IEP - Contract Awarded for 596 Cars

[ainsworth74]

What are you sources?

 

[tbtc]

It's inevitable, Thameslink will take over the majority of GN outer suburban services, so most, if not all of the current fleet, will be surplus to requirement. The takeover of Kings Cross-Cambridge-Kings Lynn (Cambridge Cruiser) is definitely happening.

i.e. it's not official

 

[RobShipway]

i.e. it's not official

Has been mentioned in a few Rail magazines as a future possibility.

 

[Skimble19]

A lot has been mentioned in Rail Magazines as possibilities.. Pendolinos for East Coast must have come up who knows how many times - doesn't mean it'll happen.

 

[D365]

My mistake, it's not been confirmed but I doubt that it'll be retained by the new Thameslink franchisee, especially if the option for the 12 5-car IEPs is taken up. As an aside, services to Kings Lynn were run by InterCity before electrification in 1992!

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-24/consultation-icec.pdf

 

[159220]

I don't have the original PDF release that you are referring to, however I did copy most of the details that were contained within it into a word document. The seating capacities and train formations that you are looking for are as follows:

Formation
Five Car
1. DPTS, 60 seats standard
2. MeS, 88 seats standard
3. M(e)S, 64 seats standard, catering
4. M(e)C, 30 seats first, 38 seats standard
5. DPTF, 29 seats first, disabled toilet

Eight Car
1. DPTS, 48 seats standard, disabled toilet
2. M(e)S, 88 seats standard
3. MES, 88 seats standard
4. TS, 72 seats standard, cafe bar
5. TS, 88 seats standard
6. M(e)C, 30 seats first, 38 seats standard
7. M(e)F, 56 seats first
8. DPTF, 20 seats first, kitchen

D- Driving Car, P- pantograph, T- trailer car, M- motor car, e- diesel engine, (e)- diesel engine in bi-mode version, S- standard class, C- standard and first class, F- First class.

So the 5-car Intercity sets are expected to have a total of 309 seats, 59 of which are first class.

Thank you for sharing those details. Some very interesting points arise from it.
Firstly i am surprised the 8car (yes i know it is 9 car now) only has one additional engine! The orginal 9 car 222s has 9 engines, a 9 car bi mode might only have 5 - that is brilliant Japanese engerineering efficiency in action there!
Secondly, I am surprised that though we are gaining 3 additional metres in coach, looks like when compared to FGW Hi-density Mk3 we only gain an extra 4 seats. Now this could be argued as a bad thing, i wont! This can only suggest we are to get far more table seats
Thirdly, I am puzzelled to why on the 5 car M(e)S catering we are losing a third of the coach to catering. I do not understand why a man with an over priced trolley, selling instant coffee deserves the space that otherwise could be many more seats! Surely the trolley can be stowed in First?
Fourthly, with the 5 car bi-mode, interesting to see that only two engines are additional, thus when electrification reaches further, you are not losing the value of 4 engines but only 2. (as of course the APU engine stays).

These details reconfirm to me that the SET is of good Japanese thinking, following the very interesting DfT IEP specification document i found and have attached.

Ps - my usual train, the 444, has similar first/standard in the driving coach. I think it is brilliant as it is a small private standard class area, so the M(e)C on the SET shall be my favourite coach to ride in!

 

[jopsuk]

in the Thameslink franchise starting in 2013 the Kings Cross to Peterborough/Cambridge/Kings Lynn fasts will be part of the franchise, using (mainly) 365s. Now, franchises can be changed mid-term, and that franchise is the transitional one to 2020 anyway.

The consultation document alone makes this clear-

As explained in Section 7 above, the Department is considering whether, at a later date, the ICEC franchisee should become the operator of some or all of the Great Northern services that do not become through Thameslink trains and continue to use King’s Cross and Moorgate.

(as an aside, I doubt the ICEC franchise will ever include Moorgate!)

 

[swt_passenger]

It's inevitable, Thameslink will take over the majority of GN outer suburban services, so most, if not all of the current fleet, will be surplus to requirement. The takeover of Kings Cross-Cambridge-Kings Lynn (Cambridge Cruiser) is definitely happening.

