IEP: 26 metres is too long

[Chris125]

IIt would be possible. It would be highly expensive in the short term. In the long term, there would be savings because of being able to buy (and indeed, sell and export by rail) Euro-standard stock, rather than bespoke UK loading gauge stock. The time to make a return would be huge...

Anything's possible with enough money, but its just not economic - your essentially building a new railway on top of an existing one which over any significant distance simply isnt viable given the disruption and compatibility issues caused. I believe HS2 Ltd are the latest to have come to this conclusion when looking at the classic lines beyond the new route.

Chris

 

[RAGNARØKR]

And they're not the only example of stock that's 23m (or near) that's also 2.8m wide (or near).

Yes the 165 and 166 is 2.82 metres wide. And has very restricted route availability. This information is i an RSSB publication. The bogie centres are two metres further apart than on 20 metre vehicles. Overthrow is proportional to the square of the distance between bogie centres so this causes a restriction on curves.

There is a further problem because of the added distance between bogie centres and vehicle ends, causing wear and tear on gangways due to the additional movement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anything's possible with enough money, but its just not economic - your essentially building a new railway on top of an existing one which over any significant distance simply isnt viable given the disruption and compatibility issues caused. I believe HS2 Ltd are the latest to have come to this conclusion when looking at the classic lines beyond the new route.

Chris

British stock is pretty much standard for narrow gauge railways, which is presumably why there have been exports of class 158 clones to Thailand, and of course, conversely, the Javelin from Japan.

 

[DXMachina]

at risk of going off-topic, the south african Electrostar build are standard gauge as it was decided to build the gautrain route for higher speeds rather than compatibility

 

[Tiny Tim]

British trains are the narrowest standard gauge trains in Europe. This is probably because greedy nineteenth century landowners would only sell a strip of land of minimum width to build the railways on.

Although 19th century landowners did extort very high recompense from the railway builders, this wasn't the reason for our restricted gauge compared to Europe. Unlike our less industrially developed neighbours, Britain already had an extensive network of roads and our towns were bigger. Burrowing under this lot meant many more bridges, and a smaller gauge was considerably cheaper. Later, European railways also had the gift of hindsight, and, in many cases, were planned by central government. British railways developed piecemeal. and our governments preferred not to 'interfere' as they saw it, even to the extent of allowing broad gauge tracks to flourish. Being the first country to develop a railway network has it's disadvantages, several early railways were unconvinced that locomotives were the way forward, and horse drawn trains requiring a smaller gauge were thought to be adequate. The genesis of our railways was underground, in the coal mines of the North-East, where restricted headroom was a given.

 

[PFX]

I look upon this thread from the cavernous comfort of a NIR CAF4000. Smug you think?

I'll get my coat...

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I look upon this thread from the cavernous comfort of a NIR CAF4000. Smug you think?

I'll get my coat...

The latest Swedish trains are 3.5 metres wide which gives reasonable 2+3 seating (eg Regina stock), but the very newest X55 units have 2+2 seating nevertheless. In standard class.

The UK loading gauge allows a maximum width of 2.82, which gives acceptable 2+2 seating eg on some versions of Electrostar classes 375 and 377. It is unforgivable to specify newer stock that is significantly narrower and then pack it with 2+2 seating.

 

[jopsuk]

I look upon this thread from the cavernous comfort of a NIR CAF4000. Smug you think?

I'll get my coat...

Those would, with standard gauge bogies, be at home on the Great Britain network, being 2760mm wide and 23m long carriages...

 

[jon0844]

The latest Swedish trains are 3.5 metres wide which gives reasonable 2+3 seating (eg Regina stock), but the very newest X55 units have 2+2 seating nevertheless. In standard class.

The X50 or X52 I went on was big inside, but very inaccessible with huge steps to board (or one low level, but still tricky, door for prams/wheelchairs). Not overly impressed by them, I must say.

 

[ainsworth74]

The X50 or X52 I went on was big inside but very inaccessible with huge steps to board (or one low level, but still tricky, door for prams/wheelchairs). Not overly impressed by them, I must say.

You mean size isn't everything?

 

[tbtc]

The UK loading gauge allows a maximum width of 2.82, which gives acceptable 2+2 seating eg on some versions of Electrostar classes 375 and 377. It is unforgivable to specify newer stock that is significantly narrower and then pack it with 2+2 seating

So, yet again, do you know that IEP will be narrower (than Mk3s etc), or are you just not a fan of fat people?

 

[HSTEd]

How wide is a normal 2+2 Mark 3 seat anyway?

I am interested with regards to attempting to fit 2+3 into new High Speed Captive rolling stock.

 

[jon0844]

You mean size isn't everything?

So they say.

