East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

[LexyBoy]

Taken from:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...oast-main-line-iep-train-order-confirmed.html



Sounds like it covers a fair range of people's wish lists, although there are likely to be some who think that IEP will not be as good for one reason or another.

I thought that at first, but I think the comparisons are with 395s rather than the current stock. Comparing commuter trains with intercity will always make the IC look good!

That said, I prefer the 395 interior to 444s (except the horrible lighting). I was very underwhelmed by my first ride on a 444 a little while ago, having read all the froth here- they really are just a 2+2 commuter unit. Nicer than a FGW HST obviously, but there are plenty of nicer commuter units (thinking mainly about interiors).

I am trying to remain positive about IEP, as I will have to use it! Criticising the interiors is ridiculous at this stage and it's too late to do anything about the financing. Hopefully the 5 car trains can be lengthened at great expense once they prove to be too short.

 

[Goldfish62]

Given that the Mark 4s are being displaced from ECML maybe they are the answer for West of England services rather than having to rebuild Mark 3s with plug doors and retention toilets.

 

[transmanche]

I was very underwhelmed by my first ride on a 444 a little while ago, having read all the froth here- they really are just a 2+2 commuter unit. Nicer than a FGW HST obviously, but there are plenty of nicer commuter units (thinking mainly about interiors).

I think that as the 444 is used on routes which do have long-distance commuters, the seating is perhaps more dense than you would want on a 'proper' InterCity route. I'd want to see a bit more luggage space, for example.

We can't judge a unit solely by its interior layout - as these things can easily be changed. But it's clear that the 444 is the perfect type of unit for 'secondary' InterCity routes and inter-regio expresses (i.e. those with a max 110mph speed).

 

[corfield]

Reusing the Ml4s seems more sensible than expensive modifications to 17? 8 coach HST sets, similarly the GEML Mk3s could be retired.

If the 91s can be used, with minor work, for freight then that would be good. Especially with a "growth in electric freight" concept...

Logically, Mk4s on WoE/GE could be pulled by new locos (or 67/68), or retained 43/90s.

Or just buy more IEP bi-modes for WoE and 380 etc. EMUs for GE.

On a slightly different note, Why is GW getting so many 5 cars ? can anyone give a breakdown (rough) of GW allocation, eg. Core Bstl/Wales express, Oxford & Cotswolds HST/166, West of England HSTs, Thames Valley 165/166 fleet.
Also, if a new build 110/125mph EMU is picked for the TV (instead of cascaded 319s), how many of what type ?? (assume an IEP variant?).

 

[DarloRich]

Taken from:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...oast-main-line-iep-train-order-confirmed.html



Sounds like it covers a fair range of people's wish lists, although there are likely to be some who think that IEP will not be as good for one reason or another.

I have read all of the press releases. I dont really care about leg room or "sophisticated traffic light displays" - what i want is to see the seat, the cushions and compare them with the old. What I want is a modern train to have at least as good an ambiance as the old train it replaces.

The seats wont be as wide, as deep, as padded or as comfortable as the existing seats. Modern train seats aren't. I expect a seat similar to a voyager or a pendolino with similar levels of discomfort on a long run.

Perhaps i will now be told no one uses EC for long runs..............

 

[transmanche]

The seats wont be as wide, as deep, as padded or as comfortable as the existing seats. Modern train seats aren't. I expect a seat similar to a voyager or a pendolino with similar levels of discomfort on a long run.

Perhaps i will now be told no one uses EC for long runs..............

Seat comfort is very subjective though. I quite like a firm seat, so I find the seats on 185s quite comfortable for Newcastle-Manchester journeys. But I think (and it's hard to remember that far back) that I found the original seats in the MkIV more comfortable than the 'Mallard' refurbished ones.

I wonder if they'll use the same seats as in the 395s?

 

[HSTEd]

You can't use Mark 4s with HST power cars without complete rewiring of either the power cars or the coaching stock.

Keeping Mark 3s is the low cost option.

 

[corfield]

You can't use Mark 4s with HST power cars without complete rewiring of either the power cars or the coaching stock.

Keeping Mark 3s is the low cost option.

Which has already been raised and is of course pertinent, unless you arent keeping the power cars either in which case that is irrelevent, as my suggestion of using other legacy/new locos...