However the 5 car electric IEPs for ECML in the current order are definitely not allocated to Kings Cross - Cambridge - Kings Lynn services. That is an option for a future order of IEP, like the option to replace the 91/Mk4s sets. Only the latter posssible order has a number shown against it by DfT. It is clearly described that way in the DfT's announcement:

There are also options for ordering further trains, which could operate on the following routes:
i.Great Western: London – Exeter – Penzance
ii.East Coast: Replacement of the newer Intercity 225 electric stock
iii.East Coast: London – Cambridge – Kings Lynn
iv.West Coast: London – Milton Keynes – Northampton

Use of the announced 5 car electric IEPs on additional (ie new) ECML services is also explicit in the ECML ITT consulatation, and page 19 and 20 refer to this, :

IEP introduction provides the opportunity to make improvements to the timetable on the ECML to take advantage of the operational characteristics of the new trains and potentially to resource an increase in service frequency to six trains per hour off-peak and up to eight trains in peak hours. It is anticipated that the industry will undertake a major timetable review for May 2019...

This has all been discussed in other threads, and also earlier in this one: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1162327&postcount=43
where you seemed to update yourself that Kings Lynn IEP was only a future option?

 

[sprinterguy]

Secondly, I am surprised that though we are gaining 3 additional metres in coach, looks like when compared to FGW Hi-density Mk3 we only gain an extra 4 seats. Now this could be argued as a bad thing, i wont! This can only suggest we are to get far more table seats

The 88 seats per carriage is identical to the number that BR proposed for it's 26 metre Mark 5 carriage to be used in the Intercity 250 trains. With this being the case, I feel satisfied that the IEP is probably going to deliver a train with a well designed passenger saloon layout.

I would much rather that than taking the approach of trying to hem in as many seats as possible: I do wonder though, if the FGW high density approach was considered, it would be possible to fit 100 seats into the length of an IEP carriage (Certain Network Turbo vehicles already seat close to or more than 100 passengers in a 23 metre bodyshell, but they use 3+2 seating of course): The 88 seats proposed for an IEP carriage is a 16% increase in seating capacity over the 76 seats fitted into the first refurb layout of the mark 3s: A 16% increase over the 84 seats fitted into an FGW high density mark 3 would bring the total up to 97 seats. As I say though, I would not want to see such an arrangement considered for anything other than perhaps any commuter IEP sets that might be built in the future.

Thirdly, I am puzzelled to why on the 5 car M(e)S catering we are losing a third of the coach to catering. I do not understand why a man with an over priced trolley, selling instant coffee deserves the space that otherwise could be many more seats! Surely the trolley can be stowed in First?

I think that catering provision means far more than just trolley stowage! I certainly hope so! The cafe bar denotation on the 8-car formation suggests a proper buffet counter, or at the very least an arrangement akin to the shop on Virgin's Voyagers and Pendolinos, not just somewhere to stick a trolley.

Ps - my usual train, the 444, has similar first/standard in the driving coach. I think it is brilliant as it is a small private standard class area, so the M(e)C on the SET shall be my favourite coach to ride in!

Approaching the composite carriage arrangement from the opposite angle (from the opposite end of the carriage, in fact!) though, from that of a first class passenger (Not my usual position personally mind, but you do have to consider these things), then I am not keen on split first/standard class accomodation within a single carriage. If a proper division is not provided between the two classes, it can serve to reduce the exclusivity and enhanced ambience of first class, which is a criticism that has been levelled in the past at the MC vehicle used on EMTs' Meridians.

 

[tbtc]

Has been mentioned in a few Rail magazines as a future possibility.

Yes, its a "future possibility" (along with many other things), but there's a danger that we start assuming things as "certain" that aren't.

For example, its fairly likely that (with electrification of the line from Manchester to Selby in CP5) the line to Hull may well get electrified in CP6.

But people then start to treat this as "fact" and "inevitable" and "it will happen" and we get into a world of chinese whispers.

