http://www.flickr.com/photos/transportgovuk/sets/72157634690519950/with/9313244146/

There's also a YouTube video from Hitachi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=26dSSyZS_A8


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 18, 2013, 04:04:43 pm
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...  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on July 18, 2013, 06:18:05 pm
A diagram from Hitachi, showing how many of the components of IEP will be British built:

(http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/9312634443_9e34010560_c1_zpsdd89c2df.jpg)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on July 18, 2013, 06:28:43 pm
Brakes from Melksham, then. That will please somebody!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on July 18, 2013, 06:39:29 pm
Pants from Somerset.  :D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 18, 2013, 08:03:05 pm
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



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on July 19, 2013, 09:54:16 am
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

And speaking to the FGW IEP project manager (name escapes me) at the same presentation in Swindon, it seems that FGW are having a significant input into the interiors. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion but I would hope that they reflect the quality of the HST refurb in first class and less of the rather cramped perspective (although I find the legroom OK) of standard class.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on July 22, 2013, 09:43:04 pm
Brakes from Melksham, then. That will please somebody!

Indeed!  ;D

Pants from Somerset.  :D

That was actually a quite witty rejoinder.  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on July 31, 2013, 10:18:16 am
DCA Design of Warwick has started work on mock-ups of the IEP carriage interiors and cab.

http://www.dca-design.com/news/iep-super-express-mock-up-under-construction-at-dca.html

At the recent IET talk in Swindon, the CEO of Agility Trains mentioned that carriage interior mock-up would be ready by September.  The computer-generated images shown on the DCA site have already been released by Hitachi and the DfT.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on July 31, 2013, 03:55:25 pm
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.

That is likely to cause some problems during the peaks as trains between Cardiff and Swansea can be very full even with a 8 carriage hst.

Seems  the depot facilities at Malapoint will only be able to accomodate 1x 5 carriage IEP  but the sidings pit will be able to take longer units. Makes me wonder why didnt they just stick to using Llandore depot.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 31, 2013, 05:52:31 pm
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.

Is that based on something you've just read in wnxx?

That's not what the spreadsheet timetable you linked to in post #220 says though, is it.  It shows the odd 10 car pair, a few single 5 car, but over the course of the day most are 9 car, eg in the morning peak. 

(You'll presumably have noted the covering explanation on the spreadsheet of type 14xx and type 10xx diagrams being 5 car and 9 car respectively.)

Paul
 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 05, 2013, 10:12:25 am
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...  ;)
The cost has reduced slightly, but is still a little too high. I wouldn't mind it taking so long if they had actually ironed out all the problems and got the cost down to the region of a Pendolino. But many problems remain, I don't like:
  • The fact EVERY set is planned to have at least one diesel engine
  • the number of bi-mode sets ordered, far more than would be required soon after 2020 if sensible extensions (such as Swindon - Cheltenham, Bristol - Weston-S.-M. and the Hull route on East Coast) are electrified at the start of CP6.
    • GWML should have a small number for Cotswolds and perhaps the proposed Westbury semi-fast
    • ECML should either be all-electric (with diesel locos used from the last wired station for Lincon, possibly Harrogate, Aberdeen and Inverness) or should have a shared fleet with the Midland Main Line (you'd still wouldn't need many bi-modes for the combined handful of beyond-wires trains.)
  • the planned short sets, every one on GWML should be at least 8-car with most being 9-car and ECML should all be 9-car or perhaps even a mix of 9-car and 10-car sets and
  • most of all, I don't like that they are planning to replace the Intercity 225s (and probably scrapping the class 91s). They are not going to be life expired until 2030 at the earliest, meaning IEP would send them to their graves at least 10 years early. Don't forget that IC225s also have 140mph capablility, making them less appropriate anywhere else
    • Whichever way you look at it, retaining class 91s and their associated coaches has to be cheaper than buying more new trains


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 05, 2013, 10:38:36 am
I agree that there are some lingering concerns over capacity in my mind as well.  Though I think having one engine on board the electric sets is a bit of a masterstroke to be honest - we're not talking about a particularly big or heavy engine in terms of how having it on board will affect the overall weight of a 9-car train and I think the benefits of having it to deal with issues with overhead wire failure and emergency diversions far outweigh the extra weight penalty.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 05, 2013, 04:16:26 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 05, 2013, 06:50:35 pm
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.
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: trainer on August 05, 2013, 07:41:50 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 05, 2013, 08:20:23 pm
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.

Yes and that is an extreme occurrence that happens very rarely, the engine in the electric only units is also able to move the train all be it at slow speed, don't help much when you get a break failure but again yesterdays incident is not an every day one


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 05, 2013, 10:47:08 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 05, 2013, 11:33:27 pm
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.
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.

Quote
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
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? The reduced costs from dropping that requirement could allow the extra carriages needed to make the sets decent lengths. Better yet, instead of replacing IC225s on the ECML they could use those vehicles to lengthen the short sets.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 05, 2013, 11:58:34 pm
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.

Does it impeed their acceleration that much (if at all) though?  If it did, surely they'd have been re-geared to a 125mph maximum many years ago.  If you provide facts to back this lack of acceleration up then I am happy to concede they might not be suitable for use on the GEML and MML.  Until then, use on those routes, primarily replacing MkIII coaches and older traction would seem sensible enough to me.

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on August 06, 2013, 07:21:15 am
I believe it's true. A few years ago there was a regular 90 diagram on the Leeds London run and the comment was that on a stopping service it kept time, as its better acceleration more or less offset the lower maximum speed.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on August 06, 2013, 05:13:34 pm

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.

Who says you can't run with your pants down?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 06, 2013, 05:57:50 pm

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.
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 06, 2013, 06:37:03 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on August 06, 2013, 07:26:20 pm

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

You can see it here. (http://www.dieselgasturbine.com/August-2012/Hitachi-Receiving-250-Powerpacks-From-Tognum-Subsidiary/#.UgE_hNODa0c) Technical details are here (http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/products/engine-program/diesel-engines-for-rail-traction/powerpack-for-railcars/detail/product/4024/cHash/4e843407c21a04d9d9977d9de87593f5/?L=lkemrxvasjo).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on August 06, 2013, 07:57:59 pm
Some of the requirements on power supply for electric IEPs are clear in the requirement, some are not:
  • If a unit splits, every carriage must maintain lighting for 3 hours. That drives the battery requirement. Other services don't have this explicitly defined, and of course for some (PIS) it would be impractical.
  • When a unit is hauled by a loco supplying no electric power, outside OLE areas, it must meet the full spec. including HVAC for 6 hours. That is what drives the motor-generator solution.
  • In "unable to proceed under main power source" mode it must maintain "basic services" for 3 hours. Basic services include "saloon ventilation", but that is not defined that I can see. Only a full HVAC is defined.
  • In "train requires assistance from another train" mode it only has to try to meet the spec. for "unable to proceed under main power source" mode.
There a other mode similar to loco-hauled where it's hauled by a bi-mode IEP.
Note: only 3 hours - and then not always after it's been hauled with no 25kV.
All of this is subject to the caveat that the published requirement is still valid.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on August 06, 2013, 08:03:06 pm

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.)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 07, 2013, 12:56:24 am
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.)
On the contary, I would strongly oppose any suggestion that Pembroke Dock should be cleared for 26m coaches. Personally, I'd rather Pembroke Dock and Carmarthen both lose through London trains than have IEPs in its current form. The only reason for keeping those trains in my view is capacity, the Welsh franchise would probably be unable to provide long enough trains. The Pacers on the Pembrokes can be packed on Summer Saturdays and the Carmarthen to Paddington service on weekdays looks to be at an ideal commuter time at Swansea (I haven't actually used that one though, so can only guess at how well used it is).

I have been pursuaded that IEP's 26m vehicles could well turn out to be a good idea on the electrified parts of the GWML and as a replacement for IC125s on the ECML, provided the emergency power requirements are dropped (as I see it, they would add a lot of cost and a bit of GHG* emmisions for very little benifit). I have also been pursauded that bi-mode IEP is probably the best of a bad bunch for the Cotswolds line, provided 5-car sets are abandoned and they come in at least 8-car formations instead.

I don't think anything will ever persuade me that East Coast should have bi-modes (unless they can share a fleet with another TOC or gain additional routes), or that the proposed 'electric'/bi-mode mix on the GWML is correct. Also, I will NEVER be happy with anything which sees 91s and/or their associated mrk4 carriages scrapped or exported before life expiry (which, given electrics last 5-10 years longer than diesels, should be after every single 158 has been retired, given that 158s were built arround the same time as 91s). New trains might turn out even nicer than the IC225s, but they would cost more.

*GreenHouse Gas


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 07, 2013, 11:07:50 am
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.

That may well be the case.  It also might be the case that there's a Class 377 stopped at the signal ahead that can't move as it was that that ripped down the wires, so the IEP behind can go nowhere.  However, at least this engine will be able to provide lighting and air-conditioning whilst the problem is resolved - with a quick internet search you can find horror stories all round the world when trains are stuck with no power, no air-con for several hours.

Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 07, 2013, 03:45:16 pm
I agree with the fitting of limited diesel power, IIRC a single engine on a 5 car set and 2 engines on the full length ones.

There are numerous reports on these forums and elswhere about prolonged delays and passengers confined in hot, dark, cramped conditions.
The limited diesel power would permit of reaching the next station, or if the train can not proceed then the engine(s) can supply power for on board services.

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.

The limited diesel power would also allow SHORT diversions via non electrified routes, and would also permit of through running onto heritage lines should this be needed for charters or excursions.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 08, 2013, 12:22:11 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on August 08, 2013, 03:04:32 am
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.
It's common for electric trains to survive for about 90 minutes on batteries. The batteries will have enough to provide PA/cab radio and emergency lighting.

Diesel trains still need batteries too of some kind to help start the engine - having said that maybe the IEP will be have a kick start for it's engines  ;D :P

As for why no opening windows? The RAIB report in to the Kentish Town incident said that emergency opening windows were inadequate, especially if there is no draft and you are stationary they aren't much use. At least working air conditioning should go some way to prevent a mutiny.

The IEP spec also makes provision for the storage of bottled water for emergencies too.

Edit just to clarify quoting - grahame


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on August 08, 2013, 05:19:25 pm
Brakes from Melksham, then. That will please somebody!

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/headlines/10600771._/?

Quote
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.

There are an excellent local firm - one of a number of really top quality highly advanced companies who have their main UK operation in our town.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 09, 2013, 09:09:10 am
Existing EMUs do have batteries for emergency lighting, but these are of limited capacity and dont seem well maintained.

I have twice been caught up in FCC fiascos when external power to class 319s has been lost. I dont remember for how long the lights stayed, but it was only a few minutes, maybe as long as ten minutes.
Battery lighting is very limited, I think it is 4 lamps per vehicle on 319s, by the left hand doors at one end, and the right hand doors at the other end, and one lamp at each end of the coach, near the gangway doors.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on August 09, 2013, 10:05:24 am
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.
But the requirement for diesel power is nothing to do with emergencies, it is for loco-hauled mode (already posted see: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10150.msg137446#msg137446 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10150.msg137446#msg137446)).

On lighting, the requirement refers (not surprisingly) to a BS:
Quote from:  IEP-TECT-REQ-35 Issue 05 section 4.10
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.
So the requirement during power failure is for 3 hours of this general lighting spec. The only cases where limited emergency lighting is allowed are "Real Emergency Mode" such as a derailment, and specifically for each carriage if a train splits, with 3 hours specified.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 09, 2013, 12:04:53 pm
Depends on the definition of emergency.
But my understanding is that if a nominaly electric IEP is without electric power from the OHLE, then the diesel engine(s) are to be run to provide electricity for on board services, including lighting.
This applies both when stopped by breakdown or failure, or when being hauled by a diesel locomotive.

I earlier stated that I would expect "at least 50%" lighting in such circumstances, it now appears that full lighting is to be provided in such cases.
This would surely be from the engine(s), I cant imagine the units being equiped with a battery big enough to supply full lighting for 3 hours.

It would seem that much reduced lighting powered from batteries for 3 hours is only to be used in "real emergency" situations such as derailment, or presumably failure of both the OHLE supply AND the diesel.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on August 09, 2013, 12:53:58 pm
Depends on the definition of emergency.
of course these are defined:
Quote from: IEP-TECT-REQ-35 Issue 05 section 3.18
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.
and there's lots of bits like this:
Quote from: IEP-TECT-REQ-35 Issue 05
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.

Al of this raises the obvious question: how often does the IEP itself fail? In particular, failure of its systems when needed after some other failure (such as emergency battery power or the auxiliary diesel). I cannot find anything about this in the published requirement. The contract includes "pay for availability", so perhaps any "pay back for failure" conditions might be considered a commercial issue.

Broadgage, are any of your comments based on something known to have superseded the published requirement? As this was the "Formal issue for contract" (which is at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf)) nothing should have been negotiated away since, but in other areas the design will naturally provide something extra.




Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Lee on August 19, 2013, 06:02:04 pm
I ummed and ahhed a bit as to where to post this given that it's a different type of train entirely, but given the recent conversation, I plumped for here...

From the Railway Gazette: (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/independently-powered-emu-to-be-tested.html)

Quote from: Railway Gazette
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'll let chris from nailsea move it if it's in the wrong place...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Surrey 455 on August 25, 2013, 07:12:14 pm
Quote from: Railway Gazette
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.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on August 25, 2013, 07:33:17 pm
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'm sure that's why they are doing a feasibility study - to provide answers to all those questions about what it could do.

I can't resist saying at this point that I can remember the last attempt at running a battery EMU in Britain (at least I think it was, but I may be wrong on that). That ran from Aberdeen to Ballater for a few years around 1960, and was abandoned before the line closed in 1966.

It ran from Monday to Saturday, then went up to Inverurie works, presumably for maintentance. We saw it going back on Sunday past the bottom of my Grandma's chicken run, and were told it had been to have its batteries charged (though that seems unlikely). 

I was always puzzled why they chose that line - it rises, almost continuously, from near sea level to 200 m. Perhaps it was felt that was a reasonably severe test, combined with the realistic option of coasting all the way down it the battery failed in service.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 25, 2013, 09:59:46 pm
Quote from: Railway Gazette
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.

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on September 10, 2013, 04:25:34 pm
GBRF have been awardded the contract to test the new IEP units from 2015:

http://www.modern-railways.com/view_article.asp?ID=6766&pubID=37&t=0&s=0&p=1&i=10



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 10, 2013, 09:30:36 pm
A sensible move. Not only will it (I hope) give me the chance to see an IEP being towed behind a class 66 on an early introductory run to Bristol, but it sidesteps any complications that could arise as a result of any franchise changes during the test period.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 23, 2013, 02:53:53 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on September 23, 2013, 03:57:11 pm
The proposed IEP timetables show the Bristol TM - London Paddington via Bristol Parkway services as running non stop between Bristol Parkway and London Paddington doing the journey between Parkway and Paddington in 1 hour 10 minutes.

On further note, Roger Ford in his latest edition of informed sources stated that Siemens have come up with a 115mph express version of the class 380 desiro which they state can easily fit between the IEP high speed services on the GWML.

You can read more with Modern Railways is in the shops on friday.

I wonder if such units would be good for the semi-fast Oxford - London services with their doors helping with large passenger numbers along with the London - Bedwyn/Westbury service which would be good for glastonbury etc if the wires get beyond Bedwyn to Taunton & Plymouth.

Although the class 380's wont win awards for good looks I admit although they are not as bad in my opinion as the refurbished/rebuilt class 458/5's


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 23, 2013, 08:19:41 pm
Stuart Baker was or maybe still is a top DfT civil servant.  It's widely believed he is the person most responsible for the IEP project...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on September 23, 2013, 08:20:16 pm

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'd have been interested to hear that talk. Assuming it's the same Stuart Baker (S.K. Baker author of Rail Atlas of Britain), he is (was?) a Divisonal Manager at the DfT and was one of the main protagonists behind the IEP programme, particularly the decision to develop the IEP Bi-Mode version in preference to other options, such as loco-haulage away from the wires.  According to other well-informed sources such as Modern Railways, a rather controversial figure.

It will be interesting to see what the post-electrification timetable finally looks like. Four train per hour to Bristol TM is good if traffic grows but I think the proposed two "flyers" per hour non-stop from Bristol Parkway to Paddington will be carting around an awful lot of fresh air off-peak.  I suppose that it helps justify the 5-car Bi-Modes though  ;)

I'd hope that they speed up the S Wales services - there's far less justification for all of these at Swindon and half of them at Didcot. I thought that the proposed timetable had the hourly Swansea-Padd service running fast from Newport to Reading - like I remember it did in 1967  ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 23, 2013, 08:23:45 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on September 23, 2013, 08:32:58 pm
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

Yes, I'd understand that for one train per hour. But two sounds like overkill - especially given the limited number of paths between Paddington and Didcot/Swindon. One hopes that patronage will grow as a result of the "sparks effect" to justify the non-stop trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on September 23, 2013, 08:52:19 pm
I think we will see the sparks effect pretty well on the GWML the  Swansea - London services are likely to do pretty well although the eractic pattern of trains will annoy some people.

I think some capacity issue's on the GWML will be reduced with the new layout at Reading although I wll like to see the looks of passengers as two trains per hour pass through not stopping. 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.

Still I dont think the GWML is at the same level of capacity as the west coast mainline yet (Although I think like many others on this forum this will change in the future especially with more freight traffic from Southampton for example and there is talk of expanding the port at Milford Haven)

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.


I do hope that Swindon will see more services perhaps some running limited stop to Padding calling only @ Reading with a journey time end to end of 50 minutes


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on September 23, 2013, 09:43:41 pm
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.



The "less freight to Didcot" is probably one of the reasons why four tracking Swindon to Didcot is not in CP5 plans - so no chance of it before 2020.

There are lots of commuters travelling east from Bristol, but I'd suggest that the bulk of the traffic is heading to the intermediate stations, e.g. Bath and Swindon. Probably more to London from Parkway currently as the journey time is rather more attractive than Temple Meads. Though taking the London commuters and ad hoc business traffic off the stopping services will release a lot of space for the existing services.

 What we also have to remember is a year or two after IEP, Crossrail will dramatically reduce journey times from Paddington to the City, West End and Canary Wharf. I suspect the combination of these two will mean a big uptick in traffic over the next few years as people realise the commuting opportunities it offers (albeit at a price).

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on September 23, 2013, 09:52:35 pm
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.

It is easy to forget that commuting is not only towards London.  The further west you go the more westward commuters there are.  So yes you could run Swindon to London trains, but that would not help the people who commute from Swindon to Bristol.

It would just be a repeat of what happened when they closed all the local stations west of Didcot and axed all the local trains. That is why inter city trains stop at Didcot, Swindon and Chippenham - because there are no other trains to provide the service! They thought we only needed an infrequent service so it would be fine.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on September 23, 2013, 11:28:37 pm
Certainly a 115mph desiro would be good to run a Bristol - Oxford service which could also serve a new station at Wantage Road and Royal Wotton Bassett and reversing at Didcot allowing some of the Bristol - London services to avoid stopping at Didcot and save a good few minutes


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 24, 2013, 10:12:25 am
Thanks to those who cleared up my mistake on Stuart Baker's employer! Yes, that's the man.

Been quite unwell until recently, but now out & about doing talks, particularly to this organisation (you don't need to be a member). Stuart spoke at three different meetings last week.
http://www.rcts.org.uk/


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on September 24, 2013, 10:35:07 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on September 24, 2013, 10:46:53 am
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.
Personally, I think the south Wales INTERCITY services should be one fast and one semi-fast east of Cardiff. So, the Swansea services would call at Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway and Reading while the Paddington - Cardiff services would continue to stop at Didcot and Swindon as well. If you can fill a train with south Wales passengers in the peaks though, a Paddington, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea express could be interesting to see, though I doubt you could have a special path for it west of Cardiff so it wouldn't actually be able to miss out Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway and Neath.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 24, 2013, 11:01:32 am
There is quite a demand for services from Didcot/Swansea through to Wales. As long as there are GOOD connections at BPW, then fine, otherwise I don't agree with you.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 24, 2013, 11:06:39 am
How much of the South Wales demand is really to Didcot - and how much simply uses Didcot as the interchange for ongoing journeys to Culham, Oxford and Banbury?  I'm always part of a flow from the 125 onto the Oxford train at Didcot and haven't noticed how many people leave the station.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 24, 2013, 11:08:22 am
Makes no difference really, it's still demand at Didcot....also from stations twixt Reading & there too. A major interchange.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 24, 2013, 01:06:56 pm
Makes no difference really, it's still demand at Didcot ...

No, it does make a difference ... if it is demand from people who want to travel to Oxford, etc., then the choice between changing onto the Thames Valley train at Didcot, or onto a Bristol to Bedford service at Swindon is going to come down to a good journey profile.  But if the flow is to Didcot itself ...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 24, 2013, 01:15:46 pm
Errr....suggestion was to NOT stop at Swindon either...:-)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 24, 2013, 04:27:47 pm
Errr....suggestion was to NOT stop at Swindon either...:-)

Oh I know ... I'm musing wider on where we may be going in the future.   


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on September 29, 2013, 10:33:22 pm
For those who are interested, this month's Modern Railways has the latest seating plans. A new measure, posterior/loo is introduced, which hints that leg room may become cross-legged room.

Also, no facility for a buffet car, just a trolley service. I wonder has any modelling been done as to how long it would take a trolley to get through 526 (standard) seats. (One problem with a trolley is that passengers feel they have to wait for the trolley to get to them, rather than going to the buffet when they feel like it.)

Given the problems last time FGW tried to introduce trolleys, I wonder has this been thought through. Although I understand that EMT has switched to trolleys, so maybe DfT regard this as not a problem.

Another negative, from my perspective, is that the vast majority of the first class single seats become 'uni-directional" (aka airline). For solo business travellers wanting to spread paperwork, laptop etc, I suspect they'll migrate to the tabled double seats, leaving the single seats relatively unused.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 30, 2013, 08:40:25 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 30, 2013, 11:32:31 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 30, 2013, 12:20:13 pm
but 1st class is meant for business and thus each seat ought to have a proper table.

At certain times of the day, yes.  But with the advent of cheaper 1st class advances, it is becoming more and more for the 'masses' who just want a more comfortable journey.  For example, the number of elderly passengers who use a senior railcard in combination with an advance 1st class ticket has rocketed in the last ten years, with my own parents joining that particular club whenever they can.  I can tell you right now that their own personal preference is for two airline seats with a nice view out of the window.  So, providing some airline style seats is no bad thing in my mind, though the ratio of tabled seats should be much higher in first class than airline - say a 75/25% split or thereabouts?  Not sure what the rstio is with the latest specification?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 30, 2013, 12:32:06 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on September 30, 2013, 02:38:12 pm
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 main problems with 'bus seats' in my opinion are lack of legroom and fact half of them will normally align with a window pillar, because the size of windows does not really permitt a seating layout that ensures all seats have an unobstructed view, unless all seats are at table bays. The only stock I've used which provides plenty of legroom in 'bus-style' seating is class 175s, but they have an array of other aspects which are rather less attractive.

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?

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 suppose I don't often have somebody sit opposite me at a table, but when I do it rarely seems to cause footsie. Footsie seems to be more likely when the the seat opposite is facing the same way as the seat behind it (as opposed to the seats being back-to-back).

I understand passengers not wanting to leave their seats. However, a trolley does not provide a sufficently wide range of options. Most importantly, they do not provide proper meals, only snacks. If making a long road journey, one has a chance of finding motorway services en-route able to serve you a full evening meal. On a long rail journey that doesn't involve an INTERCITY service (and even they rarely have a cooked meal service and when they do the menu doesn't normally appeal to me) you might reach your destination and find the pubs are shut or only serve drinks. You are left with a peice of flapjack from the trolley for dinner. Not at all satisfying. We need more trains with buffets, not less, in my opinion.

What really gets me with IEP is there is still a kitchen, but only in the 1st class driving vehicle. British Rail had it right with the IC225 and IC125, there is only one buffet car but it is suitated between 1st and standard, meaning either can make use of it.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 30, 2013, 02:47:59 pm
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.

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?

Other flows, such as London<->Cheltenham, London<->Westbury/Exeter and London<->Worcester/Hereford are also expected to see an increased frequency.

Now both the interior specification and the final timetables are neither set in stone yet, so it remains to be seen; what the catering will be, how many toilets there are, how many airline seats/tables there are, what the proportion of Advance Purchase fares will be.

Regarding buffets specifically, I'll also mourn their passing, but if anyone can find a way to make the space pay, versus using it for seating, then it'd be wrong to not have them. Truth is, they rarely cover their costs.

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 30, 2013, 02:55:25 pm
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.

And to add to bignosemac's comments, my parents usually use CrossCountry which, despite it's terrible crowding and single first class carriage on the routes they travel on, still manages to provide some very reasonable first class advance prices.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 30, 2013, 03:22:05 pm

"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.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Red Squirrel on September 30, 2013, 04:07:21 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 30, 2013, 04:20:25 pm

"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.

No surprise to see you decline to comment on bignosemac and my responses to your rather swingeing statement about availability of advance first class fares come the advent of IEP's, and instead choose to repeat the same old opinions and phrases.   :-\

At the end of the day we'll just have to wait and see when we first get to see one in its final specification in real life.  Not too long now.  Should it be an absolute disaster in every respect like you predict then I will happily hold up my hands and say so (as well as being bloody annoyed with the DfT!).

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.

I think it increases, but I'll let someone save me the bother of looking it up too.   ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on September 30, 2013, 06:05:34 pm
Yes the IEP class 800/801 units have more seats in each carriage compared to a hst although not by much.

Anyway we should have a better understanding of how these new units 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 these new trains although I do hope they will not be really problematic


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 30, 2013, 06:32:26 pm
Yes the IEP's have more seats in each carriage compared to a hst although not by much.

Understandable seeing as the IEP carriages are 3m longer than a Mk3.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 30, 2013, 06:33:32 pm
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

Typical FGW operated HST coach that everyone thinks is wonderful, has 84 mostly airline seats in 23m.   IEP at 88 has 4 more seats in its extra 3m.  I have a theory that seating density won't be the issue for normal passengers, just for those hoping for a 1980s HST layout, which will never appear in new stock again.

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

Paul  


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on September 30, 2013, 08:40:08 pm
By the way, antony215, you appear to have three grocer's apostrophes in your post...

Paul  

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on September 30, 2013, 09:50:21 pm
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?
Nope, because over half of the new fleet are currently planned to be 5 carriage formations (compared to today's 2+8 IC125s).

New trains, faster journey times, increased frequency. It's all doom and gloom isn't it?  ::)
Given that over half the fleet will be overcrowded 5-car diesel-guzzling trains that are likely to lock Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham services (which might otherwise be logical progressions of electrfication in CP6) into diesel traction for another 15 years, yes. It is (almost) all doom and gloom. Ditch the 5-car idea (replacing them with 9-car sets) and change the ratio of bi-modes to electrics to allow extension of GWML wiring in CP6 and things might start looking up. Oh, and leave the IC225s alone on the ECML (the 270 IEP vehicles ordered to replace them can be used to get avoid 5-car IEPs), rather than scrapping locos with 10 years life left in them.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Red Squirrel on September 30, 2013, 10:12:45 pm
By the way, antony215, you appear to have three grocer's apostrophes in your post...

Paul  

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

...and they aren't Grocer's Apostrophes either - it's only recently that style guides have started to frown upon using apostrophes when pluralising initialisms (see Grammar Girl's piece (http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/used-versus-use-and-other-listener-questions?page=1)), and the OED (http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/initialisms) merely says that you don't need to use an apostrophe for this - it doesn't say you shouldn't.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 30, 2013, 11:35:59 pm
Nope, because over half of the new fleet are currently planned to be 5 carriage formations (compared to today's 2+8 IC125s).

Working to the current IEP information (draft weekday timetable, draft seating capacity) in the public domain, Bristol TM-Paddington may have:

6x double 5 car services: 3780 seats
14x 5 car services: 4410 seats
40x 9 car services: 25080 seats
Total: 33270 seats

Looking at current Bristol TM-Paddington HST provision there are a maximum of 34 weekday services and if we assume they are all operated by 2+8 high density sets with micro buffets, then there are 34x 560 seats.
Total: 19040 seats

Even if those figures aren't wholly accurate come the final shakedown, I think it does highlight that there is likely to be a very large increase in capacity between Bristol and London.

In addition, Weston-Super-Mare get's an hourly off peak 5 car service to London on top of existing and future peak services. Cheltenham gets an hourly 5 car service throughout the day, as does Worcester. Hereford gets a bi-hourly 5 car service. Westbury/Taunton/Exeter get an hourly off peak 5 car service in addition to existing HST services. Some of these additional 5 car services are doubled up in the peaks for all or part of their journey.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 01, 2013, 02:23:37 am
Crikey, well done for sitting down and working those figures out, sir!

Assuming your base figures are correct, I've done the first class seating in the same style.  Is another false assumption put to rest?   ;)

6x double 5 car services: 540 seats
14x 5 car services: 630 seats
40x 9 car services: 4040 seats
Total: 4210

Looking at current Bristol TM-Paddington HST provision there are a maximum of 34 weekday services and if we assume they are all operated by 2+8 high density sets with micro buffets, then there are 34x 95 seats.
Total: 3230 seats*

* If we're generous and assume that all those current services are operated by 2+8 low density sets with normal sized buffets then 3230 increases to 3774 seats.  Still well short of 4210 though!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on October 01, 2013, 04:41:10 pm
Just to clarify, my figures were total seating capacity, First and Standard Class.

Deduct II's First Class figures from mine and you have Standard Class capacities.

And just to reiterate, these figures are based on the IEP layouts as published by the DfT in August 2012 and the draft Greater Western IEP timetable spreadsheet as posted in this thread at post #220. This timetable was developed by the DfT for establishing diagrams and rolling stock requirements and is not to be regarded as a public timetable aspiration or proposal. We should have the Service Level Commitment for IEP when the Greater Western franchise is re-tendered in 2016.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on October 01, 2013, 05:24:19 pm
Whilst in theory, a more frequent service should make up for many of the new trains being only 5 car, practice may suggest otherwise.

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.

I fear a repeat.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on October 01, 2013, 06:04:00 pm

I fear a repeat.

And so do I. I consider, though, that passenger numbers on FGW's patch are more constant than Cross Country's ex Bristol. I may be wrong, but that's my impression. It follows that armed with reasonably accurate figures, the rolling stock for the line should be easy to plan for.

Which is why I fear a repeat. Anyone know if there are options for further trains in the contract with Agility / Hitachi?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on October 02, 2013, 01:44:39 am
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.

Ignoring CrossCountry's Cardiff-Nottingham and Birmingham-Stansted services...

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.

The old  Virgin XC 2+7 HSTs had around 420 seats and the loco hauled 7 coach mk2 sets had around 310 seats. With an even split between services operated by either HST or loco that would give an average of 365 seats per hour.

Now with a half hourly Voyager service you have at worst 400 seats per hour (2x Class 220) and at best 524 (2x Class 221). The actual figure would be somewhere in between, around 440 seats per hour. I'm saying 440 rather than a median between the capacity of a 220 versus a 221 to take account of CrossCountry having 34 Class 220s and only 23 Class 221s. The few XC HSTs runs per day would probably bump that 440 seats per hour up a bit.

So, more seats on the core XC network since Operation Princess was rolled out, but not enough to cope with current demand. There's a few other things wrong with Voyagers as well.

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.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on October 02, 2013, 08:55:55 am
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.


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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on October 02, 2013, 11:45:35 am
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.
Although this is broadly the case there are some significant exceptions. For example the frequency of services to Coventry and Birmingham International from Reading are still hourly as the extra services take the other route.

I recall that Virgin sent a survey to me concerning the services post Operation Princess. Since this had abolished the Cross Country stops at Didcot that had been in place for many years  there was little improvement for me personally in either convenience or journey times. Even now a proportion of trains need to be pathed through the station without stopping.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on October 02, 2013, 02:23:51 pm
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?




Edit note: Quote marks amended, for clarity. CfN.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on October 02, 2013, 02:59:29 pm
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?

AIUI the coupling is compatible but the control systems are not (although that presumably could be fixed if there was an economic case for doing so. )




Edit note: Quote marks amended, for clarity. CfN.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on October 02, 2013, 11:23:33 pm
Voyagers can work with Voyagers in multiple and Meridians can work with Meridians in multiple. I should stress I don't know much about these particular Bombardier products, but I think the issue with having a Voyager running with a Meridian is that it won't be possible for one type of train to give a door release to the other type. Although as Tim says, fixing this shouldn't be too much of an issue if the need arises.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 03, 2013, 08:45:53 am
I believe Voyagers have Alstom software as fitted to Pendolinos to allow Virgin to couple them in emergencies. Not sure about that, just what I've read somewhere.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on October 03, 2013, 02:15:22 pm
Yes the Virgin 221's have been fitted with software from Alstom to allow them to couple to a class 390 in required should a unit fail and needs to be rescued.

I am not sure if those units operated by Crosscountry have been fitted


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 01, 2013, 12:45:01 pm
Work to construct the Newton Aycliffe facility is about to commence:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/hitachi-starts-work-on-uk-plant.html (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/hitachi-starts-work-on-uk-plant.html)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on November 01, 2013, 02:35:56 pm
BVince Cable was there this morning. Presumably dug the first divot.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on November 01, 2013, 05:11:02 pm
Divot very PC!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on November 01, 2013, 05:14:45 pm
Vince Cable was there this morning. Presumably dug the first divot.

Divot very PC!

Yes. there's a man who calls a spade a non-mechanical horticultural soil inversion implement. He probably had that divot pre=loosened by some poor sod.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on December 05, 2013, 04:00:19 pm
From Railway Gazette (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/fleet-renewal-funded.html?) - look, bi-mode intercity express trains!

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on December 05, 2013, 08:52:02 pm
Is 100mph really 'express' though?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on December 05, 2013, 11:23:25 pm
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!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on December 06, 2013, 11:15:25 am
Is 100mph really 'express' though?

Probably not in modern terms but is probably adequate for most French non LGV routes where it would be considered too fast.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on December 06, 2013, 03:26:07 pm
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? If the UK ordered a fleet of bi-mode regional express trains, similar to class 158 or class 444 sets, at sensible non-PFI-inflated prices, I wouldn't mind. It is ordering Intercity bi-modes when we have finally embarked on a program of electrifying our remaining Intercity lines that is a DaFT idea.

Similar story with HS2, take some ideas which are good in theory and throw them together in a way that makes very little sense.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on December 06, 2013, 06:04:46 pm
Roof mounted engines ............... and folks her moan about the noise from under floor engines


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on December 06, 2013, 07:14:08 pm
So, the SNCF bi-modes are regional trains, not Intercity?

What is the difference is between a "regional train" that is capable of 200 km/hr, and an "intercity express" train that was pencilled in as 225 km/hr but ends up not needing to exceed 200 km/hr? A marketing label, I suspect, based on the different attitude to classes of line and their speeds in different European countries.

There were different priorities given here and in most of Europe to HS lines and electrification, versus upgrades for existing lines. That explains a difference in labels and a real difference in the proportions of classes of line. However, the technical differences between trains with different labels seem to be disappearing. So it's not a surprise to find a similar train with a different label, and for some users to not want its highest speed.

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on December 06, 2013, 08:42:37 pm
(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

Now, back to the merits, or otherwise, of bi-mode, roof mounted, underfloor...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on December 06, 2013, 09:33:32 pm
(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

Thank you kindly, young man.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on December 07, 2013, 12:30:43 am
I'm coaching 'bignosemac' in the dark art of topic merging: splitting topics is the really scary one.  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on December 07, 2013, 12:35:42 am
Renaming them is a bit of a faff too!   ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on December 07, 2013, 12:40:42 am
Our readers simply wouldn't believe the amount of angst I had to go through, just to rename a particular topic to bobm's satisfaction.  ::) :o :P


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on January 24, 2014, 10:38:16 pm
Tony Miles over on WNXX has  made a post saying that we could be seeing a mock up of the IEP with the seats displayed at Bristol TM at some point soon.

However those who have tried the new seats have not really given them good rating so I  wonder what we and the rest of the public will make of them


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on February 08, 2014, 08:11:33 am
Here are some photos taken of the IEP mock up including some interior photos.

http://s995.photobucket.com/user/800101/library/?sort=3&http%3A//s995.photobucket.com/user/800101/library/?#/user/800101/library/?sort=3&page=1&_suid=1391847009484029967021568293545


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on February 08, 2014, 02:41:36 pm
Where is the mock-up, for how long will it be there and is it going anywhere else?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: anthony215 on February 08, 2014, 04:22:14 pm
I have no idea and I suggested keeping an eye for updates over on wnxx. I will try and post updates on this forum as well


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 04, 2014, 12:17:52 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 04, 2014, 07:09:59 pm
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

We don't want the cascaded 319's without at least as refresh, I use them quite a bit between Blackfriars and St Pancras, the interiors are in a shocking state.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on March 04, 2014, 10:40:45 pm
I've said it numerous times before, but once more the 387s are a very likely bet for electric Thames Valley services :-)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on March 05, 2014, 09:34:51 am
Some details published of the 387s together with layout drawings

http://sparkyscrum.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/class-3871-for-techincal-details/

On first glance seems eminently suitable for the Thames Valley outer-suburban 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. Between Reading and Paddington these units will be running on the main lines and, with 110mph capability combined with modern EMU acceleration, should be able to keep out of the way of the IEPs.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 05, 2014, 09:53:22 am
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?  ;)

Seriously though, that sounds a very suitable design for non-IEP workings out to Oxford and Newbury/Bedwyn, though 8-car operation (and maybe some 12-car formations) will be needed during the peaks to counter the reduction in seating.  There is a need to balance the lovely accommodation of the HST/180s with that of the Turbos which work the same route, so the likely future of the difference between IEP and these Class 387 interiors looks to close that gap considerably.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 05, 2014, 10:47:11 am
I've said it numerous times before, but once more the 387s are a very likely bet for electric Thames Valley services :-)

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.

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

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!

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

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on March 05, 2014, 01:15:26 pm

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

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!

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

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

I think you can argue the toss either way on this.  Obviously pax from Reading, Twyford & Maidenhead will opt for the cl 387 outer suburban services (Reading ones will have the choice of IEP as well). 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.

For pax from Slough I reckon it's less clear cut. They'll have the choice of either taking an outer suburban to Padd and changing (possibly to Crossrail) or taking Crossrail much closer to where they actually want to go (assuming they don't work near Padd but do work near a Crossrail station/interchange). Of course Crossrail will be all stations whereas the 387s will be non-stop from Slough so it will be interesting to see how the loadings balance out. Either way I suspect that rush hour trains will still be wedged on this section unless the 387s are run in 12 car formations.