As non HST/Mk3 solution for WoE, utilising younger Mk4s needing less expenditure than Mk3s may be cheaper and/or better value for money. Similarly with 90s on GE.


Im really suprised by this, I figured the 225s were safe where they were unless more were wanted (which the order size doesnt imply), or a mixed IEP/225 fleet with different accel/speed caused timetabling (hardly a showstopper?). A single fleet type is nice for operators/costs but this seems an expensive way to get it. Keeping the new factory going could have been done with a GW commuter order, WoE bi-modes or MML planning.

 

[158722]

The 91s and Mk4s will be around 28 to 30 years old when they are due to be replaced by IEPs on the East Coast, still a good 10 to 15 years life left in them surely. The Midland Mainline seems the obvious place for them, perhaps with sets reduced by an FO and/or buffet (replaced by a mini-buffet effort in a TSO) with the 91s re-geared (if thats possible) for lower top-speeds but better acceleration. Around 20 sets required, supported by 350/377 type EMUs for stopping/shorter services, leaving the balance for XC running from Birmingham to Edinburgh perhaps. Midland HSTs get retired and a massive cascade of DMUs with the 222s displacing 170s, in turn 158s, etc with Pacers and 153s dropping out of service.

 

[HSTEd]

There was me thinking loco hauled stock allows for formations to be changed more easily than with DMUs, EMUs and DEMUs and you're insisting they have to remain in their current lengths, obviously additional locos would be needed if all the carriages were to remain in use but the new locos could be ordered to suit the routes they will run on with better acceleration and lower track access costs.

So you want to order brand new locomotives to keep coaching stock in operation for another decade or so? Thats madness, much better to order new units that will last 30-40 years themselves.

As to shortening the formations, while you will improve performance to a measurable degree you will also reduce the case for retaining the loco hauled stock at all.... the track access charges for the DVT and locomotive alone get you a 5x23m multiple unit atleast.

Any part of the fleet that is removed will be stripped for parts or left to be rust in store. And as far as I can tell only about half the fleet could be occupied on other routes reasonably.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Would a Mk4 coach be capable of accommodating modifications to make it suitable as a Sleeper coach?

In theory yes ( it's converting the other way that causes problems ) but do bear in mind the Mk 4 profile narrows near the ceiling - the upper bunks would be slightly more constricted than on the Mk3s.

The cost of doing the conversion probably wouldn't be much less than building new Sleeper stock from scratch, though.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought that at first, but I think the comparisons are with 395s rather than the current stock...

The DfT's wording is pretty clear, they say:

The modern vehicles will offer a step-change in passenger comfort through increased leg space compared with the stock they are replacing with no compromise on luggage space and electronic seat reservations

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ht-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains

It's a long way down in the notes for editors section, but it seems to disagree with your interpretation...

 

[ben2012]

i dont know if anyone has noticed but the new plans for them have no buffet car on them is this true or have i missed something

 

[swt_passenger]

i dont know if anyone has noticed but the new plans for them have no buffet car on them is this true or have i missed something

Which new plans are you referring to?

 

[transmanche]

i dont know if anyone has noticed but the new plans for them have no buffet car on them is this true or have i missed something

The layout as published by DfT says that the 9-car electric unit will have an 'L1' catering provision in first class and an 'L4' catering provision.

The L1 is in the first class end carriage (what will probably be the London end) - I assume that has the facilities for cooking the first class freebies. And the L4 is in the second carriage from the other end of the train. Looking at the layout plans, it must just be a micro buffet - as it takes the place of 'standard' toilet in the other standard class coaches.

It's really not that obvious on the plans, so I've tried to highlight the difference on these two images.

 

[MCW]

my main concern is from a passenger perspective.

I am over 6 foot tall and lots of younger people are getting taller as generations carry on. im concerned that the length of the carriages will not be any longer than the current Mk.3 and Mk.4's thus leg room will be pretty much non existant. a pain in the a*** if traveling long distances....

 

[transmanche]

im concerned that the length of the carriages will not be any longer than the current Mk.3 and Mk.4's

They will be 3m longer.

I am also over 6', but after doing a quick bit of research (see post #60) it looks like the legroom might actually be more generous than an EC MkIII or MkIV coach.

