Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[1st fan]

This was posted on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) Forum......
https://mobile.twitter.com/GWRHelp/status/935188418652524544/video/1

An excellent visual comparison of the acceleration of an IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) v HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

260m (2x5 car, 600 tonnes approx) IET taking 32 seconds to clear the platform. 224m (8+2 400 tonnes approx) HST taking 51 seconds.

I'm not suggesting anything improper in that video but I've seen an HST leaving Moreton in Marsh faster than in that video. I've timed 45 seconds whilst waiting on the other platform for my HST back to London. Okay so that's only six seconds faster than the one in the video but it does make you wonder if that HST was at full power. The IET is impressive at accelerating though.

[Adelante_CCT]

A sight of the future, but yesterday due to disruption a class 800 travelled from Paddington to Bristol in under 80 minutes.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C55410/2017/12/28/advanced

[Thatcham Crossing]

.....that RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) record shows PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to RDG^‡(resolve) in 26 mins, which is highly plausable, but RDG to DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) in 7 mins surely cannot be right!

[IndustryInsider]

The reports are all automated, but subject to occasional rounding errors.  That train passed Didcot Parkway 15 seconds before Didcot East Junction according to that, which of course can’t be right!  If running on electric from Reading and flying though Didcot at 125mph, a time of less than 8 minutes would be achievable I would have thought?

[Adelante_CCT]

.....that RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) record shows PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to RDG^‡(resolve) in 26 mins, which is highly plausable, but RDG to DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) in 7 mins surely cannot be right!

The 12:01 'departure' from Reading is false, this train ran non-stop from Paddington to Bristol. It passed Reading at 11:58 and then Goring at 12:04, and Didcot at 12:08.

[eightf48544]

Railmiles gives station to station distance  as 18 22 so 10 minutes would seem feasible. Just under 110 average

[SandTEngineer]

This popped up on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) Forum.....

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2018-01-25/125088/

Trains:Written question - 125088
Q Asked by Diana Johnson(Kingston upon Hull North)[N] Asked on: 25 January 2018
Department for TransportTrains125088
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the (a) maximum capable speed and (b) average expected speed of the trains will be in (i) diesel and (ii) electric mode in optimal conditions of the new bi-modal trains to be introduced in the Virgin Trains East Coast franchise and the Hull Trains open access operator in 2018-19 to 2019-20.

A Answered by: Joseph Johnson Answered on: 30 January 2018
On the East Coast Mainline, Intercity Express Trains (IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train)) are capable of achieving 125mph in electric traction and in diesel mode a balancing speed (determined by a number of variables such as track gradient and passenger load) of approximately 115mph under test conditions. The average speed of the IETs will be dependent on the route, stopping pattern and dwell times at stations; we therefore do not hold this information. With respect to Hull Trains, it is not possible to comment on the performance of any trains not procured by the Department.

My bolding of part of that answer.  So you specify, design and procure a train but don't know what its performance will be on the lines and service pattern it was specified to operate over.....

[stuving]

My bolding of part of that answer.  So you specify, design and procure a train but don't know what its performance will be on the lines and service pattern it was specified to operate over.....

Performance was specified in terms of overall times for a number of journeys, with detailed assumptions about the track (gradients, speed restrictions, load, etc.) and dwell times. The ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) routes were Kings Cross-Edinburgh (229), Kings Cross-Newcastle (162), Edinburgh-Aberdeen (135), and Edinburgh-Inverness (188). (Times are in minutes for a bimode, which are equal to an electric one under OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE").)

The average speed over any part of a journey wasn't made a requirement. Obviously you could just take the overall distance for each of those journeys and work out an average speed, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the questioner was getting at - so I can see why it wasn't offered as an answer.

[broadgage]

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^▸ (Great Western) 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^▸ (High Speed Train)
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

Basically stating that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

Well I HAVE waited until the new trains have been delivered, and can confirm that catering in standard class IS downgraded to only a trolley, if that ! provision has been variable. No hot food in standard, though it may remain a future aspiration.
I have also confirmed that that the majority of the fleet are only 5 car.
Single 5 car units HAVE been used regularly on busy services.
More than half the seats ARE bus style, not at tables.
The seats are generally accepted to be too hard.

[IndustryInsider]

You were certainly proved to be right in some cases, but you were incorrect in assumptions that legroom would reduce (it has increased) and that provisional internal layouts with more tables than the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s would change when the units were built (they remained the same and percentage of seats at tables has increased over the current HST layout).  You also said that underfloor engines would spoil the experience (farting and belching was the phrase you used IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly)), when you can barely hear or feel them.  You also predicted that extra 802 units ordered would be 5-car ones when they were actually 9-car ones.

Your 'now famous' crystal ball gets a 5 out of 10 in my reckoning.  Room for improvement. 

[Rob on the hill]

One of my concerns is that with more 5 coach IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) (with the resulting overcrowding), any future "enhancements" will include fewer tables and more seats, with less legroom.

[IndustryInsider]

I guess that is entirely possible, and, for the cynics amongst us, one you could keep on predicting until either it does happen or the trains are scrapped in 40-50 years  Whichever is sooner.

[broadgage]

The new units do indeed have more tables than the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) that have been downgraded to a high density commuter layout, but they have a lot less than a proper inter city train.
I can remember when inter city trains (HSTs and other types) had all or almost all seats in bays of 4 around a table.

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), HSTs used to have 16 tables per coach, so that was 64 seats at tables, and another 8 seats not at tables for a total capacity of 72. This has been steadily downgraded over the years, progress you know.

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) HSTs have been so downgraded that a new train with less than half of the seats at tables is now said to be an improvement.

So how does 72 seats per coach on a proper HST  compare with 88 seats per coach on a new train ? Not very well I suspect despite the longer vehicles.

[IndustryInsider]

...progress you know.

It's all subjective of course.  I prefer airline seats when travelling alone or with just one companion and I prefer table seats when travelling in a group for obvious reasons.  Some, like yourself, prefer tables seats no matter what.  That's why, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), around 8-10 tables per carriage is about right.

I travelled from Oxford Parkway to Marylebone on one of their MK^▸ (Milton Keynes) III's a month or so back - they still have original layouts with virtually all tables and low seat backs.  It was full and I am being totally honest when I say it really felt a little uncomfortable being sat looking at loads of faces down the carriage and avoiding footsie with the tall chap sat opposite.  I would happily have swapped for a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) airline seat.

[broadgage]

You were certainly proved to be right in some cases, but you were incorrect in assumptions that legroom would reduce (it has increased) and that provisional internal layouts with more tables than the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s would change when the units were built (they remained the same and percentage of seats at tables has increased over the current HST layout).  You also said that underfloor engines would spoil the experience (farting and belching was the phrase you used IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly)), when you can barely hear or feel them.  You also predicted that extra 802 units ordered would be 5-car ones when they were actually 9-car ones.

Your 'now famous' crystal ball gets a 5 out of 10 in my reckoning.  Room for improvement. 

Are you certain that the class 802s are full length ? I thought that they are mainly half length, 14 full length and 22 half length. So these "higher specification" units for the longer journeys are still mainly 5 car, still have no buffets, and presumably a similar internal layout.
And as with the first lot, the 5 car units will enter service first so we will presumably have 5 car trains to the far West initially, during training.