Newbury/Oxford/Didcot pax should find the 387 passenger environment better than turbos - though maybe not as nice as HSTs or 180s. Outside the rush hour the 2+2 will provide a better passenger environment all round (my experience based on travelling in 350s on London Midland and 377s on Southern).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on March 05, 2014, 01:20:54 pm
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.

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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on March 05, 2014, 01:54:13 pm

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.

The 319s still haven't been officially ruled out. It has looked unlikely that 319s will be used for a while now. Prior to this recent announcement FGW were responsible for procuring EMUs for the Thames Valley which could have meant 319s, 387s or a new order just for the Thames Valley. As the DfT have halted the procurement exercise it looks very likely that the DfT will exercise the option for additional Class 387s and use those for Thames Valley services. The 319s might now have been available on time as the order of 387s for Thameslink frees up 319s earlier than expected, but it seems likely the freed up 319s will be cascaded to the North West.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on March 05, 2014, 01:58:53 pm
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?

Currently, 1,2,3 (almost) 11. But really, that's the wrong tense, as most of the others will need lengthening for 10-car IEPs anyway (260 m  vs 276). I'm not sure when that's scheduled to happen, though.
 



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on March 05, 2014, 04:28:06 pm
As far as I know the 387s will only have 20m long coaches. That's the standard length for EMUs in this country. A 12-car train would therefore come in at 240m and would fit in Platforms 1-7 and 9-11 at Paddington.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 05, 2014, 06:26:59 pm
- 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.

The Thameslink Program is not running late, it is actually on schedule to be ready for the 24 trains per hour through the core by 2016 and London Bridge will be complete for the full introduction in 2018 (ETRMS and automatic train control is due in 2020) its DfT that is running late in their dithering over the contract award to Siemen.

The first 700 series units are due end of this year early next


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 05, 2014, 06:28:09 pm
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.

Not disagreeing with the basic point though, that a 12 x 20m 387 will fit OK in most platforms...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on March 06, 2014, 03:16:07 pm
I'd caution against making comparisons over number of seats against old rolling stock. It was a fixation over the pure number of seats per train that got comfortable class 444s replaced with 450s by SWT on the Portsmouth Direct line. I think that may be why in recent times new train orders have very much underplayed the number of seats. Sure, everyone would like a seat, but 3+2 is loathed by many. I think 2+2 is the right decision for the class 387 order.

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.
Indeed. The class 323, 332 and 333 EMUs also have 23m long coaches. Although, I think all DMUs since the class 155 have had 23m long coaches.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 06, 2014, 10:25:49 pm
I think 2+2 is the right decision for the class 387 order.

Certainly agree that for the Oxford/Bedwyn/Newbury to London fast and semi-fast market that 2+2 is the way forward, with a sensible number of tables and a small(ish) First Class section.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on March 09, 2014, 09:15:31 am
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?  ;)----------


If it actualy happens, and if the trains are full length so as to provide enough seats, then I welcome it.

What I fear MIGHT happen is that single units will be used in the rush hour resulting in fewer (though more comfortable) seats.

The units will then be "improved" with high density bus seats so as to provide the famous "thousands of extra seats"
Hopefully we will see full length trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on March 09, 2014, 10:13:56 am
I don't think there is any precedent for converting a train from 2+2 to 2+3*, although conversion from 2+3 to 2+2 does happen.

Reseating of trains in recent years:

Class 143 used by Wessex Trains from 2+3 to 2+2
Class 150 used by Wessex Trains from 2+3 to 2+2
Class 313 used by Southern from 2+3 to 2+2
Class 455 used by South West Trains from 2+3 to 2+2
Class 507 used by Merseyrail from 2+3 to 2+2
Class 508 used by Merseyrail from 2+3 to 2+2
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.

There may be other examples, although my knowledge of interior configurations of rolling stock fades the further from the south east you go!

At the current point in time the South West Trains class 458/5 conversion programme will see the 2+2 seating replace 2+3 as well as removal of 1st class seating. I believe that South West Trains will also be converting their newly acquired class 456 trains from Southern from 2+3 to 2+2.

* FCC did convert the old bar area on the seven ex Connex Express 319s to 2+3 seating.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on March 09, 2014, 12:04:22 pm

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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 09, 2014, 01:24:52 pm

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?


I suspect the present large 5 car markers would be removed once 5 car trains are no longer the norm.  As I've pointed out in the Reading thread before now, there are other methods of signing stop positions for split platforms, e.g. at Southampton, where there are separate stop markers for the A and B ends for anything from 2 to 8 car trains, many of them are different for EMU and DMU, and they get used all day in either direction.  If they need to run a 4 car train in behind an 8 car they do - in practice the drivers must not assume they necessarily have the marked 'half platform' all to themselves.

(For an example of how this works in practice, a short train terminating from the west, say an FGW 2 car 150 or similar, might run to a specific platform 2B '2 car' stop marker, positioned well short of the marked mid point.  This would still leave an 8 car 'slot' available for a train to terminate at platform 2A.)

At the end of the day it is up to the signallers to keep track of the length of individual trains they are putting into part occupied platforms.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Southern Stag on March 09, 2014, 03:23:33 pm
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.
The First Class has been back in all the 450/5s for a while now, but the units have not had the missing seats reinstated and still retain their 450/5 numbers.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on March 09, 2014, 06:43:35 pm
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?


No, I don't think it is. Look at it this way:

The use of split platforms is quite different for the Main and Relief Lines (and ignoring platforms 1-6 here). Note that the Reading through platforms have mid-point axle counters to provide train detection for each half, which fixes the lengths whenever that detection is a requirement.

The old station had two Relief Line platforms, plus two bays at the London end and one at the country end (which was mostly used by XC in preference to P3). The redesign does not need to increase Relief Line capacity for routine operations, though "7-day railway" calls for a full Sunday service to run without the Main Lines. So what you build is two through platforms plus two bays each end, only you join the bays so they can be also used as through platforms.

There is no real point in splitting a through platform used by through trains, only if both turn round or terminate and restart. The new station is designed to cope with as many trains as the Main Lines can carry, plus a margin for timing errors on up trains. Down trains are over-provided by three platforms, giving the capacity for XC turning. Even if that train is a short one, current operations have no way of using the other half platform.

So on the Main Lines, marking the platforms as split is almost never operationally useful. Of course there is the inverse "7-day railway" requirement which might occasionally call for it on a Relief Line service. Otherwise, it just helps passengers to find a short train on a long platform. (That's why the -A and -B do not normally appear in Realtimetrains for P7-11.) It would also be rather foolish to build a station that can only ever cope with XC trains that are short - they may be longer (I saw an 8-car in P8 last week).

That said, I do wonder if the need to turn an 8- or 12-car express EMU at Reading has been considered. There should not be many - most of these commuter service will run to/from further out (potentially Oxford/Swindon/Newbury/Basingstoke). Ideally it should set off from P10 or 11, but could you turn it quickly enough? (These are the two most heavily used platforms.) You could turn it in P9, but the pax would have to swap platforms for it. Or you can unload (e.g. in P7) and go off to turn round somewhere else, either in a siding (e.g. beside the Westbury Lines, but which would need to be built) or on a running line. The grade separation can then be used to run back into P10/11, though there are limits on what is possible (e.g. using the depot access line to turn does not allow direct access to the Up Main).

For the record, the Relief Lines platforms are nominally 282 m long, so can just about fit 6x23 m in each half. The Main Line platforms are nominally 303-306 m (current figures), though it looks as if they will end up a little longer in reality. The IEP spec. includes the figure of 312 m (i.e. 12x26 m) as the length that trains may be lengthened to, and above which ECS or rescue trains need not offer full passenger-carrying functionality. So, by implication, all major IEP stops should have platforms that long (or be easily extended).



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 10, 2014, 10:54:02 am
Don't forget the 5car Bi-modes that are coming as part of the IEP programme


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on March 10, 2014, 05:01:40 pm
We used to have the facility of a turbo being able to come into platform 1 at Oxford behind a standing HST. However there was a minor collision some years ago when the turbo hit the HST and since then an approaching turbo is usually held outside Oxford until the HST has departed meaning that Cotswold Line travellers could lose their Oxford connection.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Lee on March 20, 2014, 07:51:21 am
Hitachi is to move its global rail business from Japan to the UK - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26657455


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on March 20, 2014, 08:12:35 am
Hitachi is to move its global rail business from Japan to the UK - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26657455

Certainly good news on the employment front, and arguably a vote of confidence in the UK.
I still have misgivings regarding the design of the new trains, but that is a seperate issue.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Lee on March 20, 2014, 09:18:46 am
Hitachi have put a new global rail leadership structure in place as well - http://www.railnetwork.info/article.php?article_id=5742


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on May 28, 2014, 10:10:21 pm
A video news report from ITV News showing some detail of the interior of the Intercity Express Programme trains:

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2014-05-28/final-designs-revealed-for-new-intercity-swansea-to-london-trains/
Quote
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.



And on a similar theme from the Oxford Mail (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11238728._/):

Quote
High-speed shape of things to come

(http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/3048159.jpg?type=articleLandscape)

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: trainbuff on May 29, 2014, 07:12:22 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Surrey 455 on May 29, 2014, 08:47:41 pm
Those seats don't look they were designed for long journeys. Perhaps I'm wrong but they don't look very comfortable.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on May 29, 2014, 08:53:41 pm
Those seats don't look they were designed for long journeys. Perhaps I'm wrong but they don't look very comfortable.
If they are similar to the seats in the 395 then I have found them quite comfortable even on a 2 hour trip London to Ramsgate


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on May 30, 2014, 07:35:54 am
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on May 30, 2014, 08:43:46 am
I flew home from Corfu recently on a brand new A321 with similar-looking seats. They were perfectly comfortable for a 3^ hour journey, and apparently much lighter than the "conventional" style, leading to big savings in fuel.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on May 30, 2014, 10:06:20 am
We seem to have become obssessed with cramming as many people as possible into the shortest possible train. Let's hope the fares fall in line with the discomfort. Squeasy Trains!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 30, 2014, 11:29:10 am
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.

Just a reminder of my fairly recent post at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13396.msg146808#msg146808 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13396.msg146808#msg146808)

Basically stating that FGW have requested a kitchen for the use of both classes of travel.  If anything released in the last few days absolutely refutes that then fair enough.  Otherwise I'd suggest you wait until the trains are delivered and you can see them in the flesh before making such 'told-you-so' statements.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: trainbuff on May 30, 2014, 11:38:22 am
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on May 30, 2014, 12:05:29 pm
Trollies sell more than buffets do. Fact.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 30, 2014, 12:22:19 pm
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

True that a kitchen area doesn't mean a buffet necessarily, but I'd have thought it would be logical to have a buffet given that it would presumably be in the middle of the train at a location where passengers will be moving through, and not, as on a Voyager, at the ends.

My own personal view on catering is that shorter distance services and a trolley service is fine, longer distance and a trolley and buffet service becomes very desirable.  The Pullman service also seems to be popular on the limited number of services it works, so I'd like to see that extended to one of the premier Swansea trains again, but it may well be seen as too much of an inconvenience to provide on an IEP (by that I mean a whole fleet geared up for Pullman facilities and only a couple of trains a day justified in providing it) and it will just be retained on the HSTs that will continue to work the Cornish services.

As far as I know the IEPs are designed for DOO working, and have been since the very first design draft.  Whether that means they will normally operate as so is something I personally doubt, and the unions will fight tooth and nail to avoid that happening I'm sure.  There's nothing in theory stopping Turbo's operating DOO on the Cotswold/Gatwick lines, but there's no sign of the necessary platform equipment being installed, so just because something has been fitted doesn't necessarily mean it will be used.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: trainer on May 30, 2014, 04:46:10 pm
Trollies sell more than buffets do. Fact.

Does the 'more' in this statement refer to the revenue received or the range of food and drink available? Or perhaps both?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on May 30, 2014, 04:47:52 pm
the former definitely - and possibly the latter


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on May 30, 2014, 06:21:41 pm
It's worth noting that on the IEPs, the tables are full width in 1st and standard. It's only the seats that face a wheelchair bay which have a half width table.

The IEPs are designed to be worked as either DOO or DGO. It's worth noting that as IndustryInsider said just because something could be DOO, doesn't mean it has to be. There are lots of examples of rolling stock that could operate perfectly fine on DOO services, but don't.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on May 30, 2014, 07:50:38 pm
DOO would be required just to allow the driver to take empty stock to/from the depot on his own.   With long distance intercity services I just don't see DOO in passenger service, I think the expression is something to do with mountains and molehills...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on May 30, 2014, 08:30:40 pm
There is more to having a train manager than just checking tickets, something that won't be absolutely necessary when all stations called at have a gateline. Passenger safety is the main purpose, although accidents are an absolute rarity now, but a representative of the TOC and a goldmine of information about connecting services are equally valid reasons for having a presence in the passenger areas.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on May 31, 2014, 10:07:39 am
Which could be provided by the person pushing the trolley (suitably trained, of course).

It could be said that customers would see more of that person if so....


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on July 05, 2014, 12:39:39 am
From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2679010/RMT-WARNS-OF-ACTION-OVER-NEW-TRAINS.html):

Quote
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."


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 05, 2014, 09:22:35 am
This RMT 'grievance' was being discussed back in May, I guess the Mail have been saving this up for a slow day. There's a link to the RMT's position on the page here:

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/publications/intercity-special-may-2014/

On the driver operation of the doors thing, I think it's been pointed out elsewhere that what is being fitted is basically the same as what they have on Voyagers.  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.   I guess that would suit the RMT better...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Super Guard on July 05, 2014, 03:54:50 pm
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...?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: sprinterguard on July 05, 2014, 08:17:30 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Super Guard on July 05, 2014, 08:40:57 pm
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.

Indeed, but never used by drivers for ECS movements - i'm not even sure if those buttons work?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on July 08, 2014, 11:55:33 pm
A video news report from ITV News on the progress of the new IEP depot at Stoke Gifford near Bristol:

http://www.itv.com/news/west/story/2014-07-08/new-rail-depot-could-create-200-new-jobs/

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on July 22, 2014, 11:28:04 am
There have been a couple of developments recently in this long, on-going saga. I apologise in advance for the length of this post but the topic is important as it affects everybody - whether taxpayers or travellers.

On 9 July 2014 the National Audit Office published its report on the DfT's handling of the IEP and Thameslink procurements. I think it is fair to say the NAO was not impressed, although dressed up in mandarin-speak, as it states on its website:

Quote
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.

The full report is available at http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Procuring-new-trains.pdf

The other part of this story is that Roger Ford, of Modern Railways magazine, has for some years been trying to identify the actual costs to the TOC of these new trains - specifically the IEP. He has in the past produced figures showing what appeared to be excessive costs for the IEP compared to equivalent trains. I used these figures, an extra cost of ^20,000 per month per vehicle making a total of some ^80 million per year for the GW, in a letter I wrote to my MP in 2011. Some time later he my MP copied me a letter which he had received from Theresa Villiers of the MoT which took me to task for calling the Intercity Express Programme a 'PPI procurement' when actually it is a 'total train service provision' contract. My numbers were unchallenged so I can only assume they were correct.

This week, in his e-mailed preview of his Informed Sources column in Modern Railways, he Mr. Ford uses the NAO's figures to update his estimation of the monthly cost per diagrammed coach of the Hitachi's Super Express Train.

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.

Or, possibly, the DfT will find some cunning financial engineering way of indemnifying the TOCs for the excessive charges - which means you will pay anyway as a taxpayer.

Edited for clarity.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on July 22, 2014, 09:08:29 pm
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.
Roger Ford has said in Modern Railways in the past that the increase in rolling stock costs for the East Coast franchise will pretty much wipe out the premium payments currently paid to DfT. And the GWML part of the order is the most expensive. There is also still a fair ammount of work that can still be got out of an IC225. In my opinion, especially now that DaFT have committed us to the Insanely Expensive Procurement, the cheapest IC225 retention option (retaining the class 91 locomotives, without lowering their top speed) should be taken. They are however most suited to the ECML. 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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on July 22, 2014, 11:25:21 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on July 23, 2014, 11:27:43 am
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.

I think you've missed the point. 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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on July 23, 2014, 12:17:24 pm
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.
Indeed. However, asking said ROSCO for a brand new 125mph electric train, or an IC225 with a new loco or re-geared 91, is going to be more expensive than an IC225 with just the reliability mods and ETCS Eversholt had planned. Given the insane cost of IEP, I feel even more strongly than ever that the 91s need to be retained to avoid purchase of more new stock for the likes of the MML electrification.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 29, 2014, 04:48:20 pm
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 :'(

After a couple of years we now know

1) yes, DMUs with under floor engines
2)Mainly bus seating, with only about a third of seats being at tables
3) Legroom, not yet known.
4) Catering reduced to a trolley for steerage
5)Shorter trains, mainly 5 car to replace 8 car HSTs


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on July 29, 2014, 07:26:34 pm
1) Reduced journey times
2) Increased frequency on many routes (appreciate may not be the case from South Wales)
3) More seats overall
4) Long term reliability that new build brings (yes, there may be teething trouble. Strongly believe the Hitachi product will not be another dog like the Class 180)
5) HSTs can't go on forever in squadron service


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on July 29, 2014, 07:58:54 pm

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on July 30, 2014, 07:55:40 pm

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. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on July 30, 2014, 11:38:15 pm
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. We are stuck with IEP and once they are built that's what we will be stuck with. That's why the real test is right now, making sure they are fit-for-purpose and are used where most benifit can be gained. 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. And, I doubt replacing IC225s on the ECML with IEPs would give as much benifit as leaving the IC225s where they are and deploying the 800s/801s as the MML replacement fleet instead (thus saving the need to procure a seperate new fleet for the MML).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on July 31, 2014, 10:02:04 am
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.

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.

The reason these PPI/PPP/Train Service Provision contracts were set up in the first place was that Gordon Brown wanted to keep as much capital expenditure as possible off the country's books. This requirement became 'policy' so it could not be questioned.

As the ground rules have now changed, for example Network Rail's debt is now to be included in the National Debt and the Government is now buying the Crossrail trains as a capital expenditure, it should be possible to buy out the long term leasing part of the contract with Agility Trains. As the leasing payments only start in two or three years time their discounted value now may well make such a move a lower-cost choice than the one we are saddled with at the moment.

The trains will still not be cheap because they are so fiendishly complex[1], but it might be an improvement.

[1] this is one of the reasons for the high leasing costs - these complex trains will not be so reliable as a simple electric train (and even here Hitachi's Class 395s on the South Eastern are only average), so to ensure a train is always available Hitachi will have to build more of them as one might expect.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on July 31, 2014, 10:15:44 am
1) yes, DMUs with under floor engines

Reading July's Modern Railways with an article by Ian Walmsley showing the seating diagrams one thing was mention was that coaches with underfloor engines have to have a slope down to the vestibule to cater for the door being lower than the main floor height!

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.

With regard to the running costs it will be interesting to see when the TOCs make bids for the fully electrified, resignalled and IEP run GWML  franchise whether they will be offering any premium payments!  


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on July 31, 2014, 01:14:04 pm
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.

BNM and myself did a little bit of guesstimating on what it meant on the Bristol TM to London route earlier on in this thread, which can be found here:  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10150.msg140513;topicseen#msg140513 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10150.msg140513;topicseen#msg140513)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Kernow Otter on July 31, 2014, 06:21:59 pm

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


Our submission to the Great Western Consultation proposed retaintion of the 180's for either services between Penzance and Exeter, or dedicated all stations in Cornwall - fast to Paddington services with no pickup at Reading.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 01, 2014, 10:00:12 am
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.
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).

Quote from: IndustryInsider link=topic=10150.msg158542#msg158542 date=140680884d the Oxford fasts,4
Don't forger several HST rakes will be retained for the Cornish services, though it's likely we'll lose the Class 180s.
My figure above of 46 diagrams is covering the planned IEP services, it includes the proposed hourly Cheltenhams and Bristol via Parkway services, but nothing west of Westbury towards Plymouth. Actually I made that post rather hastily and include which won't actually be IEP, so it should be 43.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 01, 2014, 02:45:45 pm
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).


In terms of seats, I can forsee the 9-Car Electric IEPs being extended to 10-Car length within a few years (Pendolino style), which will give even more of a boost to the seating which will already be, as you state, an increase on anything the HSTs will provide even after refurbishment.  Don't forget all the extra trains that will be running as well of course - we'll have to see about how the diagrams are configured for the Swansea/Cardiff services (9-Car Electric, 5-Car Bi-mode, or 10-Car Bi-mode), as demand for them will be reduced with the extra trains running between Bristol Parkway/Swindon/Reading and London, and some of the off-peak Cardiff trains could easily cope with a 5-Car Bi-mode equivalent at the moment - though I have my concerns if there ends up being too many single 5-Car sets running around.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on August 01, 2014, 04:07:49 pm
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. Am I wrong?
Incidentally, I thought IEP is the abreviation put on by the DfT for the whole HST train replacement project. Now that Hitach has the contract to provide the trains, should we be using the Hitachi abreviation of SET (Super Express Train)? Many people could be confused by the use of the two terms for the same trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on August 01, 2014, 06:12:00 pm
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...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on August 01, 2014, 06:26:30 pm
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...

Confusing the name of a programme and the end product that comes out of it is pretty common. Usually it becomes a problem only when you want to distinguish those two things. 

The trouble with SET is not being specific enough; it's already in use for several things, and somehow doesn't sound like a train. Perhaps we could add another letter? We could call it SExT. Now what's all that frantic hand-waving about? Oh, I see - yes, maybe that is a bit unfortunate. OK, we can use SuET, can't we? Now what? You say marketing won't wear it? I wonder why. Oh well, SET it is then ... but we'll say it as a word instead of spelling it out. Then it's a train set. OK?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on August 01, 2014, 08:28:32 pm
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.

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. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on August 01, 2014, 09:04:41 pm
Hitachi are part of the financing of these new trains, the same as the Thameslink trains with Siemens; the manufactures recover their investment over the life of the trains, the life span being set out in the tender.  Their profit is earned through reliability, that is presenting a train to the TOC at the time it is required, if a TOC has to reschedule or cancel a service because a unit is unavailable the manufacture gets penalised.

Will this system work, lets wait and see


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 01, 2014, 09:18:02 pm
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.
I can agree that a 5-car class 800/801 (forget which is the bi-mode) will have more seats than a class 180. However, I believe there are a fair few IC125-worked peak Cotswolds services, the draft diagrams show just one PAD-Hereford 10-car bi-mode in each direction, plus one PAD-Worcester. While they are draft diagrams, and the train operator will have flexibility to change that, strengthening other Cotswolds services as well will mean less strengthening elsewhere.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on August 03, 2014, 08:38:27 am

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. 

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.

The PAC's criticism is nit-picking. ToCs procuring rolling stock with a useful life of 30 years to run a 10-year franchise is not likely to happen much. A change of franchise usually involves the new company being handed the old company's stock, to cover with their own vinyls. Agility Trains have got what amounts to a 25-year franchise, sure to be extended when the government of the day in around 2034 starts to dither about replacement, plus a procurement programme, so long as they procure what DafT wants them to procure. It's novel, but in deconstruction, it is not that far from the "normal" procedure. In any case, governments never act in contravention of their own policy: they simply rewrite that policy.

Chair of the PAC Margaret Hodge is always the first voice of criticism on Radio 4's "Today". She is, IMHO, too fond of the sound of her own voice.

As to operators procuring rolling stock, that will always be an artificial excercises  


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 03, 2014, 11:00:11 am
In any case, governments never act in contravention of their own policy: they simply rewrite that policy.
Not quite true. They are still spouting that their policy is to give franchise bidders more flexibility, including which rolling stock they want to lease, despite having locked the GWML and ECML franchises in stone as far as Intercity stock is concerned.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on August 03, 2014, 01:10:59 pm

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. 

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.

Perhaps it is a little unfair on the people concerned, but perhaps not the institution as I think the problems are with the way the civil service works that favours the non-specialist, rather than the excellent people who work there. I was however trying to be fair to Hitachi.

Of course we are all looking in from the outside and may have a false view of what has gone on, but the ongoing debate during the procurement, the challenges for an expert journalist and radical changes to the specification and the design do suggest a procurement process that has not gone altogether smoothly. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on August 03, 2014, 04:13:32 pm
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.

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. 

I probably wasn't clear enough. I was trying to suggest that Agility Trains be bought out of the really expensive part of the programme - that of financing the construction of the trains until the rental payments start and the on-going financial risks into the future. If the Government bought the trains, just as they are doing with Crossrail, and made progress payments to Agility Trains, all the costs of raising money on the financial markets would be avoided. Crossrail is being done the way it is because it has become clear that PFI/PPP-type procurements are not affordable. Ask the NHS.

I am sure that Hitachi knows how to build trains and they should carry the design, development and manufacturing risks as in any normal programme. But if you, as a customer, are not prepared to carry any risks, then you WILL pay through the nose.

It's these payments that will cripple future investment in the railway - not buying out that part of the Intercity Express Programme that is concerned with the financing of financial risk. Are you clear that, as the programme now stands, the annual payments for the GW's tranche of 'Super Express Trains' will be THREE times the amount that fGW pays the ROSCOs for its ENTIRE fleet of trains at the moment? That's the HSTs, Class 143s, Class 150s, Classes 165s and 166s, Class 180s and Uncle Tom Cobley and All.

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 hate to think how the fares will change in order to pay for this civil service cock-up.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on August 03, 2014, 04:47:44 pm
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. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on August 03, 2014, 06:59:05 pm
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.

Virgin West Coast also has a 'Total Train Service Provision' deal with Alstom for 140mph tilting trains, the Class 390s. However in this case the finance for the fleet was provided by a ROSCO which is prepared to carry some of the risk, including the 'end of franchise' risk. As a result Virgin pay less than half per diagrammed coach per month (in 2012 prices) than fGW will do for the Super Express Train. The figures are ^32,400 for the Class 390 and are predicted to be around ^75,000 for the SET.

The ORR has published some quite detailed figures of railway costs. Using the document I mentioned earlier, there is a heading 'Other operating expenditure' which for fGW amounts to ^177 million which includes these, and many other, expenses. It would be reasonable to assume a total charge of some ^80 to ^90 million, tops ^100 million, for the current fleet on the same basis as the IEP calculations - with the exception of the financing charges. This is the basis of my estimation that the IEP will cost three times the total for all the current fleet.

Even if all the ^177 million were to be allocated to maintenance and cleaning, the total for operating all of fGW's rolling stock still only comes to ^245 million - ^55 million less than the IEP payments alone.


None of the other incomes and expenditures for fGW are a function of the type of rolling stock, except for the Variable Track Access charges which do vary, and so these will remain essentially the same. As the SET will be heavier (all those under-floor diesel engines!) than a Mk 3 coach, rest assured that the Variable Track Access Charges will also increase. That part of fGW's staff bill for rolling stock maintenance which can be allocated to the replaced HSTs can be reduced, but as all the other trains, and some of the HSTs, will remain with fGW it won't be a huge change.

Some other numbers from the ORR's documents for fGW for year ending 31st March 2013:

Passenger income ^782 million
Other income         ^78 million
      Total income    ^860 million

Fixed access charges to Network Rail       ^79 million
Variable access charges to Network Rail   ^46 million
Other charges to Network Rail                   ^66 million
                                      Total to NR           ^192 million                                     

Other fGW expenditure
Staff costs                                 ^232 million
Diesel fuel                                 ^71 million
Rolling stock charges                ^68 million
Other operating expenditure     ^177 million
plus other headings (which I haven't copied!) for a total of ^704 million.

Franchise premium paid to Govt.                                                      ^435 million
Franchise profit sharing and revenue support received from Govt.  ^270 million
Net franchise payments to Govt.                                                       ^165 million

There are various other incomes and expenditures and balancing items in the ORR's spreadsheet which result in the net premium payments given above.


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.

The Foster Review into the IEP was published in June 2010. In very polite language it rubbished the programme. The pity of it is that in the last four years none of the senior Civil Servants in the DfT has had the courage to pull the plug on this procurement nor have any of the various Transport Secretaries and Ministers of State of the Coalition Government taken any effective action on the same lines. 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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 03, 2014, 11:03:05 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on August 04, 2014, 07:32:11 am
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. ...

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.

Quote
Net franchise payments to Govt.                                                       ^165 million

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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 ...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on August 04, 2014, 02:33:49 pm
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.

As I wrote before, I am not suggesting that the Government buys out all the contract - only that part of it concerned with the financing. I am sure that Agility Trains'/Hitachi's costs for designing, building and testing a train will not be far out of line with anybody else's. The part of the contract that costs the money are those payments to cover the risks involved - operational and financial - as the Government is not prepared to accept any risk. (No train - no pay. This means, for a start, that there will probably be two or three SETs on hot standby each and every day. At ^2.5 million per coach that's about ^40 million in capital earning nothing. Someone has to pay for that). In the financial part of the contract Agility Trains is taking a punt on the cost of money up to 27.5 years away - insurance for this sort of time frame (even if the deal is re-financed every five or seven years out to the full term) is eye-wateringly expensive.

It would be interesting to find out how the train rents would be affected if the Government said, in effect, we will take over the financing of the programme. Governments can borrow money more cheaply than commercial companies, even if the rent for the trains is guaranteed by the Government, and a percentage point or two in interest rates can make a huge difference over a period of a quarter of a century. The Government would obviously have to make some sort of payment to the banks financing Agility Trains to cover lost profits, but as none of the rents have yet been paid (and won't be until the train enters service) I would have thought that the banks could re-deploy those funds earmarked for the IEP's operation quite quickly. (I am assuming that Agility Trains will still need the banks' funding for the design and manufacturing stages and the construction of the depots). The 'loss' of profits from 2018 onwards are more apparent than real as they would be discounted to the time of termination.

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 and then, and only then, could more coaches be purchased.

If the deal remains unchanged and the DfT follows its stated policy of stepping back from train procurement (which admittedly it seems to find hard to do) then the beneficiaries will be Siemens, Bombardier and CAF and others unless Agility Trains can place further SET builds using a more conventional (TOC/ROSCO/bank) deal where the TOC and the ROSCO carry some of the risk.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 04, 2014, 03:16:29 pm
I don't understand all this financing stuff, I am simply assuming that if company Y has a contract with government Z through which company Y expects to generate X profit then I would suspect that company Y would demand a value similar to X to allow government Y to cancel the contract.

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
That I can agree with, if SET was procured in the same way as class 390 then I would indeed expect the costs to be similar. We seem to agree that it is too late to avoiding buying Hitachi's class 800/801 trains, the question is whether it is too late to change the way they are procured. I fear that it is too late, but if it isn't we need to know how to get the DfT to change course on this and buy the new trains the cheaper way.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 05, 2014, 01:40:58 pm
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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on August 05, 2014, 03:05:17 pm
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?

Absolutely not - as a passenger I'm all for it. But...one has to realise that these things come with a price and one wonders whether people are aware of what that price is?

Somewhere I read an analysis of the predicted availability of the SETs on the Western. I seem to remember that the conclusion was that it was quite low by modern standards, partially due to the variety of sub-categories of SETs, meaning that, for example, one couldn't expect an electric set to be used as a hot standby for a Cotswold line train and a five-coach bi-mode might be too small for a Bristol service.

Another other knock-on effect is that, at the moment, an HST failure at Paddington can be covered, to a certain extent, by using a set planned for a later service but as the SETs aren't planned to go to the West of England, a dedicated HST would probably be needed at Paddington for these trains. This would increase the number of standby trains in London by at least one unless the HST could be used to substitute for a failed SET.

Anyway, this is really all academic! There shouldn't be so many train failures with these brand-new, state-of-the-art trains compared to the current fleet. They are electric, right? And everyone tells me that electrics are more reliable... ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 05, 2014, 04:08:59 pm
I fear a lot of breakdowns, and despite the costs therefore favour relatively generous provision of spare trains.

My concern is not so much mechanical failure as software and computer faults.
Diesel engines and electric drives are mature technologies, and most types of failure would leave the train still able to move. With suitable design, a reasonable level of redundancy can be built in such that failure of a single mechanical or electrical component is unlikely to disable the train.

With ever increasing complexity and more reliance on computers, I fear software related delays when the safety protocols lock the brakes on for each real or imagined fault.
Unlike mechanical components, software is NEVER a mature technology "if it works reliably then it is obsolete" Increasingly strict safety rules may also increase the risk of failures, with the train being considered as a failure if the PA is not working, or even if the computer "thinks" that the PA MIGHT not be working, for example.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 05, 2014, 07:29:30 pm
Personally I'm a lot happier that Hitachi are building them and not Bombadier for some of the reasons 'broadgage' lists.  I see the major problem being how the diesel and electric modes and systems that operate off of them switch seamlessly during operation of the train as that is quite a new thing.  But otherwise I'm fairly confident that Hitachi will build a pretty reliable train, after all the Javelin trains were accepted into service many months early, and things like Train Management Systems (TMS), which were an emerging technology when the 180s were built, are now a fairly mature technology and standard installation on new trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on August 05, 2014, 07:39:25 pm
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. ...

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.

Quote
Net franchise payments to Govt.                                                       ^165 million

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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 ...

fGW employs around 5,000 staff. As I understand it those directly affected by the introduction of the SETs on the London - Bristol - Swansea services will be those concerned with the maintenance and cleaning of the HSTs at Old Oak, St. Philip's Marsh and Landore. I have no information about the staffing levels at each depot, but I guess the total would be around 150 at each site including support staff. I imagine that these staff would transfer to Agility Trains at its sites at Old Oak, Stoke Gifford and Swansea. There may be changes in the traction control headquarters functions but I would expect the introduction of the SETs to reduce fGW's headcount by less than 10 per cent.

The magnitude of the franchise payments (or subsidies) depends, as you suggest on a whole raft of questions and predictions on the way things will develop. However, one should not lose sight of the core issue - the new trains will be much more expensive than the existing ones and the questions all come down to the same basic issue - how will the excess cost be divided between fare-payers and tax-payers?

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on August 06, 2014, 01:35:36 am
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.

Hmmm - yes ... many thanks for helping me / us get an idea of the scale of things;  good to see more data as we were (and to an extent still are) comparing apples and oranges - but at least we have guestimates of the size of differential in terms of staffing transferring from one cost line item to another.

Yet elements of the choice may also have political aspects and your "if" conditions may not be quite as fixed as you imply.  Stranger things have happened.  I would agree that it looks expensive, and I'm left asking "so where does the extra money go" - is it via the leasings and guarantees to the companies providing the trains and the financing, which in turn as you suggest bring work to the north east, and shareholder profit for the bankers, manufacturers and owners?   And if that helps pension funds, is it totally a problem?   

I'm getting on to thin ice and sense we're in dangerous territory here that's a long way from rail operation;  I have trouble understanding the money-go-round of franchise payments and to the Network Rail / TOC to and fro, let alone this bigger topic.  And I fear that much of it is accountant-speak in terms of what's good and bad and where something is justified or not, and we'll probably end up sharing opinions and ideas (and, yes, at times I play devil's advocate) rather than coming to a specific answer.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 07, 2014, 11:28:52 am
From the Western Morning News (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Westcountry-train-manufacturing-suppliers-chosen/story-22882912-detail/story.html?):

Quote
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.

Small correction. Knorr-Bremse are based in Wiltshire, not Somerset.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on September 07, 2014, 12:52:29 pm
In Melksham, I believe?  ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on September 12, 2014, 07:24:50 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on September 13, 2014, 09:45:31 am
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

I wonder what messer's  Churchward, Collett, Gouch, Armstrong, Hawksworth and Dean would say


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 13, 2014, 09:50:33 am
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

Interesting comments in the text of that article regarding catering provision.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Visoflex on September 15, 2014, 12:08:42 pm
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!)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 15, 2014, 12:32:32 pm
If that were to be the case, what would other correspondents choose as a class for the IEP's? 

A pride of places to visit by rail on them and on connecting services?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on September 15, 2014, 12:44:59 pm
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!)
Personally, I don't agree with naming multiple units (except 153s), as a name to me should be applied to single vehicles not whole sets (eg. Pullman coaches are/were individually named).

The named trains (eg. the Red Dragon and Golden Hind) though in my opinion should remain as-is with the name shown on the LED destination displays (not sure what will happen to the Pembroke Coast Express though, one hopes they will keep enough IC125s for Plymouth and Penzance in order to spare some for the Pembroke Dock trains)).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 15, 2014, 04:18:07 pm
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.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 15, 2014, 07:42:55 pm
-------------------------

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.

IMO, that would be an excellent idea.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on September 17, 2014, 03:21:17 pm
Agree multiple units ought not to be named but, if one wants to, how about Cathedrals....................(if one doesn't like stately homes)?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on September 17, 2014, 06:41:32 pm
Agree multiple units ought not to be named but, if one wants to, how about Cathedrals....................(if one doesn't like stately homes)?

Or each train has a theme for example all the carriages in a set are all named after UK cities or Kings etc


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 17, 2014, 06:59:42 pm
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).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 17, 2014, 07:19:01 pm
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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 18, 2014, 04:16:36 pm

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

F.A.B, grahame!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chuffed on September 18, 2014, 05:36:42 pm
Always thought 'you rang me lady?' Parker was a moonlighting Sir Peter Parker back in the 70's........


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on September 18, 2014, 06:38:50 pm
Florence, Dougall, Brian etc. Er, perhaps not Brian as he was a snail and might not bode well for that set.......


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chuffed on September 18, 2014, 07:13:14 pm
We  could have celestory type coaches called Daddy Woodentop, Mummy Woodentop, Jenny Woodentop, Wllly Woodentop, Baby Woodentop, all joined by the 'spottiest dog you ever saw. If they were all wooden topped coaches we could drop the 'Wooden top' bit!
Staffed by Mrs Scrubbit in the buffet, San Scrubbit as the guard and Buttercup the Cow who could provide some mooooood moosic as we all chuffed along.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 18, 2014, 07:18:42 pm
I fear we're going to move to lighter side ...

Some groups of 9 ...
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto
Bignosemac, Brucey, Inspector_blakey, johoare, Lee, NickF, Phil, Sion Bretton and Timmer
Rudolph , Dasher , Dancer , Prancer , Vixen , Comet , Cupid , Donder and Blitzen

and Groups of 5 ...
Piano, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and horn (Mozart: quintet for piano and winds K. 452)
Swindon, Chippenham, Melksham, Trowbridge, Westbury
Thumb, first, middle, ring, pinkie


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 18, 2014, 08:02:55 pm
Who'd want to travel in a carriage called 'bignosemac'?

