Could more IETs be built for operators such as LNER?

[DanNCL]

Manufacturers build to a specification. If a tender doesn’t stipulate level boarding, then it won’t be provided. If a tender does stipulate it then, well, Stadler has a major head start.

Stadler are the only manufacturer to offer level boarding as standard but others have got a UK spec design ready for it - Alstom (Bombardier), CAF and Hitachi all offered it in their unsuccessful bids for the Tyne & Wear Metro fleet renewal as it was a condition of the tender.

In terms of low fleet availability on 80X, it does seem like something that could improve over time. It seems like a lot of train fleets have poor reliability to begin with, mostly because they are generally quite bespoke and engineers have to learn how best to maintain them. Probably a lot of playing it safe for the first few years, before you learn what the tolerances properly are.

One thing I have noticed is that the 80xs when they are available rarely sit down in service. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hitachi were keeping 80xs at depot in a condition that anyone else would have sent them out in in an attempt to boost the official MTIN figures. A train can’t fail in service if it isn’t in service!

It’s quite the contrast to the approach Hitachi took with the 91s for the short time that they maintained them - if it was capable of moving under its own power safely it went out, even if they had very little confidence in the loco being able to make it the full day without sitting down somewhere.
91s going out on 3 motors was a relatively frequent event. 2 motors less common but it happened, and the loco often didn't manage the full day without sitting down when that did happen.

 

[Nym]

There is probably some value in forcing Hitachi to the table when it comes to negotiations on price, but not worth cutting off your nose to spite your face either.

A private company pushes it's way into being the de-facto long distance train on two routes, then there's expectations to reduce their price when you want them to make more and keep a standard fleet.

That's not how business works...

 

[Snow1964]

A private company pushes it's way into being the de-facto long distance train on two routes, then there's expectations to reduce their price when you want them to make more and keep a standard fleet.

That's not how business works...

Hitachi will price additional trains based on factory capacity and other orders.

Clearly if there is a production gap before commencing building HS2 stock, they might be happy to build some more, and pricing is then vs cost of keeping plant idle. But they are unlikely to want to build any cheap ones if it takes up HS2 stock build slots.

 

[Nym]

The majority of those who build the trains are non-permanent labour, so the cost of hibernating the plant in one of the cheapest land price areas of the country is not as expensive as you'd think. And before one bemoans the 'loss of expertise' flag, that isn't something that the bean counters actually notice.

 

[Jozhua]

Stadler are the only manufacturer to offer level boarding as standard but others have got a UK spec design ready for it - Alstom (Bombardier), CAF and Hitachi all offered it in their unsuccessful bids for the Tyne & Wear Metro fleet renewal as it was a condition of the tender.


One thing I have noticed is that the 80xs when they are available rarely sit down in service. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hitachi were keeping 80xs at depot in a condition that anyone else would have sent them out in in an attempt to boost the official MTIN figures. A train can’t fail in service if it isn’t in service!

It’s quite the contrast to the approach Hitachi took with the 91s for the short time that they maintained them - if it was capable of moving under its own power safely it went out, even if they had very little confidence in the loco being able to make it the full day without sitting down somewhere.
91s going out on 3 motors was a relatively frequent event. 2 motors less common but it happened, and the loco often didn't manage the full day without sitting down when that did happen.

I believe Crossrail's core had to build higher than standard platforms to accommodate the bombardier (now Alstom) trains with level boarding, compromising it on the rest of the route, which is pretty poor tbh. Government should be applying significant pressure in order to get new train platforms compatible with 915mm. Clearly if they can do it for Metro, they can do it if the right pressure is applied. A bit late for the AT300 IC stock, but would like to see this adopted as a term for future bids.

Interesting regarding fleet maintenance - do you think there is a level of risk aversion (e.g. does the TOC get fined by network rail for blocking the line more than it costs them to have standby sets?)

 

[Energy]

I believe Crossrail's core had to build higher than standard platforms to accommodate the bombardier (now Alstom) trains with level boarding, compromising it on the rest of the route, which is pretty poor tbh. Government should be applying significant pressure in order to get new train platforms compatible with 915mm. Clearly if they can do it for Metro, they can do it if the right pressure is applied. A bit late for the AT300 IC stock, but would like to see this adopted as a term for future bids.

