IEP: 26 metres is too long

[RAGNARØKR]

So where are all these tight curves, in cramped locations, in urban situations, that will have to be eliminated on Great Western routes in your "major infrastructure upgrade" in order for the IEP to be used on GW services? Just name them, so that at long last we will be able to judge whether what is required is in any way a "major infrastructure upgrade". No more diagrams, no more formulae, no more talk of kinematic envelopes. Provide some evidence. A Network Rail announcement perhaps. Shouldn't be hard to find one about a "major infrastructure upgrade"...

Infrastructure costs were in the figures given when financial close was announced. If I recall they were about £700 million which included depots. But that information seems to have been taken off where it was. It struck me as a lot at the time. I have written to my MP to get her to dig out the information.

But ask yourself, how is a vehicle 3 metres longer than mark 3 and 1 cm wider going to fit on the system without a lot of work having to be done, and if it was not, why were the standards not relaxed long ago? And those formulae cannot be ignored because they measure the extent of the problem.

There is a system of measuring clearances using lasers and there is better information now than previously. But the system, of its nature, cannot be used to measure clearances between adjacent tracks, and where these are curved there is potential for trouble. It will need a very careful survey of the potential trouble spots to identify the problem.

Anyway, time will tell. It just seems to me to be a (financial) risk not worth taking for a trivial gain.

 

[The Ham]

I've been looking for where it makes reference to Major infrastructure associated with IEP:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/Foster_IEPReview2010.pdf

Figure 2. Dutch High Speed Rail: HSL-Zuid
In 1984 a group was set up to link Paris, Brussels, Köln and Amsterdam with high speed rail lines. The Dutch route was defined at 125 km in length, with most on dedicated high-speed track suitable for 300km/h trains. The Dutch government directly managed the infrastructure construction but competitively tendered a 15 year franchise with responsibility for services and for the specification and operation of new trains.
IEP is similarly complex, comprising train procurement and major infrastructure upgrades (electrification), and involving the transfer of risk to private companies. The Dutch Government-managed element (infrastructure) suffered a two-year delay, along with major scope and thus cost overruns. The private company managed train procurement suffered delays of at least four years.
In both the Dutch programme and IEP, the rationale changed numerous times and the programme suffered major scope change and corresponding cost overruns and programme delays.
Transformational change involving integration of infrastructure, rolling stock, and technology upgrades entails high risk and requires effective management informed by international experience.

 

[HSTEd]

The £700m for IEP related infrastructure also refers to everything infrastructure related that is attached to the project.
This includes major electrification upgrades on the east coast.

 

[The Ham]

The £700m for IEP related infrastructure also refers to everything infrastructure related that is attached to the project.
This includes major electrification upgrades on the east coast.

Presumably the upgrade of the ECML electrification would have to happen if more EMU's or Electric Locos where to run on to replace the IC125's as there would be a greater power demand than at present.

Conversely, presumably is Pendelinos where used there would be the extra cost of setting up and installing TASS to enable them to tilt and run at full speed, even though for much of the GWML and the ECML tilting would bring little or no benefit to journey times.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The £700m for IEP related infrastructure also refers to everything infrastructure related that is attached to the project.
This includes major electrification upgrades on the east coast.

I have asked for the IEP figures, hopefully the costs for the longer vehicle can be extracted from the total. But that will be a "before" figure.

Compare the IEP design with recent 26 m trains such as the X55 illustrated here, which are 3.5 metres wide and also pushing the envelope. The Swedish trains have the bogies close to the outer ends, which is the preferred position, because the infrastructure allows plenty of overhang. The IEP, on the other hand has the bogies located well in from the ends, which themselves are tapered. This indicates how hard the IEP is pushing the envelope.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

So where are all these tight curves, in cramped locations, in urban situations, that will have to be eliminated on Great Western routes in your "major infrastructure upgrade" in order for the IEP to be used on GW services? Just name them, so that at long last we will be able to judge whether what is required is in any way a "major infrastructure upgrade". No more diagrams, no more formulae, no more talk of kinematic envelopes. Provide some evidence. A Network Rail announcement perhaps. Shouldn't be hard to find one about a "major infrastructure upgrade"...

This issue is now being discussed in another, new, thread, I notice. Others are raising the same point.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well the IEP uses the profile BR developed but never used for the Mk 5 coaching stock, though it does kinda mean the only remaining improvement possible would be converting large stretches to continental gauge.

