IEP: 26 metres is too long

[starrymarkb]

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.

Would there be High Speed routes along all main lines? While I could see a full London to Scotland HSL pushing the budget carriers off SE-Scotland (BA would probably keep flying to feed their Long Haul) things like SW-Scotland are not really going to get the passenger numbers to justify an HSL (even if XC ran classic to Brum and HSL North) so maybe those routes might be better left to Turboprops/E-Jets.

 

[HSTEd]

Would there be High Speed routes along all main lines? While I could see a full London to Scotland HSL pushing the budget carriers off SE-Scotland (BA would probably keep flying to feed their Long Haul) things like SW-Scotland are not really going to get the passenger numbers to justify an HSL (even if XC ran classic to Brum and HSL North) so maybe those routes might be better left to Turboprops/E-Jets.

Since a Cross Country Shinkansen would link up with the East Coast Shinkansen at the east end, it would be reasonable to extend it all the way to Birmingham certainly, and probably all the way to Bristol, since that would permit services to run through from Cardiff and Swansea to the North via the South Wales Shinkansen.

At which point you only have to build a high speed line from Bristol to the South West, which is only 175 miles from Penzance, comparitively a rather small fraction of the entire route.
For the price of this you can drastically reduce travel times on the London-SW and Scotland-SW markets, reduce ticket prices over the same route and probably abandon many expensive upgrades that are constantly proposed.
It also gets rid of the relatively small, although continuous, expense of subsidising the Night Riviera which woudl be unneccesary in a world with sub 3 hour London-Penzance journeys.

The cost of such a route would be enormous but if you consider the economic effects of leaving the South West out of such a network I think it adds up in favour overall.

Additionally, turboprops and e-jets burn liquid fuel.

Liquid fuel that will almost certainly have to be imported in future, imports of that nature are inherently unstable in the increasingly unstable world.

Electricity can be easily obtained on these islands.

EDIT: If it were to prove possible to upgrade the line to accept full size trains with electrification and probably higher speeds west of Plymouth, that section might be ommitted, but I think any upgrade like that would approach the price of simply building a new line.

 

[Drsatan]

Since a Cross Country Shinkansen would link up with the East Coast Shinkansen at the east end, it would be reasonable to extend it all the way to Birmingham certainly, and probably all the way to Bristol, since that would permit services to run through from Cardiff and Swansea to the North via the South Wales Shinkansen.

At which point you only have to build a high speed line from Bristol to the South West, which is only 175 miles from Penzance, comparitively a rather small fraction of the entire route.

If such a line was built it may be viable to run most London - Plymouth & Penzance services via Bristol TM if the journey time was quicker than running via the Berks & Hants. IIRC, that's exactly what BR wanted to do in the 1980s: upgrade BRI-TAU and gradually run down the Berks & Hants route, which compared to BRI-TAU doesn't serve large population centres. It may then be possible to introduce an hourly all-stations Reading to Exeter St Davids service.

Additionally, turboprops and e-jets burn liquid fuel.

Liquid fuel that will almost certainly have to be imported in future, imports of that nature are inherently unstable in the increasingly unstable world.

Electricity can be easily obtained on these islands.

Relying on internal flights, or banking on diesel or gas turbine trains to save the cost of electrification, is definitely a false economy. If Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz in response to an Israeli or US-led attack on the country's nuclear research facilities, the price of oil will skyrocket and train services will have to be curtailed to avoid excessive fuel consumption.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

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.

I raised the question of the length which has a bearing on the width as this has to be reduced from the maximum permissible by an amount proportional to the square of the distance between bogie centres. A width of 2.8 metres is a desirable target nowadays. In addition to the width issue, the sardine tin conditions mentioned in the main IEP thread are a consequence of the cost of the trains - passengers have to be packed in and the troublesome fares structure will persist.

 

[tbtc]

I raised the question of the length which has a bearing on the width as this has to be reduced from the maximum permissible by an amount proportional to the square of the distance between bogie centres. A width of 2.8 metres is a desirable target nowadays. In addition to the width issue, the sardine tin conditions mentioned in the main IEP thread are a consequence of the cost of the trains - passengers have to be packed in and the troublesome fares structure will persist.