<shudder>


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on September 18, 2014, 08:11:53 pm
The trains could be sponsored so you'd have Big Mac, Fatty Chips, Mayo, Wilting Lettuce................

Seriously though, the planets, west country sailors such as Raleigh, Drake, Howard, Collingwood, Nelson etc (OK that's been done before but still a good one) or musicians such as Holst (lived in Cheltenham), Elgar (Worcester and Hereford).

But I agree locomotives are really better suited to this. Cue praise for the Class 50s - such great names.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 18, 2014, 08:40:32 pm
west country sailors such as Raleigh, Drake, Howard, Collingwood, Nelson etc

Not to forget Bridgwater's most famous son, Admiral Robert Blake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blake_(admiral)). Arguably second only to Nelson for naval nous. He'd be much better known if he hadn't been on the side of the regicides in the English Civil War.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stebbo on September 18, 2014, 08:55:57 pm
And Robert Cabot (though he was originally Portuguese). And perhaps more modern sailors such as Chichester-Clarke.............


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 18, 2014, 09:25:03 pm
And Robert Cabot (though he was originally Portuguese). And perhaps more modern sailors such as Chichester-Clarke.............

or his lesser known cousin John Cabot (n^ Giovanni, or Zuan, or even Sebastiano Caboto), 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).

How's about Mel B, Mel C, Geri, Victoria, Emma, Scary, Spotty, Ginger, Extremely Rich, and Cute (or was it Baby?). That gives a spare for an extra car extension.

Given next year's charity trail around Bristol, we may choose Shirley, Timmy, Shaun, Bitzer, Pidsley, Pizza Boy, Farmer, Naughty Pigs, and A N Other. Or one Pontipine, Two Pontipines, Three Pontipines... up to Nine Pontipines (alright, there are ten). You need either grandchildren aged two or premier membership of the Derek Jacobi fan club to get the last one.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 18, 2014, 09:51:44 pm
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).

What about bignosemac? He's a Bristolian these days. By way of Rinteln, Germany; Taunton; Buckingham; Taunton again; and (thankfully, briefly), Bridgwater.

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on September 18, 2014, 10:00:45 pm
Who'd want to travel in a carriage called 'bignosemac'?

<shudder>

You'd could have a coach all to yourself!  ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Trowres on September 19, 2014, 01:30:02 am
Following in the railway tradition of names from mythology, how about this list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_creatures_from_Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_creatures_from_Japan)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 19, 2014, 07:18:55 am

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

We have more in common than we ever knew!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 19, 2014, 08:47:43 am
Who'd want to travel in a carriage called 'bignosemac'?

<shudder>

With all due respect to our esteemed member, I think that broadgage might sound better ! Decorate the vehicle with pictures of the old broad gauge railway. I do not think that I want a nasty modern vehicle named after me, but suppose that the first class driving vehicle in which meals MIGHT be served would be OK.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on September 19, 2014, 10:04:49 am
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 shows diversionary routes such as Newcastle - Carlisle - Edinburgh but no clearance for IEP west of Carmarthen. Narberth tunnel is narrow and on quite a tight curve, clearance would presumably be incredibly expensive. Even a Laira-based IC125 is likely to be more economical than that. The Wales & Borders franchise cannot provide sufficient capacity to cover for the loss of the IC125 services.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on September 19, 2014, 10:29:24 am
The IEP route-clearance map ...

Appendix at

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4888/dft-f0008119.pdf

As it's FOI / in the public domain, I guess I can add screen captures of the maps ;-)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on October 15, 2014, 12:08:59 pm
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?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 15, 2014, 11:34:21 pm
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?
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. I've uploaded it attached to this post, along with a .xls version on which I have attempted to highlight the use of the (in my opinion far too many) 5-car sets. This second file, I hope, explains in part why I keep going on about the huge numbers of 5-car bi-modes (and complete lack of 9-car ones) for the Great Western at almost every oportunity.

I am, quite frankly, horrified at the apparent widespread reduction in capacity despite:
  • The current, controvertial, measures to increase the capacity of the entire present fleet of IC125 trains and
  • The range of high-profile enhancements (electrification being the most obvious) which are bound to increase the number of passengers trying to use the new trains
Only Bristol seems to get away lightly, with most of the current services maintained at a reasonable length alongside frequency upgrades. I suppose Cheltenham may or may not work out alright, depending on whether patronage spreads out to match the spreading out of the capacity (5-car every hour instead of alternate 2+8 IC125 and 2/3-car Sprinter).

----------------------------------
Specifically bi-modes
Which (for Great Western) are currently all planned to be just 5-car, and will be replacing the IC125s on the Cotswolds not just the 180s.

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:
NameClassDescriptionAssumed capacityLocation/service assumed to
operate in 2019 ITSS
10-car bi-mode IEPSETSuper 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.
I certainly suspect that, and all the evidence I've seen seems to support that suspiscion. I'm afraid, very afraid, that my fears will be proved true. The 10-car trains in the draft timetable are pretty much limited to peak services in and out of London. Many off-peak services which are currently IC125s are reduced to a single 5-car and even some peak services in and out of cities other than London. I also am concerned about the short platforms and portion working (although that seems quite limited on the draft timetable) with non-gangwayed stock such as IEP.

It won't - see above from the Western Route Study...2 x5cars in the peaks.
As said above: only the London peaks seem to be completely covered by long trains. I suspect many of the off-peak services that are currently IC125s also load to more than 315 passengers at some point in their journey too. There is of course the question of what will happen in the case of the Severn Tunnel being closed given the lack of 9-car bi-modes. Presumably, you could transfer passengers for Weston-Super-Mare onto a DMU (or bi-mode IEP) at Bristol and use more of the 'electric' IEP units between PAD and BRI to release some bi-modes to enable you to extend the Cheltenham services through to Swansea, but with all the bi-modes being 5-car that would likely mean having to squeese all the Cheltenham and S. Wales pax onto 5-car workings.

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.
The DfT certainly need to be convinced that the IEP deployment strategy needs modification. While some spares would be useful, I can't see corridor connections being possible on a 125mph unit and in any case it's too late to change the design of IEP. My view is that new orders should either specify corridor connections (UEGs) or be planned such that multiple working is not required (such as the Thameslink fleet, which comes in long-enough formations that multiple-working is very unlikely).

I thus believe the best possible outcome would be an ajustment to the ratio of driving vehicles to intermediate cars on the Great Western bi-mode fleet to allow longer formations. If I've done my analysis well enough, I reckon the 32x 5-car diagrams need to be reduced to 9-12 5-car diagrams (for workings where a 180 would cope, essentially) and supplemented by 16 9-car diagrams. That's 86-92 driving vehicles diagrammed (rather than 100) and 265-274 intermediate cars (rather than 222). Clearly, the total number of diagramed vehicles there (351-366) is higher than the 322 currently destined for the Great Western, but surely something creative can be done with the ECML, MML, IC225s and IC225-replacement-IEPs to allow some IEP vehicles from the EC order to be transfered to the GW.

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 16, 2014, 02:41:40 pm
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. Don't forget the Slough stops are removed from North Cotswold services in this TT

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


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 16, 2014, 03:14:44 pm
Have you observed South & North Cotswold HSTs in the off-peak? Very lightly loaded beyond Oxford/Reading frankly, and 5cars ought to be sufficient.
Nope, not observed them but am assuming there must be a good reason why all the GW IC125s are 2+8 with no 2+7 sets anymore for lighter-loaded services. From the timetable, all Hereford services seem to be IC125s. Perhaps the 'good reason' is that the 2+8 formation is needed between Oxford/Reading and PAD regardless of the western destination, in which case if you reduce the trains to 5-car how do you ensure passengers going to the western destinations don't have to stand to Reading/Oxford? Another reason that the IC125 sets are all long now might be that all the diagrams cover a peak (or Wales, pretty sure Newport, Cardiff, Swansea etc. are big enough to keep even off-peak trains fairly busy) working at some point and so need to be long for that, which again is a problem with IEP unless you have a load more 5-car sets that you park in sidings off-peak.

I suspect 10cars to/from Oxford where necessary, detaching/attaching one set at Oxford, which will leave ample space going forward.
The draft diagrams don't show that at all, and there only seem to be one or two sets spending most of the day out of service that could be used to add capacity anywhere. I also don't like the idea of splitting non-gangwayed trains.

Remains to be seen how the South Cotswolds copes, but aren't services there being increased?
Which is south Cotswolds? If you mean Cheltenham - Swindon then nope, the draft timetable above show it is still an hourly service, just with all trains running through to London instead of roughly half of them.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Network SouthEast on October 16, 2014, 03:33:51 pm
One good thing about the introduction of IEP on the Cotswold line will be the end of 2 and 3 car Turbos.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on October 16, 2014, 04:16:37 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 16, 2014, 04:27:50 pm
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.

No, there are adaptors kept somewhere - and this is precisely what the diesel engines were specified for.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on October 16, 2014, 10:06:34 pm

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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on October 16, 2014, 10:11:57 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on October 16, 2014, 10:44:24 pm

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.

I do suspect that the answer may be "look, we've taken a lot of looks at this and decided.   It may not be an ideal solution as there is no ideal solution, but please let us get on at least doing something which we have thought about rather a lot".  There gets to be a time when consultation is over, something needs to be done, and we have to make the best of a job even if we consider it a bad job.

You'll find that I'm personally on record as being on the "objecting" side to the guided busway in Cambridge, for example (taking intentionally an out-of-area example) but now that it's there I'll use it, encourage its use,etc.   Oh - and I objected to the changes in 2006 that brought a TransWilts service of just trains at 06:12 and 18:44 from Swindon. I still think that was a silly service, but I support it now with extras intermeshed with other services  ;D

Reading in this thread the thoughts of balance on the south Cotswold with 8 passenger carriages one hour and 2 the next, switching to 5 each hour.  In my very limited knowledge, the 2 car is pretty darned busy a lot of the time, but the 8 usually isn't ... and I suspect that a 5 at all times may work rather well to balance it out.   To the east of Swindon, these services will form part of a capacity pattern with a five car rather busy on the Stroud Valley dropping off passengers and the picking up more as it gets towards London, making for an overall far more balanced loading pattern.   The pattern may be right, the overall capacity may be planned against a rather conservative growth predicition though, leading to a more consistent overcrowding.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on October 17, 2014, 09:44:14 am
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"


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 17, 2014, 11:15:59 am
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"

See the front page of the file Rhydgaled kindly reposted:

"The timetables in this file have been developed solely for the purposes of establishing diagrams and rolling stock requirements,                                    
to enable the Train Service Provider to develop a stabling and maintenance strategy and to estimate Set Availability Payments.                                    
They do not necessarily match the most recent timetables used in the IEP Business Case.                                    
The train frequencies, journey times and calling patterns in this file should therefore not be regarded as a aspirations or proposals.                                    
                                    
In addition, the fleet deployment shown in this file is only one option, and Franchise bidders will be free to propose alternatives."


So, in other words, you have not seen proposed diagrams and timetables.  I strongly suspect those will not be the final timetables and diagrams - are we really expecting there to be an hourly service from Weston-Super-Mare to Paddington between 10:36 and 17:36 for example?  That's eight trains when there are currently none?  Or the Cotswold Line where there would be a collision every hour between Pershore and Evesham on the single line if that was the final timetable?  Other services, such as the Westbury stoppers, could potentially quite easily be in the hands of other traction with minor alterations to the electrification strategy, or Paignton/Exeter services could remain in the hands of HSTs.  Many, many tweaks are quite possible.

I also note, from those example diagrams, that several of the units are not required in passenger service until around 8am or much beyond 6pm in the evening, so that would suggest to me that there could be a lot more squeezed out of some of the diagrams when they are looked at properly, for example, get more doubled up 5-Car trains.

I should imagine that the 5-Car trains would indeed, as Graham suggests, work pretty well most of the time on the South and North Cotswold routes (the latter with an improved frequency), though I have concerns about the provision on some routes and I'm sure those with a negative mindset will be able to find fault as I'm sure everything won't work perfectly and it will take a while for the new schedules and trains to bed in.  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.  As it is, I think I'll bide my time and wait...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on October 17, 2014, 12:42:08 pm
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.

The direct costs of building and operating the trains will be similar to the cost of any similarly specified train built by someone else. The high costs arise because of the 'Train Service Provision' contract the DfT has signed with Agility Trains. This has pushed all the risks (design, manufacture, operation, maintenance and, crucially, finance) onto the manufacturer and that for 27.5 years.

If one outsources risk, it will be expensive. If one outsources all risk, it will be eye-wateringly expensive. It's the financing of the risk which costs the money.

Paying for IEP is a really significant issue. Based on the figures published by the National Audit Office in the summer, the annual charge for the SET fleet on the Western will amount to some ^300 million. In comparison fGW's leasing costs for its entire fleet was ^68 million in 2012-13[1]. Even allowing for day-to-day maintenance expenses, the total costs for fGW will be around ^80 million to ^90 million per year.

In other words the annual charges for the SET on the Western will be more than 3 times higher than for the entire current fleet of trains.


I hope you don't mind paying higher fares...

If the DfT could see its way to take on some of the risk, e.g., to make progress payments during the construction to ease the capital requirements (at the moment Agility Trains will receive no payments at all until the first train enters service so all its up-front costs[2] have to be funded with either equity or borrowed money (or a combination of the two) or find some other method to reduce Agility Train's potential exposure then the leasing costs could be reduced.

What is needed is a flexible approach from the DfT and for it get away from the rigidities of its (actually the Treasury's) previous policies. Buying out the finance aspects of Agility Train's contract might be cheaper for everyone in the long run.

[1] ORR's figures
[2] Not quite true. Hitachi has received a subsidy of some ^5 million from the DTI towards the construction of its new factory.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on October 17, 2014, 09:37:44 pm
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.   


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 18, 2014, 12:01:54 am
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.  
I'm not suggesting the order be canceled anymore. Yonks ago, before the contracts were signed, I was, but now I'm resigned to the idea that we're getting IEP. I just think that we'd better damn well get at least the seating capacity of the current trains for the Inordinately Expensive sum that will be payed out for the IEP. That's something the planned all-5-car bi-mode fleet isn't going to deliver, we need some 9-car ones, around 16 of them I reckon, with a smaller number of 5-car units for the services that really do load to less than 315 passengers. In other words, LESS DRIVING VEHICLES and MORE INTERMEDIATE CARS are required for the GW IEP bi-mode fleet.

So, in other words, you have not seen proposed diagrams and timetables.  I strongly suspect those will not be the final timetables and diagrams
Sure, we haven't seen the final diagrams timetables, but we have seen the ones the train formations ordered are based on. While a future TOC might address some of my concerns by running more paired units, that's less paired units elsewhere so somebody somewhere is going to suffer. The sparks effect should increase patronage, and at the moment we are getting shorter trains. It makes no sense which is why I want to make a decisive stand against the current plans. I also think it would be a dreadful waste to scrap the class 91s before 2030 at the earliest, but at the moment I fear they will be needlessly executed in 2020 when IEP arrives.

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.
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?


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.
I have actually already started a draft to him, although the last time I commuinicated with him on this issue (been too busy) was a year ago I think. I actually went to one of his surgeries yonks ago too, but I think I still had wider objectives than just the two I have now (save us from these 5-car trains and save the 91s, I doubt anything else is acheivable now the contracts have been signed).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 18, 2014, 11:56:39 am
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.

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.

The Class 222s were remarshalled into different length units which gives more flexibility, for example something like the 7-car formations in use now might be a perfect length to have on some of the Cotswold Line trains as they become busier over the years.  That could potentially be achieved through reducing some of the 5-car trains to 4-car and lengthening others, or or course by building additional intermediate vehicles.  All of this is allowed for in the specification, and I guess my point is that we're not necessarily stuck with 5-car and 9-car trains forever, just because that is what's being initially built.


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 don't know what the interior layout it, so I wouldn't want to assume anything.  I wouldn't be surprised if interior fittings are minimal (perhaps even little seating yet) and banks of computers are installed in some areas to help with the testing programme, though that sort of thing is being done more and more by remote monitoring these days.  The layout of the train is very modular meaning that items can be fairly easily slotted into place.  I don't mean that you could just lift out a kitchen unit from one end and plonk it in the middle of the train ready for use the next day, but if that's what is specified for the GWML trains then that would be easily done when the trains are being manufactured and might differ from any layout in one of the prototype trains.  I do admit though that I'm getting less and less hopeful about there being a buffet facility available to all passengers in the form we currently enjoy on HSTs.  The wording in the spec is:

TS1634
Catering facilities must minimise the use of Furnishable Space, without compromising safety or functionality, and will be compatible with the building block principle for the selection of interior layouts appropriate to each franchise operation.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on October 18, 2014, 01:47:56 pm
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.
That was indeed it. Thank you.

I tend to agree that the proposals as currently stated are worrying compared to the current service. Here on the Cotswold Line, currently we have (from Charlbury) HSTs to Paddington at 06.06, 06.28, 07.12, and 07.30. The model timetable has 10-coach IEPs, with roughly the same seating capacity, at 06.11 and 07.11 - and that's it. Half what we have now.

I take II's point that "these will not be the final timetables and diagrams"; there's obviously a lot of flexibility to make changes according to passenger flows, such as the off-peak Weston example. But availability will be much more constrained in the peak, and an extra two 10-coach bi-modes for the Cotswolds to retain our current service would have to be conjured up from somewhere else. Extending a Class 387 from Oxford won't be an option; the Adelantes are going to Grand Central. What odds for retaining peak-time HSTs on the Cotswold Line?

(On the other hand, 1hr08 to Paddington will be lovely thank you very much. :D )


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 18, 2014, 02:02:43 pm
What odds for retaining peak-time HSTs on the Cotswold Line?

There's going to be a transitional period between as SET's come on-stream and gradually replacing HST's and I wouldn't be at all surprised that if there are any obvious capacity problems with the timetable and diagrams that eventually transpire (and I share concerns over the Cotswold Line peak workings) during that transition, the idea keeping a couple of sets for use on the Hereford trains (as well as those already being kept for Cornwall) might well be considered the best option.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on October 23, 2014, 10:22:01 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 23, 2014, 10:43:05 pm
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.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on October 23, 2014, 11:04:30 pm
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 think you just answered your own question. My underlining.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on October 24, 2014, 11:27:57 am
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.

Interesting to see this backward step confirmed, for at least 5 years I have been forecasting, and then stating as a fact, that the new trains wont have buffets.
Apologists for the new trains countered my views by stating that it was early days yet "don't knock it until you've seen it"
or muddied the waters by stating that a buffet Would be available, but only for first class, when what in fact was proposed was a KITCHEN for first class only.
Internal layout drawings were then published with no buffet. When I pointed this out it was countered with "the layout can be customised according to the wishes of the TOC, a buffet could be added"
Prototype trains have been built, with no buffet "oh don't worry these are only prototypes, the production units could have a buffet"

It is now confirmed that the new trains wont have a buffet. Well what a surprise !
Catering downgraded to a trolley for steerage. Since most of the new trains are much shorter than HSTs, I predict that  it will be a static trolley due to the crowds of standees and their luggage.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 24, 2014, 06:47:05 pm
Apologists for the new trains...

Assuming you're referring to me as one of the apologists for the new trains, I would suggest that a label of 'pragmatic realist' is actually more appropriate, as all the comments I've made have been factual, non-judgemental, and hopefully balanced and not led by rumour or a rose-tinted negative agenda.  However, it does indeed now look very likely that the DfT have decided (and FGW were unable to change their minds to the contrary), to go with the catering levels as provided in the proof designs we saw a couple of years ago, so 'Broadgage' has indeed been proven right.  Congratulations.

Now that it has been proven to be the case, I completely agree with him that it is a real shame and a downgrade on that aspect of the trains appeal.  I can see why it's happened as, compared with the era he often refers to in his posts, peoples eating habits have changed substantially, and there are now far more retail outlets at the stations offering a wide choice of modern style meals, whereas until the 90s you might get a Travellers Fare and John Menzies if you were lucky.  That and the desperate need for more seating accommodation due to the popularity of the railways currently looks like it has won the day.

Trolley services aren't all bad of course, in fact there are several types of passengers (with luggage, children etc.) who indeed prefer them over a long walk down several carriages to a buffet counter, but I feel that an important part of the train's prestige will be lost - not to mention the variety of products available (and their quality) reducing as a result.  Time will tell how that decision will go down with the passengers, but I feel the general feeling will be more negative than positive.

Hopefully your other well-trodden list of negative aspects of the train will not come to pass.  Let's remind ourselves that you predict:

  • The majority of 8-carriage trains to be replaced by 5-carriage ones
  • A reduction in the number of seats at tables
  • Reduced legroom
  • Insuffient luggage space
  • Over complicated trains leading to reliability issues

Should that list come true then I will be completely behind you with vehement criticism.  Somehow I doubt much of it will though.

I shall now look optimistically for the day when the 9-car trains are extended to 10-car trains (and more of them ordered) and the extra carriage provides 70 or so extra standard class seats and a buffet counter.  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on October 24, 2014, 07:59:09 pm
Well the majority of the new trains ARE 5 car and therefore much shorter than those that they are to replace.

The draft or proposed interior layout DOES have mainly unidirectional seating with only about a third of seats being at tables, this is no worse than an HST that has been downgraded to high density commuter layout. But is a significant backward step from proper inter city trains that had ALL or almost all seats at tables.
I though that the new trains were intended to be purpose designed INTER CITY trains and not commuter or outer suburban.

Luggage space remains to be seen, but experience of other new trains suggests it will be insufficient. A proper inter city layout with seats at tables gives luggage spaces between the seat backs, this is of course lost with largely unidirectional seating.

Legroom remains to be seen but I cant imagine it being as good as on old inter city trains. Legroom has been described IIRC as "comparable to existing trains" In this context "comparable" means a bit worse. (whilst a pedant would note that comparable could mean "slighter better than" in reality it means worse. After all if the leg room was in fact better, they simply say so)

Reliability will probably decline due to the sheer complexity of the new trains and related infrastructure. I for see a lot of litigation over the breakdowns, with the train builders alleging breakdowns are not their fault but are caused by exceptional external influences.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 24, 2014, 10:11:28 pm
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 think you just answered your own question. My underlining.
I don't think I answered the question at all. Maybe I didn't word my post clearly enough?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on October 24, 2014, 10:23:28 pm
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 think you just answered your own question. My underlining.
I don't think I answered the question at all. Maybe I didn't word my post clearly enough?

Sorry not to be clear enough, but if there are no wheelchair spaces in standard that is clearly not the final layout. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 24, 2014, 10:59:15 pm
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.

The PRM TSI requires 2 wheelchair spaces on trains up to 205 m (i.e. 5x26), and three over that (i.e. 9x26). It says nothing about which class they should be in.

Logic suggests that with only two it's impossible for them to always be in the right class, so either you have to provide two in each (using space to do so, though it could also serve another purpose) or put them in 1st and automatically upgrade both wheelchair passengers and their accompanists(?). Nine car IEPs have two in each class, which seems reasonable though no doubt sometimes it will not suit whoever turns up.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 25, 2014, 10:19:33 am
The draft or proposed interior layout DOES have mainly unidirectional seating with only about a third of seats being at tables, this is no worse than an HST that has been downgraded to high density commuter layout. But is a significant backward step from proper inter city trains that had ALL or almost all seats at tables.

Hmmm, looking at the online seating layouts for standard class I make there a total of around 24 seats at tables in the current high-density layout and 60 in the low-density layouts.  Bearing in mind that in the current conversion work, we are promised (welcome news), another 8 tables on those coaches that are having an extra standard class carriage being added, and that bumps the total up to a maximum of 92 seats on the current layouts being at tables.  Looking at the proposed IEP 9-car layouts (not set in stone as I've said before, but the most accurate source we currently have) and I count the number of seats at tables working out at 192.  So, as you say no worse than a HST downgraded to a high density layout - in fact you could say over three times better!

By the way, even the 5-car Bi-mode's have more standard class seats at tables than the best-case low density 8-carriage HST set.   

Legroom remains to be seen but I cant imagine it being as good as on old inter city trains. Legroom has been described IIRC as "comparable to existing trains" In this context "comparable" means a bit worse. (whilst a pedant would note that comparable could mean "slighter better than" in reality it means worse. After all if the leg room was in fact better, they simply say so)

I'm not sure you do remember correctly, though feel free to provide a link to an official source (DfT, Hitachi or FGW) that uses the phrase 'comparable to existing trains'.  I remember the phrase 'no compromise on leg room' being used on all the press releases.  The phrase 'no compromise' certainly isn't the same as 'comparable' is it?  It would suggest (as backed up with BMN's tape measure if I remember correctly) that the leg room will be at least as much as on the current stock - acceptable in my opinion.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 25, 2014, 10:21:02 am
The PRM TSI requires 2 wheelchair spaces on trains up to 205 m (i.e. 5x26), and three over that (i.e. 9x26). It says nothing about which class they should be in.
Quite possible that the 'draft' layouts haven't changed then, since there are two wheelchair spaces on the plan (next to the universal-access toilet in 1st class). There is also an universal toilet in standard on the draft plan, which has another two wheelchair spaces next to it in the longer sets but not the 5-car units.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 25, 2014, 10:23:18 am
Legroom remains to be seen but I cant imagine it being as good as on old inter city trains. Legroom has been described IIRC as "comparable to existing trains" In this context "comparable" means a bit worse. (whilst a pedant would note that comparable could mean "slighter better than" in reality it means worse. After all if the leg room was in fact better, they simply say so)

I'm not sure you do remember correctly, though feel free to provide a link to an official source (DfT, Hitachi or FGW) that uses the phrase 'comparable to existing trains'.  I remember the phrase 'no compromise on leg room' being used on all the press releases.  The phrase 'no compromise' certainly isn't the same as 'comparable' is it?  It would suggest (as backed up with BMN's tape measure if I remember correctly) that the leg room will be at least as much as on the current stock - acceptable in my opinion.
'no compromise on leg room' has certainly been claimed. The question is, which current stock is that claim based on? If ATW 150s were used, then it most certainally is not acceptable. If class 175s, then great.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 25, 2014, 10:38:08 am
Indeed it does, Rhydgaled.  Hence BMN dispatching himself to measure the spec against a current FGW HST.  As usual I recommend we'll just wait and see until we see them in the flesh before assuming anything, though I wanted to take the opportunity to challenge Broadgage on his recollection of how legroom has been officially described.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on October 25, 2014, 10:50:38 am
Bearing in mind that in the current conversion work, we are promised (welcome news), another 8 tables on those coaches that are having an extra standard class carriage being added, and that bumps the total up to a maximum of 92 seats on the current layouts being at tables. 

More than a promise - they do indeed have 8 tables. As a result they have a much more spacious feel to them when you enter. The other way to spot these coaches is that in most of them the lighting is a different colour as I presume they haven't changed this from the previous first accommodation. So the interior has a much warmer feel to it, rather than the cold blue-ish light in the other standard coaches.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 25, 2014, 01:00:44 pm
As usual I recommend we'll just wait and see until we see them in the flesh before assuming anything
I would agree with that approach for issues like legroom, however not all the potential issues are so easily fixed. Using your list from earlier, to which I have added the buffet issue:

  • The reduction of standard class catering to trolley-only No assumption necessary: obvious from the plans - action required
  • The majority of 8-carriage trains to be replaced by 5-carriage ones No assumption necessary: obvious from the plans - action required
  • A reduction in the number of seats at tables obvious from the plans, but appear to be 8 tables per full standard class carriage so apparently comparable to current stock
  • Reduced legroom As you say, cannot be judged until seen in the flesh
  • Insuffient luggage space cannot be judged until seen in the flesh
  • Over complicated trains leading to reliability issues cannot be judged until seen in the flesh

Therefore, it is the top two items (with notes in red) that I have mentioned in the letter I have just printed off to send to my MP, along with the concern I have about the government not having any plans for the future use of class 91s and mrk4s.

Now that it has been proven to be the case, I completely agree with him that it is a real shame and a downgrade on that aspect of the trains appeal.  I can see why it's happened as, compared with the era he often refers to in his posts, peoples eating habits have changed substantially, and there are now far more retail outlets at the stations offering a wide choice of modern style meals, whereas until the 90s you might get a Travellers Fare and John Menzies if you were lucky.  That and the desperate need for more seating accommodation due to the popularity of the railways currently looks like it has won the day.

Trolley services aren't all bad of course, in fact there are several types of passengers (with luggage, children etc.) who indeed prefer them over a long walk down several carriages to a buffet counter, but I feel that an important part of the train's prestige will be lost - not to mention the variety of products available (and their quality) reducing as a result.  Time will tell how that decision will go down with the passengers, but I feel the general feeling will be more negative than positive.
How big is the first class only kitchen on the IEP plans compared to the kitchen/buffet on the IC125 sets? I don't think the loss of a buffet for standard has much to do with increasing seating capacity since DfT seem happy to foist so many 5-car sets (which still provide a kitchen for 1st class) on us.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 25, 2014, 01:10:29 pm
How big is the first class only kitchen on the IEP plans compared to the kitchen/buffet on the IC125 sets? I don't think the loss of a buffet for standard has much to do with increasing seating capacity since DfT seem happy to foist so many 5-car sets (which still provide a kitchen for 1st class) on us.

I'd certainly concede it might not indeed take up much less space, though of course having it at the end of the train means there might be space saved if it's a crew only area with no through route for passengers taking up space and/or it encroaches on part of the crumple zone where passengers cannot be conveyed.  It's a little difficult to tell what is what from looking at the plans.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on October 25, 2014, 01:41:56 pm
An interesting last paragraph of this article regarding the East Coast IEP's.  Is this the DfT passing the buck, or is it really still possible that a buffet could be provided?   :-\

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/ (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 25, 2014, 02:32:44 pm
An interesting last paragraph of this article regarding the East Coast IEP's.  Is this the DfT passing the buck, or is it really still possible that a buffet could be provided?   :-\

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/ (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/)

Of course. The IEP specification always included modularity of catering (four levels were defined), and easy alteration of seating, so that it could be changed for a new franchise let or a transfer. So neither is really part of "IEP, the programme".

What has not been so clear is who or what determines the initial layout. In the spec. it was partly just for costing and partly appeared to be for delivery, but it was reported (including here) that this was discussed further after contract was placed. How much FGW were involved is even less clear, given the way their franchise end was redefined at least twice. Logically, if adaptability is that good, it could be varied, for trains not as yet fitted out, at nearly zero cost.

However, given the continuing reduction in standard class catering provision in FGW's HSTs, in their case would you expect any more than a trolley if it was their decision alone? Similar end of franchise conditions, and others, apply to EC. This has nothing to do with needing more seats, it's all about what people will buy enough of to make it worth putting on sale.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 25, 2014, 04:37:40 pm
How big is the first class only kitchen on the IEP plans compared to the kitchen/buffet on the IC125 sets? I don't think the loss of a buffet for standard has much to do with increasing seating capacity since DfT seem happy to foist so many 5-car sets (which still provide a kitchen for 1st class) on us.

I'd certainly concede it might not indeed take up much less space, though of course having it at the end of the train means there might be space saved if it's a crew only area with no through route for passengers taking up space and/or it encroaches on part of the crumple zone where passengers cannot be conveyed.  It's a little difficult to tell what is what from looking at the plans.
It doesn't look to me like the kitchen is within the crumple zone, compare the 1st class driving vehicle with the standard class one and it seems that area is taken up by seats at the standard-class end. That leaves the question of whether it is a crew-only area and whether that allows a smaller area to be taken up, which is why I asked the orriginal question. Using the same size kitchen/buffet area, I've fiddled with the seat plan of the 9-car set a bit in photoshop to allow standard class passengers to access the kitchen/buffet. In the two coaches I modified, I ended up with 43 first and 34 standard seats versus 38 standard 45 first. That's only 6 seats less and probably only because I used slightly more table bays in the modified vehicles. But I wonder if the area needs to be bigger to provide a buffet counter and the same cooking facilities as existing trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on October 26, 2014, 11:04:48 pm
From Herald Scotland (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/union-attacks-buffet-car-scrapping.25681863):

Quote
Union attacks buffet car scrapping

Union leaders have hit out at "secret plans" to axe the buffet car on new East Coast services.

RMT is calling on the Department for Transport (DfT) to intervene after it emerged that the buffet car would be scrapped to make way for extra passenger seating when new rolling stock is introduced under the East Coast and First Great Western franchises.

Catering services for standard class passengers will instead be provided by an on-board trolley. The change applies to the new Hitachi class-800 series trains, which will be introduced on East Coast services from 2019.

RMT said it had uncovered the plans in the small print of documents relating to the DfT's Intercity Express Programme, which is procuring the new fleet. The union said it would mean a poorer service for customers as well as staff job losses.

A spokesman for RMT said First Great Western had confirmed the move. He added: "We assume this will also be the case on East Coast, since it is using the same trains. We are calling on the Government to intervene. It is not too late to change the specifications. The trains have not been built yet, and we would urge the buffet car to be retained."

A spokeswoman for the DfT said: "The safety and comfort of both passengers and staff has been a top priority in the design of these trains and passengers and staff have been closely involved in the design process. Fixed kitchens as well as trolley facilities are included in the base design of the IEP train and there is scope to introduce buffet facilities if the new franchisee wants to offer this facility to its passengers."


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 27, 2014, 10:56:37 am
From Herald Scotland (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/union-attacks-buffet-car-scrapping.25681863):

Quote
Union attacks buffet car scrapping

Union leaders have hit out at "secret plans" to axe the buffet car on new East Coast services.

RMT is calling on the Department for Transport (DfT) to intervene after it emerged that the buffet car would be scrapped to make way for extra passenger seating when new rolling stock is introduced under the East Coast and First Great Western franchises.

Catering services for standard class passengers will instead be provided by an on-board trolley. The change applies to the new Hitachi class-800 series trains, which will be introduced on East Coast services from 2019.

RMT said it had uncovered the plans in the small print of documents relating to the DfT's Intercity Express Programme, which is procuring the new fleet. The union said it would mean a poorer service for customers as well as staff job losses.

A spokesman for RMT said First Great Western had confirmed the move. He added: "We assume this will also be the case on East Coast, since it is using the same trains. We are calling on the Government to intervene. It is not too late to change the specifications. The trains have not been built yet, and we would urge the buffet car to be retained."

A spokeswoman for the DfT said: "The safety and comfort of both passengers and staff has been a top priority in the design of these trains and passengers and staff have been closely involved in the design process. Fixed kitchens as well as trolley facilities are included in the base design of the IEP train and there is scope to introduce buffet facilities if the new franchisee wants to offer this facility to its passengers."
The RMT have only just noticed this now? The fools, they should read the Coffee Shop fourm, we noticed ages ago.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on November 15, 2014, 10:29:19 pm
BBC Points West covered the unveiling in Japan of the first Class 800 set on their Friday episode. Some different footage used than that from BBC South's Paul Clifton earlier in the week.

Pieces to camera from RAIL Magazine editor Nigel Harris and FGW's Dan Panes. Also a small feature of the braking system manufacture at Knorr Bremse in Melksham.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30067282


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on November 15, 2014, 10:42:53 pm
Bet that's the first time Nailsea and Backwell has appeared on a train display in Japan.  ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Red Squirrel on November 16, 2014, 11:27:37 am
BBC Points West covered the unveiling in Japan of the first Class 800 set on their Friday episode. Some different footage used than that from BBC South's Paul Clifton earlier in the week.

Pieces to camera from RAIL Magazine editor Nigel Harris and FGW's Dan Panes. Also a small feature of the braking system manufacture at Knorr Bremse in Melksham.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30067282


Bizarre - the one shown on the BBC South piece had two inside cylinders; the model shown in the Points West film only appears to have one..!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on November 27, 2014, 11:20:27 am
An interesting last paragraph of this article regarding the East Coast IEP's.  Is this the DfT passing the buck, or is it really still possible that a buffet could be provided?   :-\

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/ (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/)

Indeed, further confirmation that buffets for either the ECML or WCML fleets could still easily be provided is in the latest edition of RAIL:

'Hitachi Europe CEO Keith Jordan confirmed that, in the light of the DfT's new passengers' first franchising policy, should train operators require buffet cars before construction commences, the IEP vehicle interior design and installation is capable of being modified.'

Whether either operator will require them is a different matter of course, but so much for 'finished trains' and 'too late' comments.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on December 22, 2014, 06:42:59 pm
Discussion about the BBC interactive feature on the HST has been moved to its own dedicated topic:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15077.0



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on January 07, 2015, 03:18:17 pm
First five car pre-series class 800 is on its way. Being loaded onto barge at Hitachi's Kasado works in Japan. Following transhipment at Kobe it is expected to arrive in the UK during March.

https://twitter.com/HitachiRailEU/status/552787897162940418/photo/1


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on January 07, 2015, 08:23:13 pm
Hopefully it won't keel over in the Solent, then.  ::)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on January 07, 2015, 08:37:50 pm
I have a colleague at work who is being seconded off to the ECML as part of the team supporting the ETCS trials for this first Unit in a few months


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on January 08, 2015, 04:32:50 pm
Hopefully it won't keel over in the Solent, then.  ::)

Don't be so inSolent, CfN (see what I did there?)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on January 08, 2015, 04:49:43 pm
Hopefully it won't keel over in the Solent, then.  ::)

I see that the Queen's Harbour Master at Portsmouth has set up a moving 'Total Exclusion Zone' around the vessel, so perhaps any passing yachtsmen trying to take a close look ought to check out their insurance against torpedo attacks...   ???

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on January 08, 2015, 05:33:35 pm
They'll be fine if they stay outside the total exclusion zone, or are sailing away.

Oh, wait a minute...  :P


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on January 08, 2015, 11:21:42 pm
They never did find that missing logbook, did they?  ::)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on January 09, 2015, 04:41:48 pm
First five car pre-series class 800 is on its way. Being loaded onto barge at Hitachi's Kasado works in Japan. Following transhipment at Kobe it is expected to arrive in the UK during March.

https://twitter.com/HitachiRailEU/status/552787897162940418/photo/1

From Railway Gazette (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/first-hitachi-iep-trainset-sets-off-for-the-uk.html)

Quote
UK: The first pre-series Class 800 trainset ordered under the Intercity Express Programme left Hitachi^s Kasado plant in Japan on January 7 for delivery to the UK. It is scheduled to be shipped from the port of Kobe on January 22 and arrive in the UK in March.