Interesting regarding fleet maintenance - do you think there is a level of risk aversion (e.g. does the TOC get fined by network rail for blocking the line more than it costs them to have standby sets?)

The class 555s (T&W) have a completely flat floor and no step to enter, however they only go 50mph so they can get away with smaller wheels and bogeys. The class 777s go 75mph so need slightly bigger wheels and as such there is a slight bump between cars. The class 745/755s have bigger wheels and more substantial bogeys to do 100+mph and as such have a noticeable bump at the end of the cars.

There has to be some compromise for level boarding. For crossrail you'd either going to compromise on the speed (not going to happen), having a flat floor (limits the floor layout) or having a non standard platform height. For crossrail a non-standard platform height is the least worst option for the brand new section.

For an IET equivalent it would likely not have a flat floor. Squeezing the substantial engines under the floor also raised the floor height.

 

[Trainbike46]

Isn't HS2 being built with 1100mm high platforms, matching the crossrail core?

Consideration could be given to going for 1100mm for all new trains and platforms. However, then the government would have to decide to change the standard universally, so that all platforms that get work done to them in the future get updated.

For an IET equivalent it would likely not have a flat floor. Squeezing the substantial engines under the floor also raised the floor height.

The ICNG (new 200 km/h IC fleet for NS in the Netherlands) has level boarding with a 810 mm high floor, so building an 200 km/h IC-style train, like the IETs) with level boarding is possible (though for bimodes, you may have to either move the engines to above floor level, or have some cars offer level boarding while others require a step up and then put all the engines in the cars which have a step up)

 

[Nym]

But the ICNG has multiple ramps and steps inside to accomadate that floor level.

 

[43096]

(though for bimodes, you may have to either move the engines to above floor level, or have some cars offer level boarding while others require a step up and then put all the engines in the cars which have a step up)

You could put the engines in one or two cars at each end of the train. You could call them power cars, or locomotives. Now where has that been done before?

 

[Energy]

he ICNG (new 200 km/h IC fleet for NS in the Netherlands) has level boarding with a 810 mm high floor

But the ICNG has multiple ramps and steps inside to accomadate that floor level.

Seats at the ends are risen up slightly just like the UK FLIRTs.

so building an 200 km/h IC-style train, like the IETs) with level boarding is possible

Above I was specifically talking about crossrail where compromising on a fully flat floor significantly limits the floor layout. On a 80X type vehicle you can compromise on the flat floor and move the doors towards the centre.

 

[YorksLad12]

I suppose... looking at it slightly sideways, how many LNER 10-cars sets split? I've only been on one that did, when it arrived at Leeds and half of it went on to Skipton.

I get the argument that is you have 2x5 and one of them fails you still have a 5-car. Unless it's the leading set that fails, of course... But it seems to me that lengthening the 5-car sets to 7 cars provides capacity, while then freeing up units as they don't have to be doubled up.

Of course, all the LNER sets are IET sets, and that contract probably can't be changed for another 25 years. And there's no guarantee that non-IET additional cars would be allowed to be inserted into IET sets. But if I can't have 9 on the busy 1803 out of London because it forms off the 5 that comes in from Lincoln, I'd much rather it was a 7.

 

[irish_rail]

I suppose... looking at it slightly sideways, how many LNER 10-cars sets split? I've only been on one that did, when it arrived at Leeds and half of it went on to Skipton.

I get the argument that is you have 2x5 and one of them fails you still have a 5-car. Unless it's the leading set that fails, of course... But it seems to me that lengthening the 5-car sets to 7 cars provides capacity, while then freeing up units as they don't have to be doubled up.

Of course, all the LNER sets are IET sets, and that contract probably can't be changed for another 25 years. And there's no guarantee that non-IET additional cars would be allowed to be inserted into IET sets. But if I can't have 9 on the busy 1803 out of London because it forms off the 5 that comes in from Lincoln, I'd much rather it was a 7.

Surely if there are fleet of 5 cars needed lengthening its the GWR ones, due to the crazily high number of 5 car sets in the fleet. LnER already have a decent number of 9 car sets and having a few 5s won't do them any harm for certain services.

 

[Brubulus]

If LNER ditched Harrogate, they would have a lot less problems with 5s overall, as they'd free up a unit for key services along with said services no longer requiring 800s.

 

[Trainbike46]

Seats at the ends are risen up slightly just like the UK FLIRTs.