You are guessing that 26m coaches will mean narrower seats.

As for whether carriage length has any bearing in the fare structure etc...

 

[snail]

In addition to the width issue, the sardine tin conditions mentioned in the main IEP thread are a consequence of the cost of the trains - passengers have to be packed in and the troublesome fares structure will persist.

You know, I really don't know what your point is here. I travel regularly on 185s, which are 23m/2.67m and find the seats perfectly wide enough. Surely it comes down to seat design in the end.

You're starting to add issues to issues. That is usually the sign of someone losing an argument. That's assuming there was one to start with.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

You know, I really don't know what your point is here. I travel regularly on 185s, which are 23m/2.67m and find the seats perfectly wide enough. Surely it comes down to seat design in the end.

You're starting to add issues to issues. That is usually the sign of someone losing an argument. That's assuming there was one to start with.

It is the same issue all along. OTHER things being equal, a longer vehicle must be narrower. Either the seats are narrower or the gangway is narrower. Given that people are getting wider, trains need to be as wide as possible. Which is not achieved by stretching the length of the vehicles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are guessing that 26m coaches will mean narrower seats.

As for whether carriage length has any bearing in the fare structure etc...

Who said it did? The initial cost of trains has a bearing on the fare structure and that relates to the main IEP thread.

 

[The Ham]

I raised the question of the length which has a bearing on the width as this has to be reduced from the maximum permissible by an amount proportional to the square of the distance between bogie centres. A width of 2.8 metres is a desirable target nowadays. In addition to the width issue, the sardine tin conditions mentioned in the main IEP thread are a consequence of the cost of the trains - passengers have to be packed in and the troublesome fares structure will persist.

Did you not read my post, which using the plans from the DFT the seats are wider than economy airline seats and about as wide as first class airline seats, therefore this is NOT sardine tin conditions!

In case you missed it:

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.

 

[snail]

It is the same issue all along. OTHER things being equal, a longer vehicle must be narrower. Either the seats are narrower or the gangway is narrower. Given that people are getting wider, trains need to be as wide as possible. Which is not achieved by stretching the length of the vehicles.

Ok, got it. You want wide trains with fewer seats, not long trains with more seats. Personally, I just want a seat. If I want a wider seat I'll pay for a first class ticket.

 

[DXMachina]

Still don't get why 'people getting wider' is in any way a consideration. I'd rather have plenty narrow seats and force the porkers to stand in the vestibules or pay for two seats, than restrict the capacity of trains when we most dramatically need to increase ridership. [edit: typo]

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Did you not read my post, which using the plans from the DFT the seats are wider than economy airline seats and about as wide as first class airline seats, therefore this is NOT sardine tin conditions!

In case you missed it:

I call SJ's X2000 and the Danish IC trains not sardine tin conditions. Bit of a difference from a 158, eh?

People in Britain should raise their aspirations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok, got it. You want wide trains with fewer seats, not long trains with more seats. Personally, I just want a seat. If I want a wider seat I'll pay for a first class ticket.

You haven't got it at all. I want the widest trains permissible within the kinematic envelope, and enough of them. It isn't the length of the train that determines this, it is the length of the vehicles, or more specifically the distance between the bogie centres. Simple CSE-level geometry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did you not read my post, which using the plans from the DFT the seats are wider than economy airline seats and about as wide as first class airline seats, therefore this is NOT sardine tin conditions!

In case you missed it:

If the IEP is 2.75 metres wide, that is one cm wider than a mark 3, which is why it will be costing a fortune in clearance works, and the same point still applies - that a shorter vehicle could have been 2.8 metres wide with no expenditure on infrastructure.

 

[The Ham]

I call SJ's X2000 and the Danish IC trains not sardine tin conditions. Bit of a difference from a 158, eh?

