Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

I agree with Rhydgaled regarding the adequacy of 5 car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains. On the Cotswold Line peak hour services are run by 8 car HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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^▸ (Selective Door Opening) 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.

[IndustryInsider]

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^▸ (Selective Door Opening), 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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) unless platforms are lengthened.

Whilst some services which are currently HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

[anthony215]

I cant remeber where I read it but there was talk that one of the bidders for the GW^▸ (Great Western) 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.

[broadgage]

"--- As I think I pointed out before, the number of standard class seats on a 5-Car Bi-Mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^▸ (High Speed Train) (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.

[ChrisB]

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)

[Tim]

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.

[grahame]

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)

[ChrisB]

But cost a lot more in staff & access costs.

We'll have to just wait & see

[IndustryInsider]

No increase in peak frequency would be possible without completing the redoubling, and that isn't a serious consideration on anything from NR^» (Network Rail - home page) that I've seen.  Then again, nor have platform extensions been mentioned.

[paul7575]

Then again, nor have platform extensions been mentioned.

Although there's nothing explicit in terms of station names, the 'GW^▸ (Great Western) IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)' section of the March update to the CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) 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

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), 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.

[paul7575]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), 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^▸ (by the way) they also state that 10 car trains will be used for Cheltenham services.

Paul

[stuving]

The GW^▸ (Great Western) RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) referred to the work on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

[IndustryInsider]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), 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.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Stuving says:"You could run two 1x5s close to each other to Worcester or further."
With paths on the GW^▸ (Great Western) 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.