Great Western Coffee Shop

Wow, this must be good

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090212/tuk-huge-train-order-to-provide-12-500-j-dba1618.html

On the face of it very good news.  Lots of questions though from big things like "how does it fit with electricifcation plans) to details like, "will they have buffets"

Depends on what they build.

Another Vomiter or high density HST will make long distance train travel unpleasant for another 30 years. We don't want 737 interiors.

Hopefully the hybrid will die a death.

Why DaFT is obesessed with  fixed formation multi units for what are only 200 kph trains when Europe is tending to use loco and coaches for these services to give flexibility and possiblity of serving non wired destinations with a loco is a mystery.

The general opinion of the rolling stock world is that the IEP specification is impossible to meet as it defies the laws of physics. So it will be interesting to see how well Haitachi has met the spec.

Bombardier must be breathing a sigh of relief. Alstrom had already dropped out to concentrate on their AVG for High Speed lines.

Well it is certainly good news for those employed on the project, at a time of rising unemployment.

As to whether it is good news for passengers on FGW and elswhere, that remains to be seen.

In the past, many new trains have been a backward step for passengers, since new trains have generaly been shorter, with minimal catering, few tables, limited luggage space, and reduced legroom.

Also, in the past, new trains have been replacements, but what we need now in many cases is extra rolling stock, not replacements.
There will be no gain for passengers if say 40 HSTs are scrapped and 36 new trains introduced (new trains are often introduced in smaller numbers than the ones they replace, because it is hoped that will have higher availability. This is seldom achieved in practice)

There is no reason why refurbished HSTs cant remain in service for another 20 years or more.
With many services grossly overcrowded, what we need is a new build of full length inter-city trains, at least 12 coaches, with restaurant, hot buffet, facing seats with tables, luggage space etc.
These should be in addition to the HSTs which should be retained for less busy services and secondary main line routes.
Any spare HSTs that result should not be scrapped but should displace the unsuitable DMUs used on many longer routes.
The resultant spare DMUs should of course not be scrapped but used to increase train lengths.

At a time when the rail network is increasingly congested, we need to move away from trying to provide more trains, and move towards longer trains.

Overcrowded HSTs should be replaced with new 12 coach trains
Overcrowded or unsuitable DMUs should be replaced with HSTs
Overcrowded, but otherwise suitable DMUs should be lengthened.

Only in very exceptional circumstances should anything be scrapped, better a seat on an old train than standing on a new one!
Older less efficient or less reliable trains should be kept in reserve and used for peak flows or in case of breakdown etc.

Network Rail's aspiration is still electrification of the GWML, it would appear that these new trains will be multi mode which will not detract from electrification argument. 

Electrification of the whole of the core GWML route London Bristol / South Wales is at least 10 years away, it is not part of the CP4 plan, hope is it will be part of CP5 but more than likely it will be part of CP6

"Better a seat in an old train than standing in a new one" ... absolutely.  And may I add "better an old train than no train at all". Retaining older units would give stock availability for services such as Portishead (from where the TV featured a 90 minute journey into Bristol - 12 miles - by road), the TransWilts (six SSTCs in the RSS in 40 miles - growth plans which are, I believe, unique in the country), and perhaps Radstock, Henbury loop, Tavistock, Minehead, and Swindon to Bedford.

I have heard that the HSTs "must" be withdrawn by December 2019 due to safety issues, and the 14x series too.  But I don't understand how they will become significantly more dangerous at that time, and would be grateful for an explanation.  I think I would rather ride in a 143 in my retirement than drive myself in a car ...

Will Grand Central tag on tothis order do you think??

And Maybe XC will benefit from it? r are they expected to benefit from the displaced voyagers once the WCML Pendos are built?

I don't know what the safety argument is for withdrawing HSTs...the mark 3s are built like tanks, as the good crash protection they offered to passengers in the accidents at Southall, Ladbroke Grove and Ufton Nervett showed. However, the sooner the network is rid of the 14x series the better. These things consist in essence of bus bodies attached to wagon underframes by wire straps (I'm not making this up). Various safety experts such as Stanley Hall argue that they are considerably less crashworthy than the much-vilified mark I stock. This would appear to be born out by an accident at Winsford some years ago in which a four-car 142 empty stock (fortunately) working SPADed the signal at the end of a loop and ran onto the main line in front of a Virgin service hauled by a class 87 locomotive. The rear pacer unit was all but destroyed, with the body actually displaced from the underframe. The 87 didn't appear to suffer much more severe damage than a few scratches in the paintwork.