 

[sprinterguy]

Firstly i am surprised the 8car (yes i know it is 9 car now) only has one additional engine! The orginal 9 car 222s has 9 engines, a 9 car bi mode might only have 5 - that is brilliant Japanese engerineering efficiency in action there!

Has it been stated anywhere that the nine carriage Bi-mode sets will have more than four diesel power units? I know that the IEP specification permits for a maximum train length of twelve carriages which would feature five powered carriages, but I don’t know whether the ninth vehicle of the planned trains would be a trailer or a powered vehicle.

Agility Trains are looking at procuring a diesel power unit for IEP that will deliver between 670 and 940 horsepower, and are, I believe, most interested in the upper end of that range. With four diesel generators onboard a nine carriage set, that will provide between 2680hp (Equivalent to a class 47 loco) and 3760hp (Equivalent to a 5-car Voyager) when running on diesel power. I imagine that that will be fine for coping with running at no more than 90-100mph on the non-electrified sections of route that they are expected to operate over, even the steeply graded Highland Main line. Based on recent-ish calculations by Agility Trains of the weight of the IEP units, a 9-car Bi-mode set is likely to weigh between 400 and 450 tonnes if anyone is wondering about the likely power to weight ratio.

It's a nice thought, from a passenger ambience point of view, that about half of the vehicles in a 9 carriage Bi-mode set will be unpowered trailers.

 

[LE Greys]

With the Cambridge services, it would make good sense to separate them out and use IEPs on what are effectively long fill-in turns, which would have to include the commuter fast services to Peterborough - with the potential to have EDs on those and extend them to Lincoln. The alternative would be to pull the Cambridge trains out of King's Cross altogether and send them down the West Anglia line instead, handing them over to whoever has Great Eastern at the time, so that they would no longer take up two paths per hour through Welwyn, although this would depend on capacity improvements on the West Anglia line.

As for Moorgate, I agree that it makes little sense to include it with East Coast unless the idea is a full integration for the entire route. Really, that's a job for London Overground, unless the line is ever extended to form "Thameslink 2".

 

[HSTEd]

Please explain how trains packing 3,000 or more horsepower, depending on length, can't keep time east of Peterborough on what are hardly the most taxing lines in Britain? If they can't cope with that kind of work, how would they handle the Cotswold Line or the West Country, with steep gradients in places and closely-spaced stations?

They can't keep time because the Breckland line has SP differentials throughout, so while the Cl158s and Turbostars used there can run at either 75 or 90mph, the Class 222s would be limited to 60 or 75mph respectively.

 

[Skimble19]

My mistake, it's not been confirmed but I doubt that it'll be retained by the new Thameslink franchisee, especially if the option for the 12 5-car IEPs is taken up. As an aside, services to Kings Lynn were run by InterCity before electrification in 1992!

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-24/consultation-icec.pdf

Either way, they would be fairly useless if they we're replacing the 12 car services, as you'd need them coupled, which would give 6 formations, allowing one for maintenance you'd only be able to run 5 fast services.. That alone can discounts this from being relevant to the GN services.

 

[HSTEd]

I imagine that if there are no commuter IEPs for the CAmbridge superfasts ("cruiser" sounds odd) then the new franchisee will replace the Class 365s currently used with some of the Class 377s released by the Thameslink programme.

It would make sense as it would remove a class from the Thameslink inventory.

 

[tbtc]

I imagine that if there are no commuter IEPs for the CAmbridge superfasts ("cruiser" sounds odd) then the new franchisee will replace the Class 365s currently used with some of the Class 377s released by the Thameslink programme.

It would make sense as it would remove a class from the Thameslink inventory.

Are there really going to be many 377s freed up by Thameslink expansion? And wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of the 313s from the combined "Southern Thameslink" franchise first?

There certainly won't be enough 377s free to replace all 365s.

 

[jopsuk]

I imagine that if there are no commuter IEPs for the CAmbridge superfasts ("cruiser" sounds odd) then the new franchisee will replace the Class 365s currently used with some of the Class 377s released by the Thameslink programme.

