IEP: 26 metres is too long

[Paulinbelper]

For those that are interested the DfT have posted all of the train technical specifications and drafts of the availability agreements on their website today here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ogramme-technical-specification-and-contracts

If you want to understand the technical spec of the train and its performance have a look in this document:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

Paul

 

[AndyLandy]

Actually, there is one concern I have about IEP vehicles being 26m long:

Will a OO-scale model of one fit around the tightest radius of Hornby track?

 

[The Ham]

Actually, there is one concern I have about IEP vehicles being 26m long:

Will a OO-scale model of one fit around the tightest radius of Hornby track?

If not, I wonder how much it'll cost in gauge clearance works?!?

I hope it's not too much otherwise we'll have to cancel the whole thing

 

[tbtc]

Actually, there is one concern I have about IEP vehicles being 26m long:

Will a OO-scale model of one fit around the tightest radius of Hornby track?

If not, I wonder how much it'll cost in gauge clearance works?!?

I hope it's not too much otherwise we'll have to cancel the whole thing

I had a lot of gauge clearance work to do when I got one of those "giraffe" wagons (from the 1970s sets, where the giraffe ducks down under a post)

 

[LE Greys]

Actually, there is one concern I have about IEP vehicles being 26m long:

Will a OO-scale model of one fit around the tightest radius of Hornby track?

Hornby had to shorten their MkIIIs when they first introduced them, and my '90s vintage MkIVs (now painted 'Great Central Trains' blue and cream) were marked as 'do not run on 1st radius curves', so I reckon either Hornby's IEP set will be restricted to 3rd radius or some shortening will be in order.

Still, 00 is out of gauge anyway, or else Britain would be the world's only 4ft 6 gauge country.

 

[Haydn1971]

This may well have been answered elsewhere, but... Whilst I can understand that the current fleet of IC125's will be getting on for 35-42 years old by time the IEP's start running on the WCML and a bit older on the ECML - has anything being said about CrossCountry and East Midland Trains ? Will the IEP order for ECML be large enough to displace the still able IC225's onto newly electrified MML & XC ? Thinking longer term, would the 390's eventually be displaced to MML & XC once HS2 Phase 1 stock start running ? (390's would be about 25 yrs old by then)

 

[Zoe]

Will the IEP order for ECML be large enough to displace the still able IC225's onto newly electrified MML & XC ?

The first phase order will not replace the 225s. The replacement of 225s is one of the options available in the contract although there's no guarantee that any of the options available will go ahead.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/4-5-billion-investment-in-new-trains-creates-new-jobs

There are also options for ordering further trains, which could operate on the following routes:

Great Western: London - Exeter - Penzance
East Coast: Replacement of the newer Intercity 225 electric stock
East Coast: London - Cambridge - Kings Lynn
West Coast: London - Milton Keynes - Northampton

 

[hwl]

The first phase order will not replace the 225s. The replacement of 225s is one of the options available in the contract although there's no guarantee that any of the options available will go ahead.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/4-5-billion-investment-in-new-trains-creates-new-jobs

IEP has dragged on so long that some that some of the options no longer make that much sense.

The IEP specification included MML track geometry data but the MLL electrification has been in and out and then in again under the government plans. The IEP contract still appears to be based on non electrified time period plans so nothing for the MML. Very little has been said on new MML electric/ bi-mode rolling stock, bi mode making sense as there will still be non-electrified parts in CP6 (or possibly beyond i.e. Bi-mode for diversionary routes)

London Midland 110mph running of 350s to Northampton has probably taken most of the logic /case away from IEP WCML running.

ECML currently IEP is only to allow 125 replacement and some additional services. 225 retirement roughly aligns with HS2 phase 2 opening which is convenient as the new stock required at that point would need to be built for doing more stops as the nature of the route changes.

 

[swt_passenger]

225 retirement roughly aligns with HS2 phase 2 opening which is convenient as the new stock required at that point would need to be built for doing more stops as the nature of the route changes.

... with the northern part of the route beyond York being partially (or mostly?) covered by 'classic compatible' HS2 stock the numbers required will be totally different as well. That's in addition to the Kings Cross to Doncaster railway being somewhat different as you say.

 

[MK Tom]

London Midland 110mph running of 350s to Northampton has probably taken most of the logic /case away from IEP WCML running.

From what I've been told the intention is still to find more intercity style stock for the proposed Euston-MK-Northampton only services. Doors at the ends, more table seating, etc.

 

[tbtc]

This may well have been answered elsewhere, but... Whilst I can understand that the current fleet of IC125's will be getting on for 35-42 years old by time the IEP's start running on the WCML

Are IEP definitely coming to the WCML?

 

[Zoe]

From what I've been told the intention is still to find more intercity style stock for the proposed Euston-MK-Northampton only services. Doors at the ends, more table seating, etc.

If the Northmapton route was to be improved to intercity standards, would it still be part of the West Midlands franchise or could it be transferred to Intercity West Coast?

 

[tbtc]

If the Northmapton route was to be improved to intercity standards, would it still be part of the West Midlands franchise or could it be transferred to Intercity West Coast?