 

[The Ham]

The OP has stated on another thread:

Refurbish all the HST trailers with power doors and retention toilets and use as loco-hauled stock with driving trailers. Purchase additional stock to work with this, that can go almost anywhere on the system, shorter than mark 3 so that it can be wider. Then purchase off-the-peg diesel and electric locomotives to work with it in push-pull mode. Stock should be made up in short rakes with normal buffers and drawgear at the outer ends for maximum compatibility. Electrical system should standardise on 3-phase as on mark 3 HSTs.

Clearly they have a desire to have as wide as possible trains (at the expense of length). Which although in theory would be good (more width per seat) it does lead to problems with regards to the total number of seats on a train (longer carriages means less doors, toilets, etc. and therefore more seats per train of the same length). If we can have extra seats per train at the slight expense of a few cm per seat then the few people that would be too wide for a seat can take up two, whilst still allowing enough seats for others (on all but the busiest of services).

 

[AndyLandy]

Anything's possible with enough money, but its just not economic - your essentially building a new railway on top of an existing one which over any significant distance simply isnt viable given the disruption and compatibility issues caused. I believe HS2 Ltd are the latest to have come to this conclusion when looking at the classic lines beyond the new route.

I think this is precisely the problem. If we could afford to clear and re-gauge the entire network, that's probably the time to tear it all out and replace with 300mph Maglevs. Clearly this is never going to happen!

if the money was available would it not be sensible to use the old sorting office and depot site to build some straighter platforms with travolator link to the original and highly protected listed station

And there's another fly in the ointment. The railway builders of the 18th/19th century were all in favour of magnificent grandiose structures. Many of these are now listed buildings. There is no easy win here. You either don't improve, pay through the nose to improve around the existing structures, or you tear down part of our heritage to build something that's future-proof.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

So, yet again, do you know that IEP will be narrower (than Mk3s etc), or are you just not a fan of fat people?

No but simple geometrical laws apply. If the vehicles are not narrower, and I have seen a figure of 2.70 given (the same as the slimline class 158), either the route availability of the 26 metre vehicle will be very restricted and/or a fortune will have to be spend on changes to the infrastructure.

Mark 3 stock also has the advantage of very thin sides due to the constructional system used, top hat sections welded to the sheet metal of the bodyside. Nearly all modern stock seems to be extruded aluminium which is inherently thicker and incidentally has little weight advantage either.

To avoid overthrow on curves, the width must be reduced from the maximum of 2.82 by an amount proportional to the square of the distance between bogie centres, and there are corresponding requirements for the outer ends. The 2.82 width figure applies to vehicles with a bogie spacing of 14.17 metres. Mark 3 stock is 2.74 metres wide with a 16 metre bogie spacing. This was the same width as mark 1 after allowing for projections such as door handles. Later 20 metre stock is built to the full width of 2.82 eg classes 455, 375, etc, which gives a reasonable amount of space for 2+2 seating.

The specification for IEP should have required a width of not less than 2.80 which would permit a vehicle length slightly more than 20 metres. But hey, it doesn't really matter because first class seating will be 2+1 and why should anyone care about the oiks who travel standard class?

 

[HSTEd]

Best way out of this for future-proofing purposes would be Shinkansen paralleling all current main lines, gets us longer roomier trains and does it without the obscene expense of rebuilding active railway lines.

The existing l ines then become primarily freight and local routes.

 

[ainsworth74]

either the route availability of the 26 metre vehicle will be very restricted and/or a fortune will have to be spend on changes to the infrastructure.

You mean like the millions being put aside to route clear the IEPs?

 

[Monty]

If we were going to change the loading gauge the most sensible way to do it would be when lines are scheduled for major engineering projects. For example when electrification starts in earnest on the GWML it would be a great opportunity to regauge some or all of the line as a test case. A number of bridges and tunnels need work doing to them or rebuilding altogether for the wires to go up anyway. I had also heard someone (on here or in a magazine?) of possible gauge improvements on the MML to allow through freight trains from the continent using UIC rolling stock, if it happens or stays as a pipe dream remains to be seen.

 

[jopsuk]

Best way out of this for future-proofing purposes would be Shinkansen paralleling all current main lines, gets us longer roomier trains and does it without the obscene expense of rebuilding active railway lines.

The existing l ines then become primarily freight and local routes.

But the freight and local lines (especially super-busy commuter local lines) could benefit possibly more from a wider/higher loading gauge than the intercity main lines.

 

[WatcherZero]

Last I heard it was using the profile BR developed for the Mk5 coaches, tapered ends but with the doors moved further from the carriage ends to give more space in the tapered points for things like baggage and toilets.

 

[HSTEd]

But the freight and local lines (especially super-busy commuter local lines) could benefit possibly more from a wider/higher loading gauge than the intercity main lines.

Possibly, buy freight and local trains would benefit a great deal from having no intercity trains around, if the spread of speeds is only 60mph to 100mph instead of 60 to 125mph, then more trains can be run.