The five-car electro-diesel trainset will be fitted with measuring systems for running tests to be undertaken on the East Coast Main Line by Hitachi Rail Europe, which will enable acceptance of the trainset by Agility Trains, the special-purpose company that will own the IEP trainsets and provide them to the Great Western and InterCity East Coast franchisees. The pre-series trainset will also be used for staff training.

^After unveiling this train in November last year, I am immensely proud that we today see the first shipment leave our factory in Kasado^, said Alistair Dormer, Global CEO of Hitachi Rail. ^Our engineering teams in the UK and Japan have been working exceptionally hard with all stakeholders to ensure that this train will be ready for testing in the UK from April this year onward.^

A total of 12 trainsets are to be built in Japan, including two five-car and one nine-car pre-series trainsets, before assembly switches to Hitachi Rail Europe^s ^82m plant under construction at Newton Aycliffe in northern England. This is scheduled to be completed in summer 2015, with the recruitment of 730 staff underway and production to begin in 2016.

(http://www.railwaygazette.com/typo3temp/pics/tn_gb-iep-preseries-delivery-barge-japan-20150207-hitachi_884d3a753c.jpg)

(http://www.railwaygazette.com/typo3temp/pics/gb-iep-preseries-delivery-crane-japan-20150107-hitachi_74b59a1c55.jpg)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on January 12, 2015, 11:30:56 am
According to an FGW document to staff, testing at first to be on NR's testing facility, not the East Coast ML.

Also -

Quote
The new trains^ design does not prevent hot and cold food being served on board
Our current HST fleet has a mixture of kitchens and standalone buffets, but every SET will have kitchen facilities on board - extending our customer offer not reducing it.  Last year, we introduced new Pullman services and added dozens of new products to other menus.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on January 12, 2015, 12:54:21 pm
For some while we have known that the new trains are expected to be equipped with kitchens so as to permit of meal service in first class.
However catering for steerage is expected to be downgraded to trolley service only.

The statement quoted above does nothing to alter this.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on January 12, 2015, 01:31:28 pm
XC say they make more sales with their trolley than when they had buffets...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Super Guard on January 12, 2015, 07:08:15 pm
XC say they make more sales with their trolley than when they had buffets...

Have you ever seen evidence of that?  I have heard the opposite.  It's not that they make more sales - it's just the cost of providing the trolley vs buffet/maintenance etc is lower so they actually make "less loss" with a trolley which XC prefer.  I travel on XC quite regularly and hardly see anyone buying items from the trolley.  I don't see why there is always a race to the bottom with "improvements".. What is Virgin thinking then for buffets on IEP?

XC might get away with a trolley on 3 standard class voyager coaches, but I personally think 1 trolley to serve 7(?) standard class coaches is not sensible, compared to a buffet position half way down the train.  Part of the problem with buffet sales is people don't want to leave their seats or they might lose them, which shouldn't be an issue on IEP.

It's a shame, a proper trial cannot be agreed to carry out a trolley vs buffet on certain trains, but i'm sure both the company and unions would struggle to agree a trial.

I'd also like to see mini-buffets turned and used as coach D instead of F to see if that would improve sales providing it in a more sensible location in standard class.

While it is good to see the quality products that FGW serve, it would also be good to see something like a ^4 meal deal of sandwich/crisps or fruit and drink.  While it may produce a tiny margin compared to some of the other products for sale, if you can change the perception of buffet being too expensive and "oh i'll just go to Sainsbury's before I get on", you may see higher sales overall.  I'd rather 10p profit x 10 customers, than ^1 profit x 1 and 9 customers spending their money elsewhere.

Catering makes losses, it's all about reducing losses.  Could stock taking be improved?  Sales and stock levels being linked to ordering to reduce wastage?  Cameras in buffet to remove any temptation of staff theft/fraud?  Could fraud with credit cards be reduced with new chip/pin terminals with on-line authorising?  Would sourcing products in-house instead of paying Rail Gourmet improve margins?

If trolleys truly increase service and sales, then fair enough.  However, I am of the belief that more can be done to improve the argument for the buffet.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: BerkshireBugsy on January 13, 2015, 06:55:44 am
Super guard you make some very interesting points

I think the idea of a meal deal is a good one. I've not much experience of catering on XC as I haven't used them for at least a year but I know that on FGW they cut the price of some perishable items in the evening to get rid of them. Although , like you say, introducing a meal deal would reduce profit margins per sale but again they may sale more by volume.

From my memory of the trolley services on 4/5 car XC class 221 (I think) one of the challenges the staff faced was getting the trolley through the carriages in the first place when the service is full


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on January 13, 2015, 11:31:02 am
XC say they make more sales with their trolley than when they had buffets...

Have you ever seen evidence of that?  I have heard the opposite.  It's not that they make more sales - it's just the cost of providing the trolley vs buffet/maintenance etc is lower so they actually make "less loss" with a trolley which XC prefer.

A discussion I had with senior Manager said "make more money" with the trolley. Thinking through what you suggest, yes, I guess that statement does also fit your thinking....

Quote
XC might get away with a trolley on 3 standard class voyager coaches, but I personally think 1 trolley to serve 7(?) standard class coaches is not sensible, compared to a buffet position half way down the train. 

Won't the obvious place to put the buffet be close/next to the kitchen - that way you could offer hot food from the buffet a la HSTs now, when a Travelling Chef was aboard. Separating the catering must lead to inefficiencies?

Quote
Part of the problem with buffet sales is people don't want to leave their seats or they might lose them, which shouldn't be an issue on IEP.

The other part is the price of course, which isn't going to change much in mark-up from cost.



Quote
I'd also like to see mini-buffets turned and used as coach D instead of F to see if that would improve sales providing it in a more sensible location in standard class.

But that would mean your 1st class customers having to walk further at weekends (assuming same staffing as now - which is why it is where it is.

Quote
While it is good to see the quality products that FGW serve, it would also be good to see something like a ^4 meal deal of sandwich/crisps or fruit and drink. 

There'd be no profit in a price that low on train....but yes, it would be good. Perhaps ^5 deal though? It'll always be cheaper to carry-on - and you will always get a better choice to bring-on. Which is why a trolley with drinks/snacks will do better than a limited-choice buffet....


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on January 13, 2015, 02:51:03 pm
And yet, despite all that, Virgin have guaranteed that their IEPs will have buffets.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on January 13, 2015, 03:08:55 pm
Maybe don't want a fight with the unions....?

And, as Virgin only have a 10% interest, maybe its Stagecoach's decision?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on January 13, 2015, 03:46:25 pm
Virgin made the announcement. Stagecoach have form - replacing buffets with trolleys on EMT.

Regardless of who made the decision it shows that one operator believes buffets have a future. That's the only firm announcement we've had on catering provision on the IEP fleet. Everything else is speculation.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on January 13, 2015, 04:00:13 pm
Isn't that what you do most of the time on here? :-)

Virgin has made the vast majority of the East Coast announcements - maybe that's part of the branding 10%?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on January 13, 2015, 05:42:34 pm
And yet, despite all that, Virgin have guaranteed that their IEPs will have buffets.

Could it just come down to the level of sales varying between the two routes? It would not need all that much - if you take 10% off the "just about worth doing" level of sales, it could well drop into the "can't justify this" bin. Differences in duration, stopping intervals, and the kind of people, their onward travel timings, station facilities, all sorts of factors come into it.

I imagine all TOCs would like to offer at least a buffet service for all passengers, as it flatters their self-image, and even if it's not demanded in the franchise it looks good in a beauty contest.

Though I can think of another aspect too: a newcomer taking on a franchise may take an optimistic view (perhaps thinking they can make a go of it where other lesser TOCs have failed). Later on they may throw in the towel. I assume bidders do not get access to catering sales data, so some guesswork (informed by experience, obviously) is inevitable.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on January 13, 2015, 05:47:45 pm
The RMT continues to push hard for the retention of a buffet car, as well as a 'guard' - as I've said all along, this one still has a long way to go before being settled one way or the another!

http://www.rmt.org.uk/campaigns/rail/intercity-express-defend-services-and-safety/ (http://www.rmt.org.uk/campaigns/rail/intercity-express-defend-services-and-safety/)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on January 13, 2015, 06:29:37 pm
I don't think there's any chance of the guard/train manager/etc not being retained....the catering less so. But a job with trolley is a job from the buffet...maybe different grade/salary, but that might be easier to negotiate. And they've said (I think) that the 1st class host is being retained too


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on January 13, 2015, 08:54:43 pm
I don't think there's any chance of the guard/train manager/etc not being retained....the catering less so. But a job with trolley is a job from the buffet...maybe different grade/salary, but that might be easier to negotiate. And they've said (I think) that the 1st class host is being retained too

I would hope so too. We've discussed the role of the TM elsewhere, and agreed that it is an important role in long-distance services for a number of reasons, beginning with safety.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on March 13, 2015, 11:21:57 am
With or without buffet, the first bit of IEP has arrived! The BBC  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31831603) announces the arrival of the delayed IEP at Southampton Docks:

Quote
InterCity 125 v Hitachi: What are the UK's new trains like?

By Tom de Castella
BBC News Magazine

(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/81577000/jpg/_81577105_20150107-class800-train1-de.jpg)

The Hitachi 800 training carriage is lifted off a boat


Pendolino probably, perhaps a Javelin, possibly even a Voyager. Not many modern trains are household names in the manner of a Rocket or a Mallard.

A new train is arriving from Japan with big shoes to fill. An early prototype Hitachi Class 800 Super Express will be unloaded at Southampton docks as a first step to replacing the familiar InterCity 125.

Over the next few years, 122 of these hi-tech trains will be assembled at a new plant in County Durham. All will be electric and almost half will be able to switch between running on overhead wires or - where a line has not been electrified - as diesels.

The first trains will run on the Great Western main line from 2017 and the East Coast main line from 2018.

Rail writer Christian Wolmar says the new Hitachi will be the standard UK train over the coming decades. "It is due to become the 747 of the railways."

Under the Intercity Express Programme (IEP), the Department for Transport in 2011 awarded a ^5.7bn contract to Agility Trains, a consortium of Hitachi and infrastructure investor John Laing.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 13, 2015, 11:56:38 am
Wonder why they used a stock shot? I'm sure that's it being loaded in Japan....

On BBC twitter, there's this
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_5hmNaVIAEUlKF.jpg)

and more clearly, this
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_5fGEyW4AEeJE1.jpg)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Sprog on March 13, 2015, 02:25:43 pm
Wonder why they used a stock shot? I'm sure that's it being loaded in japan...

Deff. not a stock photo:

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/first-class-800-train-for-iep-lands-in-uk?utm_source=Rail+Technology+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5457537_RTM+Newsletter+Mar+15+Week+2&dm_i=IJS,38Z29,2LIJ5H,BMQ5P,1


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 13, 2015, 02:39:49 pm
The one I referred to (it being loaded onto/off a barge above) is stock - as in it's old. As I said, I'm sure I saw that in articles from Japan about its shipment. You can see from others you refer to that it was offloaded from ship to land, not barge


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 13, 2015, 05:43:30 pm
Wonder why they used a stock shot? I'm sure that's it being loaded in Japan....

On BBC twitter, there's this
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_5hmNaVIAEUlKF.jpg)

and more clearly, this
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_5fGEyW4AEeJE1.jpg)

Notice its fitted with the new bi-mode bogies .................. that is can be used on the highway as well as rail this how they plan to get around bustituion in the future  ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on March 13, 2015, 07:45:51 pm

Notice its fitted with the new bi-mode bogies .................. that is can be used on the highway as well as rail this how they plan to get around bustituion in the future  ;D ;D ;D

Nothing new there - I passed a FGW Mark 3 on the M5 last week, presumably working Gloucester to Temple Meads.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on March 24, 2015, 08:09:06 pm
The Bristol Post (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/say/story-26218258-detail/story.html) is living up to its proud history of never letting accuracy get in the way of a page-filler of an editorial.

Quote
We say
By The Bristol Post  |  Posted: March 24, 2015

THEY'VE served us well. But the time has finally come to say goodbye to the aging rolling stock of Class 43 High Speed Trains (HSTs) that take Bristolians to London. And not before time.

The diesel locomotives were state-of-the-art technology when they were launched in the mid-1970s.

But the HSTs do not live up to their name in the 21st century.

For too long now, and despite some refurbishment by operator First Great Western, Bristol train travellers using the London line have had to put up with engines and carriages that were, frankly, past their best.

In fact, compared to many other train services around the country, the services were slightly embarrassing.

No longer. The outdated facilities, seating and technology of the HSTs will be replaced by modern "Turbo" trains, bringing more services, faster journey times, more capacity, better comfort and even free wifi.

Bristol is a modern city.

As proud as we are of our rail heritage, rail visitors from the capital need to arrive by modern means.

Now, at last, they will.

Turbo indeed. Someone at the Post has Turbo on the brain.

I like this though, from Hitachi Rail Europe (http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at300-for-the-west-of-england_156.html)'s website:

Quote
AT300 FOR THE WEST OF ENGLAND
 
Hitachi Rail Europe named as FirstGroup^s preferred supplier to provide fleet of new AT300 trains for the South West

In March 2015 Hitachi Rail Europe announced that it had been named by FirstGroup as preferred supplier, subject to contract, for the supply of 29 trains for the new First Great Western franchise.This is subject to approval by the Department for Transport.

(http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/medialibrary/_genpagemainimage/2015/03/24/7b2ecf01/WoE_Coast_20150320_LOWRES.jpg)

29 bi-mode AT300 trains running primarily from London Paddington to Plymouth and Penzance

The fleet of 29 bi-mode AT300 trains would run primarily from London Paddington to Plymouth and Penzance, replacing 40-year-old High Speed Trains on the key intercity route to the south west. Made up of seven nine-car and 22 five-car trains, with an option for 30 more, the mixed fleet would allow for flexible use, including 10-car formations (two five-cars coupled together) for through-services to/from the capital.

Mark Hopwood, Managing Director of First Great Western said: ^Following the direct award of the franchise announced by the Department for Transport, I am delighted that we have selected Hitachi Rail Europe as our preferred supplier for new intercity trains, should the DfT approve our plans. The fleet currently running on routes in the South West of England, is nearly 40 years old, and passengers would greatly benefit from brand new, highly comfortable trains. FirstGroup has conducted a competitive procurement exercise for these trains and we are close to securing private financing for the deal shortly. The DfT will be making a final decision by the end of June^.

Andy Barr, Chief Operating Officer, Hitachi Rail Europe said: ^The Class 800 bi-mode trains were initially designed for the Great Western and East Coast main lines and we have refined the design further for the challenges of the route to Plymouth and Penzance. We have put a lot of thought into ensuring a passenger environment that is comfortable for short and long-distance journeys, incorporating feedback by passenger groups.

^The announcement cements our already strong relationship with FirstGroup and we are looking forward to working closely to progress negotiations and start building the trains, ready for use in the South West of England from 2018.
(More at source)

Nice shot of a Turbo, there...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on March 24, 2015, 08:58:16 pm
Just as bad is the Bath Chronicle that says "From December 2018 a major new timetable will be launched which will see 45 more services a day between Bath and London". Doh! Go and read the Dft release again where you will see this only applies to Bristol not Bath.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on March 25, 2015, 12:30:19 pm
I assume that the reference to "Turbos" is because the Turbo is a DMU driven from motors beneath the carriages rather than locomotive hauled. The new Hitachi trains will likewise be a modern form of DMU. Let us hope that the Hitachi trains will have better noise and vibration insulation than the Adelantes that also have under carriage motors. The Adelantes were originally introduced to provide the higher frequency Cardiff/London service introduced with the original FGW franchise but FGW, I understand, received many complaints from the Welsh users about the noise and vibration that is not present on HSTs to which they had been used to.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 25, 2015, 12:47:01 pm
I'm hoping they will have much better noise and vibration insulation, and of course not every vehicle has an engine underneath it anyway so they will be quiet no matter what mode the train is powered by.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 25, 2015, 01:18:51 pm
Turbos are specifically the 165/6s. They are a form of DMU, as are Adelantes.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on March 25, 2015, 06:22:16 pm
Turbos are specifically the 165/6s. They are a form of DMU, as are Adelantes.

And so are class 253 and 254

aka intercity 125 HSDT they are a diesel multiple unit


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on March 25, 2015, 07:35:18 pm
Turbos are specifically the 165/6s. They are a form of DMU, as are Adelantes.

And so are class 253 and 254

aka intercity 125 HSDT they are a diesel multiple unit
Or, they were considered a diesel multiple unit until BR decided to reclassify the coaches as coaches and the power cars as locomotives owing, I suspect, to the fact that power cars can and do appear on different sets quite often. Whereas DMUs (the odd coach in FirstGW's hybrid 3-car 158s being the main exception) tend to keep the same vehicles in each set well over 90% of the time. The class 43s (IC125 power cars) can also be used in back-to-back pairs to haul the sleeper (with an otherwise failed 57 providing ETS) or rescue other trains, in which case they can't really be described as anything other than a locomotive.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on March 25, 2015, 09:03:05 pm
You suspect correct Rhydgaled. BR decided to reclassify the Class 253 and 254 HST sets a couple of years after their introduction. Power cars were being constantly swapped around and you'd often have sets with two different numbers front and rear. Caused confusion for diagramming. Changing the power cars to individual locomotive numbers, 43xxx, prevented this.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on March 26, 2015, 10:16:30 am
.....of course one of the big advantages of IEP will be power door operation.  This will cut out loads of lost minutes at country stations whilst the train manager strolls up and down the platform closing doors left open by those who don't care ::)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 26, 2015, 10:21:25 am
Indeed.  There's lots of other improvements over HSTs as well that others fail to mention.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on March 26, 2015, 03:14:25 pm
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Opinion-New-trains-jeopardise-electrification/story-26217290-detail/story.html?

A call for further electrification to(wards) the South West, and for the HSTs to be life extended to 2025 so there's no need to buy an expensive non-electrice fleet in the meantime.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 26, 2015, 03:52:29 pm
Of course, there aren't any other lines already waiting for the wires machine.....


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on March 26, 2015, 04:01:59 pm
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Opinion-New-trains-jeopardise-electrification/story-26217290-detail/story.html?

A call for further electrification to(wards) the South West, and for the HSTs to be life extended to 2025 so there's no need to buy an expensive non-electrice fleet in the meantime.
Hear hear. I think though that 2025 is too early to expect enough electrification. The logical thing in my view would be to keep IC125s for now and work towards getting Swindon-Cheltenham, Newbury-Westbury and Bristol-Plymouth (inc. Weston-Super-Mare branch) wired. Then you can get new EMUs for PAD-Cheltenham/Weston-Super-Mare/Westbury and cascade those bi-modes to the Penzance route (need to make them longer though). That might be possible 2030-2035 maybe, and maybe wires to Penzance in 2045 when the 27.5yr IEP contract ends...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 26, 2015, 04:12:26 pm
wires will never reach PNZ in our lifetime. However old you are now.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on March 26, 2015, 07:40:11 pm
wires will never reach PNZ in our lifetime. However old you are now.

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree. Although there must come a oint when it is cheaper to wire the last bit than keep running diesels.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on March 26, 2015, 08:42:36 pm
With advances in technology, they may be running battery powered units over 'the last bit' by then?  :-\


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Surrey 455 on March 26, 2015, 08:59:23 pm
With advances in technology, they may be running battery powered units over 'the last bit' by then?  :-\

Well I'd like to think that there will be no need for wires or third rail, the trains will be powered by solar panels on the roof with battery back up at night. Sadly I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on March 26, 2015, 09:19:14 pm
With advances in technology, they may be running battery powered units over 'the last bit' by then?  :-\

Well I'd like to think that there will be no need for wires or third rail, the trains will be powered by solar panels on the roof with battery back up at night. Sadly I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.

I'm noting in the tealeaves that the overhead wires + battery for the last bit approach is getting to be far more practical - "it works" and mileage on battery will go up as mileage on overhead goes down.  Not sure about solar panels - but how about swapping over batteries charge by solar, wind, wave power at station stops?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on March 27, 2015, 10:40:57 pm
You ought to be able to recharge a fair few batteries using the wave power at Dawlish ...  :P ::) ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on April 07, 2015, 11:42:19 am
More details on stock arrivals & Transfers from Railnews (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/03/24-derby-to-build-new-trains.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

Quote
NEW Bombardier Electrostars are included in the plans for the new First Great Western franchise, which will be a boost for jobs in Derby.

The main fleets for long-distance services will be Intercity Expresses and hybrid AT300s, both from Hitachi.

However, Thames Valley electrification will need large numbers of suburban electric multiple units, some of which will be 21 Class 365s cascaded from Great Northern.

Also heading west will be 29 Class 387 four-car sets, which are currently being delivered from Bombardier in Derby to Thameslink on a temporary basis.

In the longer term, all 29 sets will move to First Great Western for Thames Valley services, but a further eight sets have been ordered by Porterbrook specifically for FGW, Railnews has learned. Most will run as four or eight-car trains, but FGW said there was also potential for a 'very limited' number of 12-car sets.

The additional capacity offered by each four-car Class 387 rather than a three-car diesel Class 165 will help to fulfil First's pledge to offer an additional 8,000 seats in peak hours between Reading and London by 2018.

The plans for AT300s for services west of Bristol have not yet been confirmed, because they depend on a private financing deal and DfT approval, which is due by June.

Diesel class 165s displaced by Thames Valley electrification will stay with FGW for services between Cardiff, Bristol and the south coast. The 158s released from this will be used for local main line services in the far south west. They will be needed when local services between Plymouth and Penzance are increased to half-hourly.

Departing rolling stock will include the Class 142 and 144 Pacers currently in use in the Bristol and Exeter areas, while the Devon and Cornwall branch lines will mainly be worked by two-car Class 150s rather than the single-car Class 153s.

The new First Great Western franchise was announced yesterday, and will start in September.

First Great Western managing director, Mark Hopwood said:  ^For us, this franchise deal is about changing the way people think about rail. The Great Western network is already seeing the biggest investment since Brunel, and this deal has been designed to match that investment and ambition. It gives passengers newer trains, faster, more frequent services and importantly, given the growth this franchise has seen in recent years, more seats ^ three million extra seats a year by December 2018.

^We^ve worked with the Department for Transport to make sure passengers get every bit of benefit from the mainline electrification programme, while making sure no area misses out. I believe that the team at First Great Western will deliver for customers and the thriving communities and economies they serve, as well as the taxpayer.^




Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TaplowGreen on April 07, 2015, 12:33:07 pm
Just one question on this - to what extent will the extra 8,000 peak seats promised by 2018 between Reading and London be effectively wiped out by projected passenger numbers growth between now and then?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on April 07, 2015, 12:44:23 pm
Not sure of that prediction, but remember even more Crossrail capacitu comes online soon after that


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on April 07, 2015, 01:14:41 pm
Quote
Departing rolling stock will include the Class 142 and 144 Pacers currently in use in the Bristol and Exeter areas

Split the difference/take the arithmetic mean and then you'd get the right class number. FGW only has Class 143s.

Oh and no Pacer is in use in the Bristol area. They are exclusively to be found in Devon.

Pretty poor for a specialist rail news website. ::)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on April 07, 2015, 01:28:20 pm
They acknowledge the errors in the comment section at the base of that URL


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on April 07, 2015, 01:50:13 pm
Quote
Departing rolling stock will include the Class 142 and 144 Pacers currently in use in the Bristol and Exeter areas

Split the difference/take the arithmetic mean and then you'd get the right class number. FGW only has Class 143s.

Oh and no Pacer is in use in the Bristol area. They are exclusively to be found in Devon.

Pretty poor for a specialist rail news website. ::)
They DID have 142s not all that long ago though, and didn't they run Pacers in the Bristol area back then? Just an out-of-date quote except for the fact they put 144 instead of 143, which may have been a typing error.
Just one question on this - to what extent will the extra 8,000 peak seats promised by 2018 between Reading and London be effectively wiped out by projected passenger numbers growth between now and then?
Not sure of that prediction, but remember even more Crossrail capacitu comes online soon after that
Neither is any help west of Reading, and surely the patronage growth isn't confined to the Reading-London section. Yet the DfT (and now it seems First too) seem happy to reduce capacity per train across much of the GW Intercity network while the vast majority of the frequency enhancements which will hopefully somewhat compensate for the shorter trains are limited to specific sections of the network.

Even if you think that I've got it wrong and current IC125s (except on Bristol services) don't often load to more than 300 passengers west of Reading then, assuming growth continues, the 5-car IEP trains will get full pretty quickly and lengthening them will be impossible without creating redundant driving vehicles.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on April 07, 2015, 02:00:58 pm
They acknowledge the errors in the comment section at the base of that URL

Ah, didn't scroll down to look for clarifications and corrections.  :)

They DID have 142s not all that long ago though, and didn't they run Pacers in the Bristol area back then?

4^ years ago the 142s went. 3 years since a 143 has been in the Bristol area. So a fair time ago.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on April 07, 2015, 02:22:01 pm
Just one question on this - to what extent will the extra 8,000 peak seats promised by 2018 between Reading and London be effectively wiped out by projected passenger numbers growth between now and then?

Looking at Paddington passenger numbers as a whole - they rose from 32200316 to 35093628 in the last 3 years (ORR Station use figures).   Divide those by 363 days (no trains on Christmas day or Boxing day) ...

>>> (35093628 - 32200316) / 363
7970
>>>

So there will be 30 seats of the 8,000 left over if current growth trends continue.


Statistically, my logic leaks like a sieve!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TaplowGreen on April 07, 2015, 06:18:31 pm
......can I reserve one of the 30 spares?  ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on April 07, 2015, 10:20:09 pm
......can I reserve one of the 30 spares?  ;D

Only if I can have one as well !


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 07, 2015, 10:26:48 pm
Member 'broadgage' would prefer his seat to have a table in front of it, too ...  :P ::) ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on April 08, 2015, 05:45:53 pm
Member 'broadgage' would prefer his seat to have a table in front of it, too ...  :P ::) ;)

Yes please, a table seat, and near the buffet counter also :)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on April 08, 2015, 06:45:11 pm
Discussion on the potential for industrial action over the introduction of IEP sets has been given its own topic:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15598.0


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 12, 2015, 06:27:54 pm
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 :'(

3 years ago almost to the day, I wrote that.
Largely (over half) bus seats now confirmed.
Legroom, yet to be seen but unlikely to be impressive.
Minimal catering, now confirmed as only a trolley for steerage.
Shorter trains, now confirmed that most of the new DMUs are to be half length.

First class now confirmed as being downgraded to just 36 seats.

Isn't progress wonderful !


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 12, 2015, 07:09:37 pm
No confirmation of numbers of DMUs....subject to the review


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on July 13, 2015, 11:39:14 am
'Bus seats'

'Steerage'

Quite irritating by now...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 13, 2015, 11:46:55 am
Yes, I think the needle has got stuck....especially when the bus seats I know are effectively two-person benches, not the individual seats that you do get on trains, so inaccurate description, methinks.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 13, 2015, 01:42:36 pm
All right then, over half of the seating now confirmed to be uni-directional and not facing across tables.
Catering now confirmed to be only a trolley in standard class.

My negative forecasts regarding the new trains made over 3 years ago have regrettably been found to be substantially correct, despite the many members of these forums who felt that I was being unduly negative.





Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 13, 2015, 01:55:03 pm
Women actually *like* uni-directional seats. They feel safer, and no playing footsie under tables.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on July 13, 2015, 03:25:27 pm
Sauce?

Sorry, I meant, Source?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 13, 2015, 03:30:05 pm
Passenger Focus - but can't remember exactly when. Within the last couple of years.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on July 13, 2015, 03:32:49 pm
I'm not a woman and I prefer them  ;)

I used to despair when I had reserved a seat on busy services and find on getting on that the system has booked me into a foursome - which shows they can't be all that popular or the seating reservation system is lacking. Especially as nearly always the three people already there have spread themselves out over the whole space and look at me resentfully for disturbing their peace and leg room. Indeed these days I will check on the seating chart and book on a different service instead rather than this.

I'd vote for no increase on tables of four please  ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TaplowGreen on July 14, 2015, 09:30:57 am
I'm not a woman and I prefer them  ;)

I used to despair when I had reserved a seat on busy services and find on getting on that the system has booked me into a foursome - which shows they can't be all that popular or the seating reservation system is lacking. Especially as nearly always the three people already there have spread themselves out over the whole space and look at me resentfully for disturbing their peace and leg room. Indeed these days I will check on the seating chart and book on a different service instead rather than this.

I'd vote for no increase on tables of four please  ;D

I guess some will say that's the price you pay for being a peasant who travels in "steerage"  :D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on July 14, 2015, 09:50:31 am
At weekends if I can't reserve in advance it usually is an upgrade to first class. As I have said before I will never stand on a train; I've seen what can happen to those that do.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on July 14, 2015, 12:40:39 pm
Not sure if it's appropriate to post this in the 'Meet the Manager' board, so I'm posting here instead (from "Question 4 for Ben Rule - 19.36 - The future between Exeter and Plymouth" topic):

Which prompts me to ask about the expectations for SET operation through Dawlish during periods of severe weather; in the past HSTs handled the conditions much better than the Voyagers which on the face of it are not dissimilar to the SETs.
The SETs will only run between Paddington - Newbury, Oxford, Bristol and South Wales. They won't go near Dawlish.
That is an interesting comment, does this mean IC125 retention is confirmed and the additional new trains order (for trains which are basicly SETs with larger fuel tanks) is not going ahead? And does this mean Network Rail is able to de-scope the IEP route clearance programme, which had Plymouth and Paignton as core routes and the lines beyond to Newquay and Penzance as non-core parts of the programme? Also, the DfT draft diagrams showed IEP services to Paignton, if everything through Dawlish is going to be existing stock then maybe that's how FirstGW intend to ensure everything on the IEP routes that needs to be is at least 9 coaches.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 14, 2015, 01:36:01 pm
Has Ben replied as thinking SETs mean 'electric's?.....coz bi-modes will certainly reach Exeter/Plymouth....so would it be better to refer to them under their Class number? 800/801?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on July 14, 2015, 02:11:36 pm
Has Ben replied as thinking SETs mean 'electric's?.....

I think, yes, he has written for electric operation / units ... think Weston-super-mare, think Cheltenham Spa when you read his answer.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on July 15, 2015, 09:39:30 am
BBC report on IEP testing at Old Dalby in Leicestershire

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33533467


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on July 30, 2015, 01:42:46 pm
Where will surfboards be held in the summer on Newquay services?

Irrelevant in the near future.  As discussed many times previously, IEPs are not going to be used on the Devon and Cornwall services.

Paul

The above was no doubt true when posted but it has now been confirmed that far West services are to be downgraded to new and mainly much shorter DMUs of a similar design to the IEPs.
So how are surfboards and other bulky holiday luggage to be carried ?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 30, 2015, 01:48:06 pm
The lay-outs of these additionals (anyone know the class? 802s?) may or may not follow the same as the 800/801s....as the ok has just been given, my guess is that the uinterior design has not yet been fixced in stone.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: patch38 on August 07, 2015, 04:39:24 pm
Some interesting footage of Class 800 delivery/test moves here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A4d_qtuRJs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A4d_qtuRJs)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 07, 2015, 05:16:30 pm
Thanks for the link.

Stop it at 8'14" and you get an impression of just how long a 10-car formation is!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Thatcham Crossing on August 07, 2015, 06:36:48 pm
Looooooong isn't it! Brakes sounded like a Class 180.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 08, 2015, 09:45:54 am
Last nights fiasco (large scale signalling failure, thousands delayed, some passengers passed out due to heat and crowding) has got me thinking about how robust is the specification for the air conditioning on the new trains.

Is it required to work even in adverse conditions, with a substantial penalty payable for failures ? or is it considered "nice to have, sometimes it works and sometimes it does not" ? as is the case with class 158s/159s

I would hope that the specification is watertight without wiggle room about "it was too hot outside" or the famous "the train was overcrowded and the system was not designed for that"

A sensible specification would be along the lines of "the passenger saloon must be reliably cooled to a temperature not exceeding 23 degrees under the following conditions.
External air temperature of 45 degrees with 80% relative humidity.
No wind combined with intense sunlight.
Train not moving.
Passenger numbers at 140% of the seating capacity."

Does anyone know how watertight the actual specification is ?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on August 08, 2015, 10:03:37 am
Last nights fiasco (large scale signalling failure, thousands delayed, some passengers passed out due to heat and crowding) has got me thinking about how robust is the specification for the air conditioning on the new trains.

Is it required to work even in adverse conditions, with a substantial penalty payable for failures ? or is it considered "nice to have, sometimes it works and sometimes it does not" ? as is the case with class 158s/159s

I would hope that the specification is watertight without wiggle room about "it was too hot outside" or the famous "the train was overcrowded and the system was not designed for that"

A sensible specification would be along the lines of "the passenger saloon must be reliably cooled to a temperature not exceeding 23 degrees under the following conditions.
External air temperature of 45 degrees with 80% relative humidity.
No wind combined with intense sunlight.
Train not moving.
Passenger numbers at 140% of the seating capacity."

Does anyone know how watertight the actual specification is ?

The performance is largely specified by reference to BS EN 13129-1:2002. Some items are stated in the IEP specification, notably:
Quote
TS1620 The HVAC performance of the saloon of the IEP Vehicle must be calculated on the basis of an interior layout which includes a minimum of 90 seats in the saloon, with a Fully Laden load. Additionally the HVAC system must ensure sufficient air quality for the safe carriage of passengers when loaded to the Crush Laden Condition.

I can't see anything that says what "sufficient air quality" means, though it could be defined in an Act somewhere. As to "Crush Laden Condition", that is defined as:
Quote
TS1890 Crush Laden Load:
Means the IEP Train in Tare Condition plus a passenger load of all seats occupied with further standee passenger numbers equivalent to 4 passengers per m2 of available standing space (in accordance with ^long distance^ category as detailed in table 3 of BS EN15663:2009 ^Railway applications. Definition of vehicle reference masses^). The mass of each passenger (which shall include that passenger^s luggage) shall be assumed to be 80kg (in accordance with ^long distance^ category as detailed in table 3 of BS EN 15663:2009 ^Railway applications. Definition of vehicle reference masses^). A mass of 300kg/m2 shall also be assumed for luggage compartments as defined in BS EN15663:2009 ^Railway applications. Definition of vehicle reference masses^.

Reliability and penalties are not in the technical spec. - they must be in the contract, which is not (AFAIK) public.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 03, 2015, 06:14:05 pm
Rail News reports the opening of the IEP factory: (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/09/03-intercity-express-factory-in-north.html)

Quote
'Momentous occasion' as Intercity Express factory opens

THE new plant where hundreds of new rail vehicles are to be assembled for intercity and urban services in England, Scotland and Wales has been opened today.

The ^82 million factory at Newton Aycliffe in Country Durham is owned by Hitachi, which is a key member of the consortium Agility Trains.

Agility won contracts to build two fleets of Intercity Express trains for the East Coast and Great Western Main Lines, although the introduction of the GW in two or three years from now is bogged down in controversy as the RMT remains in dispute with First Great Western about staffing and on-board catering facilities.

The plant will also produce trains in the Hitachi AT series for the newly electrified route between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh, and for Great Western intercity services between London and stations in Devon and Cornwall.

Hitachi Ltd Chairman and CEO, Hiroaki Nakanishi, welcomed transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin MP and rail minister Claire Perry MP, along with over 500 invited guests, to the opening ceremony.

Welcoming the opening, the Prime Minister David Cameron said: ^This massive investment from Hitachi shows confidence in the strength of Britain^s growing economy. This new train facility will not only provide good jobs for working people but will build the next generation of intercity trains, improving travel for commuters and families, as well as strengthening the infrastructure we need to help the UK grow.^

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said: ^Today we see a major boost for the UK with Hitachi investing millions in returning train manufacturing to the North East. This state of the art facility will grow and secure jobs for decades to come and will help us to build the Northern Powerhouse, while at the same time revitalising one of our oldest industries in the region within which this tradition is synonymous.^

Hiroaki Nakanishi of Hitachi added: ^Today is a momentous occasion for Hitachi Rail, Newton Aycliffe and the British rail industry. We have brought train design and manufacturing back home to its birthplace in the North East.^

The Newton Aycliffe plant will be the second major train-building factory in Britain. Bombardier runs the last former British Rail works at Litchurch Lane in Derby, where the Canadian firm is about to construct a fleet of 600 vehicles for Crossrail.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on September 05, 2015, 11:07:10 pm
Rail News reports the opening of the IEP factory: (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/09/03-intercity-express-factory-in-north.html)

Quote
The plant will also produce trains in the Hitachi AT series for the newly electrified route between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh, and for Great Western intercity services between London and stations in Devon and Cornwall.
Eh? Pretty sure I read somewhere that Hitachi's UK assembly plant is going to be fully occupied screwing together trains for the ScotRail and IEP orders and that the Devon/Cornwall AT300 order will therefore be fully-assembled in Japan and shipped as complete trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 07, 2015, 11:07:41 pm
[Eh? Pretty sure I read somewhere that Hitachi's UK assembly plant is going to be fully occupied screwing together trains for the ScotRail and IEP orders and that the Devon/Cornwall AT300 order will therefore be fully-assembled in Japan and shipped as complete trains.

I thought you said they were glued together, with something based on rendered down horses.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on September 08, 2015, 12:03:11 am
Sticky back plastic I heard.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 26, 2015, 02:18:56 pm
Press Release from the RMT....

Quote
Taxpayer to foot ^3 million a week bill for trains that can't be used while guards, catering and fleet jobs face the axe

RAIL UNION RMT demanded urgent action this morning after it emerged at the weekend that the taxpayer is set to be lumped with a bill of nearly ^3 million a week to pay Japanese fleet supplier Hitachi for trains that cannot be used on the Great Western routes due to the electrification fiasco.

Hitachi and the Government are known to be exploring a fiercely expensive and problematic option of retro fitting diesel engines to the new fleet as a stop gap but if that proves unworkable the taxpayer will still have to pay Hitachi ^400,000 a day - regardless of whether the trains are used or simply left standing idle. 

RMT has been engaged in a long running dispute with Great Western over the threat to safety, jobs and passenger services that is part of the current fleet proposals.

General Secretary Mick Cash said;

"Our dispute is over the threat to guards jobs and train safety from the door control and despatch procedures on the new trains and we are also fighting similar threats to catering operations and fleet jobs.

"It is now clear that there is no shortage of money to waste on keeping trains idle so there is no excuse for not investing in jobs, safety and services.

"RMT intends to take this issue directly to the Government now with a demand that they end this shambles and protect both staff and the travelling public from wholly unnecessary cuts."