Above I was specifically talking about crossrail where compromising on a fully flat floor significantly limits the floor layout. On a 80X type vehicle you can compromise on the flat floor and move the doors towards the centre.

I seem to have misunderstood your post, I read it as a level boarding IET-like train not being possible, but it now looks like you meant that a IET-like train with level boarding wouldn't have a flat floor!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to have misunderstood your post, I read it as a level boarding IET-like train not being possible, but it now looks like you meant that a IET-like train with level boarding wouldn't have a flat floor!

That's correct, a low floor high speed train tends to have a variable floor height. They exist, e.g. the Stadler Giruno used by the Swiss, or the TGV Duplex.

Easiest way to solve it for IETs (including existing ones) is probably to use the existing design but with a low floor unpowered intermediate coach inserted with a central door, all wheelchair facilities and a stepped floor up to the bogies. You don't need every coach to be low floor - it's handy if it is, but it would prevent underfloor engines. In 9 car sets you may want two, one for each class.

For another example, SBB inserted a coach into their "Domino" EMUs which looked similar to the old ones but had a low floor centre section with accessible toilet for this purpose.

 

[Trainbike46]

That's correct, a low floor high speed train tends to have a variable floor height. They exist, e.g. the Stadler Giruno used by the Swiss, or the TGV Duplex.

Easiest way to solve it for IETs (including existing ones) is probably to use the existing design but with a low floor unpowered intermediate coach inserted with a central door, all wheelchair facilities and a stepped floor up to the bogies. You don't need every coach to be low floor - it's handy if it is, but it would prevent underfloor engines. In 9 car sets you may want two, one for each class.

For another example, SBB inserted a coach into their "Domino" EMUs which looked similar to the old ones but had a low floor centre section with accessible toilet for this purpose.

Extending all 9-cars to 10-car, with an extra low floor car which has all wheelchair spaces would certainly be nice!
And of course, if the various proposals getting thrown around on this forum to extend the 5-car IETs that would be an ideal moment to introduce at least 1 level boarding coach. The existing wheelchair spaces could then be fitted with more seats. If it where up to me, it would also be a chance to fit the GWR trains with a shop.

But wouldn't adding an extra unpowered intermediate coach reduce acceleration & performance?

In any case, the most important thing is that all new train orders require level boarding, so that we keep making progress to a fully accesible railway

 

[Bletchleyite]

But wouldn't adding an extra unpowered intermediate coach reduce acceleration & performance?

Only some 80x intermediates are powered, so if it was an additional coach part of the work could be to add an engine to another intermediate. They all have the high floor that would accommodate it to save them having to build three types of vehicle.

In any case, the most important thing is that all new train orders require level boarding, so that we keep making progress to a fully accesible railway

I agree. Just doesn't need to be the whole train, just as we accept double decker buses only allow step free access to the lower floor rather than insisting on low-floor-throughout bendies instead. (And going up and down the stairs on a moving bus is a lot more awkward than boarding a train with a stepped entrance). Low floor throughout is nice, but does have disadvantages like awkward layouts, a narrow floor (due to the need to taper in below solebar level) and internal steps and ramps which are awkward for some people. The FLIRT is a great unit, but isn't the only option for allowing people of limited mobility to board without the need for a ramp. And you can still do "gap fillers" on a high floor coach - Pendolinos have folding steps, for example, and Merseyrail has never had long stepping distances because unlike elsewhere the stepboards are about 8" wide and extend out well over the platform edge. That'd be out of gauge in many places but not if they were sliding steps.

FWIW along these lines I've always thought the Sheffield tram is pretty optimal - low floor end vehicles for easy access, but a high floor middle section with lots of seating, analogous to upstairs on a bus, if you can get there and need to travel a long way so a comfortable seat is more important. Certainly far better in my book than the recent low floor standee designs. Though it is probably easier to do it the other way round with an unpowered centre trailer for a train due to the bigger wheels.

 

[Trainbike46]

Only some 80x intermediates are powered, so if it was an additional coach part of the work could be to add an engine to another intermediate. They all have the high floor that would accommodate it to save them having to build three types of vehicle.



