Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

I agree with the fitting of limited diesel power, IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) 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.

[Rhydgaled]

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^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) 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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)?

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.

[Network SouthEast]

Do the lights go out when existing EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) 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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)?

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^▸ (Public Address)/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 

As for why no opening windows? The RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) 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

[grahame]

Brakes from Melksham, then. That will please somebody!

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

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^▸ (United Kingdom) operation in our town.

[broadgage]

Existing EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) 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^▸ (First Capital Connect) 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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

[stuving]

Not sure what level of lighting will be provided on the electric IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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).

On lighting, the requirement refers (not surprisingly) to a BS:

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.

[broadgage]

Depends on the definition of emergency.
But my understanding is that if a nominaly electric IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

[stuving]

Depends on the definition of emergency.

of course these are defined:

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:

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) nothing should have been negotiated away since, but in other areas the design will naturally provide something extra.

[Lee]

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:

Independently Powered EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) to be tested

UK^▸ (United Kingdom): 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^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) 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...

[Surrey 455]

Independently Powered EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) to be tested

UK^▸ (United Kingdom): 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^▸ (Great Western Main Line)?
• 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.

[stuving]

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^▸ (Great Western Main Line)?
• 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^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) 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.

[Electric train]

Independently Powered EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) to be tested

UK^▸ (United Kingdom): 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^▸ (Great Western Main Line)?
• 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 as part of the Kent Coast electrification Dover Marine and Folkestone Harbour could not have third rail

[anthony215]

GBRF have been awardded the contract to test the new IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) units from 2015:

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

[TonyK]

A sensible move. Not only will it (I hope) give me the chance to see an IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

[ChrisB]

If I recall correctly, the original service outlined by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) for IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) included 4 trains per hour from Bristol TM^‡(resolve) 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^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) via BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) were only stopping at those two stations. Whether that included Reading wasn't checked though....but def no DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) or SWI^» (Swindon - next trains) stops.