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on October 26, 2015, 02:36:02 pm
More on what ChrisB has posted above from the Bath Chronicle website and doubtless other Local World media outlets:

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Taxpayers-face-3m-week-new-electric-trains-stuck/story-28055061-detail/story.html

Quote
Taxpayers might have to pay nearly ^3 million a week for new electric trains that will be stuck in storage if the track is not ready in time.

The ^3 billion fleet is due to run on the Great Western Railway from May 2017 but it is now likely that the necessary track upgrades will be delayed.
The Government is obliged to rent the new trains whether the track is ready or not, under a deal between the Department for Transport and manufacturer Hitachi.
Now a document released to a Commons inquiry has revealed that taxpayers will face a bill of up to ^400,000 per day ^2.8 million each week ^ that the London to Swansea line is "not available" to the new Class 801 trains.

It reads: "New electric trains are due to enter service on the route from May 2017, as part of the Intercity Express Programme (IEP).
"The department could incur train rental costs of up to ^400,000 per day if the electrified lines are not available in time."
The document emerged as Philip Rutnam, the DfT's permanent secretary, revealed growing alarm over hold-ups to the Great Western upgrade, in evidence to the public accounts committee (PAC).

MPs were furious to learn that the cost of the project has mushroomed from ^1.6 billion a year ago - and ^874 million in 2013 - to between ^2.5 billion and ^2.8 billion.
But the inquiry was also told it was now "highly likely" that the timetable to electrify to Bristol by 2016, to Cardiff by 2017 and to Swansea by 2018 would be missed.

Mr Rutnam said: "The department, as customer on behalf of taxpayers and passengers, is liable to pay for those trains whether the electrification is ready or not.

"We are clearly very concerned indeed at the prospect that we may have electric trains designed for the Great Western Railway, to bring many, many benefits to passengers, and not be able to use them."

Later, the permanent secretary added: "The electrification has overshot and there is real risk that it will not be ready in time."

Meg Hillier, the PAC's Labour chairwoman, expressed astonishment at the idea there would be "trains potentially with no track to run on".

And, on the overall handling of the project, she said: "It's unbelievable and it's unacceptable that there was such poor planning."

Both Mark Carne, Network Rail's chief executive, and Richard Price, chief executive of the Office of Rail and Road, the regulator, "fell asleep on the job", she added.

Mr Rutnam said the Dft was exploring both "commercial and technical" options to avoid the ^400,000-a-day penalty, adding: "This is right at the top of the department's priority list".
The penalties would not kick in until February 2018, because the first batch of IEP trains - from 2017 - would be 'hybrid', using both diesel and electric power.

Mick Cash, general secretary of rail union the RMT, described the situation as a "shambles".

He said: "Our dispute is over the threat to guards jobs and train safety from the door control and despatch procedures on the new trains and we are also fighting similar threats to catering operations and fleet jobs.

"It is now clear that there is no shortage of money to waste on keeping trains idle so there is no excuse for not investing in jobs, safety and services.

"RMT intends to take this issue directly to the Government now with a demand that they end this shambles and protect both staff and the travelling public from wholly unnecessary cuts."






Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on October 26, 2015, 03:39:55 pm
I'm absolutely lost for words. Where are the required resignations of the top people concerned. Do people not fall on their swords any more?

It's looking like we have enough material now to commission a new series of Thomas the Tank Engine  :o ::) :P :P


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on October 26, 2015, 03:53:00 pm
I'm absolutely lost for words. Where are the required resignations of the top people concerned. Do people not fall on their swords any more?

It's looking like we have enough material now to commision a new series of Thomas the Tank Engine  :o ::) :P :P

Or Monty Pythons Flying Circus!

Calm down, SandTEngineer. a crucial part of the diatribe says:

Quote
Taxpayers might have to pay nearly ^3 million a week for new electric trains that will be stuck in storage if the track is not ready in time.

Or to put it another way, if my auntie had nuts, she'd be my uncle.

If the upgrade to Bristol is completed by January 2017, then IEP will treat us all to the benefits of electric travel. The bi-mode jobs are coming first anyway, aren't they? So long as all is well by February 2018, then away we go. That's over 2 years away.

Away with the rose-tinted glasses for now.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: PhilWakely on October 26, 2015, 04:19:54 pm
Quote
MPs were furious to learn that the cost of the project has mushroomed from ^1.6 billion a year ago - and ^874 million in 2013 - to between ^2.5 billion and ^2.8 billion.
But the inquiry was also told it was now "highly likely" that the timetable to electrify to Bristol by 2016, to Cardiff by 2017 and to Swansea by 2018 would be missed.

I hope there happens to be a friendly Chinese government around when HS2 hits the buffers headlines in 2048 or whenever - not that I shall be around to be concerned  ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: patch38 on October 26, 2015, 04:23:29 pm
I may still be around in 2048, but apparently only if I give up bacon.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on October 26, 2015, 05:01:31 pm
I may still be around in 2048, but apparently only if I give up bacon.

I'm sticking to beer. It's made from flowers and cereals - practically muesli.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on October 26, 2015, 07:23:37 pm
Beer, wine and cider ^ got to be three of your five a day right there!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 27, 2015, 10:33:04 am
Calm down, SandTEngineer. a crucial part of the diatribe says:

Quote
Taxpayers might have to pay nearly ^3 million a week for new electric trains that will be stuck in storage if the track is not ready in time.

Or to put it another way, if my auntie had nuts, she'd be my uncle.

If the upgrade to Bristol is completed by January 2017, then IEP will treat us all to the benefits of electric travel. The bi-mode jobs are coming first anyway, aren't they? So long as all is well by February 2018, then away we go. That's over 2 years away.
Calm down?? Yes and no. Yes, the bi-modes are coming first, and as long as London-Bristol (via Bath and via Parkway) is done by the time the psudeo-electrics start arriving there shouldn't be a problem with units standing idle. The 'no' is that, as far as I know, taxpayers WILL have to pay nearly ^3m per week regardless of whether or not the track is ready (assuming that is the cost of the trains), the only difference is if the wires haven't reached Bristol we won't be getting anything for that ^3m.

I'm absolutely lost for words. Where are the required resignations of the top people concerned. Do people not fall on their swords any more?
Ah, the joys of the part-private, part-public railway. There is no clear accoutablity and everyone can blame each other (although I think in the case of the cost of these trains the finger points towards the DfT).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on October 27, 2015, 10:50:59 am

If the upgrade to Bristol is completed by January 2017, then IEP will treat us all to the benefits of electric travel. The bi-mode jobs are coming first anyway, aren't they? So long as all is well by February 2018, then away we go. That's over 2 years away.



Absolutely no hope of the wires reaching to Bristol in 15 months.  The best that might happen is wires as far as Swindon and then the bi-modes run on diesel from there to Temple Meads (and therefore at lower speed as far as Box). But even that is I suspect unlikely.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 27, 2015, 10:55:17 am
The 'no' is that, as far as I know, taxpayers WILL have to pay nearly ^3m per week regardless of whether or not the track is ready (assuming that is the cost of the trains), the only difference is if the wires haven't reached Bristol we won't be getting anything for that ^3m.

Err, I don't think so. The ^3m/week falls on the taxpayer because the wires aren't ready & GWR can't run them. If the wires are ready & they can be run, then the trains are with GWR along with the ^3m/week hire cost, surely? (Or whatever deal the DfT has done with GWR for these costs to be covered).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Red Squirrel on October 27, 2015, 11:25:54 am

Or to put it another way, if my auntie had nuts, she'd be my uncle.


Germaine Greer has an opinion on this topic, but perhaps this isn't the place to delve into that one...

My auntie has nuts, but then again she is a squirrel.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 27, 2015, 11:50:38 am
The 'no' is that, as far as I know, taxpayers WILL have to pay nearly ^3m per week regardless of whether or not the track is ready (assuming that is the cost of the trains), the only difference is if the wires haven't reached Bristol we won't be getting anything for that ^3m.

Err, I don't think so. The ^3m/week falls on the taxpayer because the wires aren't ready & GWR can't run them. If the wires are ready & they can be run, then the trains are with GWR along with the ^3m/week hire cost, surely? (Or whatever deal the DfT has done with GWR for these costs to be covered).
Whether or not GWR can run them, I doubt who pays the hire cost will change (unless there is something in the franchise agreement which lets GWR wriggle out of paying it, but I'd be supprised if there is). Taxpayer pays via GWR either way is my guess.

If the upgrade to Bristol is completed by January 2017, then IEP will treat us all to the benefits of electric travel. The bi-mode jobs are coming first anyway, aren't they? So long as all is well by February 2018, then away we go. That's over 2 years away.
Absolutely no hope of the wires reaching to Bristol in 15 months.  The best that might happen is wires as far as Swindon and then the bi-modes run on diesel from there to Temple Meads (and therefore at lower speed as far as Box). But even that is I suspect unlikely.
Wires as far as Swindon by December 2016? Then Oxford, Newbury and Bristol in Dec 2017, Cardiff in Dec 2018 and Swansea in Dec 2019? If that happens, the key phases will each be a year late, and GWR would probably be able to use the new trains. If the wires are more than a year late then it might get messy, but hopefully they aren't more than a year behind with the wiring.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 27, 2015, 11:52:16 am
Likely to be only the bit above what theyre currently paying for their HSTs....I can't see the DfT giving GWR free trains to run around.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on October 27, 2015, 12:36:53 pm

If the upgrade to Bristol is completed by January 2017, then IEP will treat us all to the benefits of electric travel. The bi-mode jobs are coming first anyway, aren't they? So long as all is well by February 2018, then away we go. That's over 2 years away.



Absolutely no hope of the wires reaching to Bristol in 15 months.  The best that might happen is wires as far as Swindon and then the bi-modes run on diesel from there to Temple Meads (and therefore at lower speed as far as Box). But even that is I suspect unlikely.
Lower speed than what? Sorry if that sounds like a silly question, but do you mean lower than electric (in which case, if it's the same as current diesel trains, then no big change) or lower than now (because, presumably, bimodes in diesel mode are slower than diesels)?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 27, 2015, 12:48:26 pm
I've not found a lot of official information about the IEP contract and financing, apart from last year's NAO report: HC 531 "Procuring new trains" (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Procuring-new-trains.pdf), which did consider the implications of delay.

For the GW trains, this is considered in two parts - delay to electrification, which rules out running the 801s and increases the diesel usage of the 800s, and delaying the start of all trains. The figures quoted are "up to" 0.4 and 0.8 ^M per weekday - consistent with the DfT letter quoted in the recent reports.

Quote
  • For Intercity Express, the most significant infrastructure upgrade is Network Rail^s
    electrification of 235 miles of the Great Western route. This covers the routes
    between London Paddington, Bristol and Swansea. Half of the Great Western
    Intercity Express fleet (189 carriages in total) will run solely on electric power.
    The electrification work must be completed in time for these trains to be introduced
    as planned in early 2018. We understand this work is currently over budget and the
    Department has highlighted it as a key risk. If the electrified sections are not available,
    the Department may have to pay any losses Agility Trains incurs as a result, which
    the Department estimates could be up to ^0.4 million per day. The Department has
    sought to reduce this risk by scheduling delivery of the ^bi-mode^ trains capable of
    operating without electrified infrastructure before the electric trains are delivered.

4.3 An additional risk to the Department relates to works to connect the new Intercity
Express train depots to the main lines. Network Rail is building the connections, but the
Department would be liable for any losses if the trains cannot access the network if the
connections are not complete. The Department told us that these works are currently
planned to be delivered in advance of when they are needed. Should trains not be able
to enter service as a result of delays to infrastructure enhancements, the Department
estimates these liabilities at up to ^0.8 million per day for the Great Western fleet and
^1.0 million per day for the East Coast fleet.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 27, 2015, 01:09:12 pm
Lower speed than what? Sorry if that sounds like a silly question, but do you mean lower than electric (in which case, if it's the same as current diesel trains, then no big change) or lower than now (because, presumably, bimodes in diesel mode are slower than diesels)?

I think he means that the 800s will only do 110 on diesel (and under the wires, or is that 125), while the 801s will do 125 under the wires.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on October 27, 2015, 01:50:45 pm
The IEP's will have a max speed of 100mph on diesel power, so between Swindon and Box they will be travelling slower than the current HST's.

From the Hitachi website:-

The AT300 trains are a train platform developed by Hitachi Rail. Their most famous relatives in the UK are the Class 395 Javelin^ train currently in service in Kent and the Class 800/801 train for the Intercity Express Programme. This family of trains is designed for intercity travel, with speeds of up to 140 mph for the Class 395 Javelin and 125 mph for the Class 800/801 trains for electric operation and 100 mph for bi-mode operation. The Class AT300 has larger fuel tanks than the Class 800 bi-mode trains and engines that operate at a higher power output.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TaplowGreen on October 27, 2015, 02:40:45 pm
Quote
MPs were furious to learn that the cost of the project has mushroomed from ^1.6 billion a year ago - and ^874 million in 2013 - to between ^2.5 billion and ^2.8 billion.
But the inquiry was also told it was now "highly likely" that the timetable to electrify to Bristol by 2016, to Cardiff by 2017 and to Swansea by 2018 would be missed.

I hope there happens to be a friendly Chinese government around when HS2 hits the buffers headlines in 2048 or whenever - not that I shall be around to be concerned  ;D

If this was happening under a Chinese Government, I suspect that those responsible would be enjoying a last cigarette before being put up against a wall.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on October 27, 2015, 02:48:58 pm
First IEP (800002) delivered to North Pole Depot last Friday night:

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/10/26/inside-north-pole-as-first-800-reaches-hitachi-depot



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on October 27, 2015, 03:44:44 pm
The IEP's will have a max speed of 100mph on diesel power, so between Swindon and Box they will be travelling slower than the current HST's.

From the Hitachi website:-

The AT300 trains are a train platform developed by Hitachi Rail. Their most famous relatives in the UK are the Class 395 Javelin^ train currently in service in Kent and the Class 800/801 train for the Intercity Express Programme. This family of trains is designed for intercity travel, with speeds of up to 140 mph for the Class 395 Javelin and 125 mph for the Class 800/801 trains for electric operation and 100 mph for bi-mode operation. The Class AT300 has larger fuel tanks than the Class 800 bi-mode trains and engines that operate at a higher power output.


Clear, thanks.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 27, 2015, 03:56:36 pm
The IEP's will have a max speed of 100mph on diesel power

I'm not sure that's a logical deduction from the evidence.

This is what the IEP specification says:
Quote
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;
[...]

I take it this is a User Requirement, which may excuse its non-technical terminology, though perhaps not its use of "maximum". That word should be banned from all specifications, as it is ambiguous - and note it conflicts with the "at least" that follows. "IEP Network" looks like a term that should be defined in the spec., but it isn't. And what counts as an adverse gradient? You can't tell from this.

There is no second speed specified for the bi-modes - just the specific modelled journey times that are required later on. That process leads to the on-board power capacity, and that in turn leads to a "100 mph" performance as a prediction. Those modelled journeys will also dictate in practice whether the 125 mph capability is in fact needed up some lesser gradients.

The text on the Hitachi site looks like a PR rewrite of that, and it still refers to the design speed. Neither version says unequivocally that no higher speed than 100 mph (or whatever) shall be permitted in self-powered mode. Nor should it - I can't see why there would be any technical reason to impose a lower speed limit than 125 mph, even in self-powered mode. After all, if the on-board generators can provide enough power to go faster than 100 mph, and the train and its drive train can manage 125 mph, why would either sub-system controller object?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 27, 2015, 04:18:57 pm
The IEP's will have a max speed of 100mph on diesel power

I'm not sure that's a logical deduction from the evidence.

I was corrected....

From the Hitachi website:-

The AT300 trains are a train platform developed by Hitachi Rail. Their most famous relatives in the UK are the Class 395 Javelin™ train currently in service in Kent and the Class 800/801 train for the Intercity Express Programme. This family of trains is designed for intercity travel, with speeds of up to 140 mph for the Class 395 Javelin and 125 mph for the Class 800/801 trains for electric operation and 100 mph for bi-mode operation. The Class AT300 has larger fuel tanks than the Class 800 bi-mode trains and engines that operate at a higher power output.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on October 27, 2015, 05:02:22 pm
I've not found a lot of official information about the IEP contract and financing, apart from last year's NAO report: HC 531 "Procuring new trains" (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Procuring-new-trains.pdf), which did consider the implications of delay.

For the GW trains, this is considered in two parts - delay to electrification, which rules out running the 801s and increases the diesel usage of the 800s, and delaying the start of all trains. The figures quoted are "up to" 0.4 and 0.8 ^M per week - consistent with the DfT letter quoted in the recent reports.

Quote
  • For Intercity Express, the most significant infrastructure upgrade is Network Rail^s
    electrification of 235 miles of the Great Western route. ... If the electrified sections are not available,
    the Department may have to pay any losses Agility Trains incurs as a result, which
    the Department estimates could be up to ^0.4 million per day. The Department has
    sought to reduce this risk by scheduling delivery of the ^bi-mode^ trains capable of
    operating without electrified infrastructure before the electric trains are delivered.

4.3 An additional risk to the Department relates to works to connect the new Intercity
Express train depots to the main lines. Network Rail is building the connections, but the
Department would be liable for any losses if the trains cannot access the network if the
connections are not complete. ... Should trains not be able
to enter service as a result of delays to infrastructure enhancements, the Department
estimates these liabilities at up to ^0.8 million per day for the Great Western fleet and
^1.0 million per day for the East Coast fleet.

Are the figures per day or per week?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 27, 2015, 05:24:32 pm
Are the figures per day or per week?
My mistake - sorry - all those figures are per day.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 27, 2015, 08:01:48 pm
Now here's a thing - and one one I can't find mentioned on this forum. Hull Trains announced an order for five new trains on 3rd September, but it got rather hidden by the Newton Aycliffe opening ceremony. Their news release (http://www.hulltrains.co.uk/about-us/news/2015/2015/09/hull-trains-enters-industry-consultation-for-high-speed-units/#.Vi_SRStryao) studiously avoided calling it an order, or naming Hitachi, but did say:
Quote
Hull Trains officially announced today that it has plans to invest 68million in a fleet of Bi-Mode trains, which are capable of both electric, and diesel operation. The firm has also commenced an industry consultation process to secure track access for at least another ten years.

If these plans are successful, then the units are expected to enter service in 2020 and will bring multiple economic, social and environmental benefits.

Speed of the units will reach up to 140mph compared to the current 125mph capacity of Hull Trains^ Class 180 units. The company^s fleet will also increase to five units with up to 320 seats on each, meaning a 50% increase in the number of sears for passengers.

There is more detail in the specialist press, evidently gained by talking to them and Hitachi on the day. For example this is from Railway Gazette (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/hull-trains-to-order-hitachi-electro-diesel-trainsets.html):
Quote
East Yorkshire to London open access inter-city operator Hull Trains announced a ^68m plan to order five Hitachi electro-diesel multiple-units on September 3.

These would enter service in 2020, subject to the successful completion of negotiations with infrastructure manager Network Rail and regulator ORR for a new 10-year track access agreement which would start when Hull Trains^ current rights end in 2019. A leasing company to finance the order has not yet been selected.

Hull Trains said the five-car Hitachi trainsets would have 320 seats, compared to 266 on its existing fleet of Alstom Class 180 five-car diesel multiple-units. They would be capable of running at up to 225 km/h, subject to line speeds being increased from the current 200 km/h limit.

^The new units will bring an even higher quality environment for passengers with new interiors, enhanced catering, air-conditioning and a quieter environment due to electric traction, all areas that we know are important to passengers^, said  Managing Director Will Dunnett.

In a message to stakeholders, Dunnett said the track access application included the purchase of the electro-diesel trains because of ^uncertainty around the government^s plans for electrification of the Trans-Pennine route.^

Hull Trains is involved in the development of plans for electrification of the route from Hull to the East Coast Main Line, but ^the bi-mode units deliver the benefits of electrification now^, said Dunnett. ^They also ensure that we can continue to serve stations such as Beverley after electrification of the Hull to Selby track is completed. The dual-function of the units also means that we can keep passengers on trains during disruption, which we would not be able to do in fully-electric units.^

Some of the general press (and Wikipedia) have named these as IEP or class 800, but presumably an AT300 variant is more likely. Maybe another go-faster stripe near the engines? Or does just the route being flat enough mean that the slight uprating for GWR's SW route trains will do? I think we know that the underlying Hitachi train design can manage 225 km/hr.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on October 27, 2015, 08:14:35 pm
They talk about "plans", and "if these plans are successful".  So I think we can conclude that nothing has been signed yet, and won't be until (if) they get their 10 year track access extension confirmed.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 27, 2015, 09:18:28 pm
Hence no reference to an 'order'


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on October 27, 2015, 09:37:34 pm
Hence no reference to an 'order'
Yep. Those that craft this sort of press release have to be very careful with their wording. But at first glance, you can see why people might be misled into thinking that an order had been made, without looking carefully at the subtlety of the wording.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 27, 2015, 11:27:54 pm
I think that a big capital equipment order like this couldn't just start with a contract being signed. Anything other than a true repeat order (same product, same customer, same spec.) would involve some kind of design development phase. Whether that involves a contractual commitment, or payment, varies a lot between industries. It might just be a "heads of agreement", it might be a genuine paid contract to do design work. Only when you know what to build can you drag the lawyers out of their cupboard and crank out the contract itself. So the "is there an order?" question may have several answers.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on October 27, 2015, 11:39:39 pm
That's very true stuving.  I did wonder whether for such a small order Hull Trains are considering an add-on to the West of England order given they are both First Group companies. That would minimise the pre contract costs, and any increase in costs due to variation of spec for such a small order.  However the comment that they will be capable of 140mph tends to imply that won't be the case.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on October 28, 2015, 10:02:45 am
Some of the general press (and Wikipedia) have named these as IEP or class 800, but presumably an AT300 variant is more likely.

Class 800 and 801 are already 'variants' of the Hitachi AT300 family surely?  There's a tendency to overcomplicate this stuff.  Pedantically they should never be referred to as IEPs anyway, as that was the programme to provide them...

The only significance of 800 and 801 are that they are the first use of the new UK rolling stock library class number range for fast fixed formation multiple units.   

So although it is likely that the 802, 803 and successors may well be used for future Hitachi products, if someone else had got there first (such as Grand Central's vapourware WCML open access stock) they could have been new Alstom Pendolinos or whatever.   

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 28, 2015, 10:06:37 am
It will be interesting to see whether GWRs AT300s will get a class 800 number or a number within the 8xx range....ditto anything ordered by Hull trains (whether they get the same 8xx as the GWR AT300s, or their own variant number 8xx)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on October 28, 2015, 12:15:55 pm
It will be interesting to see whether GWRs AT300s will get a class 800 number or a number within the 8xx range....ditto anything ordered by Hull trains (whether they get the same 8xx as the GWR AT300s, or their own variant number 8xx)
On WNXX, the London-Plymouth/Penzance AT300s are now being refered to aas class 802 (the AT300s procured under IEP are of course classes 800 and 801).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 28, 2015, 12:46:58 pm
How 'official' is WNXX, or is it just populated by even more 'enthusiasts'? i.e is it anymore reflective of officialdom that here?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on October 28, 2015, 01:57:53 pm
How 'official' is WNXX, or is it just populated by even more 'enthusiasts'? i.e is it anymore reflective of officialdom that here?

It always seems like there are more staff involved, but at the same time it's often just like here.  For instance a recent post in their IEP thread has someone accusing Rhydgaled of splitting hairs...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on October 28, 2015, 02:23:04 pm
There's a lot of people across at lot of forums for whom the Class 800/801/802s are the end of the world as we know it.

Not one of them will let me have a go in their time machine or on their crystal ball though.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on October 28, 2015, 02:59:24 pm
Hitachi themselves are calling them Class 802s: http://jobhopnow.co.uk/jobs/project-manager--class-802-e2aea1ce56b011e5943b00259065139f

(unless they have another build of high-speed MUs for Britain underway, of course...)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 28, 2015, 03:01:13 pm
That's more like it....


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on October 28, 2015, 04:24:26 pm
There's a lot of people across at lot of forums for whom the Class 800/801/802s are the end of the world as we know it.

There's definitely a heck of a lot of posts like that.   But if you could filter out one or two named individuals, then the criticism would drop by about 90%...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 30, 2015, 02:59:30 pm
RAIL (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/10/30/iep-hits-new-speed-record?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) is reporting that 801001 reached 137.5mph....

Quote
Nine-car Intercity Express Programme 801001 reached 137.5mph during [testing] on October 28. The speeds were reached at the Rail Innovation and Development Centre (RIDC) at Old Dalby.The speeds were reached during 'overspeed' tests that must be carried out by all new trains


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 30, 2015, 07:22:03 pm
[...] Intercity Express Programme 801001 reached 137.5mph [...]
And I'd always thought that the programme was pretty slow.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on November 24, 2015, 10:04:54 pm
A couple of data points on the Class 800s et seq.

I attended an IMechE presentation yesterday given by a gentleman from Hitachi who is trying to get all the approvals needed for the train to be allowed to carry passengers. (As an aside - you wouldn't believe just how complicated this has become as Network Rail is being taken out of the loop and the European approvals regulations take over...)

Because of the high floor in all the coaches, except in the end pantograph coaches, Hitachi has worked to a minimum ceiling height of 1.9 metres - obviously in the constrained areas such as gangways. Even so this struck me as being a bit low for many western males.

The  external width of the 20 metre long Class 395 coaches on the South Eastern is 2.81 metres overall. The 26 metre long Class 800 is 2.74 metres wide which is the same as a Mark 3 coach (8ft 11 7/8 inch over the panels at the waist to be precise)! However the sides of both the Hitachi trains are made from double skinned extruded aluminium so the wall thickness is greater than the steel skinning on a 'tophat' section framing used in the Mark 3. In fact Hitachi's construction is exactly the same as that used in the Class 165 and 166 trains as can be seen by an exhibit in the National Railway Museum in York - with the exception of the method of welding the extruded planks together. So I suspect that they will be slightly narrower internally than the Mark 3.

It is possible to convert bi-mode trains to electric trains by removing the diesel power packs and auxiliaries, but the reverse is not possible as the diesel powered trains have to have extra brackets and fittings added to the structure during manufacture.

So if the DfT were to convert the electric order to bi-modes it will have to make its collective mind up pretty quickly or it will be too late to change the production programme.

Last month Hitachi demonstrated the changeover from diesel operation to full electric operation and back again at 125mph - much to, it was reported, the surprise of observers from third parties.

There are no standards, group, national or European, for the design, construction and approval of kitchen equipment on a train! So Hitachi took as many of the requirements as they could from specifications applying to the restaurant business. However as modern trains are no longer an engineering exercise but a way of introducing paperwork into a bureaucratic maze, getting approvals when there are no standards is giving the Notified Bodies and others nightmares.

My impression was that this is a pretty standard modern train with all the bells and whistles that modern power, supervisory and remote monitoring can manage. However the original specification has led to some odd design compromises - especially the high floor. Did I mention the small windows?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on November 24, 2015, 10:26:52 pm
...
Because of the high floor in all the coaches, except in the end pantograph coaches, Hitachi has worked to a minimum ceiling height of 1.9 metres - obviously in the constrained areas such as gangways. Even so this struck me as being a bit low for many western males.
...

I thought the high floors were specifically to put these new eco-friendly diesel engines under, so would not appear in 801s. Or is that not the way they have done it?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chrisr_75 on November 25, 2015, 01:30:30 am
Oh, I just remembered passing North Pole depot on the way out of Paddington one evening last week, and noticed a train inside the sheds there. Is that an IEP hiding in there, or is it something else? Couldn't really see anything other than 'a train'!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on November 25, 2015, 01:45:48 am
Thanks, chrisr_75 - that's a really useful description!  ;) :D ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on November 25, 2015, 03:33:15 am
Oh, I just remembered passing North Pole depot on the way out of Paddington one evening last week, and noticed a train inside the sheds there. Is that an IEP hiding in there, or is it something else? Couldn't really see anything other than 'a train'!

Yes, there is indeed on IEP in there - not really hiding very well, as it's been documented in certain press quarters such as Rail Magazine (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/10/26/inside-north-pole-as-first-800-reaches-hitachi-depot)

Quote
Five-car 800002 has arrived at North Pole depot in West London.

Hitachi Rail Europe will operate the depot, which was last used by Eurostar in 2007, to maintain Intercity Express Programme trains used by Great Western Railway. It is planned that the '800s' will be introduced from 2017.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chrisr_75 on November 25, 2015, 09:40:57 am
Thanks, chrisr_75 - that's a really useful description!  ;) :D ;D

Well, the view inside on a dark night through fairly narrow windows isn't particularly good and I only caught a brief glimpse of the side of a train!

Thanks Graham for clarifying - I don't frequent the rail press, so hadn't picked up on this. I guess it's pretty much marooned in there for the time being?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on November 25, 2015, 10:05:51 am
Hitachi has worked to a minimum ceiling height of 1.9 metres - obviously in the constrained areas such as gangways.
Sounds compareable to the class 390 Pendolinos then (my head was touching the ceiling when I tried to stand under the pantograph well, I banged my head on one of the overhead racks once as well).

Did I mention the small windows?
How small are they exactly? Not as small as Pendolino ones I hope.

Because of the high floor in all the coaches, except in the end pantograph coaches, Hitachi has worked to a minimum ceiling height of 1.9 metres - obviously in the constrained areas such as gangways. Even so this struck me as being a bit low for many western males.
I thought the high floors were specifically to put these new eco-friendly diesel engines under, so would not appear in 801s. Or is that not the way they have done it?
There's still going to be at least one diesel engine in the 801s. I thought they had decided there were so many engine-equipped cars that it wasn't worth having a third basic design of vehicle (driving vehice, engine car and non-engine intermediate) so just have one design for the driving vehicles and one standard design for all intermediate coaches. It thus supprises me to read that diesel engines can't be retro-fitted to the other intermediate coaches. Not sure about the new diesel engines being 'eco friendly', I thought it was more they are big because they have to output quite a bit of power (although there's also the EU emmissions regs, which seem to be more to do with filtering out stuff that mucks up air quality for pepole at the lineside/roadside rather than greenhouse gas emmissions).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on November 25, 2015, 10:28:45 am
There's still going to be at least one diesel engine in the 801s. I thought they had decided there were so many engine-equipped cars that it wasn't worth having a third basic design of vehicle (driving vehice, engine car and non-engine intermediate) so just have one design for the driving vehicles and one standard design for all intermediate coaches. It thus supprises me to read that diesel engines can't be retro-fitted to the other intermediate coaches. Not sure about the new diesel engines being 'eco friendly', I thought it was more they are big because they have to output quite a bit of power (although there's also the EU emmissions regs, which seem to be more to do with filtering out stuff that mucks up air quality for pepole at the lineside/roadside rather than greenhouse gas emmissions).

Of course, and now I think about it the comments I read earlier were about the 801s (at least) having a varying floor level. But that was probably just someone's speculation.

This is part of what last year's ATOC Rolling Stock Strategy document said about NRMM:
Quote
47. It is widely expected that present and future EU legislation regarding emissions from diesel
engines (Directive 97/68/EC and its subsequent amendments, implemented in Great Britain as
the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants) Regulations
1999 and 2013, known as NRMM) will increasingly make it difficult to procure and operate
new DMUs having underfloor diesel engines, with an affordable business case.
...
^ It is widely considered that it would be impossible to fit a Stage IIIB compliant engine of
adequate power to any of the existing British DMU types.
...

IEP has NRMM IIIB specified for all traction diesel engines.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on November 25, 2015, 11:09:24 am
There's still going to be at least one diesel engine in the 801s. I thought they had decided there were so many engine-equipped cars that it wasn't worth having a third basic design of vehicle (driving vehice, engine car and non-engine intermediate) so just have one design for the driving vehicles and one standard design for all intermediate coaches.
Actually there are three designs of vehicles! Working inwards from the end driving/pantograph car the next coach has a 10 deg ramped floor from the vestibule up to the raised floor level which then continues along the train to the corresponding ramp down at the other end.

So there are the pantograph car shell, the ramped floor shell and the high floor shell.

A couple of other points which follow from the high floor. There is apparently no room on the roof for the 25kV vacuum circuit breaker (its usual position on UK rolling stock) so it will be mounted in a box on the underframe. There are two power busbars: a 25kV one along the roof connecting the pantographs and a 2,600v DC link to supply hotel power to all the coaches, and traction power for the motor coaches, from the transformer and rectifier coaches.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on November 25, 2015, 01:48:55 pm
Actually there are three designs of vehicles! Working inwards from the end driving/pantograph car the next coach has a 10 deg ramped floor from the vestibule up to the raised floor level which then continues along the train to the corresponding ramp down at the other end.

So there are the pantograph car shell, the ramped floor shell and the high floor shell.
Interesting, I thought all the intermediate (high-floor) coaches would have vestibules floors at the same level as the (low-floor) driving vehicles, with ramps in every intermediate coach (so the step up from platform to vestibule would be the same on every coach).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on November 25, 2015, 02:11:12 pm
How much higher are the floors than in existing cocahes?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on November 25, 2015, 10:18:52 pm
How much higher are the floors than in existing cocahes?

I don't have my notes to hand, but if I remember correctly it's about 6 inches.

Interesting, I thought all the intermediate (high-floor) coaches would have vestibules floors at the same level as the (low-floor) driving vehicles, with ramps in every intermediate coach (so the step up from platform to vestibule would be the same on every coach).

That's what I had also thought but a table was shown of the different body type code numbers and a little pictogram of a slope and as far as I could see only two coaches in each rake had these.

If the high floor level does go all the way through it will be quite a step up to get into the intermediate coaches.

I really hope that I misinterpreted the slide...!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on December 03, 2015, 09:24:57 pm
Railway Gazette have had a poke about in North Pole depot. Tweeted some pictures of the Class 800 within:

https://twitter.com/railwaygazette/status/672024453291909120


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on December 03, 2015, 09:45:52 pm
How much higher are the floors than in existing coaches?
I don't have my notes to hand, but if I remember correctly it's about 6 inches.
I would say that an extra 6" would be unusable at Foregate Street.
A sudden vision of these trains not being allowed to stop there.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on December 04, 2015, 10:21:41 am
From a description Roger Ford gave in Modern Railways i believe the floor slopes down to the doors at each end of the carriage.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on December 04, 2015, 12:14:56 pm
Ah, the mythical double-deck trains, with passengers on the upper deck and the engines on the lower deck.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on December 05, 2015, 09:50:50 pm
How much higher are the floors than in existing coaches?
I don't have my notes to hand, but if I remember correctly it's about 6 inches.
I would say that an extra 6" would be unusable at Foregate Street.
A sudden vision of these trains not being allowed to stop there.

It's probably best that we don't tell Btline about that, then.  :-X ;) :D ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on December 06, 2015, 06:24:07 pm
From a description Roger Ford gave in Modern Railways i believe the floor slopes down to the doors at each end of the carriage.
Which I had in mind when the presenter at the IMechE meeting showed his slide. I really hope that Roger Ford is correct and I have mis-interpreted the image. We shall see. (But there really were only two 'slope-y floor' pictograms...!)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on December 22, 2015, 07:39:59 pm
From the Railway Gazette (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/europe/single-view/view/great-western-at300-trainsets-to-be-built-in-italy.html?)

Quote
UK: Hitachi announced on December 22 that the AT300 trainsets ordered for Great Western Railway are to be manufactured at Hitachi Rail Italy^s plant at Pistoia in Italy.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on December 22, 2015, 09:44:10 pm
It would seem Hitachi Rail Europe are making a serious attempt at muscling into the European train building market.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 81F on December 23, 2015, 09:06:09 am
Is this the rolling stock manufacturing plant in Italy that produced rolling stock for the Dutch-Belgian Fyra high-speed service that was of such quality that the trains were rejected and sent back?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on December 23, 2015, 09:52:04 am
Same plant, new owners. Hitachi Rail Europe purchased AnsaldoBreda from Finmechanica in early November 2015.

http://italy.hitachirail.com/en/sale-of-ansaldobreda-and-ansaldo-sts_472.html

Japanese management and production techniques should see a better end product. The AT300s are a close relation to the Class 800/801s rather than a whole new design, so teething problems should also be less of an issue. Provided they are put together properly. Build quality was one of the major issues with the Fyra trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on December 23, 2015, 08:21:22 pm
I'm a bit confused with all these class names and numbers. AFAIUI: 800 = fully electric high-speed train, 801 = same with additional diesel engine ^ the "bimode"; so what's an AT300?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bradshaw on December 23, 2015, 08:40:13 pm
My understanding is that they are basically the same thing, both bimodes.

However in normal service the 801s will have had their Diesel engines down rated. The AT300s are on full rating to give them the power they need for the South West.

Theoretically the 801s could be up rated to keep to the 125 mph if it is decided to go with them if the wires do not reach as far as they hoped in the time.

Roger Ford's " Informed Sources" in Modern Railways over the past few months provides more detail.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on December 23, 2015, 09:03:39 pm
I'm a bit confused with all these class names and numbers. AFAIUI: 800 = fully electric high-speed train, 801 = same with additional diesel engine ^ the "bimode"; so what's an AT300?

I'll try to explain though this is a layman's understanding. Hitachi has a number of train "platforms" or families - basically AT100 are inner suburban units, AT200 outer suburban/inter-urban (as being bought for Edinburgh-Glasgow) and AT300 inter-city (http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-300-high-speed_47.html). The IEP class 800s (bi-mode) and 801 (straight electric) are based on the AT300 platform as is the class 802 for GWR West Country services which will also be bi-mode. The main differences between the class 800 and 802s being different software control of engine output when running on diesel and different interior layouts.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on December 24, 2015, 02:20:28 pm
Thanks, DP, very clear.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on December 24, 2015, 02:45:14 pm
I'm a bit confused with all these class names and numbers. AFAIUI: 800 = fully electric high-speed train, 801 = same with additional diesel engine ^ the "bimode"; so what's an AT300?
As DidcotPunter has said, AT300 is Hitachi's Intercity train family. The Great Western is/was planned to have three variants of the AT300, which include the class 800 and 801 units built under the Intercity Express Programme (IEP). The third variant some are calling class 802, but some have confusingly used the family name AT300 to refer to only the class 802s (before the class 802 name was known, even now I'm not sure it has been explictly confirmed). The class 802s have been procured in a more conventional maner than the IEP fleet.