I agree. Just doesn't need to be the whole train, just as we accept double decker buses only allow step free access to the lower floor rather than insisting on low-floor-throughout bendies instead. (And going up and down the stairs on a moving bus is a lot more awkward than boarding a train with a stepped entrance). Low floor throughout is nice, but does have disadvantages like awkward layouts, a narrow floor (due to the need to taper in below solebar level) and internal steps and ramps which are awkward for some people. The FLIRT is a great unit, but isn't the only option for allowing people of limited mobility to board without the need for a ramp. And you can still do "gap fillers" on a high floor coach - Pendolinos have folding steps, for example, and Merseyrail has never had long stepping distances because unlike elsewhere the stepboards are about 8" wide and extend out well over the platform edge. That'd be out of gauge in many places but not if they were sliding steps.

FWIW along these lines I've always thought the Sheffield tram is pretty optimal - low floor end vehicles for easy access, but a high floor middle section with lots of seating, analogous to upstairs on a bus, if you can get there and need to travel a long way so a comfortable seat is more important. Certainly far better in my book than the recent low floor standee designs. Though it is probably easier to do it the other way round with an unpowered centre trailer for a train due to the bigger wheels.

I fully agree only one coach really needs to offer level boarding. A different example of that happening is the DDNG for NS, where the end cars will have level boarding, and the intermediate cars will be double decker and have a few steps up.

I'm personally not that bothered about internal steps and ramps, but that may just be because that is what all trains where I grew up had.

And while I like the FLIRT design a lot, it is definitely not the only way to get level boarding.

 

[3RDGEN]

Given Avanti are running a reduced service what need do they have for the 807's? Move some of them to LNER to replace the MKIV's, should be minimal training required. LNER get stuck with a none standard sub fleet which restricts diagramming but 7-cars on the Leeds services maybe adequate.

 

[Fuzzytop]

Given Avanti are running a reduced service what need do they have for the 807's? Move some of them to LNER to replace the MKIV's, should be minimal training required. LNER get stuck with a none standard sub fleet which restricts diagramming but 7-cars on the Leeds services maybe adequate.

One slight consideration with the 807s is the rather restricted First Class capacity - they've only got one more seat than a five-car Azuma. There would inevitably be some revenue loss from the lost First Class vice MkIV.

There's also the politics of removing 10 new electric units from the West Coast service, even if they're needed (which I agree is debatable). But if you end up having to backfill with units from somewhere else, then at what point does it all become too much like hard work?

 

[DanNCL]

I believe Crossrail's core had to build higher than standard platforms to accommodate the bombardier (now Alstom) trains with level boarding, compromising it on the rest of the route, which is pretty poor tbh. Government should be applying significant pressure in order to get new train platforms compatible with 915mm. Clearly if they can do it for Metro, they can do it if the right pressure is applied. A bit late for the AT300 IC stock, but would like to see this adopted as a term for future bids.

Crossrail would have had to have a higher platform height anyway because of the need to serve Heathrow.

Surely if there are fleet of 5 cars needed lengthening its the GWR ones, due to the crazily high number of 5 car sets in the fleet. LnER already have a decent number of 9 car sets and having a few 5s won't do them any harm for certain services.

Both the LNER and GWR sets need lengthening, the entire IEP order should have been 9 car to start with. LNER have no routes that require a 5 car unit (and only one where they're even adequate), and the 5 car 802s would have been sufficient to cover GWR's requirement for 5 car units.

If LNER ditched Harrogate, they would have a lot less problems with 5s overall, as they'd free up a unit for key services along with said services no longer requiring 800s.

Ditching Harrogate would free up a single 5 car unit, which would allow one other diagram to be doubled. It wouldn't even be enough to eliminate 5 car running to Leeds.

Only some 80x intermediates are powered, so if it was an additional coach part of the work could be to add an engine to another intermediate. They all have the high floor that would accommodate it to save them having to build three types of vehicle.

The unpowered 80x intermediates would need new bogies to be converted to powered vehicles, as the unpowered intermediates have lightweight inside framed trailer bogies as opposed to the more conventional outside framed bogies used on the motor vehicles.

Given Avanti are running a reduced service what need do they have for the 807's? Move some of them to LNER to replace the MKIV's, should be minimal training required. LNER get stuck with a none standard sub fleet which restricts diagramming but 7-cars on the Leeds services maybe adequate.

One slight consideration with the 807s is the rather restricted First Class capacity - they've only got one more seat than a five-car Azuma. There would inevitably be some revenue loss from the lost First Class vice MkIV.