People in Britain should raise their aspirations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You haven't got it at all. I want the widest trains permissible within the kinematic envelope, and enough of them. It isn't the length of the train that determines this, it is the length of the vehicles, or more specifically the distance between the bogie centres. Simple CSE-level geometry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If the IEP is 2.75 metres wide, that is one cm wider than a mark 3, which is why it will be costing a fortune in clearance works, and the same point still applies - that a shorter vehicle could have been 2.8 metres wide with no expenditure on infrastructure.

OK, trains elsewhere have more space than UK trains, but then UK trains have more space than most airline seats, so it's just not us in the UK that should raise our aspirations!

Looking at the photo, all wider trains would give us is more width per seat (or betwen seats) which just means more fresh air being carries around with no increase in capacity or benefit for the majority of rail users (with the exception of those few who have to sit next to obease people).

 

[tbtc]

Still don't get why 'people getting wider' is in any way a consideration. I'd rather have plenty narrow seats and force the porkers to stand in the vestibules or pay for two seats, than restrict the capacity of trains when we most dramatically need to increase ridership. [edit: typo]

It gives people who dislike IEP another excuse to moan about it.

Considering none of these trains have been build and nobody will board one for a few years, it's amazing how many opponents are complaining about the seats/ decor etc - each to their own I guess, but it looks pretty petty stuff.

 

[The Ham]

RAGNARØKR seems to not have the IEP's regardless of what is said.

As to begin with they were complaining that the seats would be too narrow (compared to the Mark 3's).

Then when it was found that it is likely that they will be the same width as the Mark 3's complained that the cost of regrading the network for the IEP's from the Mark3's would be too costly.

However they would rather have europen width trains, which would be even more costly than regrading for the IEP's (where at least all the stright sections would cope with IEP's and it's only on bends where there is likely to be a problem, whilst to allow european width trains many of the strights would need regrading).

Their argument for european trains is that the width per seat would be wider, however most travelers by train (unless they are on a train with 3+2 seating) would rather be able to have a seat rather than even think that their seat is too narrow.

If the network was to be regraded to allow european width trains it is likely that for the routes where there is high demand that we would find that the TOC's would look to provide 3+2 seating (admiditly wider than the current UK 3+2 seating), but this could still only of a similar width (maybe a few cm's narrower) than the current seating on 2+2 trains. This would remove the problem of obease passangers, as there would be more seats for them to have two of, whilst still allowing more seats per train than currently. As this is not only more profitable for them but also they would have to deal with less complaints from people not being able to find a seat and only a very few who will complain about the width of the seats.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

RAGNARØKR seems to not have the IEP's regardless of what is said.

As to begin with they were complaining that the seats would be too narrow (compared to the Mark 3's).

Then when it was found that it is likely that they will be the same width as the Mark 3's complained that the cost of regrading the network for the IEP's from the Mark3's would be too costly.

However they would rather have europen width trains, which would be even more costly than regrading for the IEP's (where at least all the stright sections would cope with IEP's and it's only on bends where there is likely to be a problem, whilst to allow european width trains many of the strights would need regrading).

Their argument for european trains is that the width per seat would be wider, however most travelers by train (unless they are on a train with 3+2 seating) would rather be able to have a seat rather than even think that their seat is too narrow.

If the network was to be regraded to allow european width trains it is likely that for the routes where there is high demand that we would find that the TOC's would look to provide 3+2 seating (admiditly wider than the current UK 3+2 seating), but this could still only of a similar width (maybe a few cm's narrower) than the current seating on 2+2 trains. This would remove the problem of obease passangers, as there would be more seats for them to have two of, whilst still allowing more seats per train than currently. As this is not only more profitable for them but also they would have to deal with less complaints from people not being able to find a seat and only a very few who will complain about the width of the seats.

It is not a matter of number of seats. All I was ever saying was that people are getting wider, especially in Britain, and it does not make sense to build longer vehicles as it does not optimise the width, when the maximum possible width is 2.82 and for longer vehicles the width has be be reduced by and amount proportional to the square of the distance between the bogie centres. It makes little difference to the overall length of the train to have an extra vehicle. And though no fattie myself, I would rather sit in an IC3 or X2000 seat than a class 158 seat. Anyone but a masochist would.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It gives people who dislike IEP another excuse to moan about it.