Meanwhile InterCity as a brand benefits from having 150+mph trains going in all directions.

Especially if we really do get 1600+ seat 400m long commuter trains on the really dense corridors (based on Japanese double decks), that is one hell of an outer commuter train I think you will agree.

 

[tbtc]

So, yet again, do you know that IEP will be narrower (than Mk3s etc), or are you just not a fan of fat people?

No

Fine.

In which case this might as well be merged with the bigger IEP thread

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Fine.

In which case this might as well be merged with the bigger IEP thread

It might. There is no shortage of comments about the usual things - seats too close and misaligned with windows, and shortage of luggage space.

Why do the Brits put up with it?

 

[jon0844]

Especially if we really do get 1600+ seat 400m long commuter trains on the really dense corridors (based on Japanese double decks), that is one hell of an outer commuter train I think you will agree.

Will we need such trains anytime soon?

I know in some countries, there are far fewer trains running in a day - so longer/double deck trains make more sense.

Here, we're quite lucky that we often have a very high frequency of trains that really allows us to just turn up and go. But, you might not need such ridiculously long trains for some years.

Of course, we should build all new lines (like HS2) to be ready and capable.

 

[The Ham]

Taking the plans from the DFT:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/iep-train-layouts/iep-train-layouts.pdf

I've measured (slightly conservatively, having put the drawings so the length of the coaches are to scale in a CAD program) the widths of the IEP coaches (2.75m), standard seats (0.50m) and first class seats (0.53).

Now I don't know how these seat widths compare with normal train seats, but there appears to be only a marginal difference between first and standard seat widths.

However they are wider than an economy seat on an airline which tends to be be about 43-46cm. In fact the IEP seats will be closer in size to first class airline seats 48-54cm.

 

[tbtc]

It might. There is no shortage of comments about the usual things - seats too close and misaligned with windows, and shortage of luggage space.

Why do the Brits put up with it?

Seats not lining up with windows is nothing to do with whether the carriage is 26 meters long (or 23 meters or 20 meters) though. Neither is luggage space.

You're using the fact that the carriages are going to be longer (than the Mk3 coaches that are typically going to be replaced by IEP) as an excuse to throw together lots of guesswork (and bring in things like obesity) and then confuse the matter with things that have nothing to do with carriage length (luggage space etc).

Fair enough if you're not looking forward to IEP - everyone has their opinion - but don't confuse things. The rights and wrongs of IEP should stand or fall on their own merits, without anyone muddying the waters.

 

[HSTEd]

Will we need such trains anytime soon?

I know in some countries, there are far fewer trains running in a day - so longer/double deck trains make more sense.

Here, we're quite lucky that we often have a very high frequency of trains that really allows us to just turn up and go. But, you might not need such ridiculously long trains for some years.

Of course, we should build all new lines (like HS2) to be ready and capable.

This is an interesting question, if we look at Shinkansen timetables we can see that even using rolling stock only rated for 170mph that does not tilt on lines originally built to allow 140mph running throughout that the trains that stop every ~30km or so still manage to average above 100mph.
This begs the question of what a line with 320kph top speed on a line designed for said speed would be like today.
We could easily have stopping trains average ~125mph stop-to-stop, which I think you will agree rather changes the paradigm.

Additionally thanks to the staffing requirements on a 400 seat single deck commuter train being similar to those on a 1600 seat double deck one the costs of staffing per seat fall through the floor.

Additionally the enormous capacity offered by such trains meanst hat infrastructure costs can more easily be amortised and the deployment of more advanced technologies like cab signals and the simplified track layouts offered by having such uniform performance trains on all services allows reduced maintenance costs.

Even with today's passenger numbers on such a line in many places the cost of tickets could easily fall by half or even more. (I project 75% decreases on more crowded routes).

SO what happens if the rail fares on all Britain's main lines fall by roughly half across the board?

 

[ainsworth74]

SO what happens if the rail fares on all Britain's main lines fall by roughly half across the board?

Domestic air travel dies (what's left of it that is) and the car would also probably take a serious hit.

 

[AndyLandy]

Domestic air travel dies

I'm not so sure. I certainly don't think merely halving rail fares would cut it. Flying SOU-NCL is already about half the cost of a train fare. Given how much quicker it is to fly, you'd need rail travel to be substantially cheaper...

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not so sure. I certainly don't think merely halving rail fares would cut it. Flying SOU-NCL is already about half the cost of a train fare. Given how much quicker it is to fly, you'd need rail travel to be substantially cheaper...

Well yes, but if we had Shinkansen routes along the main lines this woudl reduce the travel time on that route to somewhere in the vicinity of 3hrs or less depending on how many intermediate stops there were.

Which probably erases most of flying's time advantage.