 

[aylesbury]

The upgrade of the EC electrics is something that is needed urgently,when it first happened it was done on the cheap.Distances between catenary masts were increased so as to reduce their number,and the wire was not to the standard of the WCML .Above Newcastle the knitting is prone to damage from the prevelant winds causing many delays.Another problem is pantographs pulling the knitting down.Hopefully the pantographs on IEP will be to the new european standard as will the catenary.THE wiring on the GW line will be to the new european standard and is belt and braces so dewiring will be history.Perhaps the IEP will be a success and passengers will love riding on them ,but give me an HST any time ,how about a new build of them?.

 

[jimm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimm
So where are all these tight curves, in cramped locations, in urban situations, that will have to be eliminated on Great Western routes in your "major infrastructure upgrade" in order for the IEP to be used on GW services? Just name them, so that at long last we will be able to judge whether what is required is in any way a "major infrastructure upgrade". No more diagrams, no more formulae, no more talk of kinematic envelopes. Provide some evidence. A Network Rail announcement perhaps. Shouldn't be hard to find one about a "major infrastructure upgrade"...

This issue is now being discussed in another, new, thread, I notice. Others are raising the same point.

On really. So have they managed to find any evidence for your "major infrastructure upgrade" for you? Thought not...

 

[RAGNARØKR]

On really. So have they managed to find any evidence for your "major infrastructure upgrade" for you? Thought not...

Waiting for the reply to my request for information. But to judge from the other thread it certainly seems there are places where the IEP is not going to be able to go.

 

[AndyLandy]

Waiting for the reply to my request for information. But to judge from the other thread it certainly seems there are places where the IEP is not going to be able to go.

What places are you thinking of in particular? After all, nobody's expecting it to be a literally "go anywhere" train. I have no illusions that there's any chance of seeing an IEP from Cuddington station.

My suspicion is that 26m vehicles represent sensible way to design standard carriages that have a greater ratio of cabin space to vestibules, in an attempt to increase capacity. Given that the HSTs they're replacing are full size trains that fill platforms and blocks, this seems like a reasonable approach. After all, the alternative of extending platforms is unlikely to be any cheaper.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

What places are you thinking of in particular? After all, nobody's expecting it to be a literally "go anywhere" train. I have no illusions that there's any chance of seeing an IEP from Cuddington station.

My suspicion is that 26m vehicles represent sensible way to design standard carriages that have a greater ratio of cabin space to vestibules, in an attempt to increase capacity. Given that the HSTs they're replacing are full size trains that fill platforms and blocks, this seems like a reasonable approach. After all, the alternative of extending platforms is unlikely to be any cheaper.

I am waiting for a reply to my question regarding infrastructure costs due to longer vehicles. Whether they are actually more efficient depends on the detailed design. For the record the Swedish X2000 trains have 72 seats in standard class in 26 metre vehicles so there is a bit of cramming going on. The doorways on the IEP are well in from the ends so there is not seating in the outer ends of the vehicles. It would be necessary to get hold of scale drawings to see what is really going on with these trains.

 

[asylumxl]

I am waiting for a reply to my question regarding infrastructure costs due to longer vehicles. Whether they are actually more efficient depends on the detailed design. For the record the Swedish X2000 trains have 72 seats in standard class in 26 metre vehicles so there is a bit of cramming going on. The doorways on the IEP are well in from the ends so there is not seating in the outer ends of the vehicles. It would be necessary to get hold of scale drawings to see what is really going on with these trains.

The taper and bogie placement will be such that the over hang will be the same or only slightly more than a 23m coach on the same cuve. The longer carriages will allow for more furnishable space in the passenger compartment as any equipment will be placed within the tapered ends/vestibules. This should allow for roughly the same amount of seats as a MK3.

Since rail enthusiasts are usually complaining about the fact equipment is placed under the floor or wall mounted, you would think they'd be keen on such a design on the IEP.

Furthermore, there are already 25m coaches which are cleared for the network (Pendolino end cars) which seem to manage to get around without issue. I doubt 50cm on each side will make much difference.

 

[AndyLandy]

I am waiting for a reply to my question regarding infrastructure costs due to longer vehicles. Whether they are actually more efficient depends on the detailed design. For the record the Swedish X2000 trains have 72 seats in standard class in 26 metre vehicles so there is a bit of cramming going on. The doorways on the IEP are well in from the ends so there is not seating in the outer ends of the vehicles. It would be necessary to get hold of scale drawings to see what is really going on with these trains.

There are draft design proposals here, I'm not sure how accurately 'to scale' they are, however:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-intercity-express-programme-train-layouts

The inset doors are offset in some carriages by simply moving the toilets to the other side of the door. Crew offices and trolley storage are also reasonable uses for some of this space, so long as we're able to maximise the passenger accommodation in the driving vehicles, where these facilities are traditionally found.