They ought to be better than the vomiters because they will not (normally) be powered by underfloor engines.  

The plan is for higher acceleraton to be achieved by using powered axles along the length of the train (distributed power distribution).  The juice comes from a Pantograph or a diesel power car at the end.   As electrification expands you ought to be able to swap a powercar for a pantograph car, so there is some flexibility

However, the plans are for the rake to include a small DMU-style underfloor engine for use in depot moves and for when the wires come down (by providing heating/lighting and possibly low speed traction).  Presumably this will be switched off in normal service?

Does anyone know if 26m long cars (as opposed to the HST 23m) will create route avliability/platforming problems?


But lets hope things like luggage space, catering, adequate toilets etc are not neglected as they have been on recent new trains

DFT-Rail Press Release (http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=392467&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False)

Includes downloadable pack in zip form at the bottom of the page which contains High Res Images and also Hitachi Rail Promo Video (excepts of which were shown on BBC News Channel this morning).

The seating doesn't look on the surface to be very comfortable, I also have concerns about the buffet provision too.

I read this as a make-work, job creation announcement combined with a let-industry-sort-out-IEP decision.

The consortium is a Civil Engineering Consultant, (to cut the platforms back) a foreign, non-European manufacturer (to provide the technology that the UK is too lazy to work out) and a Bank to finance it all.

Hitachi, like any other manufacturer, will certainly eliminate DfT pipe-dreams, and with 26m cars, could build a UIC car-length competitor train for Europe. There is also a UK manufacturing requirement, just like a US defence purchase. How high-level these jobs will be is anyone's guess - possibly just flat-pack assembly.

There are bits of train making still left in the UK. Could these (or should they) be technically leading or at least collaborating ? Perhaps in 20 years time we shall have, as well as Toyota, Nissan and Honda UK car makers, Hitachi RC&WW plc.

OTC.

Reading the above press release is a bit worrying!

1)the picture of cattle class appears to be mainly high density bus seats without tables, as on FGW "improved" HSTs.

2) They refer to 21% more seats, thats not much when looking at the overcrowding on todays services, I suggest that we need new trains with a substantialy increased capacity, 12 coachs instead of 7/8 (or pro rata if longer coaches are to be used)

3) they also refer to replacing the HSTs, what we need surely is new full length trains to suplement the HSTs which could still work less busy trains and/or secondary routes.

4) It will probably be discovered at the last minute, that the 26M long coaches wont fit some curved platforms without spending an extra few billion^ (meanwhile we can use a 2 car DMU)

If proper catering and luggage space was to be provided, we could spend a vast amount of public money to end up with less comfortable trains that only carry about 10% more passengers, hows that for progress!

It looks quite good and isn't a DMU with cramped curved walls.

I can almost guarantee they won't be better than the HSTs they replace in every way other than speed.

How many carraiges will each train have?

Why only 125 mph? >:(

Take the opportunity to fit in cab signalling and run them at 140 mph and (hopefully) 155 mph.

Why a diesel version? Electrify, and then run only the electric version!

They say that London to Edinburgh will be sped up by 12 mins (wow ;) amazing reduction).... well, that'll compensate for some of the slack. ::)

SO the design speed is 125mph??  COuld nothing be done toupgrade this?

Wasnt it meant to be a priced option for this facility?

Why 125 there are only a few places where 140 can be obtained on the network without substantial infrastructure works, the government are investigating HS2 HS3 HS4 etc which will be 186 / 200 mph

Parts of both the ECML and the GWML are ready for 140 (it having been obtained in the 70/80s).

The main upgrade required would be in cab signalling. This could be delivered with the new trains, thus minimising any disruption and cost.

I'll believe HS2 when I see it. Also - it is only as far as Birmingham/Trent Valley, so not that many benefits for longer distance travellers.

If HS3,4 are ever built, these new trains would be being scrapped anyway (middle of this century). So the faster speed would be worth it in the meantime.