Depends what you'd have on the Northampton to Rugby line - at the moment everything runs "through" Northampton. End door stock (like the OP's IEP) wouldn't be suited to the "stopper" element from Coventry to Birmingham (not ideal up the Trent Valley either), so would that mean splitting everything at Northampton (going back to the Silverlink/ Central Trains days)?

 

[AndyLandy]

This may well have been answered elsewhere, but... Whilst I can understand that the current fleet of IC125's will be getting on for 35-42 years old by time the IEP's start running on the WCML and a bit older on the ECML - has anything being said about CrossCountry and East Midland Trains ? Will the IEP order for ECML be large enough to displace the still able IC225's onto newly electrified MML & XC ? Thinking longer term, would the 390's eventually be displaced to MML & XC once HS2 Phase 1 stock start running ? (390's would be about 25 yrs old by then)

I still expect the IC225s to be replaced with IEPs on the ECML and cascaded to the newly-electrified MML, alongside (bi-modal) Meridians for the not-fully-electrified services.

If enough MML is wired, it may free up enough 222s to replace the XC HSTs. If not, a new EMU for (at least) the BMH-MAN services should see enough Voyagers available to displace the last of the HSTs on XC.

 

[Haydn1971]

Are IEP definitely coming to the WCML?

Slight slip - GWML

 

[IanXC]

I still expect the IC225s to be replaced with IEPs on the ECML and cascaded to the newly-electrified MML, alongside (bi-modal) Meridians for the not-fully-electrified services.

If enough MML is wired, it may free up enough 222s to replace the XC HSTs. If not, a new EMU for (at least) the BMH-MAN services should see enough Voyagers available to displace the last of the HSTs on XC.

Given that bimode 220s are a no go, I think the possibility of bimode 222s is looking quite remote. There won't really be any need for bimode stock anyway - the current Leeds services are only a function of having to get the HSTs to Neville Hill, and I'm not sure expensive work of that nature could be justified for weekend services to York and Scarborough!

Electric Spine is likely to result in an EMU fleet for XC - Manchester to South Coast (if separated from Newcastle/South West) presents a much better case than just BHM-MAN.

 

[RobShipway]

Given that bimode 220s are a no go, I think the possibility of bimode 222s is looking quite remote. There won't really be any need for bimode stock anyway - the current Leeds services are only a function of having to get the HSTs to Neville Hill, and I'm not sure expensive work of that nature could be justified for weekend services to York and Scarborough!

Electric Spine is likely to result in an EMU fleet for XC - Manchester to South Coast (if separated from Newcastle/South West) presents a much better case than just BHM-MAN.

I have to agree with Ian, especially as the cost would go some way to having a Bi - mode IEP train anyway but initially I think those are going to be for the ECML and GWML lines? If there is a later order placed, then that maybe placed for the MML.

 

[AndyLandy]

Given that bimode 220s are a no go, I think the possibility of bimode 222s is looking quite remote. There won't really be any need for bimode stock anyway - the current Leeds services are only a function of having to get the HSTs to Neville Hill, and I'm not sure expensive work of that nature could be justified for weekend services to York and Scarborough!

Electric Spine is likely to result in an EMU fleet for XC - Manchester to South Coast (if separated from Newcastle/South West) presents a much better case than just BHM-MAN.

I still reckon bi-modal 22xs are likely to emerge at some point. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I've not written it off yet.

That said, the brackets were intended to suggest 'optional', so even if bi-modal Meridians don't happen, they'll still be perfectly adequate for running on services where the IC225s won't be able to.

 

[Chris125]

I still reckon bi-modal 22xs are likely to emerge at some point. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I've not written it off yet.

You might not have written it off, but i think your probably on your own - it's not an issue of policy but basic economics, the work involved turned out too extensive to make them viable and i'm afraid there's no reason to think that will change.

Chris

 

[cjmillsnun]

The width difference between 2+2 in a 2.8 wide vehicle and in the IEP is not marginal.

As there are not even any IEP vehicles under test at the moment, this cannot be proven.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

As there are not even any IEP vehicles under test at the moment, this cannot be proven.

The IEP external width is given as 2.75 metres. That is 1 cm more than mark 3, which has exceptionally thin bodyshell construction. Unless the IEP has an extremely thin bodyshell, which is unlikely given current methods of construction, that makes it less. And 2.82 metres is possible in a 20 M vehicle, and with mark 3 construction that gives you what you get in a class 455/319/321, which would be a full 7 cm of extra width.

Take a tape measure with you next time you go on a train of that type.

 

[The Ham]

The IEP external width is given as 2.75 metres. That is 1 cm more than mark 3, which has exceptionally thin bodyshell construction. Unless the IEP has an extremely thin bodyshell, which is unlikely given current methods of construction, that makes it less. And 2.82 metres is possible in a 20 M vehicle, and with mark 3 construction that gives you what you get in a class 455/319/321, which would be a full 7 cm of extra width.

Take a tape measure with you next time you go on a train of that type.

Basicly you are saying that ANY new train longer than 20m is too narrow for you as it will not allow the maximum width of seats possible.