The luggage accommodation is a bit more sketchy though, I'm not sure I'd want to leave my baggage in the vestibule where I can't see it. On the other hand, cycle racks there seems like a smart idea, too.

 

[ainsworth74]

But to judge from the other thread it certainly seems there are places where the IEP is not going to be able to go.

This of course being true of any train on the network...

 

[RobShipway]

This of course being true of any train on the network...

There are many places that the Good old HST cannot go due to the weight of the train on some structures on routes, this will be no different with IEP.

 

[tbtc]

to judge from the other thread it certainly seems there are places where the IEP is not going to be able to go

Was this ever in doubt?

When was the last "go anywhere" train built in the UK?

there are already 25m coaches which are cleared for the network (Pendolino end cars) which seem to manage to get around without issue. I doubt 50cm on each side will make much difference

The fact that a 390 has run from Glasgow to Kings Cross makes me wonder whether the argument that an IEP couldn't clear the curve at Gateshead is froth?

 

[AndyLandy]

The fact that a 390 has run from Glasgow to Kings Cross makes me wonder whether the argument that an IEP couldn't clear the curve at Gateshead is froth?

Which curve is this? Is it possible that it was avoided by going over the 'other' bridge out of Newcastle?

 

[rebmcr]

When was the last "go anywhere" train built in the UK?

I imagine 2008, with 139002.

 

[AndyLandy]

I imagine 2008, with 139002.

Or those wooden trucks with pump handles, like they have in cartoons. I imagine they can go anywhere.

 

[asylumxl]

Or those wooden trucks with pump handles, like they have in cartoons. I imagine they can go anywhere.

Depends how heavy the people on it are!

 

[tbtc]

Which curve is this? Is it possible that it was avoided by going over the 'other' bridge out of Newcastle?

The curve at the south end of the King Edward Bridge. You are right that they could have sent it the other way over the Tyne - good point - I mention Gateshead because that was one of the potential problem areas that I'd seen brought up for clearance works if IEP comes in (e.g. I've seen it said that this was why the GNER 373s never ran to Newcastle)

I imagine 2008, with 139002.

Good point

 

[sprinterguy]

Which curve is this? Is it possible that it was avoided by going over the 'other' bridge out of Newcastle?

The timings for the ECML Pendolino test that were posted here (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1013186&postcount=67) seem to state that the train ran via the King Edward Bridge (It would take more than 2 minutes to run round Gateshead and over the High Level Bridge into Newcastle station).

 

[AndyLandy]

The timings for the ECML Pendolino test that were posted here (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1013186&postcount=67) seem to state that the train ran via the King Edward Bridge (It would take more than 2 minutes to run round Gateshead and over the High Level Bridge into Newcastle station).

So that means it successfully took the curve at Gateshead? That's interesting to know indeed.

 

[jon0844]

Waiting for the reply to my request for information. But to judge from the other thread it certainly seems there are places where the IEP is not going to be able to go.

Yeah, I can't see it running services to Moorgate anytime soon.

 

[rebmcr]

So that means it successfully took the curve at Gateshead? That's interesting to know indeed.

Doesn't rule out the possibility that they took possession of the adjacent lines though.

 

[AndyLandy]

Doesn't rule out the possibility that they took possession of the adjacent lines though.

What does that mean in this context?

 

[HSTEd]

What does that mean in this context?

The reason that Eurostars were denied access to Newcastle Central was because the train's suspension had a projected failure mode that would leave it out of gauge should it pass another Eurostar on the curve in question.

This could be avoided if they had locked out the adjacent lines so no trains could pass there.
This could be what happened during the Class 390s test haul on the ECML.

 

[AndyLandy]

The reason that Eurostars were denied access to Newcastle Central was because the train's suspension had a projected failure mode that would leave it out of gauge should it pass another Eurostar on the curve in question.

This could be avoided if they had locked out the adjacent lines so no trains could pass there.
This could be what happened during the Class 390s test haul on the ECML.

Which would allow a test to be undertaken, but doesn't necessarily mean the trains are cleared for the route in normal operation?

 

[HSTEd]

Which would allow a test to be undertaken, but doesn't necessarily mean the trains are cleared for the route in normal operation?

Indeed, although in the case of the Eurostars in the approach to Newcastle Central the work would not have been very expensive to do, just that with privatisation and the death of the Regional Eurostar proposal there was not considered to be any need to do so.

And GNER got plenty of work on its Eurostars south of York so had no reason to have the work done.