10 x 26m coaches, which in the electric version, is equivalent to 11  fully seated 23m coaches.  I believe the requirement for a Pendolino/Voyager style crumple zone with no seats has gone away, having been found to be excessive (or it was never needed anyway)...

An earlier poster mentioned potential infrastructure problems, but the ITT and associated specs did cover this, the bidders were to include gauge clearance as well as station alterations, platform lengthening, depot changes etc, which is presumably why John Laing were included in the bid...

Paul

So if they arrive in 2015 and have a lifespan of 30 years, in 2045 the journey from Bristol to London will still be slower than in 1976. ;D

It seems to me that if they're having a separate diesel only version, they aren't going to electrify the GWML, otherwise where would it be for?

Yes, it is clear that electrification is still off the agenda - whatever NR say.

The dual version will be for Aberdeen, Inverness and Glasgow (if they decide to use the shorter Shotts line).

I think Matthew Taylor MP is a bit confused (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7887086.stm) the new Vehicles are to head to Penzance aren't they?

Well - that's inconsistency for you. On one page a map clearly showing that Penzance is included.

Then this article.

Come on BBC get your act together....

Lets take the upside to this, its another ^7.5b on top of the ^28b which is on top of the Thames Link spend and the ^0.5b on Reading and when it kicks in the ^16+b for Crossrail that's a lot of money in fact unprecedented amounts of money being spent on a mode of transport that as little as 10 years ago was written off by many as obsolescent out moded and not worth the scrape value of the rails.

The Chairman and executive team of Network Rail are extremely confident that the future is electrification, feasibility studies are a long way advanced to the extent of "in principle agreement" with National Grid for supply points across the UK (NG has a 20+ year capacity planning vision for the National Grid) its quite clear from both major political parties their transport philosophy has moved from build motorways to improve and build railways.

As I have posted before GWML electrification is 10 but more likely 15 years away

HST's only able to work till 2019...? Thats ridiculous considering that we still have MK1 Stock being used on the railways. Not to mention the Pullman stock...!  >:(

It should not be allowed!!!  >:(

They will yes. Whether they are insurmountable is a different question though.

You can get around most short platforms by having SDO (Selective Door Operation) equipment fitted, but the main hurdle is accommodating a train at the various terminating stations, as it obviously has to fit on a platform and inside a starting signal in order to return in the other direction.

A 2+8 HST with its 23m carriages and 17m power cars totals 218 metres, but if you extend much beyond that length then several of the main terminus stations such as Paddington, Swansea and Penzance will struggle to accommodate them. I would suggest that the IEP trains for the GW route would be a maximum of 9 carriages long (giving a train length of 234 metres) or they will simple be too long.

Obviously that will be one extra passenger carrying carriage, but much of the extra benefit of that will be negated by the 'crumple zone' that will still have to be built in at both ends. So, most of the additional capacity will have to come from having 3 metres extra length per carriage to play with.

Expect the plans outlined today to be tinkered with quite significantly over the coming years!

I think it's a bit much to berate the BBC, MPs or anyone else for being confused about all this when DafT is a model of vagueness and spin over the whole thing.

British-led? Not unless Hitachi has suddenly become British it ain't. Though I was very impressed by the straight face Geoff Hoon was able to keep when talking on TV about the Britishness of the whole thing.

Remember, it's the train no-one in the industry appears to want, the train that in bi-mode form, if one is to believe people who know about these things, simply can't deliver the performance on diesel power being claimed for it and the train that, if it ever appears, will probably look nothing like what they have been talking about today.

I was getting worried by the video of the IEP that it would only be 4 carriages long!! I feel relieved to hear oits 10 carriages!

Whats happening with Buffets?

And am I right to think that the 140mph was requested to be included in the tender as a priced option for the government to consider?

Not everyone is happy at the announcement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7886766.stm

I don^t believe it will be a ^new^ train as such, more of Hitachi selling an updated Javelin concept, already capable of 140mph, with the addition of the Hayabusa technology for the diesel variant. In engineering terms not a huge leap forward from what is already tried and tested.

These could certainly be introduced in the timescales envisaged, the biggest downer is the fact that the bodies will in all probability be shipped in from Japan.

Any thoughts on where the other major components would be sourced from, MTU for the diesels?

Exactly what Roger Ford has been saying for months. See February Modern Railways.