I don't think Bradshaw is entirely correct, although on the right lines that some engines will be down rated. I believe it is as follows:
  • Class 802 - 3 diesel engines per 5-car set, engine software set to full power
  • Class 800 - 3 diesel engines per 5-car set, engine software set to down rate engines, unless one fails in which case the remaining two will go full-power
  • Class 801 - 1 diesel engine per 5-car set (GW ones planned would be 9-car, which may have 2 engines or 1 I'm not sure), possibly down-rated by the engine software but I don't know

There are no "fully electric high-speed train" units for the Great Western, the class 801s which some call an electric (because, operationally, it might as well be) will have at least one diesel engine per set but these will only be able to move very slowly without electricity from the overhead wires.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on April 05, 2016, 11:08:56 pm
...
I don't think Bradshaw is entirely correct, although on the right lines that some engines will be down rated. I believe it is as follows:
  • Class 802 - 3 diesel engines per 5-car set, engine software set to full power
  • Class 800 - 3 diesel engines per 5-car set, engine software set to down rate engines, unless one fails in which case the remaining two will go full-power
  • Class 801 - 1 diesel engine per 5-car set (GW ones planned would be 9-car, which may have 2 engines or 1 I'm not sure), possibly down-rated by the engine software but I don't know

There are no "fully electric high-speed train" units for the Great Western, the class 801s which some call an electric (because, operationally, it might as well be) will have at least one diesel engine per set but these will only be able to move very slowly without electricity from the overhead wires.

There were some written questions in the Commons about this 100 mi/hr speed limit issue:
Quote
Asked on: 04 June 2015
Department for Transport
Rolling Stock: Procurement

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 2 June 2015 to Question 395, what the maximum permitted line speed of the bi-modal IEP train in regular service will be when that train is running on (a) diesel and (b) electric power.

Answered by: Claire Perry Answered on: 09 June 2015

The current maximum permitted line speed of a bi-modal IEP train in regular service when running on (a) diesel and (b) electric power is 125 miles per hour.

Asked by Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South)
Asked on: 12 June 2015
Department for Transport
Rolling Stock: Procurement

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 9 June 2015 to Question 1261, whether bi-modal IEP trains running on diesel power will be capable of running at the maximum permitted linespeed of 125 miles per hour.

Answered by: Claire Perry Answered on: 17 June 2015

The testing programme has demonstrated that the IEP train is capable of running at 125 miles per hour on diesel. Passengers can expect journey time improvements of circa 15 minutes on the routes served.

Asked by Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South)
Asked on: 23 June 2015
Department for Transport
Rolling Stock: Procurement

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how long it will take for (a) electric IEP trains and (b) other bi-mode IEP trains running on diesel to reach 125 mph on flat and straight track in (i) five and (ii) nine car formations.

Answered by: Claire Perry Answered on: 29 June 2015

The maximum speed of the bi-mode and electric IEP trains in regular service will be the maximum permitted line speed.

The information relating to electric and bi-mode IEP trains in 5 and 9 car formations can be found in the Train Technical Specification available on the Department of Transport website.

Asked by Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South)

The answers were given under Claire Perry's name, but I expect she had help from someone more closely involved with IEP. Persistent, that Lilian Greenwood, isn't she?

While some answers are evasive, the main point (emboldened) is exactly what I had always suspected - there is no technical reason to put an extra speed limit into the control software specifically for operation off diesel power.

The train controller may need to consult other bits of software before raising the speed, whether its power comes off 25 kV or from the on-board generator. For example a temperature reading may tell it that something can't run at higher power. The generator controllers will report whether they can provide more power, which will depend on the auxiliary load among other things, and that is the issue here. If more power is available, why would the train controller apply a lower speed of 100 mi/hr if it can go faster?

Roger Ford says these 750700 kW engines are limited in ordinary running to 560 kW, but can go to full power if an engine is lost. That confirms it's just software. The power level should not be part of the contract, though. That should reflect the requirement, which had a timing - 141 minutes - for the run from Paddington to Hereford (and also Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness).

If it can't do the timing, presumably they have to turn that power limit up. It is, after all, only software. It may even be just a single constant value.

Oh, and there is one generator per 801 unit up to 9-car, and two for longer ones if that happens.

[Corrected typo in power.]


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on April 06, 2016, 11:30:31 am
I thought that the 5 car nominally electric sets were to have one diesel engine, and the 9 car sets were to have two engines.
The above suggests that the 9 car sets are to have but a single engine. Presumably run at full power when called upon, but 750KW does not seem much to move a 9 car train AND supply hotel power.
I appreciate that the diesel power unit(s) fitted to the nominally electric unit are intended only for limited operation at low speeds, but only 750KW still seems very little. Does anyone know what speed is to be attained on diesel ? hopefully at least 25MPH ? even on a hot day with the air conditioning running flat out on a crowded train.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on April 06, 2016, 11:33:45 am
I'd heard 5mph and only local movement - ie to enable pax to disembark at the next station, or for movement within depots


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on April 06, 2016, 11:57:45 am
If in an area with significant distances between stations, 5MPH would be very restrictive indeed. And obviously no realistic option for even short diversions via non electrified routes.
25 or 30 MPH would probably have compared favourably with attaching a loco, or a bus transfer, but 5 MPH! no way.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on April 06, 2016, 12:14:52 pm
Would still be quicker than detraining pax in countryside & transporting them via bus from nearest road. Don't forget that wires down will mean no other loco can reach yours


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on April 06, 2016, 12:26:39 pm
The generators in 801s are supposed to run hotel services for a unit when loco-hauled, so presumably they reckon 700 kW is enough for that. Each motored car (of five) has an auxiliary power unit rated at 240 kW, but that could be far more than is expected as a demand.

When a train needs to be moved, I expect the aircon (and perhaps some other things) will be shut down for a few minutes. That shouldn't be a big problem unless it has a long hill to climb. But, realistically, shifting 400 t of train up 1 in 100 at 20 mi/hr takes a lot less power that you would think - like 350 kW. And on the flat, it takes hardly any power to keep it moving at 30 mi/hr - 116 kW, by my reckoning.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on April 06, 2016, 12:43:41 pm
30mph 'off the wires' IIRC, I'm guessing the longest distance that would be needed would be Swindon to Bristol Parkway.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on April 06, 2016, 12:54:31 pm
30 MPH of the wires sounds useful and would permit of diversions off electrified routes and also of excursions or specials to non electrified branches.
5 MPH as suggested in a previous post is only a little better than nothing.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on April 06, 2016, 02:00:26 pm
Please understand this engine would only be used in times of needing to move under own power, not for likes of excursions.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on April 06, 2016, 03:03:21 pm
 You may be interested in this article from a Hitachi house magazine*. It's from 2014, but I've not seen it before. It should provide a reliable source, and includes some new points, but I still can't make sense of some of the numbers here and in the requirement.

1. In this paper (as elsewhere) a lot is made of the lightweight construction. But in issue 1 of the requirement (2007, issued with the ITT), that was to be less than 362 tonnes for a 260 m (10-car) electric unit, while in issue 5 (2012, part of the contract) it is allowed to be 399.8 tonnes for a 234 m (9-car) electric unit. Presumably Hitachi's design needs that higher limit, since they were preferred supplier for some time before that last issue.

That's a pretty big jump - so much for light-weight aluminium bodies! For comparison, that is from 1.39 t/m to 1/71 t/m, while a TGV R^seau with more power and taller bodies is 1.91 t/m. But TGVs have always had a big weight problem (those shared bogies and a 17 t axle-load limit), so just beating that is doing pretty well. It's the original requirement, for less than 1.4 t/m,that looks wildly optimistic.

2. The paper gives the train make-up as DPTS + MS + MS + MC + DPTF (5 cars) and DPTS + MS + MS + TS + MS + TS+ MC + MF + DPTF (9 cars). It also shows a "traction system" (unit) as containing one (optional) generator driving four motors, which only makes sense if they are all on the one motor carriage.

Now, the requirement allows a slightly slower journey time for even-numbered train lengths, so if that is based on this design it suggests the added carriage will be a trailer. (It also suggest an unhealthy leakage between "requirement space" and "solution space".) So adding a carriage to the current trains will slow them down.

3. Hitachi quote an acceleration 0.7 m/s/s, much better than the "expected performance" curve in the requirement Issue 1. That had 0.58 m/s/s up to a knee at 53 km/hr, and constant-power curve above it. Issue 5 has a similar curve, but says:
Quote
N028 The IEP Trains must, at all speeds, accelerate at a rate no greater than that defined in the graph below, unless higher rates of acceleration are demonstrated to be compatible with the infrastructure:
Just how better acceleration might be incompatible with the infrastructure I am not sure.

Anyway, this curve is 0.75 m/s/s up to a knee at 45 km/hr, and a constant power above that that is only marginally lower than in the previous curve. It's possible to work out what power that is, given likely values for mass and drag, and for the 9-car 801 it is about 3600 kW.

4. The traction motor rating is given as 226 kW. I can't find a definitive statement that there is always one engine and four motors per motor carriage, but that seems to be the general view.

Now one motor per axle at 4520 kW looks a bit over the top, but if it is designed to reach 140 mi/hr or more, even uphill, maybe that's what it takes. A typical TGV has 8800 kW for about the same mass, but a bigger frontal area, and a speed of "only" 200 mi/hr or less. Given that at high power air resistance dominates, and goes up with velocity squared, that IEP power does look about right.

It may even be too much - in the sense that it can reach its maximum allowed acceleration at all speeds with less than its full power, and that may be so even with an extra trailer to make a 10-car.

5. The diesels, however, are giving much less, especially on the 9-car bi-modes (for the ECML), and even more so if stretched by adding a trailer. This paper says that each diesel generator is rated at 700 kW, which is certainly what MTU say for this model number. Sources (such as WikiPedia, but largely Roger Ford) say the class 800s only have 560 kW from each engine (versus 904 kW for the motors), while the 802s will have the full 700 kW. Bear in mind that the auxiliary power has to come from the diesels, but is additional to the traction power.

I suspect this is reading too much into a (now off-line) Hitachi press statement. Since Roger Ford has also said the 700 kW is still available if an engine shuts down, that means it's just software that fixes this power limit. And if the power is in fact too low to keep to the timetable? Hitachi have committed to the timings in the requirement, not the power power engine, so presumably they would need to tweak the code a bit.

I wonder how much extra short-term power output can be made available by shutting down auxiliaries, both obvious (aircon) and less so (including some internal engine functions). If that's not possible, 2800 kW less auxiliaries (by implication less than 560 kW) does look very low compared to 4520 kW.

Of course there may be mis-statements even in this source. For example: "Because the coupling or uncoupling of cars in a trainset occurs during commercial service at an intermediate station, the automatic coupling device is able to perform this operation in less than 2 minutes." Oh no it's not! The requirement says:
Quote
TS1980 The design of the IEP Units must ensure the time to add or remove Intermediate IEP Vehicle is minimised and is in any event no greater than 8 hours.
TS1589 With regards to IEP Unit reconfiguration it must be possible to reconfigure software and control systems within 15 minutes when Intermediate IEP Vehicles have been added, removed or replaced.

*"Development of Class 800/801 High-speed Rolling Stock for UK Intercity Express Programme"; Hitachi Review Vol. 63 (2014), No. 10 p 647
http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf (http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf)



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on April 06, 2016, 04:31:43 pm
30mph 'off the wires' IIRC, I'm guessing the longest distance that would be needed would be Swindon to Bristol Parkway.

30mph is what I thought as well, and is backed up with what's contained in the original train specification:

"TS1949
Limited Movement:
Limited Movement is defined as the ability whilst with a Crush Laden Load to:

^ on level track, reach a speed of at least 30mph from stationary within 5 minutes,
^ start on and climb any gradient encountered on the IEP Network,
^ start on and climb a gradient of 1 in 37.

It is accepted that 30mph may not be achieved whilst climbing gradients."


So, accepting that certain aspects of that specification have since changed, I would be very surprised if that has changed to as little as the 5mph ChrisB is suggesting!

I do agree with him that it will be only used on the main line when dealing with infrastructure failure or train failure.  Excursions or specials will no doubt just use a bi-mode set!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on April 06, 2016, 05:40:52 pm
Of course there may be mis-statements even in this source. For example: "Because the coupling or uncoupling of cars in a trainset occurs during commercial service at an intermediate station...
Surely that part of the source document is attempting to describe multiple operation, and splitting/joining of more than one trainset in servcice, e.g. 5+5?

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on April 06, 2016, 05:50:36 pm
Of course there may be mis-statements even in this source. For example: "Because the coupling or uncoupling of cars in a trainset occurs during commercial service at an intermediate station...
Surely that part of the source document is attempting to describe multiple operation, and splitting/joining of more than one trainset in servcice, e.g. 5+5?

Paul

Of course it is, but it says "trainset", a word it uses elsewhere to mean "unit". It also says that a twelve-car train has to be made up of more than one unit:
Quote
The 12-car maximum configuration for commercial operation is formed by linking two trainsets together and adding or removing standardized intermediate cars.
which is not what the requirement says.

This kind of article for a house magazine ought to be written to the standards of technical journal, though its audience is wider. However, often they are written by managers senior enough to be out of touch with the smaller details. Most of the authors being Japanese probably doesn't help either.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on April 06, 2016, 06:23:06 pm
So, accepting that certain aspects of that specification have since changed...

That requirement was marked "Issue 05 19/07/12 Formal Issue for Contract", and the contract was signed in July 2012. So I've been assuming that any further change to that requirement could only be made by a formal contract renegotiation; not something you'd do unless it really mattered.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on April 06, 2016, 07:33:02 pm
I hadn't realised it was so recent.  So, there we have it - 30mph unless on a steep uphill gradient.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on April 06, 2016, 09:23:53 pm
I hadn't realised it was so recent.  So, there we have it - 30mph unless on a steep uphill gradient.

As said before, the longest stretch this will be needed for is just out of Swindon to Bristol Parkway, then to the depot a mile away.

The train controller may need to consult other bits of software before raising the speed, whether its power comes off 25 kV or from the on-board generator. For example a temperature reading may tell it that something can't run at higher power. The generator controllers will report whether they can provide more power, which will depend on the auxiliary load among other things, and that is the issue here. If more power is available, why would the train controller apply a lower speed of 100 mi/hr if it can go faster?

Aye, ye cannae beat the laws o' physics!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on April 10, 2016, 11:26:15 am
5. The diesels, however, are giving much less, especially on the 9-car bi-modes (for the ECML), and even more so if stretched by adding a trailer. This paper says that each diesel generator is rated at 700 kW, which is certainly what MTU say for this model number. Sources (such as WikiPedia, but largely Roger Ford) say the class 800s only have 560 kW from each engine (versus 904 kW for the motors), while the 802s will have the full 700 kW. Bear in mind that the auxiliary power has to come from the diesels, but is additional to the traction power.

Interesting video of the Virgin Trains East Coast launch train from a few weeks back accelerating away from a stop on diesel power.  Acceleration, at low speed at least, looks pretty decent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9w9amWKhV4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9w9amWKhV4)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on April 10, 2016, 12:31:04 pm
Interesting video of the Virgin Trains East Coast launch train from a few weeks back accelerating away from a stop on diesel power.  Acceleration, at low speed at least, looks pretty decent.

And so it should - it won't be power-limited until around 18 mi/hr. Below that it's limited by adhesion, the force (not strictly TE) from the motor/drive systems, or the controller setting an acceleration limit (which may be based the first two things). As the engine's weight sits on the motored axles, even that gives it (in theory) more adhesion and potential force at low speed.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on May 10, 2016, 01:04:52 pm
Apparently an IEP ran to Reading West Jn and back yesterday evening, en route from North Pole to Old Dalby

There's a video on youtube of it passing through Twyford platform 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7lR5wfj54Q

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on May 10, 2016, 01:14:21 pm
In Virgin colours too....


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: patch38 on May 10, 2016, 01:18:23 pm
Detail from Realtime Trains (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97582/2016/05/09/advanced)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on May 10, 2016, 01:29:12 pm
So would it have had a GWR pilot?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on May 10, 2016, 02:05:25 pm
So would it have had a GWR pilot?

I think GBRf are responsible to Hitachi while testing - they'll use drivers with both route and traction knowledge surely?

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Thatcham Crossing on May 10, 2016, 06:21:29 pm
Great to see, but a strange route to come down to Reading and back up to Acton en-route to Old Dalby. No doubt there was a good reason.

Looked like it was shifting along under diesel power too :-)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on May 10, 2016, 06:34:09 pm
GBRf with IEP traction knowledge?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 10, 2016, 07:24:08 pm
Yes, GBRf are the only staff that sign them at the moment IIRC.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on May 10, 2016, 10:31:53 pm
GBRf with IEP traction knowledge?

GBRf do a lot of the empty passenger stock movements for TOC where the moves are off of the routes normally signed by the TOC drivers; for example GTR Thameslink move 319 via the West and North London Lines from the Southern routes to Hornsey for wheel turning.  The class 700 are being test driven by GBRf

Great to see, but a strange route to come down to Reading and back up to Acton en-route to Old Dalby. No doubt there was a good reason.

Looked like it was shifting along under diesel power too :-)


Was possibly a pre test run in readiness for Septembers 25kV running between Didcot and Reading (Tilehurst)

The only way it could run through Twyford currently was under its own diesel power, the 5 bi car modes are capable of 110 mph


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on May 11, 2016, 11:23:24 am
The problem coming from North Pole is that it is facing Padd and therefore has to reverse to get to Acton and reverse to get to Acton Wells.

This can no longer be done in Acton Yard as there is now no connection from the Relief Lines in the Down Direction into the East End of Acton Yard.

It could have run via Grennford East and West Ealing to be facing up to Acton Wells but that would reverse the train.

Otherwise it could have reversed at Southall Slough Reading but again that would reverse the train.

Looking at the Reading times it looks as if it reversed round the Triangle. So as to have the Padd end facing Padd.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on May 11, 2016, 11:37:05 am

Looking at the Reading times it looks as if it reversed round the Triangle. So as to have the Padd end facing Padd.

I don't think it necessarily did.  It spent 45 mins west of Reading, in the UPL (up passenger loop), having run via Reading West Junction, which is where the west curve meets the reliefs alongside the depot.   To use the triangle it would have had to appear at Reading West Station via Oxford Rd Junction.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on May 11, 2016, 01:44:57 pm
Maybe they wanted to give it a run!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on May 12, 2016, 07:24:11 pm
The problem coming from North Pole is that it is facing Padd and therefore has to reverse to get to Acton and reverse to get to Acton Wells.


North Pole still has its back door escape route onto the West London Line, so it could work that route and enter the GWML via the Popular's and Acton Yard


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on May 18, 2016, 02:38:28 pm
Seems its now got even further west....where's this?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ciqh_ZjWYAEnF33.jpg)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chrisr_75 on May 18, 2016, 02:39:29 pm
As is fairly clearly marked on the wall of the car park, Bristol Parkway  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on May 18, 2016, 02:53:11 pm
A bit of a giveaway!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chrisr_75 on May 18, 2016, 03:33:51 pm
A bit of a giveaway!

Yep! More effort next time please!  ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on May 26, 2016, 04:38:20 pm
A DfT written answer to PMQ has finally confirmed the expected delivery of all GW IEPs as bi-mode variants:

Quote
Following the receipt of a formal proposal from Agility Trains West Ltd, My Rt Hon Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport has now approved the conversion of the 21 Class 801 Intercity Express Programme units scheduled for deployment on the Great Western to bi-mode operation. This will enable passengers in the South West and Wales to benefit as soon as possible from brand new trains which will deliver more capacity and more comfort. The first 36 trains will be bi-mode as planned.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-05-18/37456/



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on May 26, 2016, 05:26:00 pm
What of their top speed capability? Will the diesels be uprated to run at 125mph where line speed allows. Or will the 'benefit as soon as possible' be slower journey times?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 26, 2016, 08:40:40 pm
What of their top speed capability? Will the diesels be uprated to run at 125mph where line speed allows. Or will the 'benefit as soon as possible' be slower journey times?

Provided the wires are up as far as Bristol Parkway at least then I reckon a bi-mode running on diesel will match or beat the point-to-point timings, and beat the station dwell times of the current HST fleet west of BPW. I doubt they'd be huge differences east of there as well - especially if the extra trains with fewer stops can operate as planned.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on May 26, 2016, 08:59:23 pm
What of their top speed capability? Will the diesels be uprated to run at 125mph where line speed allows. Or will the 'benefit as soon as possible' be slower journey times?

I seem to recall confirmation a few months ago that they would be running at 125mph, although I can't put my finger on where at the moment.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on May 26, 2016, 10:22:13 pm
What of their top speed capability? Will the diesels be uprated to run at 125mph where line speed allows. Or will the 'benefit as soon as possible' be slower journey times?

I seem to recall confirmation a few months ago that they would be running at 125mph, although I can't put my finger on where at the moment.

It was in parliamentary answers - see here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10150.msg193435#msg193435). Basically, if there is enough power to run at 125 mi/hr, given the gradient, the train will do it when asked to.

But note that was said of class 800s, not 9-car bi-modes (whatever class they are). That statement should apply in both cases, but the power needed and available are both different. Three engines per 5 cars is a little more than five per nine cars, but then the drag per car is less for the longer train. So it's not clear which would run faster overall.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on May 27, 2016, 06:12:07 am
In the longer term, "all GWR IEPs are bimode" does allow for diversions of Bath and Bristol trains via the Berks and Hants, and Paddington trains into Waterloo or Marylebone when there's ongoing engineering, signal problems between Swindon and Chippenham, or one of those too-frequent 'person hit by train' incidents on the normal run into London.  Of course, once the current engineering's completed, there will be nothing to do done for a further 30 years and then we'll get another backlog.     Also relieves the cascade / releases HSTs to Scotland, and has us some bright shiny new trains in places like Chippenham and Bath by May 2020 - not that that would have been a consideration at all.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on May 27, 2016, 08:25:22 am
Another scenario is that as electrification is completed and extended, the bi-modes are cascaded onto other part electrified routes and replaced with new all electric trains.  Particularly as, I assume, that the bi-modes are more expensive than all electric.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 27, 2016, 09:28:13 am
It's in the spec that bi-modes can have their engines removed (bar one) and become easily converted to electric units.  I should imagine that is what will happen when the wires reach Swansea and Temple Meads via Bath.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Noggin on May 27, 2016, 01:08:10 pm
It's in the spec that bi-modes can have their engines removed (bar one) and become easily converted to electric units.  I should imagine that is what will happen when the wires reach Swansea and Temple Meads via Bath.

I was going to say that they could be cascaded to cross-country or another franchise, but remembering that they are the initial batch procured by the DfT that were a lot more expensive and of a lesser spec than the AT300s, then I suspect you're right and they'll just have their engines removed. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on May 29, 2016, 10:58:21 am
What is the maximum length IEP that can run in passenger service ?

I appreciate that train lengths are unlikely to routinely exceed 10 vehicles, partly due to platform length limitations. But would the odd 5+5+5 or 9+5 formation be possible ?

The ability to run the odd extra length train at especially busy times could be valuable. Something like 14 or 15 coaches from Paddington to Taunton with 5 vehicles being detached at Taunton.
AFAIK one platform at Paddington can take 15 coaches, I recall Diesel loco+14+steamer and tender.
Taunton has plenty of room.

I have previously doubted that enough stock will be available to ensure that all busy services are full length, but of course more might be ordered ? With rapidly growing passenger numbers and a limited number of paths, longer trains are going to be more needed.

Also is it yet known if the IEPs and the AT300s will be able to run in multiple ?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on May 29, 2016, 11:16:35 am
Quail would seem to imply that Taunton, Exeter St D and Plymouth could take the longer trains. So platform length may not be a limitation, although other operational aspects and technical aspects of the train could still be.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on May 29, 2016, 11:20:45 am
What is the maximum length IEP that can run in passenger service ?

The requirement for passenger workings is quite simple:
Quote
3.2 Multiple working
TS231 All IEP Trains must deliver full Multiple Working in normal passenger service with other IEP Trains (of any type) within the following constraints;
^ Up to a maximum of two IEP Units; and
^ Up to a maximum total multiple length of 312m.
And when operating in Multiple Working within such constraints, there shall be full control of such systems throughout the train that are capable of being controlled from the cab of a single IEP Unit such that there is no difference in functionality between a single IEP Unit and an IEP Train formed from two IEP Units coupled together.
312 m is 12-car length, of course. However, as always with specifications, nothing requires longer trains not to be possible should the supplier wish to provide for that.
(There are much more complicated requirements for rescue with mixed types.)

Quote
Also is it yet known if the IEPs and the AT300s will be able to run in multiple ?

I guess that would depend on the contract for the newer trains, but it would be very odd of they are not "IEP Units"s in the sense used above.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 29, 2016, 11:41:25 am
Quail would seem to imply that Taunton, Exeter St D and Plymouth could take the longer trains. So platform length may not be a limitation, although other operational aspects and technical aspects of the train could still be.

According to the Sectional Appendix, Paddington's longest platform is 307m, Exeter's is 323m, and Plymouth's is 300m.  Though the operational length would likely be shorter when you consider the location of signals, stopping margins, and so on.  A 10-car IEP train weights in at around the 255m mark, so I would doubt that would ever be exceeded in the short to medium term given the number of locations available for longer and the number of platforms at those locations that would be suitable.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on May 29, 2016, 12:02:21 pm
Paddington Platforms 1-5 starting signals are going to be moved out to allow longer trains to use them. Need to dig out the signalling scheme plan to check by how much though......


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on May 29, 2016, 12:33:05 pm
Quail would seem to imply that Taunton, Exeter St D and Plymouth could take the longer trains. So platform length may not be a limitation, although other operational aspects and technical aspects of the train could still be.

According to the Sectional Appendix, Paddington's longest platform is 307m, Exeter's is 323m, and Plymouth's is 300m.  Though the operational length would likely be shorter when you consider the location of signals, stopping margins, and so on.  A 10-car IEP train weights in at around the 255m mark, so I would doubt that would ever be exceeded in the short to medium term given the number of locations available for longer and the number of platforms at those locations that would be suitable.

Ah, just looked at the notes for Quail, and they are based on a 20m nominal length per car.  So somewhat misleading when considering a 26m IEP!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on May 29, 2016, 07:46:11 pm
Paddington Platforms 1-5 starting signals are going to be moved out to allow longer trains to use them. Need to dig out the signalling scheme plan to check by how much though......

OK from the Signalling Scheme Plan I have access to (Health Warning: May not be current) here are the lengths quoted from the Buffer Stop to the Platform starting signal:

Platform No.1 = 315m (no change)
Platform No.2 = Extended from 253m to 278m
Platform No.3 = Extended from 256m to 278m
Platform No.4 = Extended from 259m to 272m
Platform No.5 = Extended from 261m to 272m


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 29, 2016, 08:37:10 pm
Thanks for those, SandTEngineer.

That will give those five platforms the length required to run 10-car IEP's, with Platforms 8-12 also likely to be able to accommodate at least a 9-car IEP without modifications that should give the flexibility required.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on May 30, 2016, 11:33:18 am
OK just for completeness then:

Platform No.6 = 258m (No Change)
Platform No.7 = 263m (No Change)
Platform No.8 = 279m (No Change)
Platform No.9 = 286m (No Change)
Platform No.10 = 252m (No Change)
Platform No.11 = 291m (No Change)
Platform No.12 = Extended from 184m to 334m
Platform No.13 = Abolished (Platform No.12 extended through site)
Platform No.14 = Extended 148m to 178m


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 30, 2016, 12:27:02 pm
Worth pointing out that although there's no change to the operational length of platform 11, that length will be available to all trains rather than sharing the far end with the line leading into platform 12.  That effectively limits it to a 6-car Turbo currently.  Presumably the mid platform signal will disappear as a result?

By the way, Platform 13 is now temporarily reduced to a 3-car maximum whilst works to combine 12/13 continue.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on May 30, 2016, 01:58:45 pm
I can't find the earlier discussion in the forum, but at the start of CP5 the original (Mar 14) enhancement plan (and the 2 following updates) all had Platform 14 being extended to allow for 12 x 20m EMU services, but then the length details disappeared.   So that seems to have been firmly overtaken by events now.

IIRC the 240m length would have needed to extend right out beyond the throat, so presumably it failed a reality check...

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on June 06, 2016, 03:48:16 pm
OK - class 800 on the left, but what's that on the right?

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/800001.jpg)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on June 06, 2016, 03:55:09 pm
New and intended to be secret "mini pacer" for services that don't justify a full sized pacer.

Or perhaps some form of luggage and bicycle trailer to be attached behind the new trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Western Pathfinder on June 06, 2016, 04:06:05 pm
Breakdown truck !.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on June 06, 2016, 06:22:19 pm
Train crew tea trolley.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Surrey 455 on June 06, 2016, 10:50:01 pm
Its a tug. Because these new trains are unable to reverse, a tug has to be used to push it onto the apron in preparation for take off.  ???

Oh hang on, I might have got a bit confused there. ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Noggin on June 07, 2016, 10:00:12 am
Its a tug. Because these new trains are unable to reverse, a tug has to be used to push it onto the apron in preparation for take off.  ???

Oh hang on, I might have got a bit confused there. ;D

Presume the Italian-built ones will have more reverse than forward gears, just like their tanks ;-)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on June 08, 2016, 10:10:51 pm
Never seen the IEP Popemobile before then?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on June 15, 2016, 12:52:05 am
Looks like a rather large Lego® toy to me ... ?  ::)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ray951 on June 30, 2016, 09:15:11 am
Looks like an IEP in GWR green is being launched today based on this information and picture from the GWRhelp twitter account
https://twitter.com/GWRHelp/status/748214441121091584?lang=en-gb (https://twitter.com/GWRHelp/status/748214441121091584?lang=en-gb)

And for those in the vicinity of Royal Oak or North Pole IEP Depot at 1125, I believe it is this train:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97161/2016/06/30/advanced (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97161/2016/06/30/advanced)

I don't whether it is going anywhere else but there is this train from North Pole to Reading at 1149?
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97162/2016/06/30/advanced (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97162/2016/06/30/advanced)

I am guessing now but could it be this train back to Reading and then Paddington at 1329?
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97163/2016/06/30/advanced (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97163/2016/06/30/advanced)
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97165/2016/06/30/advanced (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97165/2016/06/30/advanced)

Then back to North Pole at 1503
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97164/2016/06/30/advanced (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97164/2016/06/30/advanced)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on June 30, 2016, 09:39:18 am
Today is certainly the day that invites are out [to invited stakeholders, I think] to take a first look at the IEP at Paddington. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Western Pathfinder on June 30, 2016, 09:57:00 am
I saw this on the local points west insert during Breakfast this morning it's forming part of a service from Bristol TM to Paddington it involves a change of Train at Reading I think.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on June 30, 2016, 10:22:37 am
There is an HST from Bristol (one of the green ones) running a special to mark the 175th birthday of Box Tunnel today.   It is due to run through to platform 2 at London Paddington.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ray951 on June 30, 2016, 10:27:30 am
I saw this on the local points west insert during Breakfast this morning it's forming part of a service from Bristol TM to Paddington it involves a change of Train at Reading I think.

Could be this one http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V18264/2016/06/30/advanced (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V18264/2016/06/30/advanced) Leaves Bristol TM at 11:44.

If this is too compare HST to IEP what happens if the guests prefer the HST?  :) :) Of course could be just a way to get the guests from Bristol to Reading and I wonder why the IEP can't run Bristol to Paddington.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on June 30, 2016, 10:29:22 am
Is the IEP cleared for passenger use yet?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ray951 on June 30, 2016, 11:19:48 am
Is the IEP cleared for passenger use yet?

Good point and I don't know.
I assumed that this would be covering journalists etc. but of course could be just a demonstration run with no passengers.
Of course one should never assume.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on June 30, 2016, 11:20:42 am
indeed. Are they even fitted out yet?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on June 30, 2016, 01:57:55 pm
Well, it did carry media from Reading back to Paddington

Rail magazine (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/06/29/gwr-runs-first-bi-mode-iep-class-800-to-paddington?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) reports thus -

Quote
Great Western Railway unveiled its first Intercity Express Programme (IEP) Class 800 at Reading on June 30, carrying invited passengers to London Paddington. The five-car bi-mode train (800004) is the first of 86 trains ordered for the Great Western franchise. The trains will enter traffic from July 2017, introduced initially on services to Bristol and South Wales.

A major timetable change is planned for 2018, and by the end of the GWR franchise the IEP and AT300 fleets will have replaced the five Class 180s and 54 High Speed Trains. GWR will take delivery of 36 five-car bi-mode trains that will enter traffic first, followed by 21 nine-car bi-mode trains (originally ordered as electric multiple units) and 29 AT300s that GWR is including in the ‘800 series’ of trains. They are being built by Hitachi, and are owned by Agility Trains. Depots for the fleet have been constructed at Swansea and Stoke Gifford (Bristol), while Hitachi has taken over the former Eurostar depot at North Pole to house the IEPs.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on June 30, 2016, 03:14:23 pm
It did indeed after the invited guests had been treated to brunch on one of the green HSTs - seen here at Swindon.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/hstswi.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/hstswi1.jpg)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on June 30, 2016, 03:34:17 pm
The IEP arrived on time into Platform 1 at Paddington with the front unit named Isambard Kingdom Brunel and the rear Sir Daniel Gooch.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800front.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800rear.jpg)

From the outside up to roof the coaches are not that dissimilar to the Class 180s but of course the power units are very different.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800names.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800info.jpg)

You wouldn't want to be reforming these sets too often with all these jumpers!

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800jump.jpg)

I spoke to some of those who travelled from Reading. The general consensus was the seats in standard are pretty hard and luggage space might be at a premium on busier services although the overhead luggage racks are bigger. The train ran on diesel power the whole way from Reading to London Paddington but apparently the engines weren't that audible inside.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800std.jpg)

Standard class appears to have decent legroom, while first class has some large tables and power points between the seats.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800first.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800power.jpg)


Spoke to some catering crew and while not using it in anger today they liked the look of the galley and the seating arrangements in first class.

Needless to say it was a bit of a scrum with a lot of media there with everyone trying to keep out of everyone else's shots.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/transsec.jpg)
ITV Meridian interviewing transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin

I had a good first impression as someone who didn't ride on it. It certainly sounded quieter than other trains as it edged into Paddington, the air conditioning was still keeping the train cool after nearly an hour of standing in the platform and it didn't feel too cramped when walking through the coaches.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on June 30, 2016, 03:45:57 pm
Energy goes live Reading/Didcot for this weekend. Maybe testing starts mext week?

The first 387 is due in a couple of weeks, Rail also reported


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 30, 2016, 04:06:22 pm
Possibly testing on diesel, but testing on electric will be a while away yet.  Going live doesn't mean it's ready for trains to use it yet.  I'm sure 'Electric Train' can elaborate as to what will still need to be done.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on June 30, 2016, 04:08:31 pm
Agreed however the thought from some onboard was the train might use the overhead from Airport Junction but given that platform 1 at Paddington isn't wired, perhaps no surprise it didn't.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on June 30, 2016, 04:20:39 pm
No surprise at all.  They'd just have been keeping things as simple as possible and keeping fingers crossed that there was no embarrassing failure!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on June 30, 2016, 04:26:20 pm
I think there were some relieved people when the old pulled in next to the new!

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800hst.jpg)

Note the impromptu IEP stop board...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Timmer on June 30, 2016, 06:49:26 pm
Many thanks for the great pictures Bob.

Having just watched BBC South Today Paul Clifton's report, I have to say I agree with him that First Class looks very grey. After the superb refurb of First class by GWR to the HST fleet, it looks very ordinary. However, I bet the ride on these new trains once running on the overhead wires will be great that will go along way for making up for a basic looking interior.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on June 30, 2016, 08:35:38 pm
Here (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800004.mp4) is an "amateur" video taken by yours truly as the IEP arrived.  (Suggest you don't try to watch this on a mobile not connected to wifi!)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: BBM on June 30, 2016, 10:44:28 pm
The front page of the Business section of tomorrow's edition of The Times has a picture of the train crossing the Thames Bridge at Maidenhead (via @hendopolis on Twitter):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmOrAntWIAEznyH.jpg (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmOrAntWIAEznyH.jpg)



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on July 01, 2016, 09:58:59 am
What's the reason for having the IEP stop short like that rather than going all the way up to the buffers?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on July 01, 2016, 10:40:45 am
I think it was just for convenience on the day.  The invited guests made use of Queen Victoria's waiting room which is midway down the platform and the speeches were made with the leading vehicle as a backdrop.  It would have been more difficult if you had the train pulled right up to the end, someone rushing around the corner from the Lawn would have been in danger of colliding with the great and the good.   


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on July 01, 2016, 11:09:37 am
Makes sense. You wouldn't want paw prints on such a shiny train! Thanks for the video, bobm.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 01, 2016, 02:13:58 pm
Also, the photo op presented them one behind the other, slewed such that both front ends were visible.

Anyone else wondering about the plug socket position? Seems little thought, unlike HSTs - items needing charging will be on the fold-down flaps/tables, not on the arm rest. So your lead (if it will reach) stretches from under arm rest to somewhere in front of you....not clever really


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: patch38 on July 01, 2016, 02:21:53 pm
Better than Danish trains where the sockets are just below the luggage rack. More than once I have nearly strangled myself in the trailing cables.

Only one socket per pair of seats? Arm-wrestle you for it... Although no different to the current (no pun intended) arrangement in Standard, I suppose.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 01, 2016, 02:31:09 pm
Or in first table of four....


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on July 01, 2016, 09:24:44 pm
I shall remember to take a 4-gang extension lead whenever I go anywhere.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 01, 2016, 09:41:00 pm
What's the reason for having the IEP stop short like that rather than going all the way up to the buffers?

Tight up to the stop blocks does would not give the best clear photo image at Paddington.  Also for historic reasons the offices behind the Three Faced Clock with it balconies either side is where the GWR (original) and BR(W) HQ was located up until the 1980's

Also, the photo op presented them one behind the other, slewed such that both front ends were visible.

Anyone else wondering about the plug socket position? Seems little thought, unlike HSTs - items needing charging will be on the fold-down flaps/tables, not on the arm rest. So your lead (if it will reach) stretches from under arm rest to somewhere in front of you....not clever really

The position of the socket seems to be better placed than on the 395's (the Hitachi HS1 trains) on the 395 the sockets a located under the seats in the centre between them very easy to brush past and break your charger if you forgot it is plugged in.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on July 02, 2016, 07:17:46 am
Better than Danish trains where the sockets are just below the luggage rack. More than once I have nearly strangled myself in the trailing cables.

Only one socket per pair of seats? Arm-wrestle you for it... Although no different to the current (no pun intended) arrangement in Standard, I suppose.