 

[swt_passenger]

my main concern is from a passenger perspective.

I am over 6 foot tall and lots of younger people are getting taller as generations carry on. im concerned that the length of the carriages will not be any longer than the current Mk.3 and Mk.4's thus leg room will be pretty much non existant. a pain in the a*** if traveling long distances....

Huh? They are 26m carriages, there've been enough people complaining in these forums about the supposedly 'massive infrastructure improvement costs' this will require over the last couple of years...

So they have about 3m extra within the seating area, as has always been the case. The extra length allows for the pro-rata increase in seats from about 76 in a mk3 to 88 in a normal IEP carriage, and although they've confirmed today they'll have better legroom than 'the stock they are replacing' that has also been stated before in the tables of dimensions given in the train technical specs. (On the DfT site somewhere.).

I think there's been too much unsubstantiated criticism of the internal arrangements all along - such as people referring to them as Voyager clones etc...

 

[MCW]

They will be 3m longer.

I am also over 6', but after doing a quick bit of research (see post #60) it looks like the legroom might actually be more generous than an EC MkIII or MkIV coach.

ah fair enough, beg pardon my ignorance to this research

Huh? They are 26m carriages, there've been enough people complaining in these forums about the supposedly 'massive infrastructure improvement costs' this will require over the last couple of years...

So they have about 3m extra within the seating area, as has always been the case. The extra length allows for the pro-rata increase in seats from about 76 in a mk3 to 88 in a normal IEP carriage, and although they've confirmed today they'll have better legroom than 'the stock they are replacing' that has also been stated before in the tables of dimensions given in the train technical specs. (On the DfT site somewhere.).

I think there's been too much unsubstantiated criticism of the internal arrangements all along - such as people referring to them as Voyager clones etc...

I will agree with you on the voyager clones topic. In a way i can see anyone, including the average oe, getting this conception mainly because the way modern trains are set out is in a very modular way which to a lot of people, doesn't differentiate in feel or appearance between more modern units (as examples, Class 170's, 22x class, electrostar family and the odd other types as well)

To swing onto another aspect, as this thought has crossed my mind (like many other) when the 225's are made redundant they could potentially see use on the MML in my eyes, that is in a non DDA viewpoint. I dare say the cost to adapt these trains to a wheelchair friendly layout in accordance to the DDA would outweigh the potential lifespan of these trains, to an extent.

Considering the 225 sets are nearing 30 years of age, they are doing considerably well and to me are still holding their strength and could last for another 20 years in my eyes. The only real costly bit I can see is probably a full mechanical refurbishment of the class 91's if one ever took place. I dare say after about 30 odd years service the traction motors and such like will be nearly knackered....

ADDITION: after reading post 60, I am pondering about these 'uni directional' seats. does this mean that they can be swung over or swung around to face the direction of travel, like the japanese bullet trains? or is this a term used to describe the seats in fixed positions which do not form part of bay table seats?

 

[transmanche]

ADDITION: after reading post 60, I am pondering about these 'uni directional' seats. does this mean that they can be swung over or swung around to face the direction of travel, like the japanese bullet trains? or is this a term used to describe the seats in fixed positions which do not form part of bay table seats?

I assumed it meant fixed positions - i.e. those commonly called 'airline' style seats.

 

[Martin222002]

I have read all of the press releases. I dont really care about leg room or "sophisticated traffic light displays" - what i want is to see the seat, the cushions and compare them with the old. What I want is a modern train to have at least as good an ambiance as the old train it replaces.

The seats wont be as wide, as deep, as padded or as comfortable as the existing seats. Modern train seats aren't. I expect a seat similar to a voyager or a pendolino with similar levels of discomfort on a long run.

Perhaps i will now be told no one uses EC for long runs..............

I have read that there should be a mock up on display from September.

The layout as published by DfT says that the 9-car electric unit will have an 'L1' catering provision in first class and an 'L4' catering provision.

The L1 is in the first class end carriage (what will probably be the London end) - I assume that has the facilities for cooking the first class freebies. And the L4 is in the second carriage from the other end of the train. Looking at the layout plans, it must just be a micro buffet - as it takes the place of 'standard' toilet in the other standard class coaches.

It's really not that obvious on the plans, so I've tried to highlight the difference on these two images.