There are plenty more too, aren't there? A long list, starting with the way the contract was awarded, which looks a bit like a near duplicate the WCML cockup. Then there are all the things that were said about it in the Foster report.

 

[jon0844]

Having travelled by train in and around Sweden, I can see that 3+2 is commonly used. With the extra width, it's comparable to 2+2 here.

But, we're never getting those trains here. At least until we build HS2 and a network that can take wider trains without ever needing to venture on to the older 'classic' lines.

IEP is for the existing network.

 

[The Ham]

It is not a matter of number of seats. All I was ever saying was that people are getting wider, especially in Britain, and it does not make sense to build longer vehicles as it does not optimise the width, when the maximum possible width is 2.82 and for longer vehicles the width has be be reduced by and amount proportional to the square of the distance between the bogie centres. It makes little difference to the overall length of the train to have an extra vehicle. And though no fattie myself, I would rather sit in an IC3 or X2000 seat than a class 158 seat. Anyone but a masochist would.

The point is that at approximately 2.75m the IEP is likely to be less than 8cm narrower than the maximum possible width, which on 2+2 seating about 2cm per seat narrower than the maximum possible (i.e. 50cm rather than 52cm, which is comparable to first class airline seats). I would suggest that in reality the extra coach width would just result in a wider isle, as the seats would quite likely just be what we already have rather than building a new seat type just a few cm wider.

The point I was making about being able to have extra seats on the longer coaches is that by missing out on 2cm but having extra seats the few people who are too large to fit next to and therefore end up taking up two seats is offset by the gain in the number of seats over the whole train.

Again these are people that would be too wide for some first class airline seat and all economy airline seats. Maybe you should focus your efforts on getting airline seats made wider (as there are lot more obese Americans who fly than there are British and obese who use the trains).

I'm sure most people would like to have the wider seats of the European width trains, but that is highly unlikely to happen in the UK because of the cost of regrading the lines and/or they would end up being configured with 3+2 seats due to demand on the trains.

 

[snail]

I would rather sit in an IC3 or X2000 seat than a class 158 seat. Anyone but a masochist would.

If the seat is supportive and comfortable I don't care how wide it is. I prefer to sit upright, wider seats can encourage bad posture. I don't think the X2000s are that fantastic.

 

[jon0844]

X2000s aren't that fantastic. But, they're getting on a bit now.

They're not terrible and they do their job well, but there's certainly nothing amazing about them. They were impressive when new (as a kid, I read about them and thought 'wow' - especially with its configuration when new). But when I came back to Malmo from Stockholm last December (in first class), I felt rather sick from the tilting. I can't say I've ever felt like that on a 390.

The less said about the IC3 trains the better. It's like climbing a mountain of steps just to get on. Anyone heard of 'accessibility'?! And places to store large luggage? Seems they didn't really care much about that either.

What I did like was the service on both, both in Sweden and then in Denmark. Albeit in first class throughout. We could learn a thing or two from that, such as having food and drink left out for people to help themselves to. Of course, we'd abuse it here and someone would simply take it all for themselves (including people coming in from standard most likely)!

Anyway, I hope that IEP won't replicate either the X2000s or IC3s, or X5x's.

 

[ainsworth74]

And though no fattie myself, I would rather sit in an IC3 or X2000 seat than a class 158 seat. Anyone but a masochist would.

Maybe it's just me but I find the seats fitted to 158s to be quite comfortable, my only complaint is legroom rather than seat width, which has nothing to do with the width of the train.

 

[Yew]

Maybe it's just me but I find the seats fitted to 158s to be quite comfortable, my only complaint is legroom rather than seat width, which has nothing to do with the width of the train.

which 158's are we talkimg about, these days there are many seats fitted, from Gammer, Richmond and other manfacturers

 

[DXMachina]

Haven't been in a 158 for over a decade but I remember them as very comfortable.