As I wasn't part of the official party I only had literally 60 seconds to look at the interior before it was locked up and sent back to North Pole.  As well as the socket between the seats there MAY have been a second one by the window.  I also don't remember seeing any USB sockets - has the feedback on the existing ones in first class on the HSTs not been favourable?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on July 02, 2016, 08:56:58 am

Tight up to the stop blocks does would not give the best clear photo image at Paddington. 


Thanks ET. Once it's explained, it assumes the status of the bleedin' obvious, but until you explained, it was a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a Class 800.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on July 02, 2016, 09:10:13 am
As I wasn't part of the official party I only had literally 60 seconds to look at the interior before it was locked up and sent back to North Pole.  As well as the socket between the seats there MAY have been a second one by the window. 

Having looked at some more of my photos, I can confirm in first class there is a second socket beside the window so there is one per seat.  Annoyingly none of my pictures show what the provision is in standard class.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on July 02, 2016, 10:42:04 am
Thanks for the answers to my question. I had wondered if there was an operational/technical reason, but the photographic/display one makes perfect sense.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on July 02, 2016, 01:30:18 pm
Mrs FT, N! approves of the external styling, even if the technology is from a different planet.

The seats remind me of the newer airline seats. The first time I saw them on boarding a brand-new A330 I thought they looked a little thin and uncomfortable. A four-hour flight from Tenerife later, and I realised that my fears were unfounded, and I cannot sit for long periods in anything uncomfortable. For the airline, the advantage is weight, and thus fuel, and possibly size, with an extra row being squeezed in. I hope the seats on the IEP have a similar design.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on July 02, 2016, 02:20:49 pm
Plusher is by no means always more comfortable, especially over long periods.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on July 03, 2016, 08:09:32 am
If the seats are based on the 395 seats they are comfortable enough.  Although the journey St Pancras to Ashford is only 45 mins there are longer journeys to Ramsgate etc which 90 mins plus I have never found the 395 seats uncomfortable 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 03, 2016, 08:53:25 am
But a 5-hour trip to PNZ may need something better, I feel. Here's hoping


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on July 18, 2016, 01:35:42 pm
First test trains ran on Saturday & Sunday morning.

Railway Gazette (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/electric-test-train-runs-on-great-western-main-line.html?cHash=7e5869fdec5416690fabec16c351c485&Continue=1) has this - including some video on the link above

Quote
UK: The first testing of an electric trainset between Reading and Didcot as part of the Great Western electrification programme was undertaken on the mornings of July 16 and 17, in what infrastructure manager Network Rail said was ‘a major milestone for the electrification project’.

Having arrived from its London depot, the Hitachi Class 800 Intercity Express Train made two test runs from Reading to Didcot at up to 200 km/h to test the newly installed 25 kV 50 Hz overhead electrification equipment. The testing was managed by Network Rail, which is currently electrifying the routes between London Paddington and Bristol, Cardiff, Oxford and Newbury. The Reading – Didcot section has been completed first to serve as a testing ground for the power systems and the trainsets.

‘This is a great step forward, and I’d like to pay tribute to the team who have worked very hard to make this happen’, said Mark Langman, Route Managing Director for Network Rail Western. ‘This is the future of rail being built before our eyes and it’s a very exciting time to be involved in this project.  This weekend we’ve come a big step closer to providing faster, quieter, and more efficient services to the people of the region who depend on railways.’

Electric passenger services are now scheduled to begin ‘from 2019’.

Rail Technology Magazine (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/nr-carries-out-class-800-test-runs-on-great-western) has this - spot the typo

Quote
Network Rail carried out two test runs of a new Class 800 Intercity Express train over the weekend on the recently energised section of the route from Reading to Didcot.

During a series of exercises, designed to test the overhead electric power system, the Class 800 was driven from Reading to Didcot on Saturday and Sunday morning.

Mark Langman, route managing director for Network Rail Western, said: “This is a great step forward, and I’d like to pay tribute to the team who have worked very hard to make this happen.”

He added that over the weekend the team have “come a big step closer to providing faster, quieter, and more efficient services” to the people of the region who depend on railways.

Testing will now continue as construction proceeds on the Greater West programme, with public services scheduled to begin from 2019.

In the latest edition of RTM, we talked to Andy Haynes, project director, West of England, the Greater West Programme, who discussed the complexity of getting the Reading to Didcot section ready for electrification. He also talked about how piling rates have increased using HOPS and installing Furrer+Frey’s new Series 1 OLE system.

During our interview with Haynes, he suggested that the delayed programme, which has also seen its costs balloon, is getting back on track.

However, the ORR recently warned that delivery of Network Rail’s obligations as set out in the new Enhancement Deliver Plan (EDP) are not without risk, particularly in relation to GWML electrification.

The regulator said the key measure will be whether Network Rail is able to test and commission the ‘Series 1’ overhead line system between Tilehurst and Didcot by 20 September. This will provide evidence as to whether Network Rail will be able to successfully complete electrification to Wootton Bassett by December 2017.

Earlier this month, one of Great Western Railway’s Class 800 trains, one of a fleet of 57 designed and built by Hitachi, made its maiden voyage in a special trip from London to Paddington to mark 175 years since the opening of the GWML.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 03, 2016, 10:43:35 am
An announcement this morning confirms 7 more trains to bring the total fleet up to a total of 93,  comprised of 57 IEP, 29 West Country extras, and now these that presumably cope with the slightly decreased number of EMUs following the 387/365 changes made recently:

Quote
UK: Franchised passenger operator Great Western Railway and leasing company Eversholt Rail confirmed an order for an additional seven electro-diesel trainsets from Hitachi Rail Europe on August 3.

The new trainsets will be built at Hitachi Rail Italy’s Pistoia plant. They are in addition to the 57 trainsets which Hitachi is providing for GWR from 2017 under the government’s Intercity Express Programme, and GWR’s separately-financed order for a further 29 trainsets to enter service in 2018.

‘They give us greater flexibility in our fleet to deliver faster, more frequent, services and additional seats for customers, particularly while Network Rail completes the modernisation of the Great Western Main Line’, said GWR Managing Director Mark Hopwood.

Hitachi Rail Europe Managing Director Karen Boswell said Hitachi was ‘pleased GWR and Eversholt Rail Group have exercised one of the options they have with us to increase their fleet. This further strengthens our working relationship with two major customers.’

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on August 03, 2016, 11:09:34 am
Sounds as those are extra AT300s as they're being built in Italy along with the other 29 of these. So 36 AT300s with larger fuel tanks & higher-output engines.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 03, 2016, 11:29:15 am
Bigger fuel tanks and higher rated engines is not what makes the train an AT300,  all trains ordered under the IEP are part of the AT300 family.   So far they come in four versions, known in the UK as classes 395, 800, 801, and 802.

http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-300-high-speed_47.html

However I don't think that it is logically correct to assume this order will necessarily be the same spec as an 802.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on August 03, 2016, 11:36:09 am
The electric class is now presumably dead in the water at GWR as they are all now specified electro-diesel.

So only two classes with GWR - 801 & 802. (the 800 was the electric? I can't remember)

Logic does say they'll be 802s, otherwise they'd be added to the build at Newton Aycliffe, surely?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on August 03, 2016, 11:40:47 am
The electric class is now presumably dead in the water at GWR as they are all now specified electro-diesel.

So only two classes with GWR - 801 & 802. (the 800 was the electric? I can't remember)

Logic does say they'll be 802s, otherwise they'd be added to the build at Newton Aycliffe, surely?

Why? The difference between 802 and (bi-mode) 800 is pretty trivial, much less than between 800 and (electric) 801. The choice of plant was based on capacity, surely.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on August 03, 2016, 11:47:58 am
The 800 engine has had its power reduced, presumably in order to preserve fuel. The 802 hasn't, and has larger fuel tanks, and is the one being constructed in Italy. Surely they won't change the Italian set-up (even by a small amount) if these extra 7 are to be 800s?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 03, 2016, 12:43:09 pm
AIUI the power reduction or increase (depending on viewpoint) is only a software function.   That leaves the fuel tank size, and I'd be surprised if fitting one or other was of much significance once the design has been properly documented.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on August 03, 2016, 03:31:49 pm
Interesting - I'm hearing these extra 7 units are going to be 9car sets.....so looks like you're right, Paul.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TrainSpy on August 03, 2016, 05:59:11 pm
Definitely a follow on of the AT300 order - some reports at the time mentioned an option for additional ones although I get the impression they're being vague because they won't necessarily be used for WoE. All 9 car I hear - assume with the bigger power output and fuel tanks


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on August 03, 2016, 07:19:00 pm
So the 802s will be mixture of 5car & 9car units


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on August 03, 2016, 07:50:21 pm
If they are to replace 387s then I would have thought they were for the Oxford services where 9 car would be needed. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TrainSpy on August 03, 2016, 08:06:21 pm
Why would they replace the 387s? they've only just ordered the new ones...



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on August 03, 2016, 09:11:35 pm
The electric class is now presumably dead in the water at GWR as they are all now specified electro-diesel.

So only two classes with GWR - 801 & 802. (the 800 was the electric? I can't remember)

Logic does say they'll be 802s, otherwise they'd be added to the build at Newton Aycliffe, surely?

Why? The difference between 802 and (bi-mode) 800 is pretty trivial, much less than between 800 and (electric) 801. The choice of plant was based on capacity, surely.
I think the difference between all three classes (800, 801 and 802) is pretty trivial. The 801 is the 'electric' and if I've interpreted what has been written about them correctly they are just the same as the 800s but with fewer diesel-engine coaches. As far as manufacturing is concerned, the larger fuel tanks and different brake system of the class 802s might even be a bigger change than producing 800s versus 801s, but that's just a guess. Although GWR isn't getting 801s anymore, there are still quite a number on-order for the ECML.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on August 03, 2016, 09:19:48 pm
If they are to replace 387s then I would have thought they were for the Oxford services where 9 car would be needed. 
Why would they replace the 387s? they've only just ordered the new ones...


Technically some of the 387s are to replace the class 365s which are no longer heading to our region, these 7 new AT300s will cover for the 'cascaded' 387s


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 03, 2016, 10:41:11 pm
Originally there were to be 58 4 car EMUs, 21 x 365 and 37 x 387.  The recent uplift in 387 numbers was to 45 in total, so on the face of it 21 of them replace the 365s, with another 24 for services originally planned for 387s.

So the shortfall of 4 car EMUs is 13, or 6.5 x 8 car. We need to think what a broad equivalent is in terms of AT300/802, given that they are much longer vehicles. 7 x 9 car would be a really useful capacity increase, getting on for 50% longer trains...

Assuming 160m > 234m train lengths.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on August 04, 2016, 10:16:16 am
Oxford & Cotswolds, yes, I reckon too


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: The Tall Controller on August 04, 2016, 12:09:12 pm
The 7 new 9 car trains will 'cascade' 5 car AT300s to run Bedwyn services.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 04, 2016, 12:48:57 pm
Are we sure they're 9-cars?  Other forums are quite confident they are 5-car units.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Ollie on August 04, 2016, 12:53:34 pm
I've been told they will have 9.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on August 04, 2016, 12:58:57 pm
Quote
Originally there were to be 58 4 car EMUs, 21 x 365 and 37 x 387. 

Originally originally wasn't it just the 29 x 387 before the first of the 8 new ones.

So in the process of a year or two, we've gone from:
•57 IEP units
•29 not quite new class 387s (2-4 years old)
•21 class 365s (20-25 years old)

To:
•93 IEP units
•45 brand new class 387s.

Pretty pleased with that  :)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on August 04, 2016, 01:04:36 pm
Quote
Are we sure they're 9-cars?  Other forums are quite confident they are 5-car units.

I don't speak Italian but this article states 9 coaches:

http://www.lanazione.it/pistoia/hitachi-treni-londra-1.2402438


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 04, 2016, 02:19:12 pm
Are we sure they're 9-cars?  Other forums are quite confident they are 5-car units.

I would presume 5 car.
My natural cynicism says they will be 5 car. If a press release refers to "additional trains" without mentioning the length of said new trains then it is a reasonable assumption that they will be short ones.
If the additional trains ARE to be 9 car then I believe that the press release would have said "9 car ----"


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 04, 2016, 02:35:06 pm
I would presume 5 car.

Certainly some confusion out there.  Ollie's been told 9-car, the article Adelante_CCT linked to says 9-car, ChrisB, TrainSpy and Rob T on here say 9-car.  However several posters on the wnxx forum are confident of 5-car including Mark Hopwood apparently confirming that to staff yesterday. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on August 04, 2016, 02:56:39 pm
Certainly some confusion out there.  Ollie's been told 9-car, the article Adelante_CCT linked to says 9-car, ChrisB, TrainSpy and Rob T on here say 9-car.  However several posters on the wnxx forum are confident of 5-car including Mark Hopwood apparently confirming that to staff yesterday. 

There are usually very well placed and informed sources both saying "9" and saying "5".  I wouldn't like to bet either way at this stage.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 04, 2016, 07:13:59 pm
Quote
Originally there were to be 58 4 car EMUs, 21 x 365 and 37 x 387. 

Originally originally wasn't it just the 29 x 387 before the first of the 8 new ones.


The first concrete mention I saw was in the Direct Award franchise agreement's rolling stock tables, in about April 2015, and it definitely included (and still shows although obviously superseded) both the 29 that would have originally come from GTR, and a separate 8 new build.   Note that delivery of the extra 8 was originally due next January, before the last batches from GTR.

The original plan had the following, page 147, but now only if academic interest as both numbers and dates are overtaken by events:

Quote
Note i:
29 Class 387 units (116 vehicles) are delivered in four distinct phases:
- 6 units by end of March 2016;
- 4 units by end of April 2016;
- 8 units by end of February 2017; and
- 11 units by end of March 2017
Additional 8 Class 387 units:
Delivery is based on final acceptance, which is at a rate of 2 units every two weeks starting in the second week of January 2017.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486668/red-fgw-franchise-agreement.pdf

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on August 04, 2016, 07:18:33 pm
Quote
Are we sure they're 9-cars?  Other forums are quite confident they are 5-car units.

I don't speak Italian but this article states 9 coaches:

http://www.lanazione.it/pistoia/hitachi-treni-londra-1.2402438

Isn't the price shown looking more like 63 vehicles than 35, at £139 million?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 08, 2016, 03:50:10 pm
I would presume 5 car.

Certainly some confusion out there.  Ollie's been told 9-car, the article Adelante_CCT linked to says 9-car, ChrisB, TrainSpy and Rob T on here say 9-car.  However several posters on the wnxx forum are confident of 5-car including Mark Hopwood apparently confirming that to staff yesterday. 

Looks like the wnxx forum have conceded they are probably wrong, so looking like they'll be 9-car sets.  Excellent news.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on August 31, 2016, 01:29:16 pm
I think we'd worked this out already.....from RAIL (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/08/29/gwr-electrification-uncertainty-raises-timetable-issues?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Quote
GWR electrification uncertainty raises timetable issues

The ability of Great Western Railway’s Class 800 bi-mode electric multiple units to meet current and future timetables is under scrutiny by the train operator, due to their maximum speed in diesel mode of 100mph.Network Rail’s electrification of the Great Western Main Line is taking place on a discontinuous basis, and the trains will have to run on diesel power between energised sections at potentially lower maximum speeds than the current High Speed Trains, which can operate at up to 125mph.However, uncertainty about exactly which sections will go live (and when) means that planning future timetables when the fleet begins entering service from next year is proving extremely difficult. The Class 802s have a design speed of 125mph under electric traction.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on August 31, 2016, 07:49:32 pm
If these additional sets are to be 9 car as now seems probable, then that is indeed good news.

I still have considerable reservations regarding the downgrading from a buffet to a trolley, the reduced first class, and the limited number of tables, but 9 cars is better than 5.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 05, 2016, 11:49:04 am
I think we'd worked this out already.....from RAIL (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/08/29/gwr-electrification-uncertainty-raises-timetable-issues?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Quote
GWR electrification uncertainty raises timetable issues

The ability of Great Western Railway’s Class 800 bi-mode electric multiple units to meet current and future timetables is under scrutiny by the train operator, due to their maximum speed in diesel mode of 100mph.Network Rail’s electrification of the Great Western Main Line is taking place on a discontinuous basis, and the trains will have to run on diesel power between energised sections at potentially lower maximum speeds than the current High Speed Trains, which can operate at up to 125mph.However, uncertainty about exactly which sections will go live (and when) means that planning future timetables when the fleet begins entering service from next year is proving extremely difficult. The Class 802s have a design speed of 125mph under electric traction.

Acceleration / deceleration will also be an issue under diesel power, presumably.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Gordon the Blue Engine on September 05, 2016, 02:06:06 pm
We discussed the issue of journey time being extended when IEP bi-modes take over from HST’s back at the end of April, in the Across the West – GWML Electrification thread, following my tongue-in-cheek suggested PR line of “here are your new trains, it’s now 10 minutes longer to London”.

An exaggeration of course, and we agreed certainly not applicable to N Cotswold services, but in the early days it may not be far off the truth for S Wales services if IEP’s are used before the wires go live to Bristol Parkway. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 05, 2016, 09:52:47 pm
Acceleration would indeed be slower under diesel power, but surely Deceleration would be the same under diesel or electric ? The brakes should work just the same and would not "know" what power source has accelerated the train.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on September 05, 2016, 11:39:17 pm
Acceleration would indeed be slower under diesel power, but surely Deceleration would be the same under diesel or electric ? The brakes should work just the same and would not "know" what power source has accelerated the train.

Not necessarily as I would assume that the IEP would have regenerative braking under the wires. Can you have that under diesel power?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on September 05, 2016, 11:53:50 pm
Acceleration would indeed be slower under diesel power, but surely Deceleration would be the same under diesel or electric ? The brakes should work just the same and would not "know" what power source has accelerated the train.

Not necessarily as I would assume that the IEP would have regenerative braking under the wires. Can you have that under diesel power?

If you are still running with traction motors you could still have rheostatic braking - where the current generated goes into a resistor (rheostat). Don't know if IEP's do that


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on September 06, 2016, 09:32:55 am


If you are still running with traction motors you could still have rheostatic braking - where the current generated goes into a resistor (rheostat). Don't know if IEP's do that

let's hope not.  Isn't it the roof mounted rheostats that short out on Voyagers when sprayed with sea water at Dawlish?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 06, 2016, 11:41:27 am
AIUI from magazine articles all IEPs will have some resistive braking capability, but the 802s will have higher rated resistance banks as they will be used more on that class.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on September 06, 2016, 03:53:35 pm
but the 802s will have higher rated resistance banks as they will be used more on that class.

Paul

Please tell me that they will not be on the roof or otherwise in the way of salt spray!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 06, 2016, 04:26:15 pm
I doubt there's anywhere else they could be - as they need air cooling.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on September 06, 2016, 04:53:41 pm
I doubt there's anywhere else they could be - as they need air cooling.

Paul

So do people, in the summer, and they are allowed inside.

I think the ballast resistance may be quite small, and primarily needed to make the bidirectional inverter work properly, and indeed work without going pop if it momentarily isn't connected to a 25 kV supply.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 21, 2016, 10:43:07 am
So deceleration may indeed be a slight issue...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on September 21, 2016, 11:25:53 am
I doubt there's anywhere else they could be - as they need air cooling.

Paul

I agree,  There isn't anywhere else obvious to put them.  I predict that there will be problems at high tide. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 21, 2016, 11:38:40 am
I doubt there's anywhere else they could be - as they need air cooling.

Paul

I agree,  There isn't anywhere else obvious to put them.  I predict that there will be problems at high tide. 

But not every high tide.  ;D  They come round twice a day normally.   I expect you need some sort of increased sea state as well...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on September 21, 2016, 12:24:57 pm
There is a requirement about sea spray, but it's not very specific as to how much there is nor how hard it's trying to get in:
Quote
TS1983 Full Functionality of the IEP Trains must be maintained during and after exposure to salt water spray and such exposure must not cause excessive cosmetic degradation of exposed surfaces, components and equipment.

And there are a couple of related bad weather requirements:
Quote
TS1844 The IEP Trains must maintain Full Functionality during and after running through floodwater up to a depth of 100mm above rail level although speed restrictions may be applied if necessary.
TS1845 The IEP Trains must maintain Full Functionality during and after running through snow up to a depth of (above rail level):
  • 200mm; continuous operation with no speed restriction; and
  • 300mm; continuous operation is required but reduced speeds are permitted.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on September 21, 2016, 03:18:19 pm
Interesting thanks.  What a mine of information this forum is


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chrisr_75 on September 21, 2016, 05:12:49 pm
There is a requirement about sea spray, but it's not very specific as to how much there is nor how hard it's trying to get in:
Quote
TS1983 Full Functionality of the IEP Trains must be maintained during and after exposure to salt water spray and such exposure must not cause excessive cosmetic degradation of exposed surfaces, components and equipment.

And there are a couple of related bad weather requirements:
Quote
TS1844 The IEP Trains must maintain Full Functionality during and after running through floodwater up to a depth of 100mm above rail level although speed restrictions may be applied if necessary.
TS1845 The IEP Trains must maintain Full Functionality during and after running through snow up to a depth of (above rail level):
  • 200mm; continuous operation with no speed restriction; and
  • 300mm; continuous operation is required but reduced speeds are permitted.

I assume the snow specifications are aimed primarily at the units for the ECML? Sorry if it's been discussed earlier, but are they being built to the exact same specification (except perhaps the interior fit) as the GWML units?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 21, 2016, 06:19:03 pm
Interesting thanks.  What a mine of information this forum is

Some of it useful.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on September 21, 2016, 06:36:01 pm
I assume the snow specifications are aimed primarily at the units for the ECML? Sorry if it's been discussed earlier, but are they being built to the exact same specification (except perhaps the interior fit) as the GWML units?

I think it's more that they might be moved to anywhere (where they would be suitable) later on. Put another way, the design brief didn't say "for use on the GWML/ECML plus a bit further, and will never be used elsewhere at any time in their working life."


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 21, 2016, 06:37:59 pm
Regarding the debate on journey times with IEP's under predominantly diesel power, Barry Doe predicts up to an extra 10 minutes on existing journey times from London to Bristol and Cardiff.  I don't think he'll be correct on this one.  

The top end acceleration of an IEP on diesel will no doubt be worse than a HST, but I expect the low speed acceleration to be better, the braking will be better (anyone who's driven a HST knows how long it takes to apply and release the brakes through the E70 unit!), but most importantly the dwell times at stations will be far better.  I think (as do others) that those factors will largely outweigh the lack of 125mph running on the sections of track where that currently happens.

My main concern is over engine reliability as it will be crucial that all engines are working OK - if a 5-car bi-mode is running on two engines, or a 9-car on four engines, you're looking at very slow acceleration and a maximum of around 70mph on level track (based on how a Class 180 performs on two engines).  That really would affect journey times.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 21, 2016, 06:45:56 pm
Hitachi would have to replace any defective units during turn-rounds. They are contracted to have x number of properly working units in service each day, or they payca penalty


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on September 21, 2016, 06:59:08 pm
Hitachi would have to replace any defective units during turn-rounds. They are contracted to have x number of properly working units in service each day, or they payca penalty

However the original contract would have been predicated on a much lower usage of the diesel engines, and you can bet that any variation on that contract will ensure that they don't get caught out by the units being used to a much greater extent.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 21, 2016, 08:37:48 pm
Indeed, the contract nay be dearer for this, but the T&Cs re availability won't change. There will be a legal requirement for x fully working hnits every day


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chrisr_75 on September 22, 2016, 12:37:47 am
I assume the snow specifications are aimed primarily at the units for the ECML? Sorry if it's been discussed earlier, but are they being built to the exact same specification (except perhaps the interior fit) as the GWML units?

I think it's more that they might be moved to anywhere (where they would be suitable) later on. Put another way, the design brief didn't say "for use on the GWML/ECML plus a bit further, and will never be used elsewhere at any time in their working life."

Thanks, that's pretty much what I had thought, it just came out in slightly different words! I guess this first production run of IEP is perhaps the pioneer of a 'standard' type of intercity rolling stock?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 22, 2016, 08:25:50 am
Indeed, the contract nay be dearer for this, but the T&Cs re availability won't change. There will be a legal requirement for x fully working hnits every day

That's as maybe, but if (and it's just an if) those engines are unreliable and were to fail during the day, then losing an engine would cause more problems than losing an engine on a 180 which is very common.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 22, 2016, 10:19:49 am
but only on the trip it was making at the time - my understanding is that Hitachi would be required to put another into service for its next service


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 22, 2016, 10:24:02 am
Depending on location and time of day that won't often be practicable.  For example a train heading down to the Cotswolds.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 22, 2016, 10:42:39 am
Obviously in conjunction with the TOC getting a driver to the replacement, but Hitachi are meant to have standbys ready to push into service for a failure. We'll have to see how this pans out.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 22, 2016, 10:50:49 am
We will indeed.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 25, 2016, 08:40:20 pm
Hitachi would have to replace any defective units during turn-rounds. They are contracted to have x number of properly working units in service each day, or they payca penalty

I suspect that Hitachi will wriggle out of at least some of the requirements regarding reliability and the provision of spare units to replace failures, on the grounds that we are using the trains other than as was intended, due to the increased diesel mileage.
I expect that Hitachi will have better lawyers than we have, and that therefore "partnering and working together" will be judged a better option than litigation.
The outcome will no doubt that we pay for a few extra units, eventually. Meanwhile a "few" trains can be reduced to 5 car.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on September 25, 2016, 10:39:08 pm
It's not a case of wriggling out.  If the DfT want to change the goalposts in terms of how the units are used for the first couple of years, Hitachi are perfectly entitled to renegotiate the contract. And as you say, their lawyers (with the help of their engineers) will make sure that they are fully protected against incurring penalties because the units are being worked in a different way to previously contracted. And so they should.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 26, 2016, 05:06:52 pm
True - no wriggling would be needed, although we could expect at least some squirming on the other side of the desk.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 26, 2016, 08:41:40 pm
Where will surfboards be held in the summer on Newquay services?

Irrelevant in the near future.  As discussed many times previously, IEPs are not going to be used on the Devon and Cornwall services.

Paul


So where are the surfboards to be stowed, now that we know that services to Devon and Cornwall are to be downgraded to DMUs very similar to the IEPs.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on September 26, 2016, 09:20:01 pm
In the bike spaces, I guess


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on September 26, 2016, 11:18:34 pm
Where will surfboards be held in the summer on Newquay services?

Irrelevant in the near future.  As discussed many times previously, IEPs are not going to be used on the Devon and Cornwall services.

Paul

So where are the surfboards to be stowed, now that we know that services to Devon and Cornwall are to be downgraded to DMUs very similar to the IEPs.
I expect they'll have to think of another means of transport.  I don't really care, my original answer was made over four years ago and was correct at that time.

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on September 27, 2016, 04:39:34 am
During the winter, Eurostar operate a couple of trains to the French Alps for the skiing.

These trains have a similar problem - where do you put your skis? Not everybody brings skis of course - most people hire them at the resort.

But when we travelled on this service, Eurostar had a very neat solution. The first pair of seats inside each coach were covered in a plastic bag exactly like the ones that your garage uses to protect your car's seats from the mechanic's overalls. Except that their plastic bags had big icons of skis.

The booking system must have had these pairs of seats blocked out - which is easy to do on a booking-only operation like Eurostar.

But worth a thought...


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 27, 2016, 09:52:00 am
Where will surfboards be held in the summer on Newquay services?

Irrelevant in the near future.  As discussed many times previously, IEPs are not going to be used on the Devon and Cornwall services.

Paul

So where are the surfboards to be stowed, now that we know that services to Devon and Cornwall are to be downgraded to DMUs very similar to the IEPs.
I expect they'll have to think of another means of transport.  I don't really care, my original answer was made over four years ago and was correct at that time.

Paul

I fully understand that your reply was made some years ago and was indeed correct at the time that you made the reply.
I do however find it interesting, that a lot of criticism of the new DMUs was deflected by assurances that they were not to be used on the longer distance or arguably more prestigious services.
And then after a few years the downgrade spread to these services also. Initially it was suggested that the AT300s for the far west might be of an improved design and they COULD have a buffet. We now know that that they wont. I consider it probable that enhanced luggage space for surfboards is still "possible" but wont actually be provided.

And yes I agree that customers with surfboards will probably have to find other transport.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on September 27, 2016, 09:10:39 pm
In truth, surfboards will not be high on the lists of things to do at IEP headquarters just now.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on September 28, 2016, 10:54:21 am
In the 19th century, some trains had a carriage coach – or was it a coach carriage? – to carry horse-drawn carriages. A sort of equine motor rail. I'm not sure whether the horses were conveyed with the coach or in a stable carriage (one hopes it wasn't unstable) or you hired fresh horses at the destination station. The last option would seem simplest and provide lots of enterprise opportunities. I mention this to say that transporting bulky items on trains has always demanded some sort of dedicated solution. I'm sure it would be no problem to carry surfboards to Cornwall if you could afford to reserve a whole carriage; except that ToCs nowadays wouldn't have the spare rolling stock.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on September 28, 2016, 11:19:03 am
Horse drawn carriages when conveyed by rail were lashed down on open wagons, the occupants travelled within the horse drawn carriage in the very early days but the drawbacks of this soon became clear, and passengers travelled in a normal railway carriage.

Horses if conveyed, were placed in an enclosed horse van. Horses cant be conveyed at significant speed in open vehicles as they are apt to panic.

To return to the present, it might well be reasonable to charge for conveying surfboards and other bulky articles such as bicycles. To carry useful numbers of such items would need a guards van though and new trains are not thus equipped.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on September 28, 2016, 12:47:53 pm
Horse drawn carriages when conveyed by rail were lashed down on open wagons, the occupants travelled within the horse drawn carriage in the very early days but the drawbacks of this soon became clear, and passengers travelled in a normal railway carriage.
On the GWR they were for a period only allowed to take seats in the company carriages if there was sufficient room otherwise they had to stay in their own. Whatever, the passengers had to pay for first class tickets, their servants had to have second class tickets and the grooms travelling with the horses third class.

The first mention of a railway journey in a Dickens novel is within Mr Dombey's own coach on a train to Birmingham.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on September 28, 2016, 06:40:34 pm
To return to the present, it might well be reasonable to charge for conveying surfboards and other bulky articles such as bicycles. To carry useful numbers of such items would need a guards van though and new trains are not thus equipped.
Yes, I think most cyclists, and probably surfers too, would be prepared to pay a small amount to have their bikes transported in a safe, easy-access guards van. Certainly more convenient than dangly spaces, especially if you have luggage on your bike, are short, etc. Whether passengers with bulky suitcases, exceeding the current maximum permitted dimensions, would be prepared to do the same, I find less likely.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on October 03, 2016, 05:35:35 pm
Class 800 heading down to Plymouth tonight by the looks of it:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O32380/2016/10/03/advanced


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: PhilWakely on October 03, 2016, 06:46:25 pm
Class 800 heading down to Plymouth tonight by the looks of it:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O32380/2016/10/03/advanced

and back..........
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O32409/2016/10/04/advanced


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: a-driver on October 03, 2016, 08:07:04 pm
And CrossCountry have suspended the running of some Voyager trains between Exeter and Plymouth due to adverse weather conditions in the Dawlish area.
Could be interesting to see if these condition are present when the IEP is due to pass and how it copes with some seawater.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on October 03, 2016, 08:47:57 pm
So is it a hastily arranged test for the new stock?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Noggin on October 03, 2016, 10:31:27 pm
WNXX says that 800101 has been seen en-route. Supposedly time to pass Dawlish is 3 hours after high tide, so shouldn't get too soggy. Has been rumoured for a few days now, so don't think that it was a last-minute thing.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on October 04, 2016, 01:33:22 am
I note from RTT that the IEP is timed for a sprightly max speed!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on October 04, 2016, 08:03:21 am
I note from RTT that the IEP is timed for a sprightly max speed!

And even on those timings left Plymouth 87 minutes early and reached Stoke Gifford 115 early. Impressive, and good job it wasn't advertised for people to see along the way passengers as they might have missed it!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on October 04, 2016, 08:05:27 am
Anyone know what the weather was like when it passed Dawlish?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 04, 2016, 10:33:11 am
http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/10/04/devon-debut-for-iep

Quote
Hitachi 800101 became the first of its type to run south of Bristol and into Devon on October 3.
 The nine-car bi-mode train, which will be used by Virgin Trains East Coast, was used for a test trip. It ran as the 2110 Stoke Gifford–Plymouth, returning north as the 0205 Plymouth-Stoke Gifford.

 Five-car Class 800/0s and nine-car Class 800/3s will be used by Great Western Railway from next July, with Class 802 bi-modes operating to the west country from 2018


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on October 04, 2016, 04:38:18 pm
So 800-0xx are the 5car bi-modes
The 800-3xx are the 9car bi-modes
The 802xxx will be the AT300s GWR are obtaining for the southwest. (5cars?)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on October 04, 2016, 05:15:53 pm
The 802xxx will be the AT300s GWR are obtaining for the southwest. (5cars?)

– 29 units, 22 are 5-car and 7 are 9-car, total 173 carriages.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on October 04, 2016, 05:46:16 pm
Quote
– 29 units, 22 are 5-car and 7 are 9-car, total 173 carriages

Don't forget the additional 7 x 9 car as reported a couple of months ago which I believe are to be 802s

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10150.msg199238#msg199238


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on October 08, 2016, 01:54:31 pm
Class 800 ran from Stoke Gifford to Plymouth last night and then to North Pole via Westbury, the first via the B&H line I would guess.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Western Pathfinder on October 08, 2016, 02:26:14 pm
Any ideas on other runs out for 800 from stoke Gifford anybody .


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on October 08, 2016, 04:10:44 pm
Any Class 800 runs aren't usually uploaded to RealTime Trains until the day/day before of the run.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on October 09, 2016, 09:22:33 am
There have been fairly regular test runs between Reading and Swindon with the unit shuttling back and forth several times.

Seen here at Reading last Wednesday night.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800rdg1.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/800rdg2.jpg)

RTT is showing similar runs from Monday to Thursday of this coming week.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Noggin on October 09, 2016, 10:05:49 pm
There have been fairly regular test runs between Reading and Swindon with the unit shuttling back and forth several times.

Seen here at Reading last Wednesday night.

{snip photos}

RTT is showing similar runs from Monday to Thursday of this coming week.

Does anyone know if they are they running pan up between Tilehurst and Didcot yet?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on October 09, 2016, 11:17:22 pm
Does anyone know if they are they running pan up between Tilehurst and Didcot yet?

Started nearly 3 months ago.  Overnight 17/18 July was the first run with pans up according to the Railway Gazette:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/electric-test-train-runs-on-great-western-main-line.html

Includes a video, was linked to in this thread at the time, post 768 by ChrisB...

Paul



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on October 09, 2016, 11:59:44 pm
I believe the whole point of the current North Pole-Swindon Class 800 test runs is to gather as much data as possible about the switching at speed between 25kV AC traction and diesel generated traction.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Noggin on October 10, 2016, 11:34:05 am
I believe the whole point of the current North Pole-Swindon Class 800 test runs is to gather as much data as possible about the switching at speed between 25kV AC traction and diesel generated traction.

Thank you, I had rather hoped it might be something like that.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on January 09, 2017, 06:59:00 pm
Class 800 running to North Pole Depot 'the back way' tonight (the original Eurostar entrance) not sure if this is a first
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97156/2017/01/09/advanced


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on January 09, 2017, 07:19:44 pm
Not sure - but the heading says Cancelled.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on January 24, 2017, 06:57:51 am
Another PR stunt I believe with GW bigwigs on board I guess. Runs today from Paddington to Swindon and return

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O66395/2017/01/24/advanced


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bobm on January 24, 2017, 07:19:37 am
Then continues to Bristol Parkway before making a return trip to Paddington, arriving at 14:16


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chrisr_75 on January 24, 2017, 09:20:42 am
Wow, they're planning to smash some records today, timed for 280mph max!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on January 24, 2017, 11:14:20 am
Held at Ladbroke Grove and now currently parked up at Southall yard, not exactly a swift journey

Edit, now heading back towards London?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: John R on January 24, 2017, 07:24:57 pm
Doesn't seem like a great advertisement for the IEP? Does anyone know what went wrong?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on January 24, 2017, 08:31:20 pm
The fire system alarm on the train was activated apparently.  No fire and it was reset ok (presumably by isolating the engine?), but decision taken to return to the depot.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rob on the hill on January 30, 2017, 11:00:41 am
Another test run underway as I type:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97189/2017/01/30/advanced

And the return BPW - PAD:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97190/2017/01/30/advanced


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TaplowGreen on January 30, 2017, 02:01:01 pm
Another test run underway as I type:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97189/2017/01/30/advanced

And the return BPW - PAD:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97190/2017/01/30/advanced

Yes I saw it go through Taplow at 1115! Bit noisier than I thought it might be.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on January 30, 2017, 02:08:09 pm
Another test run underway as I type:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97189/2017/01/30/advanced

And the return BPW - PAD:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97190/2017/01/30/advanced

Yes I saw it go through Taplow at 1115! Bit noisier than I thought it might be.

Return run passing the worksite at Uffington Station. Unit was 800 002.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-PduBM8MzU

I thought it was remarkably quiet!  :)

For comparison an HST on 1A16 Penzance to Padd via Bristol ran past a few minutes beforehand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC6u0ToLv9Y


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on January 30, 2017, 03:16:37 pm
Yes, saw it on the flyover at Reading on the return leg, seemed quite quiet to me. Possibly be even quieter running on electric.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on January 30, 2017, 03:36:13 pm
I popped over to Steventon to record it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZhApVFnvM

Goes right up to 4K resolution with my new videocamera if you really want to see it it detail  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: trainer on January 31, 2017, 06:55:39 pm
Goes right up to 4K resolution with my new videocamera if you really want to see it it detail  ;)

I knew it was worth investing in a 4k telly!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on January 31, 2017, 07:00:55 pm
Sadly I have no way of actually viewing it in 4K myself at the moment - looking forward to when I can though!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Adelante_CCT on February 05, 2017, 07:12:04 am
Quote
Bit noisier than I thought it might be.
Quote
seemed quite quiet to me. Possibly be even quieter running on electric.

Went down to Tilehurst this morning (hoping to see the 387 but never mind) and saw a class 800 arrive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICL22HL71i0

After about 5 minutes the pantograph went up and immediately accelerated away, sadly my video didn't focus well enough for me to show that part but was certainly a lot quieter than when running on diesel.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: trainbuff on February 05, 2017, 12:44:36 pm
Not sure if this is the correct area for this post. It could equally go into Devon and Cornwall Railways or the Rumour Mill. If mods wish to move then please feel free

I heard some drivers speaking recently about the IEP not being able to get into Cornwall due to the length of vehicles (26m) and the profile of Saltash station. I did check that the AT300's are also described as 26m long so would encounter the same problem if this is true. Apparently Saltash station would have to be cut back significantly and the drivers said this was not practical. I googled Voyager coach length for comparison and these are 23m long.