The draft layout from the DfT do show that the this draft layout would not include a buffet in standard, and what you have found is just the trolley store. I use the word draft as it has been stated previously by the DfT that the actual train layouts, ie seating density and catering facilities, would be up to the East Coast and Great Western TOCs. So I would think that the East Coast operator (however it may be at that time) would have the sense to specify a buffet for their sets given the prominent long distance nature of their route.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Im sorry bt the idea of the consept still remains fundimentally wrong, its a 21st century redesign of the voyager and means in the future has lost any long distance business it ever had from me.↲

 

[starrymarkb]

They will be 3m longer.

I am also over 6', but after doing a quick bit of research (see post #60) it looks like the legroom might actually be more generous than an EC MkIII or MkIV coach.

Wonder how it would compare to a FGW HST where there is quite generous legroom. Didn't someone on here measure EC standard as a 28" pitch. So 28.25" isn't going to make much difference and could be achieved by using a thinner seat

 

[upnorth71]

Im sorry bt the idea of the consept still remains fundimentally wrong, its a 21st century redesign of the voyager and means in the future has lost any long distance business it ever had from me.↲

Well, enjoy the bus then.

 

[broadgage]

my main concern is from a passenger perspective.

I am over 6 foot tall and lots of younger people are getting taller as generations carry on. im concerned that the length of the carriages will not be any longer than the current Mk.3 and Mk.4's thus leg room will be pretty much non existant. a pain in the a*** if traveling long distances....

As others post, the vehicles will be significantly longer than existing stock.
This however may not mean more leg room as the extra length will probably be used for more seats, not more leg room.

A previous post refers to "up to 50mm more leg room" I would suggest that the important words are UP TO. 1mm is "up to 50mm" and to what is the 50mm compared ? my natural cynicism leads me to suspect that the leg room will be worse than on a proper inter city train, but "up to 50mm more" than on some horrid high density DMU.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Well, enjoy the bus then.

it will be flights, sleapers or WCML. Lacking in certain things they may be but pendos are at least not just 5 cars long with under floor engine noise all the time. I mean 5 cars? On the ECML? Its voyager MK2!↲

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
and agreed, these are not intercity trains. A TGV, or a pendo or a Eurostar set is an intercity train, these are white elifants and proves yet again that the needs of the customer come after proffit. Government procured they may be but Il bet if BR Still lived we wouldnt have voyagers, 180s or these things.↲

 

[sprinterguy]

it will be flights, sleapers or WCML. Lacking in certain things they may be but pendos are at least not just 5 cars long with under floor engine noise all the time. I mean 5 cars? On the ECML? Its voyager MK2!

All of the services currently operated by Intercity 225s and the majority of those currently operated by HSTs will be nine carriages in length.

There will be no underfloor engine noise at all while the trains are running on the ECML “proper” between London and Edinburgh (I believe that the idea of keeping one engine running at all times to provide train supply has been done away with?). In fact, East Coast services between London, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh will be fully electric, which is considerably more than can be said for the service at the moment.

 

[Blindtraveler]

wasnt aware of the changes to train supply. I was still under the impression though that they were planning to run a lot of them as 5 car, cramming us in like cattle so that they make less train hold more?↲

 

[Dave1987]

Do I gather the completely wasteful bi-mode idea has been approved. The dft are determined to drag dead Diesel engines under the wires. From what I have read it was a civil servants idea so in their eyes it was brilliant so refused to drop the idea. When the country is going to suffer from an energy crisis surely drag a heavy Diesel engine under the wires is just ridiculous!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Im sorry bt the idea of the consept still remains fundimentally wrong, its a 21st century redesign of the voyager and means in the future has lost any long distance business it ever had from me.↲

9 car electrics are what have been ordered ehre, even minus the crumple zones they are around 10% longer than the 9 Mk IVs. They are no narrower and will not have tilt profile so may have more internal space than a Mk IV, the designs look good with good seat spacing, micro buffet in standard, catering facility in first class. These will not be bad trains.

5 car Bi-modes on the other hand.... well. I still maintain the IEP will be a good train in all electric form at 9 carriages. Bi-mode i am yet to be convinced of the point of it.

I hope for the sake of the ECML that they all leave London as 10 car and split on route. Excluding maybe the very quiet services.