Even though the only seating arrangements which people complain are too narrow are those configured as 3+2 which tend to be fitted to the wider 20m long stock to maximise the number of seats within them. As they loose out on total number of seats by having to fit in more doors and connecting corridors per length of train so squeeze in an extra row to redress the balance.

On a class 450 (20m long) and a class 444 (23m long) there are basicly the same number of seats per coach, even though the class 450 has 2+3 seating.

Likewise by going up to 26m there can be more seats per length of train without having to resort to squeezing more seats (e.g. 3+2, shorter distances between seats, etc.). It is the problem that the UK has to cope with as in the last two years there's been about a growth in passenger numbers of over 16%.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The IEP external width is given as 2.75 metres. That is 1 cm more than mark 3, which has exceptionally thin bodyshell construction. Unless the IEP has an extremely thin bodyshell, which is unlikely given current methods of construction, that makes it less. And 2.82 metres is possible in a 20 M vehicle, and with mark 3 construction that gives you what you get in a class 455/319/321, which would be a full 7 cm of extra width.

Take a tape measure with you next time you go on a train of that type.

You hate the IEP we get it now.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Basicly you are saying that ANY new train longer than 20m is too narrow for you as it will not allow the maximum width of seats possible.

Even though the only seating arrangements which people complain are too narrow are those configured as 3+2 which tend to be fitted to the wider 20m long stock to maximise the number of seats within them. As they loose out on total number of seats by having to fit in more doors and connecting corridors per length of train so squeeze in an extra row to redress the balance.

On a class 450 (20m long) and a class 444 (23m long) there are basicly the same number of seats per coach, even though the class 450 has 2+3 seating.

Likewise by going up to 26m there can be more seats per length of train without having to resort to squeezing more seats (e.g. 3+2, shorter distances between seats, etc.). It is the problem that the UK has to cope with as in the last two years there's been about a growth in passenger numbers of over 16%.

You can add an extra metre or two and it makes no significant difference to go up to 22 metres, which is an extra bay. But since when is length of train a problem in the UK - the system is mostly filled up with short trains?

There is also as you will be aware a limit to the rate at which passengers can get through a door, so if there are too many passengers and not enough doors then station dwell times are excessive.

IEP is not a good concept from several points of view, of which the vehicle length is only one.

 

[corfield]

Unfortunately all your "several points of view" have consistently and comphrehensively been debunked.

You just resort to tired "I've got my hands over my ears I can't hear you" aka your post above deliberately conflating the presence of many short commuter/rural trains to give the impression there is plenty of length available (although funnily enough even that isnt really true since they all need lengthening and a lot of effort is going into stations and trains to do that !). When IEP is by its very name an intercity program to replace existing long trains where length at both terminus and intermediate stations is already highly constrained.

Your post is pure dishonesty - but does illustrates your total failure in making a case against IEP.

I really suggest you get over it and move on.

Or, why not start banging on about the massive cost of guage clearance works again - that was really convincing...

 

[asylumxl]

Unfortunately all your "several points of view" have consistently and comphrehensively been debunked.

You just resort to tired "I've got my hands over my ears I can't hear you" aka your post above deliberately conflating the presence of many short commuter/rural trains to give the impression there is plenty of length available (although funnily enough even that isnt really true since they all need lengthening and a lot of effort is going into stations and trains to do that !). When IEP is by its very name an intercity program to replace existing long trains where length at both terminus and intermediate stations is already highly constrained.

Your post is pure dishonesty - but does illustrates your total failure in making a case against IEP.

I really suggest you get over it and move on.

Or, why not start banging on about the massive cost of guage clearance works again - that was really convincing...

Ooohhh... hock:

 

[NSEFAN]

If you want to make a case against IEP, you'd be better off attacking the fact the trains will be 5-car compared to fixed 10 car formation. Whilst this theoretically makes operations more efficient (you can run shorter trains when there are fewer passengers), you end up with more staff being needed because the units are effectively isolated from each other.

There is also the issue of diagramming. Are there enough units for the number of diagrams listed, such that there will be plenty of 2x5 formations as required? We don't want a repeat of Operation Princess thank you very much!

 

[sprinterguy]

There is also the issue of diagramming. Are there enough units for the number of diagrams listed, such that there will be plenty of 2x5 formations as required? We don't want a repeat of Operation Princess thank you very much!

21 x 9-car IEP sets and 36 x 5-car sets to replace 37 (Probably - Assuming that the Laira long-distance HST sets are the only ones retained for West of England services) HSTs and five class 180s (And a smattering of Network Turbos on the Cotswolds services, I suppose).

 

[themiller]

Don't understand what all the fuss is about when Pendolino driving vehicles are 23 metres long! I think that we should be heading for continental standards regarding clearances so it looks like it may be happening by stealth.

 

[NSEFAN]

21 x 9-car IEP sets and 36 x 5-car sets to replace 37 (Probably - Assuming that the Laira long-distance HST sets are the only ones retained for West of England services) HSTs and five class 180s (And a smattering of Network Turbos on the Cotswolds services, I suppose).

Well hopefully that'll be enough. I believe the intention is to step up the number of diagrams using IEP (so for example Bristol can have 4tph all day to/from London).