Certainly in diesel mode the trains cannot meet the DaFT spec distributed power or not. In bi mode it likely the diesel engine will be required to aid acceleration and maintain top speed on electrified lines. On diesel alone there is no way it can have the performance of an HST.

Also as Ian Walmsey said in the same issue 26 m coaches, because the infrastructure only allows fewer coaches per train, doesn't give you any more seating capacity than  trains with more shorter coaches. Thus shorter articulated coaches  in 6 coach sets will give more capacity than 9/10 26 m.

Railway Gazette International's take on it (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2009/02/9359/agility_trains_to_supply_super_express_fleet.html)

Agility Trains to supply Super Express fleet

UK: Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon announced on February 12 that the Agility Trains consortium of Hitachi, John Laing and Barclays has been selected as preferred bidder for the supply of ^up to 1 400^ vehicles as part of the government-led Intercity Express Programme.

Under the ^5bn train service provision contract, for which the financing is due to be put in place by the end of this year, the consortium will introduce a fleet of 200 km/h Super Express trains for inter-city services on the East Coast Main Line from 2013 to replace existing IC125 and IC225 trainsets. The trains would subsequently be introduced on the Great Western Main Line between London, Bristol and South Wales, with widespread operation expected from 2015. The IEP design is also expected to be used on medium-distance commuter services from London to the Thames Valley and Cambridge. Options within the contract would see the trains introduced on the London - Exeter - Penzance route and on the West Coast Main Line.

..... continues (click link)

tried and tested is good in my book.  Although won't it have been good to wait to see how good the  Javelin's actually are first

".....on the west coast mainline"

No thanks. We have 140 mph tilting trains already. Let's not take a step back and EXTEND journey times. :o

And I wish they would not be so cryptic about "Thames Valley." Do they mean to Oxford (Cotswold perhaps?), to Cheltenham? Both of these routes follow the Thames for a part, or all of the way.

And what about Cross Country? We NEED more capacity NOW! I'd rather the IC225s carried on for another 10 years, and the IEP went to XC. :(

My guess is the IC225 will be cascaded to the MML when that is electrified, the MML would be electrified before the GWML

Is there any serious reason though why none of these could be produced for XC? Im sure a few could be used to supplement the fleet? 

Only the fact that their Voyager fleet is less than 10 years old, and Arriva seem blissfully content with the view that a dozen or so extra seats in a refurb and the odd HST will make all the difference.

Also the long term plans of DfT for HS3 which is a Midlands to the SW route

Another tactic they seem to be using is either withdrawing advance purchase tickets or massively reducing the quotas (although this is only an observation from personal experience, I don't know if it's policy). A few times recently I've looked at journeys from Oxford at off-peak times, several weeks ahead of my journey; whilst I've been able to get some really good advance purchase deals using FGW and NXEC via London, cheap advance purchase XC tickets seem to be almost non-existent for the equivalent journeys via Birmingham. Still, suits me as the journey via London doesn't take any longer and I can use proper trains rather than vomit comets.

I believe it is policy for Advance Purchase tickets to have awful availablity on XC before 1030 am.

All very well for easing the morning peak, but the evening peak is likely to have more APers if the journey is of considerable length.

Perhaps.....

1. They will leave some of the HSTs with FGW for other services like Cotswold & Cheltenham services

2. They will cascade some FGW HST to Xc to replace their crap Voyagers.

Oh, I can dream...
Like I can dream that these trains will actually be better than Mk3 coaches and HST power cars....

I can just see that this is going to be another great disaster.  For FGW it looks like having one low powered diesel engine (with no failure redundancy), giving slow acceleration and low top speed.

And once they start running diesel trains, I expect that the electrification plans will be "postponed."

Let's face it - electrification never going to happen!

And as for London to Aberdeen dragging a diesel all the way to Edinburgh, and then dragging an electric to Aberdeen, it would be far better (cheaper and quicker) just to run a diesel all the way.

These plans are simple awful, and should be axed before any more money is wasted.

And I'd love to see how these trains are going to shave 10 or 15 minutes off journey times. 

Longer trains = less doors per seat = slower passenger unload / load times

The East Coast Main Line already has power operated doors.