It would make sense as it would remove a class from the Thameslink inventory.

"cruiser" was I think a name used on the screens at one time for the service- though I've never seen this, whilst I have seen "the Cambridge Express" at Kings Cross (though not since the new concourse opened?).

The Thameslink 377s are allocated I thought to strengthen existing non-Thameslink services?

 

[swt_passenger]

"cruiser" was I think a name used on the screens at one time for the service- though I've never seen this, whilst I have seen "the Cambridge Express" at Kings Cross (though not since the new concourse opened?).

The Thameslink 377s are allocated I thought to strengthen existing non-Thameslink services?

They are - one of the firm proposals (mentioned in the London and SE RUS) is the strengthened WLL service - making that 8 car and 2 tph requires a significant uplift in the number of dual voltage units, as does any extension south of Croydon, which is a regular suggestion.

I'm pretty sure there'll be sufficient options for their use elsewhere on the network south of the Thames and we won't see them on the GN.

 

[D365]

Last time I checked, the FCC map labelled Cambridge fasts as the "Cambridge Cruiser". Whether or not these and Kings Lynn services are taken over by IEP, I would order 377s to replace all older trains (including a express variant for Gatwick/Brighton, and Cambridge/Kings Lynn if IEP option is not taken up), so that all non-Thameslink services, aside from Hertford Loop/Moorgate, are eventually serviced by 377s (including Wimbledon Loop and GN peaks). I'm getting way off-topic though!

 

[jopsuk]

Last time I checked, the FCC map labelled Cambridge fasts as the "Cambridge Cruiser".

How long ago was that? Certainly isn't on the current map. I've never seen it marked such on a map.

Whether or not these and Kings Lynn services are taken over by IEP, I would order 377s to replace all older trains (including a express variant for Gatwick/Brighton, and Cambridge/Kings Lynn if IEP option is not taken up), so that all non-Thameslink services, aside from Hertford Loop/Moorgate, are eventually serviced by 377s (including Wimbledon Loop and GN peaks). I'm getting way off-topic though!

The 365s have loads of life left in them. The current order of 5-car 377s for South London services will likely be the last. The only "current generation" Electrostars that might possibly ordered (and in current I include up to 379s) is a possibility of extra intermediate carriages for the LOROL 378s.

 

[D365]

I think the name must have been discontinued a while ago! I'll refer to those services as "Cambridge Fasts".

My reckoning is that by standardising most of the non-Thameslink fleet makes maintenance and driver training easier and more efficient. Alternatives could include retaining the 365s, if there is no other use for them, or converting some 375s and ordering new stock for the Kent franchise. Who knows what will happen though!

 

[LE Greys]

I think the name must have been discontinued a while ago! I'll refer to those services as "Cambridge Fasts".

My reckoning is that by standardising most of the non-Thameslink fleet makes maintenance and driver training easier and more efficient. Alternatives could include retaining the 365s, if there is no other use for them, or converting some 375s and ordering new stock for the Kent franchise. Who knows what will happen though!

I haven't seen the name in use since WAGN days. Some people I know refer to it as the 'Beer Train', an old students' nickname for the Cambridge Buffet Express.

With stock allocation, that sounds like a reasonable guess, although it would mean high-density stock on outer-suburban services which currently have low-density seating unless there is a separate subclass. Still, I think that's an acceptable compromise, considering how wedged these trains can get in the peaks. The 365s still have plenty of life left in them, and really ought to be kept together as a class. I'd expect to see them on Northern or Valley Lines, but certainly somewhere else.

 

[HSTEd]

Are there really going to be many 377s freed up by Thameslink expansion? And wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of the 313s from the combined "Southern Thameslink" franchise first?

There certainly won't be enough 377s free to replace all 365s.

The majority of the 365s will be replaced by 700s surely?

The number of 377s freed by the Thameslink programme is greater than that assigned to FCC but I still can't find out exactly how many, so I find it hard to believe all of them will be needed for strengthening.