 

[starrymarkb]

which 158's are we talkimg about, these days there are many seats fitted, from Gammer, Richmond and other manfacturers

As Built IMO, tough the Grammer seats are comfortable too (by the way the same seat is fitted in Economy on the Railjet - something that is often cited as what enthusiasts want as new intercity stock*)


*Even though the formation of Railjet was more so OBB could occupy the 140mph locomotives that they had over ordered

 

[ainsworth74]

which 158's are we talkimg about, these days there are many seats fitted, from Gammer, Richmond and other manfacturers

The original seats as found in some Northern 158s, the seats in SWT 159s (come on they're basically the same train ), EMT 158s and the former ATW 158s now with Northern. I've found all of them to be comfortable the only problem is legroom.

 

[tbtc]

There are plenty more too, aren't there? A long list, starting with the way the contract was awarded, which looks a bit like a near duplicate the WCML cockup. Then there are all the things that were said about it in the Foster report.

But of all the things to whine about IEP for, the width of seats is pretty low down most people's lists.

At least be honest about it, rather than coming up with disengenuous reasons

 

[sprinterguy]

If the network was to be regraded to allow european width trains it is likely that for the routes where there is high demand that we would find that the TOC's would look to provide 3+2 seating (admiditly wider than the current UK 3+2 seating), but this could still only of a similar width (maybe a few cm's narrower) than the current seating on 2+2 trains.

I'm not sure that the actual seat squabs and back rests employed in 3+2 seating differ in width from the same manufacturer's dimensions for 2+2 seating: The principal difference seems to be in the spacing between each seat.

Certainly, there seems to be very little difference in dimensions between the Ashbourne seating originally used in 3+2 configuration in the 150s and that used in 2+2 conifguration in the 156s except that the seats in a 156 are divided by armrests. Also, the Chapman seating used in 3+2 configuration in c2c's 357s is obviously comparable to that used in 2+2 formation, with armrests fitted, on FGWs' and ATWs' 150s.

 

[HSTEd]

Well an N700 series Shinkansen trainset is 3.36m wide, compared to the ~2.8m standard on British railways.

2+3 seating probably isn't that cramped.

 

[starrymarkb]

Well an N700 series Shinkansen trainset is 3.36m wide, compared to the ~2.8m standard on British railways.

2+3 seating probably isn't that cramped.

To Compare

Single Deck TGVs are 2.9m
ICE 1 and 2 are 3m (and a little restricted as a result)
ICE 3s are 2.9m

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The point is that at approximately 2.75m the IEP is likely to be less than 8cm narrower than the maximum possible width, which on 2+2 seating about 2cm per seat narrower than the maximum possible (i.e. 50cm rather than 52cm, which is comparable to first class airline seats). I would suggest that in reality the extra coach width would just result in a wider isle, as the seats would quite likely just be what we already have rather than building a new seat type just a few cm wider.

The point I was making about being able to have extra seats on the longer coaches is that by missing out on 2cm but having extra seats the few people who are too large to fit next to and therefore end up taking up two seats is offset by the gain in the number of seats over the whole train.

Again these are people that would be too wide for some first class airline seat and all economy airline seats. Maybe you should focus your efforts on getting airline seats made wider (as there are lot more obese Americans who fly than there are British and obese who use the trains).

I'm sure most people would like to have the wider seats of the European width trains, but that is highly unlikely to happen in the UK because of the cost of regrading the lines and/or they would end up being configured with 3+2 seats due to demand on the trains.

A interesting point on this whole subject is the lower standards that everyone has got used to. From the 1930s until the last mark 1 stock was built, inter city passengers on the LM and E regions got six-seat compartments spaced 1.95 between partitions. That is 40% more space than typically now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The less said about the IC3 trains the better. It's like climbing a mountain of steps just to get on. Anyone heard of 'accessibility'?! And places to store large luggage? Seems they didn't really care much about that either.

The steps problem is due to the low platforms in Denmark. There is plenty of luggage space on the IC3 trains. It goes between the seat backs which is where you can keep an eye on it. That is an advantage that disappears with airline style seating. Also the overhead luggage shelves are big.

 

[starrymarkb]

Just thought, is this whole thread arguing about whether Girth is better then Length?


*gets coat*