The drivers talked of 2+4 HST sets stabled at Laira and Long Rock to work 'shuttles'

The above raises a few questions.

Is this true and do we know someone to confirm or deny whether this is a problem with the new trains?

If it is true then will this mean the end of through travel from Cornwall and might this be why there is a mooted Devon and Cornwall Franchise?

Look forward to anwers, thoughts and discussions.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on February 05, 2017, 12:50:25 pm
Sounds like typical negative driver talk.  I hear it all the time  ;)

There will be lots of modifications needed at many locations, just like there has been on the other routes like Bristol and Cardiff that the new trains will operate on that have already been completed, but I very much doubt that we'll be seeing the end to through trains and shuttle working, even if we know that short-formation HSTs will likely be operating in Cornwall for entirely different reasons.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: woody on February 05, 2017, 05:06:12 pm
Not sure if this is the correct area for this post. It could equally go into Devon and Cornwall Railways or the Rumour Mill. If mods wish to move then please feel free

I heard some drivers speaking recently about the IEP not being able to get into Cornwall due to the length of vehicles (26m) and the profile of Saltash station. I did check that the AT300's are also described as 26m long so would encounter the same problem if this is true. Apparently Saltash station would have to be cut back significantly and the drivers said this was not practical. I googled Voyager coach length for comparison and these are 23m long.

The drivers talked of 2+4 HST sets stabled at Laira and Long Rock to work 'shuttles'

The above raises a few questions.

Is this true and do we know someone to confirm or deny whether this is a problem with the new trains?

If it is true then will this mean the end of through travel from Cornwall and might this be why there is a mooted Devon and Cornwall Franchise?

Look forward to anwers, thoughts and discussions.


Is that why the IEP overnight test runs have gone no further west than Plymouth so far or is there another reason.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Noggin on February 05, 2017, 11:12:27 pm
Not sure if this is the correct area for this post. It could equally go into Devon and Cornwall Railways or the Rumour Mill. If mods wish to move then please feel free

I heard some drivers speaking recently about the IEP not being able to get into Cornwall due to the length of vehicles (26m) and the profile of Saltash station. I did check that the AT300's are also described as 26m long so would encounter the same problem if this is true. Apparently Saltash station would have to be cut back significantly and the drivers said this was not practical. I googled Voyager coach length for comparison and these are 23m long.

The drivers talked of 2+4 HST sets stabled at Laira and Long Rock to work 'shuttles'

The above raises a few questions.

Is this true and do we know someone to confirm or deny whether this is a problem with the new trains?

If it is true then will this mean the end of through travel from Cornwall and might this be why there is a mooted Devon and Cornwall Franchise?

Look forward to anwers, thoughts and discussions.


Is that why the IEP overnight test runs have gone no further west than Plymouth so far or is there another reason.

AFAIK, the only reason that the IET's have been as far west as Plymouth is so that their ability to start on the Devon Banks could be tested, as that was a core requirement of the contract, and it would appear that they passed with flying colours.

I don't think that the original order (placed by the DfT) were ever planned to go to Penzance, they were purely for Bristol/Cardiff/Swansea, although a condition of the original order was that the line to Penzance would be gauge cleared for them, as well as other diversionary routes including Reading to Waterloo.

It will be the newer 802's which were ordered by First Group that are intended to go to Penzance, so presumably until they start turning up, there will be no need for the clearance work to be completed and tested.

AFAIK the shorter "GTI" HST sets are planned for Cardiff to Penzance local services, but I haven't seen any suggestion that there was a problem with Saltash so far.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Western Pathfinder on February 05, 2017, 11:41:14 pm
HST GTI Ilike the idea of that very much maybe we could have a couple for the Severn express  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on February 06, 2017, 09:29:37 am

I heard some drivers speaking recently about the IEP not being able to get into Cornwall due to the length of vehicles (26m) and the profile of Saltash station. I did check that the AT300's are also described as 26m long so would encounter the same problem if this is true. Apparently Saltash station would have to be cut back significantly and the drivers said this was not practical. I googled Voyager coach length for comparison and these are 23m long.



I can believe that there may well be gauging issues at this location, but I'd be very surprised that they were not identified years ago and are on the list of things to sort out. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on February 06, 2017, 12:15:41 pm
The IEPs are bullet trains and they are being built in Bristol. Apparently. (The text is a bit more accurate.)

http://www.bristol247.com/channel/news-comment/daily/transport/new-bullet-trains-to-be-built-in-bristol


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on February 06, 2017, 08:07:23 pm
Not sure if this is the correct area for this post. It could equally go into Devon and Cornwall Railways or the Rumour Mill. If mods wish to move then please feel free

I heard some drivers speaking recently about the IEP not being able to get into Cornwall due to the length of vehicles (26m) and the profile of Saltash station. I did check that the AT300's are also described as 26m long so would encounter the same problem if this is true. Apparently Saltash station would have to be cut back significantly and the drivers said this was not practical. I googled Voyager coach length for comparison and these are 23m long.

From the published information the Class 80X trains, although the coach bodies are 26 m long, have the bogies at the same centres as the Mk 3 coach. This means that the through-over at the centre of the coach on curves will be the same as for the Mk 3. The longer ends outside the bogie pivot are noticeably tapered to stay in gauge.

The slightly different body profile of the Class 80X may make clearances a bit tight in places. It is these issues which have to be worked through.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on February 08, 2017, 12:37:22 pm
Heard a rumour it's not even as far as Plymouth. Allegedly 26 m is a problem on the curves up Dainton if two pass each other.

It is also alleged they don't have the grunt to get up the bank as well.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on February 08, 2017, 12:40:41 pm
Which is why GWR ordered the 802s....of which none are yet built.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: chrisr_75 on February 08, 2017, 12:43:06 pm
Heard a rumour it's not even as far as Plymouth. Allegedly 26 m is a problem on the curves up Dainton if two pass each other.

It is also alleged they don't have the grunt to get up the bank as well.

From earlier in the thread:

AFAIK, the only reason that the IET's have been as far west as Plymouth is so that their ability to start on the Devon Banks could be tested, as that was a core requirement of the contract, and it would appear that they passed with flying colours.

Two contradictory points of view! The question is, who is correct?!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on February 08, 2017, 04:13:32 pm
As I have previously stated I have very negative thoughts regarding the IEPs and internal fit out/passenger facilities. I do not believe downgrading from a buffet to a trolley is an improvement, nor do I believe that 5 car DMUs are proper inter city trains.

Despite these negative thoughts, I am fairly confidant that such matters as hill climbing ability and gauge clearance Have BEEN considered and that when they enter service the new trains will have the ability to climb inclines at a reasonable speed and also to traverse all parts of the network that they are expected to work.
It is IMHO entirely possible that certain locations are off limits AT PRESENT, but that works will done in time for use of the trains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on February 15, 2017, 05:42:38 pm
Not sure if this is the correct area for this post. It could equally go into Devon and Cornwall Railways or the Rumour Mill. If mods wish to move then please feel free

Sounds like typical negative driver talk.  I hear it all the time  ;)

... in view of which, I'll leave things just as they are for the time being.  ;)



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on February 15, 2017, 08:53:07 pm
Not sure if it's been mentioned on here, but IEP's in passenger service has now been put back to mid-October.  With a bit of luck that'll mean they can use the wires all the way to Didcot.  Fingers crossed...  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TaplowGreen on February 15, 2017, 10:27:38 pm
Not sure if it's been mentioned on here, but IEP's in passenger service has now been put back to mid-October.  With a bit of luck that'll mean they can use the wires all the way to Didcot.  Fingers crossed...  ;)

......A delay from GWR? Surely you jest?  ::)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on February 16, 2017, 01:10:56 pm
I've attached an image of what the new reservation indicators will show on the IEP trains.  An attempt has been made to greatly improve on the electronic reservation systems installed on the Voyager/Meridian fleets which has a number of flaws, most importantly is the ease and speed at which you can determine which seats are unreserved in a carriage.  Also, on those older trains the scrolling display was difficult to read (although tweaked over the years to make it better), and it only displayed the current reservation.  So if you boarded a train at Derby wanting to go to York, you might spot a seat reserved from Birmingham to Chesterfield which you might want to try to occupy after the next stop, but had no idea until the train stopped at Chesterfield and the system updated as to whether the seat was reserved from that point forward.  At least the paper reservation cards were able to show more than one reservation at a time, however they were subject to removal, poor print quality and of course took a lot longer to physically put in place at the start of a journey.

We knew that a traffic light system of colouring would be available on the IEP's, and they seem to be quite bright so will hopefully be visible from at least half a carriage away, but it's also good to note that the current and next reservations for a given seat are shown.  We'll have to see how they are received by the general public when services start later in the year, but they look promising.  My only comment is that it seems impossible to come up with a pictogram to indicate which is the window seat and which is the aisle seat.  This version is easier to interpret than some, but why not simply use the words 'Window' and 'Aisle'?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Bmblbzzz on February 16, 2017, 03:22:37 pm
Those pictograms look pretty clear to me, as do the red and green lights. Pictograms have the advantage over words of being meaningful to all regardless of language, as do red and green lights. I'm wondering though if the use of coloured lights might be a problem for the colour-blind?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on February 16, 2017, 08:47:11 pm
Those pictograms look pretty clear to me, as do the red and green lights. Pictograms have the advantage over words of being meaningful to all regardless of language, as do red and green lights. I'm wondering though if the use of coloured lights might be a problem for the colour-blind?

They're certainly clearer than the Voyager ones, which I always find myself taking far too long to work out!  Not sure many people with colour blindness have trouble with green and red, so hopefully there will be no issues there.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ellendune on February 16, 2017, 10:05:22 pm
They're certainly clearer than the Voyager ones, which I always find myself taking far too long to work out!  Not sure many people with colour blindness have trouble with green and red, so hopefully there will be no issues there.
Actually red green colourblindness is quite common as colour blindness goes.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on February 16, 2017, 10:41:36 pm
Fair enough.  I've learnt something today.  ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Thatcham Crossing on February 16, 2017, 11:06:36 pm
Quote
Actually red green colourblindness is quite common as colour blindness goes.

Indeed it is, and I formally suffer from it (as identified by the RAF when I was 17 and undergoing pilot medicals).

However, I can see those colours in the pic linked above perfectly fine, and have also never driven through a red traffic light!

Where I sometimes run into problems is with very dark greens (which can look black to me), dark reds/browns etc.

I am however unable to drive a train, ship or aircraft (commercially) as a result, and of course there is no cure.

I've also been told that red/green colourblindness is a lot more prevelent in the male population (which is ironic considering
that most pilots and train drivers are male).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on February 16, 2017, 11:41:44 pm
As has already been said, red/green colour blindness is by far the most common.

In very extreme cases, even bright clear red and green are totally indistinguishable, that however is very rare. More common is confusing dark or olive green with dark red or maroon, or also confusing light pink with a light green tint, or confusing a lime green with orange.

Most people with mild red/green colour blindness could probably drive a train safely, but of course "probably" is not sufficient.
Although the proceed aspect on a modern railway signal is always called "green" it has changed over the years and is now much bluer than decades ago. Blue of course is very little used in railway signalling, but there are a handful of exceptions, and concerns have been expressed that with the increasing "blueness" of green signals, that confusion might occur between blue and green lights.

 In Japan red/green colour blindness is said to be more common than in the west, and for this reason "green" road traffic signals are borderline blue.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Thatcham Crossing on February 17, 2017, 08:21:03 am
Because my diagnosis changed the potential course of my life when I was 17, I've always slightly disbelieved it (as I think I can see clear reds and greens pretty clearly), and constantly (sometimes unwittingly) test myself.

Railway signals are a great way to do this, and particularly with today's very clear and powerful LED lit signals, I'm sure I'd be fine.

In a former life, I used to drive on airfields quite a bit (military and civilian) and would often have to get local dispensation that I was safe despite my colour perception (permits to drive on military airfields - UK ones anyway - include what's called a "CP Rating", provided by a Medical Officer).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Oxonhutch on February 17, 2017, 01:33:28 pm
Red green colour blindness is why the British electric wiring (flex) colours were changed in the 1970s from red-black-green for live-neutral-earth to brown-blue-green/yellow(stripe). Imagine mixing earth and live up in a plug!  :o

Fixed wiring changed to suit just a decade ago and is now a European standard.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on February 17, 2017, 02:20:57 pm
to return to the reservation indicators.  The green/red colours are somewhat redundant anyway as we also have the word "available" to indicate that the seat is not reserved.   


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on February 17, 2017, 02:49:46 pm
I think they're designed to be seen at a distance so people will be able to scan and locate them quicker, helping to reduce the bunching that currently happens when passengers slowly shuffle down the carriage looking at each seat separately.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on February 17, 2017, 04:30:22 pm
Red green colour blindness is why the British electric wiring (flex) colours were changed in the 1970s from red-black-green for live-neutral-earth to brown-blue-green/yellow(stripe). Imagine mixing earth and live up in a plug!  :o

Fixed wiring changed to suit just a decade ago and is now a European standard.

I think the choice of a spiral stripe on the earth wire was to make that identifiable with limited colour vision, but not the rest of the colours. That new earth colour may even have been introduced here before the other changes.

I think I can see the logic of all the colours chosen, based on the idea that the main objective is to ensure the earth wire (and so the casing) gets connected to earth (this was before built-on plugs).  Provided the right wire is connected to earth, which wire inside the device is live and which is neutral should not matter. So the new earth colour should be right in as many countries as possible (hence green, I think) plus its helpful stripe. The other two colours must not be used for the earth anywhere, or else someone might reason (as I just did) that that one must be earthed and the other two don't matter.

Both black and red were earth colours (red in Germany), and light blue wasn't - I think the French may have already picked that for neutral.  I've always been surprised that brown wasn't used for earth somewhere, and I've just heard it was - in Britain, pre-war. But there were so many systems in use then, that I think only the national standards were considered.

The European agreement to change the colours for appliance leads was made as long ago as 1968, so before the UK joined the EEC. Its implementation was spread over the next ten years, so it overlapped with our EEC membership. The reason was of course to support a "single market" in appliances (still long before the European Single Market), while removing the obvious hazards.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on February 17, 2017, 05:15:23 pm
The green yellow striped core for earth was indeed introduced so that persons with poor colour vision could recognise the earth.
There was a transition period when green/yellow for earth coincided with red and black for live and neutral.

Those with significantly defective colour vision should not be working on the fixed electrical wiring of a building, but may need to safely wire a plug, especially before virtually all appliances came with a fitted plug.
Interchanging live and earth could have disastrous consequences, confusing live and neutral does not really matter for a portable appliance.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: didcotdean on February 17, 2017, 05:18:41 pm
Electrical Appliance (Colour Code) Regulations 1969, statutory instrument No. 310 was what changed UK appliance wiring, although there was a transition period.

As has been mentioned old German appliance flex wiring colours had red for the earth and there could be a rather 'spectacular' effect if this was mistakenly wired to the live in the UK.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Surrey 455 on February 17, 2017, 11:08:26 pm
Many years ago my dad taught me how to wire a plug. The first two letters of blue are BL which stands for Bottom Left and the first two letters of brown are BR which stands for Bottom Right. The other wire (green / yellow) if it is there, obviously goes in the one remaining pin.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: bignosemac on February 18, 2017, 02:04:38 am
Wiring a plug is no longer routinely taught in schools. I remember it was one of the first things I was taught in science lessons as an 11 year old in my first year of Secondary School in 1984.

I guess the reason it is no longer routinely taught is that, by law since 1994, all 13A or less appliances running off the domestic mains supply must be sold with a plug already fitted.

The only appliances I've wired to the mains in recent years are electric cookers to their dedicated circuit.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on March 07, 2017, 05:53:34 pm
This was linked to on the WNXX Forum.  Thought it would be of interest here: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201703060043.html  Wonder if there will be as many spectators when they arrive here (yes, I know some have already).... ::) :P


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on March 07, 2017, 06:51:08 pm
From that article, I note

Quote
The train car is one of 866 carriages commissioned by the British government department for the new high-speed railway network.

The Kasado factory, known for building Shinkansen trains, has shipped 240 cars to date.

? - I thought that only the first few were being built in Japan and most in the North East - ?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: paul7755 on March 07, 2017, 07:07:20 pm
Is it that some are built completely in Japan, and some are body shells for internal fit out and completion over here?

Paul


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on March 07, 2017, 08:14:32 pm
From that article, I note

Quote
The train car is one of 866 carriages commissioned by the British government department for the new high-speed railway network.

The Kasado factory, known for building Shinkansen trains, has shipped 240 cars to date.

? - I thought that only the first few were being built in Japan and most in the North East - ?

Me too! However it goes, it's nice to see that admiration of trains is not just a British thing.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 07, 2017, 08:19:30 pm
Aren't all the Virgin sets being built over there?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 09, 2017, 05:58:23 am
Don't think so.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Rhydgaled on March 09, 2017, 01:39:57 pm
Some interesting points from the link:
  • The 800 is in GWR green (I thought they were being built in grey with green stickers applied when they get to GWR)
  • The 800 seems quite close to completion (I thought all the ones being built in full in Japan had already come to the UK)
  • The 800 is described as being for "Britain’s new high-speed railway network". Is the GWML about to be ripped up and rebuilt with a 200mph linespeed?

I thought that only the first few were being built in Japan and most in the North East
The UK plant is just an assembly plant, the bodyshells for the entire fleet were always supposed to be built in Japan; something about the welding technique being a trade secret that isn't allowed to leave Japan I think. The 800 pictured in the link does look like more than just a bodyshell though as stated above.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 10, 2017, 11:23:31 am
I'm hearing that GWR are waiting on the DfT and Hitachi to decide whether they want to run the 800s and their intended power, or at full power - 'muzzled' or 'unmuzzled' are the buzzwords being used - and as such they are preparing two separate timetables for this December.  Unmuzzled means timings similar to today's HST's until electrification is extended beyond Didcot, Muzzled means extended journey times.

In fact, there might be a third timetable if the electro-magnetic interference issues between Reading and Didcot can't be resolved on time!

Launch still planned for mid-October on a London to Bristol/Taunton diagram, with a more comprehensive service from December, including three 180 diagrams on the North Cotswold route.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on March 10, 2017, 11:39:46 am
Yup, that agrees with what I know. (was thought to be confidential, hence no comment from me previously)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Gordon the Blue Engine on March 10, 2017, 02:58:55 pm
This is an important bit of news.  History shows us that marginal changes in the max power output of diesel engines can have a significant effect on reliability (eg Sulzer 12LDA and Paxman Valenta):  Hitachi presumably chose their preferred power output (ie the “muzzled”) for a reason – if the engines go “unmuzzled” who’s going to pick up the tab for the inevitably higher maintenance and repair costs, and maybe lower availability, of the 800’s?

Looks like additional leasing costs or the interesting PR line for GWR, as I said in jest a while back, “here are your new trains, it’s now 10 minutes longer to London”.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on March 10, 2017, 03:13:54 pm
if the engines go “unmuzzled” who’s going to pick up the tab for the inevitably higher maintenance and repair costs, and maybe lower availability, of the 800’s?

It will not be Hitachi.  Or rather if Hitachi is to shoulder higher maintenance costs then they will be entitled to extra money in compensation for that. 

part of me wants them to choose the muzzled version if only to keep the pressure up on finishing the electrification. 


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on March 10, 2017, 03:34:51 pm
There is much discussion on other forums (and apparently backed up by Roger Ford of Modern Railways) that the IET cooler groups are not of sufficient capacity for sustained diesel running over long distances.  Remember, the trains have diesel engines that were only supposed to be able to move a train at low speed out of areas with problems on the OLE or on shortish runs without OLE (such as Bristol TM to Weston-Super-Mare).  Apparently, if you believe all you read on such forums, this is going to be a significant problem if electrification is not completed as planned.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: rogerw on March 10, 2017, 03:48:10 pm
The dual modes were always going to do more than short distances. Oxford to Hereford, Swindon to Cheltenham and Bristol to Exeter were suggested.  Also it should not be forgotten that the East Coast sets will be scaling the highland main line to Inverness


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: grahame on March 10, 2017, 03:53:07 pm
There is much discussion on other forums (and apparently backed up by Roger Ford of Modern Railways) that the IET cooler groups are not of sufficient capacity for sustained diesel running over long distances. 

So how have they already managed to get to Plymouth?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on March 10, 2017, 04:14:57 pm
The dual modes were always going to do more than short distances. Oxford to Hereford, Swindon to Cheltenham and Bristol to Exeter were suggested.  Also it should not be forgotten that the East Coast sets will be scaling the highland main line to Inverness

Indeed, and the performance modelling required in the specification includes: Leeds/York, Newcastle/Edinburgh, Hereford/Oxford, Newbury/Exeter, Cheltenham/Swindon, Newbury/Paignton, and Aberdeen/Edinburgh. All at full performance timings, and an ambient temperature of 30 deg C (even in Stonehaven).


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on March 10, 2017, 04:36:01 pm
I'm hearing that GWR are waiting on the DfT and Hitachi to decide whether they want to run the 800s and their intended power, or at full power - 'muzzled' or 'unmuzzled' are the buzzwords being used - and as such they are preparing two separate timetables for this December.  Unmuzzled means timings similar to today's HST's until electrification is extended beyond Didcot, Muzzled means extended journey times.

I think that Roger Ford reported this in last month's Modern Railways. I thought that a deal had between Hitachi and DfT had been agreed though I could be wrong on this.


In fact, there might be a third timetable if the electro-magnetic interference issues between Reading and Didcot can't be resolved on time!

Launch still planned for mid-October on a London to Bristol/Taunton diagram, with a more comprehensive service from December, including three 180 diagrams on the North Cotswold route.

There were another series of test runs between Reading and Wantage Road last Saturday night/Sunday morning. This was apparently to test reconfigured traction packages under the OLE. No idea if this has resolved the power supply interference issue. It was reported that on earlier set of runs on the same route earlier in February the interference situation had been improved but not completely resolved.

It has been reported on WNXX forum that under the latest plan 2 HST diagrams will be replaced by IETs from 16th October with 2 more from 13th November and another 2 from 11th December. Each HST will be replaced by 2 x 5 car 800s, so 6 units in total in service by the end of the year. In January the 180s get replaced on the Cotswold line services though here only single IET units will be used. After that more of the Pad - Bristol/Weston/ Taunton and S Wales diagrams will switch over the IETs. Obviously this is subject to change!!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on March 10, 2017, 04:43:50 pm
The dual modes were always going to do more than short distances. Oxford to Hereford, Swindon to Cheltenham and Bristol to Exeter were suggested.  Also it should not be forgotten that the East Coast sets will be scaling the highland main line to Inverness

Indeed, and the performance modelling required in the specification includes: Leeds/York, Newcastle/Edinburgh, Hereford/Oxford, Newbury/Exeter, Cheltenham/Swindon, Newbury/Paignton, and Aberdeen/Edinburgh. All at full performance timings, and an ambient temperature of 30 deg C (even in Stonehaven).

What happens at ambient temperature of 40 degrees ? entirely achievable in the southwest even if improbable in Stonehaven.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: DidcotPunter on March 10, 2017, 04:47:50 pm
There is much discussion on other forums (and apparently backed up by Roger Ford of Modern Railways) that the IET cooler groups are not of sufficient capacity for sustained diesel running over long distances. 

So how have they already managed to get to Plymouth?

On the lower power rating of 560kW (750 bhp) per engine. They have done multiple runs recently between Taunton and Exeter with one set dragging another dead one and also managed for one unit to drag a dead one away from a standing start on one of the Devon banks - all at the lower power rating.

I'm only going on what has been reported in several sources elsewhere but it appears that the high temperature shutdowns resulting from the cooler groups not coping has only occurred with the engines set at their full 700kW (940 bhp) ratings.

Not only is this concerning if the class 800s are to run at full power to maintain existing schedules in the short term, but also the 802s being built for the West Country services are also planned to run at full power to maintain timings over the Devon banks. These are planned to have larger fuel tanks fitted to provide the required range - one hopes that MTU and Hitachi have designed adequate cooler groups too!


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on March 10, 2017, 05:10:43 pm
What happens at ambient temperature of 40 degrees ? entirely achievable in the southwest even if improbable in Stonehaven.

Really? That's a higher air temperature than has ever been recorded in Britain, let alone for for the southwest where the official record is 35.4 deg.

In any case, on the few rare days that happens, the risk of track buckling is such that trains will be hit by a lot of speed restrictions.

Incidentally, the main effect of high and low temperatures will be a high auxiliary load, all of which has to be supplied by the diesels when self-powered. Obviously that's worse for the cold limit, as heating will take more power than cooling.

With fewer engines than cars, the auxiliary load takes away a higher fraction of prime power than in a 180 or 220. And don't those use engine exhaust heat for the train cabins? I'm assuming that would help too little to be worth doing on 800s. I'm also assuming Hitachi are not being really sneaky, and using reversible chillers - though it's not impossible.

There are other tricks that can help - for example the option of shutting down heating (or cooling) during the relatively short periods of full acceleration. Again, I have no idea if that is included.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Gordon the Blue Engine on March 10, 2017, 05:40:49 pm
560 kW to 700 kW is a big leap (25 %).  If the cooler groups were designed for the former (and why would they not be?) it is not surprising that they would struggle with the latter. 

And if a 25 % increase in power output is required to maintain HST timings on 125 mph routes on diesel, they're going to be embarrassingly slow beyond Didcot when they enter service later this year if they stay at 560 kW.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on March 10, 2017, 05:47:46 pm
There is much discussion on other forums (and apparently backed up by Roger Ford of Modern Railways) that the IET cooler groups are not of sufficient capacity for sustained diesel running over long distances. 

So how have they already managed to get to Plymouth?h
They have been running at night so not yet exposed to peak summer heat?

I would never claim to be an expert in these things.  I was only relating what was being discussed on other forums I read. ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Gordon the Blue Engine on March 10, 2017, 06:17:31 pm
But you may be an expert for this question, S & T E:

What is the “electrical interference” problem being experienced?  Is this affecting other equipment on the train, or other railway equipment eg signalling, or local residents eg TV goes funny when an 800 goes by?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on March 10, 2017, 06:38:50 pm
But you may be an expert for this question, S & T E:

What is the “electrical interference” problem being experienced?  Is this affecting other equipment on the train, or other railway equipment eg signalling, or local residents eg TV goes funny when an 800 goes by?

I've not heard anything through the S&T grapevine (yet).  ET (Electric Train) might be able to tell us more ;)


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on March 10, 2017, 07:40:55 pm
560 kW to 700 kW is a big leap (25 %).  If the cooler groups were designed for the former (and why would they not be?) it is not surprising that they would struggle with the latter. 

And if a 25 % increase in power output is required to maintain HST timings on 125 mph routes on diesel, they're going to be embarrassingly slow beyond Didcot when they enter service later this year if they stay at 560 kW.

Why not? Well, the engine and alternator are 700 kW ones, and indeed the whole train was designed around that power level. The 802s use that power, and it is available in 800s when an engine fails. The muzzling was only decided on at a late stage in the contractual haggling, so I can't really see why anyone would redesign the engine cooling or anything else based on it.

As to why there may be cooling issues at the moment during testing runs, there's a wide range of possibilities and without more details I'm not going to guess whether it's really important or not. If it is a fault with the basic design it would be very surprising, given the technical reputations of Hitachi and MTU.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: broadgage on March 10, 2017, 08:11:00 pm
What happens at ambient temperature of 40 degrees ? entirely achievable in the southwest even if improbable in Stonehaven.

Really? That's a higher air temperature than has ever been recorded in Britain, let alone for for the southwest where the official record is 35.4 deg.

In any case, on the few rare days that happens, the risk of track buckling is such that trains will be hit by a lot of speed restrictions.

Incidentally, the main effect of high and low temperatures will be a high auxiliary load, all of which has to be supplied by the diesels when self-powered. Obviously that's worse for the cold limit, as heating will take more power than cooling.

With fewer engines than cars, the auxiliary load takes away a higher fraction of prime power than in a 180 or 220. And don't those use engine exhaust heat for the train cabins? I'm assuming that would help too little to be worth doing on 800s. I'm also assuming Hitachi are not being really sneaky, and using reversible chillers - though it's not impossible.

There are other tricks that can help - for example the option of shutting down heating (or cooling) during the relatively short periods of full acceleration. Again, I have no idea if that is included.

My estimated maximum air temperature of 40 degrees is indeed appreciably in excess of the highest recorded by the Met office. Met office stations are generally located in relatively open country, and at a height of five feet IIRC. The thermometer is shaded from direct sunlight by a Stevenson screen.
IMHO, temperatures to which a train is subjected could easily reach 40 degrees at engine height and in a cutting and subjected to sunlight. Even worse would be with another train adjacent and adding heat.
As an example, I have measured an air temperature of 41 degrees in the shade*
I suspect that high temperatures may be a problem for these new trains, as with other new DMUs.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on March 11, 2017, 11:03:06 am
The UK plant is just an assembly plant, the bodyshells for the entire fleet were always supposed to be built in Japan; something about the welding technique being a trade secret that isn't allowed to leave Japan I think. The 800 pictured in the link does look like more than just a bodyshell though as stated above.

If I can trust my memory the welding technique is called 'friction stir' and uses a rapidly rotating rod to generate friction heat to fuse the metals together. If it is what I am thinking of, the process was originally developed by the British Welding Research Association/The Welding Institute but I can't remember when...

I expect that the process and procedures used by Hitachi are trade secrets, but the concept certainly isn't.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 11, 2017, 11:38:54 am
I suspect that high temperatures may be a problem for these new trains, as with other new DMUs.

Extremely high temperatures will no doubt be a problem for these trains, as with all other trains including those with underfloor engines and those with a traditional 'normal' locomotive.  As 'stuving' pointed out, the infrastructure often can't cope with those rare days either.  Fortunately (or unfortunately for sun worshippers) it rarely gets really hot here, so as long as they can perform under high temperatures, by which I mean where the shaded thermometer is reading around the 30c mark, at a better level than, for example, the Class 180s then that is acceptable in my opinion. 

The engines need to be reliable as a failure of one of them reduces power levels dramatically, unlike on a 180 where it makes little difference if one if not working.  I would be interested to see the performance figures of a 5-car IET unit running with just two engines working, and how that compares with a HST running on one engine only.  Of course, if you have a single source of power, like on a traditional locomotive, then it's 'game over' should there be a failure, so for that reason alone more than one engine is necessary in my opinion.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Gordon the Blue Engine on March 28, 2017, 06:32:10 pm
What is the “electrical interference” problem being experienced?  Is this affecting other equipment on the train, or other railway equipment eg signalling, or local residents eg TV goes funny when an 800 goes by?

I understand that the electrical interference problem with the Class 80x is to do with the lineside telephone system, and that this needs to be fixed before they enter service under electric power.

Whether this is only between Reading and Didcot or on other stretches of the GWML as well I do not know.  Presumably this problem did not occur on the testing runs on the ECML.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on March 28, 2017, 06:34:19 pm
What is the “electrical interference” problem being experienced?  Is this affecting other equipment on the train, or other railway equipment eg signalling, or local residents eg TV goes funny when an 800 goes by?
I understand that the electrical interference problem with the Class 80x is to do with the lineside telephone system, and that this needs to be fixed before they enter service under electric power.

Whether this is only between Reading and Didcot or on other stretches of the GWML as well I do not know.  Presumably this problem did not occur on the testing runs on the ECML.

....ah, but is it the telephone system or the train that's at fault..... ::) :P


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on March 28, 2017, 07:08:45 pm
....ah, but is it the telephone system or the train that's at fault..... ::) :P

The better question would be "Which is the cheaper to amend?"


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on March 28, 2017, 07:19:41 pm
....ah, but is it the telephone system or the train that's at fault..... ::) :P

The better question would be "Which is the cheaper to amend?"

In practice yes - because otherwise you need to answer "which is out of spec?", and that's a notoriously difficultimpossible question. You can write EMC requirements for potential sources and victims, but they have to be in terms of defined impedances, coupling properties, etc. It's hard to make that kind of test set-up even in a lab, and you can't really even measure those things on a full-size bit of railway.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: TonyK on March 28, 2017, 08:33:18 pm
A job for the theorists first, then, although I would have  thought they would have had a good run through the equations long ago.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: SandTEngineer on March 28, 2017, 08:38:13 pm
A job for the theorists first, then, although I would have  thought they would have had a good run through the equations long ago.

Well BR managed to do it back in the late 1950s.......

When I used to maintain the signalling and telecoms equipment at the south end of the West Coast Main Line back in the 1970s we, and drivers who used them, never used to bother about Signal Post Telephones (SPTs) that had a constant buzzing noise on the circuit caused by OLE interference.  You just ignored it.... ::) ;)

....and wearing a plastic mac, standing under the OLE on a wet day, kept you awake and alert with a lovely tingle that passed down from your shoulders to feet ;) ;D


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on April 12, 2017, 11:06:30 am
An interesting post from 'Clarence Yard' on railforums.co.uk, who has been closely involved in testing of the new trains, indicates that an unmuzzled IET running on diesel power is able to reach 120mph and pretty much match existing HST point-to-point timings - 105mph was reached with one engine isolated, which is still pretty impressive.  Muzzled and the performance was described as anaemic!  Let's hope the DfT authorise unmuzzled working at least until the Cardiff electrification is completed.  Talks are still ongoing apparently.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: ChrisB on April 12, 2017, 11:23:51 am
fyi, in case anyone feels like posting that whole post here, is that the figures given are/were considered confidential (by GWR at least) as obviously are any details on the on-going discussions between GWR, Angel Trains & the DfT. There are obviously cost implications involved.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Gordon the Blue Engine on April 12, 2017, 05:50:19 pm
The info that came from another forum on max speeds on muzzled and unmuzzled diesel is different from what I’d heard.  So personally I’m taking any “leaks” with a pinch of salt.



Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: stuving on April 19, 2017, 04:48:18 pm
I thought I would do a performance comparison of 80x/HST based on the modelling data I've got, to see if it looks similar to those reported figures. I've worked out the time to 100 mi/hr on the level, and the steepest gradient 100 mi/hr can be maintained up, for each type. Obviously the numbers come with a warning that I'm copying them from the back of an envelope that's covered with damp fingerprints.

HST (2+8):       262s, 1/119
muzzled 800      312s, 1/172
unmuzzled 800   226s, 1/111
electric 800      113s, 1/62

That looks pretty similar to what's been reported. Note that a 9-car would be a bit better than a 5-car at high speed, but on my assumed parameters it's not a lot. A 2x5-car is in between the two.

In general, the figures reflect the known facts: on power or power/weight the 802 is similar to an HST, but has better adhesion and low-speed traction, but with 80% of the power it's clearly worse, while  mains electricity provides a lot more oomph than any diesel.

I've not made any assumption about how much power goes into auxiliaries, and I wonder what has been done for trials. The biggest power users are heating and cooling, and if the heating is all-electric that's the bigger. But I don't have any reliable figures for the power required - the best I have is 20-50 kW (all uses) per car. Significant, but not enormous, and variable. And it would affect HSTs and diesel SETs much the same, but has no effect when running off mains.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Tim on April 24, 2017, 01:32:26 pm

I've not made any assumption about how much power goes into auxiliaries, and I wonder what has been done for trials. The biggest power users are heating and cooling, and if the heating is all-electric that's the bigger. But I don't have any reliable figures for the power required - the best I have is 20-50 kW (all uses) per car. Significant, but not enormous, and variable. And it would affect HSTs and diesel SETs much the same, but has no effect when running off mains.

Presumable, with a sophisticated new train, it would just be a matter of writing the correct software code to have the heating/aircon switch off for a couple of minutes when max acceleration was needed?


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Electric train on April 24, 2017, 09:22:35 pm

I've not made any assumption about how much power goes into auxiliaries, and I wonder what has been done for trials. The biggest power users are heating and cooling, and if the heating is all-electric that's the bigger. But I don't have any reliable figures for the power required - the best I have is 20-50 kW (all uses) per car. Significant, but not enormous, and variable. And it would affect HSTs and diesel SETs much the same, but has no effect when running off mains.

Presumable, with a sophisticated new train, it would just be a matter of writing the correct software code to have the heating/aircon switch off for a couple of minutes when max acceleration was needed?

The trains "hotel" load is fairly insignificant to the traction load, for a whole train the hotel load 200 to 500kW traction load 2 plus MW


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: 1st fan on April 27, 2017, 01:30:00 am
An interesting post from 'Clarence Yard' on railforums.co.uk, who has been closely involved in testing of the new trains, indicates that an unmuzzled IET running on diesel power is able to reach 120mph and pretty much match existing HST point-to-point timings - 105mph was reached with one engine isolated, which is still pretty impressive.  Muzzled and the performance was described as anaemic!  Let's hope the DfT authorise unmuzzled working at least until the Cardiff electrification is completed.  Talks are still ongoing apparently.
On my last trip I struck up a conversation with an off duty staff member and we talked about this subject. Talked about testing and doing fast runs to check performance, I bitched about the new 1st seats. They said that the company are desperate not to have the diesel engines running at less than full power. GWR apparently get a bad enough press as it is and the media would roast them if the new trains ran slower than the HST. Now this may just be hokum but it sounded good.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on April 27, 2017, 09:15:53 am
Yes it would certainly be an easy win for the press who would no doubt jump on the story and it would indeed be GWR that would suffer the most in terms of credibility.  This is despite it only being a temporary situation hopefully lasting just over a year until Didcot to Cardiff is wired and the real 'blame' lying with NR and the DfT.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: eightf48544 on April 28, 2017, 02:31:42 pm
Yes it would certainly be an easy win for the press who would no doubt jump on the story and it would indeed be GWR that would suffer the most in terms of credibility.  This is despite it only being a temporary situation hopefully lasting just over a year until Didcot to Cardiff is wired and the real 'blame' lying with NR and the DfT.

Thingley to Bristol will still be diesel.

Rumours have it that lawyers may become involved. More money down the drain.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: IndustryInsider on April 28, 2017, 02:55:24 pm
Thingley to Bristol will still be diesel.

Though the nature of that and the other remaining un-electrified routes mean that the effects should be minimal once Cardiff is wired.


Title: Re: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion
Post by: Oberon on April 29, 2017, 07:50:30 am
When the closure at Bath Spa for platform widening was in operation there was a lot of stuff on local TV about this. A Network Rail spokesperson was adamant, at the ti