27 Class 377s will make up 9 12 carriage formations, which translates to 4.5 hour cycle time at 2tph.
The 2hr15 each way or similar with turning around time, which means the fleet could cover in theory every Cambridge Superfast being extended to King's Lynn, let alone only half of them.

As to getting rid of the 313s, as you can't be rid of them entirely, due to the lack of any other units with suitable end doors for Moorgate trains, it would surely make more sense to eliminate a whole class rather than part of one.

As to the 365s having "loads of life left in them", if they do there is no reason why it has to be on the GN services to Cambridge, there are plenty of other opportunities for spritely 100mph units, like TPE services.

 

[ainsworth74]

Everyone keeps saying that 700s are going to be replacing most/all of the stock on GN, but do we actually having anything official that suggests that this will be the case? I'm not doubting people, I'm just honestly curious as I'd like to know what the official line is.

 

[sprinterguy]

The majority of the 365s will be replaced by 700s surely?

Why would they? The fast Peterborough and Cambridge services won’t be part of the Thameslink network, which are the services where the 365s do most of their trade.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would they? The fast Peterborough and Cambridge services won’t be part of the Thameslink network, which are the services where the 365s do most of their trade.

I thought they would be?
The documentation I see thrown around reduces the none Thameslink services on FCC to the HErtford loop and the Cambridge Superfasts?

2tph to Cambridge with 1tph to King's Lynn and 3tph Hertford Loop

 

[sprinterguy]

Everyone keeps saying that 700s are going to be replacing most/all of the stock on GN, but do we actually having anything official that suggests that this will be the case? I'm not doubting people, I'm just honestly curious as I'd like to know what the official line is.

The East Coast franchise consultation lists four Great Northern service groups that will not be incorporated into the Thameslink programme, and can therefore be considered for inclusion in the East Coast franchise. These consist of:

King’s Cross – Peterborough
King’s Cross – Cambridge – King’s Lynn
Moorgate – Welwyn Garden City
Moorgate – Hertford North – Stevenage

The Thameslink franchise consultation, which was published earlier, does not give details as specific, but simply states that “up to” 8tph from the Great Northern route will be diverted to run through the Thameslink core, but the intent is still the same.

It can be confidently assumed therefore that a fair whack of the Great Northern services, everything but those four listed above, will see their present rolling stock replaced by Thameslink stock.

 

[HSTEd]

The East Coast franchise consultation lists four Great Northern service groups that will not be incorporated into the Thameslink programme, and can therefore be considered for inclusion in the East Coast franchise. These consist of:

King’s Cross – Peterborough
King’s Cross – Cambridge – King’s Lynn
Moorgate – Welwyn Garden City
Moorgate – Hertford North – Stevenage

The Thameslink franchise consultation, which was published earlier, does not give details as specific, but simply states that “up to” 8tph from the Great Northern route will be diverted to run through the Thameslink core, but the intent is still the same.

It can be confidently assumed therefore that a fair whack of the Great Northern services, everything but those four listed above, will see their present rolling stock replaced by Thameslink stock.

As I understand it Welwyn Garden City inner suburbans will almost certainly be diverted into Thameslink, with potential for 4tph, and 2tph going to each of Cambridge and Peterborough which pretty much accounts for everything as I understand it.

The franchise consultations are still very much in flux, nothing seems to have been publically stated about the final THameslink timetable, since that appears to be up to the bidders to a large extent.

 

[D365]

Nothing's ever certain! I believe all current GN services (aside from King's Cross-Cambridge-King's Lynn) should stay with the "Greater Thameslink" franchise, but it's a matter of opinion. Everything will become clearer as we approach 2018.

 

[aylesbury]

It will be interesting to see just what emerges onto the rails ,all points are leading to a unit not fit for purpose.The deal was trumpeted as a cooperation between us and the Japanese but I think it will be shown to be a bias towards the Japanese ,didnt the Japanese PM rush to the UK and bully our government into submission.Mk 4,s to Cambridge a non starter overpriding of stock to passengers plus not suited to what is essential a surburban sevice.If new stock is required a Desiro is the best for the job.