Surely they will need something to replace their HSTs though!  Unless of course, all the MML Meridians go to XC,as would make sence, evem if they are different trains before anyone states this. Then the MML could have a uniform fleet of the IEP units. 

It's a bit of a concern that the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route is only an optional extra and not part of the main order as this leaves the possibility that we could end up with Voyager style underfloor engine DMUs on that route.

There is a chance that because these trains are being built by Hitachi they might not be too bad. The other group bidding to win the IEP contract included Bombardier which gave the UK rail network...yes you've guessed it Voyagers!

but Timmer built to what old beardie wanted.........with all due respect the 170 is not a bad bit of kit and Bombardier built that

The other thing that may have steered DfT choice is the work load of manufactures, there is a big orders planned and or ongoing for Thameslink, London Overground, London Underground and other ex BR suburban and rural fleet renewals and enhancements

Why do people insist on using this term?  The UK has two quite separate rail networks:  The National Rail network of Great Britain and the Northern Ireland network.

There are actually more than that London Underground, the Glasgow "clockwork oranage" Tyne and Weir metro ......

Indeed, Zo^: from the BBC,


See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7887086.stm

IEP for XC is definitely in the ITT, as one of the future phases. The recent announcement only seems to cover phase 1, ECML and GWML AFAICT. I guess they'll hang fire on XC until they know what can be cascaded (eg Meridians) depending on if there is any electrification?  ECML HSTs > EMT/MML , Meridian > XC, then later IEPs to EMT/MML is another option...

Paul

Yeah, I personally would rather see all of the meridians being transferred to XC, as I have said many times before, it would create a more uniform fleet os train interiors and standards etc.

The longer Meridians would be perfect for XC. 

It is begining to look as though this may not be such good news for passengers

According to Rail* the new trains will be in formations of 5 or 10 vehicles, so thats mainly 5 vehicle formations then ! With a few 10s.

No mention is made is made of different designs of power car for different train lengths, so presumably either the 5 car ones will be very overpowered or the 10 car ones  underpowered.
It does not look as though the 5 car ones will use only a single power car, since no mention is made of driving trailers.

It would also appear that they count the power cars in the number of vehicles which is a bit misleading since the diesel power cars will have no seating, and the electric ones only limited seating.
Thats like calling the present HSTs 10 car trains.

Seating layout will presumably be high density bus seats, like all new trains :(

The inclusion of a small diesel generator in the electric trains certainly sounds like a good idea, able to run the A/C or proceed at much reduced speed when the wires come down, as they will !

And at least the diesel version will have two power cars for "get you home redundancy" like the HSTs.

* issue 612, page 6

The actual numbers of 10 and 5 car units is given precisely (in terms of daily diagrams required) in the DfT's ITT. It certainly isn't mostly 5s with a few 10s.
The 10 car diesel has 2 power cars. There is no 5 car diesel only variant. The 5 car bi-mode has a single diesel power car as shown in Hitachi's brief.  The electric driving car of the bi-mode (it is not a driving trailer) has about 60 odd seats using Hitachi's seating capacity figures.
Seating layout is covered in detail in the Train Technical Specification, on DfT's site, which is a bit too detailed to summarise, however the ratios of airline to table seating are all in there for the three types of train, intercity, interurban, and commuter. As an example, the intercity standard class has 50/50 airline and table. Achieved total seat numbers and seating pitches are in the Hitachi spec.

DfT ITT: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/iepinvitationtotender.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/iepinvitationtotender.pdf)
DfT Train Technical Specification: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ieptraintechnicalspecifi.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ieptraintechnicalspecifi.pdf)
Hitachi info sheet: http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf (http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf)

Hope this helps you find some of the facts...

Paul

Thanks for the above links, which I have only viewed briefly as yet.

Whilst I find your information somwhat re-assuring, I have seen so many new trains introduced that have been shorter, with reduced legroom and primarily bus seats that I have become somwhat cynical.

I note with concern the statement that the interior layout can be altered to meet the needs of TOCs, I cant imagine that FGW would make any positive changes !
After all, complaints about lack of seats are allways understood to mean that customers want high density bus seating.
And of course there is still time de-spec or simplify the trains "lets only build the interurban variant" for example.

Whilst we may hope that the new trains will have a proper restaurant, it does not look very likely, probably wont even have a buffet if other new trains are anything to go by!.