807s for LNER isn't a great idea. There's multiple issues that make them unsuitable, the first class capacity, the reduced catering facilities, the introduction of yet another train length and therefore the need for new stopping positions, there's several reasons.
LNER either need to order a custom build of new units, be that more 80xs to their spec or something different, or they need to carry on with the Mark 4s. As the 91s are performing better now than they have in a long time, the latter option would be reasonable for the time being.

 

[JonathanH]

Both the LNER and GWR sets need lengthening, the entire IEP order should have been 9 car to start with. LNER have no routes that require a 5 car unit (and only one where they're even adequate), and the 5 car 802s would have been sufficient to cover GWR's requirement for 5 car units.

I dont know where you think the money is coming from to change things now. I think we can be fairly confident in imagining that there will not be a lengthening programme for the 5-car units.

If 5-car units are generally suitable for Hull Trains, it would appear that they are equally suitable for some LNER services (eg Lincoln). The Harrogate, Skipton, Bradford and Huddersfield extensions could also have been 5-car north of Leeds if LNER hadn't been quite so concerned about the prospect of splitting and joining trains.

 

[Snow1964]

DfT has just released the latest LNER agreement, and some details of the new trains are on page 153

10 trains, with option for 5 extra
minimum length 250m
At least 490 standard seats in 2+2 plus min 2 wheelchair spaces
At least 100 First class seats in 2+1 plus min 2 wheelchairs
Into revenue service December 2025

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1104642/london-north-eastern-railway-limited-east-coast-franchise.pdf

The IC225 are 398 + 128 first class seats, so not enough seats
The 9car 80x are 510 + 101 first class seats, so meet seat count, but not minimum length.

In my mind, to get a fleet into service within 2.5 years means more IETs and to meet length requirements mean 10car versions.

 

[MattRat]

In my mind, to get a fleet into service within 2.5 years means more IETs and to meet length requirements mean 10car versions.

Could still be something different. Never underestimate the DFTs ability to not understand reality.

 

[Energy]

Could still be something different. Never underestimate the DFTs ability to not understand reality.

Or Hitachis ability to charge a premium?

 

[D365]

Could still be something different. Never underestimate the DFTs ability to not understand reality.

What reality is this?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

If GWR could get its hand on some 15x units (e.g. from TfW) that could potentially free up the 802s planned to work GWR West services for transfer to LNER.

Yeah that will go down well with passengers who now have one of the biggest upgrades basically from a 75mph Class 150/1 right up to a high-spec Class 80x capable of 125mph!

 

[MattRat]

What reality is this?

I mean that you can only build a train so fast, especially a new one, but the DFT will ignore that and act like new trains grow on trees and can be available yesterday. It'll probably also be the cheapest option as well to boot.

 

[TheBigD]

DfT has just released the latest LNER agreement, and some details of the new trains are on page 153

10 trains, with option for 5 extra
minimum length 250m
At least 490 standard seats in 2+2 plus min 2 wheelchair spaces
At least 100 First class seats in 2+1 plus min 2 wheelchairs
Into revenue service December 2025

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1104642/london-north-eastern-railway-limited-east-coast-franchise.pdf

The IC225 are 398 + 128 first class seats, so not enough seats
The 9car 80x are 510 + 101 first class seats, so meet seat count, but not minimum length.

In my mind, to get a fleet into service within 2.5 years means more IETs and to meet length requirements mean 10car versions.

The 9 car Azumas have had 21 seats removed and extra luggage stacks installed.
They now seat 490 std and 100 1st.

 

[DanNCL]

DfT has just released the latest LNER agreement, and some details of the new trains are on page 153

10 trains, with option for 5 extra
minimum length 250m
At least 490 standard seats in 2+2 plus min 2 wheelchair spaces
At least 100 First class seats in 2+1 plus min 2 wheelchairs
Into revenue service December 2025

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1104642/london-north-eastern-railway-limited-east-coast-franchise.pdf

The IC225 are 398 + 128 first class seats, so not enough seats
The 9car 80x are 510 + 101 first class seats, so meet seat count, but not minimum length.

In my mind, to get a fleet into service within 2.5 years means more IETs and to meet length requirements mean 10car versions.

Is this document new? It contains several pieces of outdated information, including reference to transporting Queen Elizabeth II and to lease expiry dates for the HSTs and already withdrawn Mark 4 sets, as well as a date that’s already passed for the retained Mark 4 sets.