The Hitachi info sheet certainly seems to suggest that the self powered variety will indeed have only eight passenger coaches.  I cant see how any more could be added at a later date without magically getting more power from somewhere.

If the wires ever do get to red soil country, I can't see them penetrating west of Exeter.  I am told that current loadings west of Newbury on the B&H are not exactly encouraging, other than at peaks and given the apparent intent to confine electrification to the M4 corridor, a long term diesel IEP option is perhaps the best the south-west can hope for, at least before 2020.

Funny that, don't think I have EVER been on a lightly loaded train towards London (and this is at Newton Abbot)

Oh dear, Why are new trains always too short.  The basic economic principle behind trains which has been true for 175 years is that longer trains cost less to operate per passenger.  If you are only carrying a few dozen people you can probably do it cheaper in a bus.  I don't see how you can say that there is insufficient  demand for travel to justify an upgrade when demand is artifically surpressed by high fares on every intercity route 

Er, come to think of it, it wouldn't actually be that magical to simply add an extra cab-less power car to the formation to maintain the performance if more passenger vehicles were added.

I am only repeating what was said to me by a reasonably senior railwayperson a few days ago.  However, I did live in Cornwall on my return from foreign parts and I have to say that even then, some of the off peak London trains were filled to less than bursting point.  The only contact I have with HS services on the B&H is at Westbury,  but from a casual glance, some of these look to be less than rammed.

Perhaps I can understand the Taunton/Exeter stopping Hst, which due to it's pathetic journey times is bound to be busy.

I dont think that this would be viable, the proposed trains (self powered variant) consist of a driving diesel power car at each end, therefore adding additional powered vehicles would be a challenge.
One could probably add aditional trailer vehicles, but that would reduce performance.

It would therefore appear that we are going to be stuck with trains that have no more passenger vehicles than the present ones. The coaches are longer and therefore contain more seats, but the gain appears rather limited.

It is now just over 2 years since I wrote the above.
There have been many changes in that time, including underfloor DMU engines instead of locomotives or power cars.
However my negative suggestion that the new fleet would consist of "mainly 5 car units with a few 10s" appears to have been unduly optimistic !
According to the current isue of RAIL the new fleet will consist mainly of 5 car multiple units, with a few 8 car units, no 10 car ones.
So not very good news if 8 car HSTs are to be downgraded to 5 car DMUS, even if these can also use electric power.
Interior layout has not yet been decided, but seems likely to follow normal DMU practice of high density bus seating, with 2 tables per vehicle, and no catering.

There is no evidence for that; as we have just been discussing in more recent threads. 

They could just as easily fit the appropriate intercity, inter regional or commuter interior layout required by the ITT.  I notice we had this exchange 2 years ago in this thread as well...

Paul

Of course the internal layout could be in proper intercity format, but the fact that the train lengths have already been reduced, does not inspire confidence.
My negative forecast re train length has proved correct, and I therefore fear a modern high density commuter layout.
No doubt a survey will be done that shows that customers prefer high density bus seats to facing seats at tables.
Cant forsee any proper meal service in a 5 car DMU.

You're wrong about the train lengths too....

What does one 5car plus another 5car car equal?   Oh, yes, a 10car train!
Plus the flexibility of splitting further out from Londonm when you generally drag around at least 5cars worth of air....

So which is more useful?

Where would these trains be built?

Japan, and constructed in Newton-le-Willows - as per Hitachi's proposal.

Geographically challenged, Chris B? 

It's Newton Aycliffe - about a hundred miles to the North East of Newton le Willows I think...

Paul

Whoops - I knew it was Newton something! Apologies!

It could have been worse - at least you knew it wasn't Newton Abbot...   :o

Paul

Of course they can be coupled together, but I suspect that we will see a lot of 5 car trains replacing 8 car, which not everyone regards as an improvement.
I remember the 5 car Adelantes, that in theory were going to run as 10 car trains to increase capacity. In fact a single 5 car unit was used instead of an 8 car HST.
I remember standing from Castle Cary in a 5 car Adelante to London (buses instead of trains from Taunton, numerous bus fulls of customers attempting to find seats on a new shorter train. I know of no reason why a full length train could not have been used)

The other drawback of new shorter trains is that it is seldom viable to have a proper hot buffet, and certainly not a restaurant. The provision of 2 full buffets would be excesive, and having some trains with catering and others without would be too complicated. Better to just have a trolley !

We're going to have to agree to disagree, because, in normal operation, the TOC wouldn't want to do this - it wants to aim for everyone in a seat. I don't know the current capacity of the HSTs since the new seating went in - but a 5car Adelante carries the same as a 3car 165. So a 10car 180 would carry the same as a 6car 165. How does that compare to n 8car HST these days?

I suspect that these new 5car units (did it get reported here that there are to be 5car electrics as well as bi-mode, as well as 8car electrics?) will be high capacity seating a la HST, rather than the current 180 seating.


Being too long ago, who knows what the reason was - but they sure as hell didsn't do this in normal *planned* traffic.....


Indeed, the EXpress Cafe is here to stay, sadly.

The longer carriages were reported to "increase capacity" at TravelWatch so it's a good bet to suggest that a five car IEP would carry rather more people than a 5 car 180.    Also at TravelWatch, I very specifically listed to and noted considerable detail.  There was talk of all the carriages in service on any day normally being formed into 5 car bimodes or 8 car electrics - an implication (to me) that there is no plan for any other units such as 5 car electric.   Did I misunderstand something, or have things moved?

Thinking about it, a five car bimode and a 5 car electric working together could do some sensible things ... 10 car to Cardiff, electric cars left there, 5 car to Swansea.  Until "this train is in reverse order today"  :-\

Sorry, where do you get this from? The Adelantes were always intended to be used as five-car formations most of the time, with 10-car trains formed up for a number of peak workings. They operated in this manner pretty much the entire time FGW ran them. And when they worked on the main line for the first few years, they were being used to provide extra services, not 'instead of' HSTs

Given that you mention buses, presumably the occasion you refer to was a Sunday - perhaps an HST failed? Perhaps someone thought a 180 was better than leaving people stuck at Castle Cary? Who knows?


Now remind me, exactly how many full restaurant services does FGW operate? Indeed from May the only proper mainline restaurant services left in the UK. Er, four, on a route that will continue to be served by HSTs. Travelling Chef type meals may pose more of a challenge but the eight-car sets would probably be able to accommodate decent catering space - and FGW is now a bit of an oddity in offering anything like this type of catering to standard class, even across a buffet counter, so with another operator a trolley might be all you would get anyway, whereas FGW provided a decent mini-buffet in 180s, far superior to the awful Voyager 'shop', and has provided something similar in the 2+7 HSTs.

Seating capacity-wise, a refreshed 'low' density eight-car HST is about 470 seats, with a 'high' density 2+8 just over 520. With loss of some first class seats and a few standard ones to the mini-buffet, a 2+7 may be 500-ish. A 180 is about 280 seats, so 560 for a 10-car pairing. As for 165s, I would challenge ChrisB to fit 275 incarnations of himself comfortably into a 165!

A fact sheet was released by Agility last year http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf referring to previous versions of IEP - but still with 26m coaches - gave a capacity of 351 seats for a high-density five-car electric set, which is probably the basis for the bi-mode with underfloor engines (probably not allowing for a buffet, but even if you did fit one, still plenty more than a 180 (a 5-car 221 is 250 seats). The then 10-car 'self-propelled' set, ie an HST replacement with power cars at either end and with eight passenger coaches, seated 550 in Inter-City configuration, while an 'inter-urban' layout pushed that to 580.

There is no plan to build anything for IEP now other than 8-car all-electric sets and 5-car bi-modes.

Don't forget that IEP is also coming to the East Coast. These 5car electrics may all be for there?....

I know where I saw these mentioned, but need to check back to see where it was being quoted from....

Another point about the 'East Coast' route is that the plans might include the FCC service from Kings Cross to Cambridge and Kings Lynn again, now that it has been decided that Thameslink is not covering that route beyond Cambridge.

What I'm suggesting is that there is a potential use for 5 car all-electric IEPs on the ECML that doesn't involve the 'intercity' services.

Paul 

there was a point in my question about where these are being built taking into account the sad situation out there at the moment

Aaahh, indeed.

THe Hitachi factory isn't in the affected area, AFAIK. Power supply is currently an issue, but then again, no order has yet been actually placed has it?