Intercity Express Programme going ahead

[anthony263]

Two different solutions being crossed wires here.

Alstom have offered 1) a mini 390 (6 cars) for use on the WCML, fully tilting with non-retractable couplers to replace the 221s, able to do EPS speeds on the WCML and get hauled by a loco on the North Wales coast and 2) a proposed Pendolino variant with a non-tilt profile, which *could* have non-retractable couplers to replace IEP, for use off the wires to Aberdeen etc.

The WC ITT Section 54 states that 221s only need be used until 2016, bidders can indicate replacement stock if they wish, and mechanisms to fund electrification of Crewe - Chester...

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[TGV]

Indeed, it seems no-one wants loco hauled stock, not the TOCs, not the DfT or Network Rail.

Just the spotters.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Shall we compare the acceleration of a 390 to that of a 92 with the same loads?

Compare them on a wet railhead after some leaf-fall and you may find a very big difference.

 

[Nym]

And those of us with back and wrist problems that appreciate having minimal levels of transmitted vibrations and resonance into said pieces of their body.

 

[ainsworth74]

Just the spotters.

Indeed, even the continent is moving towards MUs with Alstom's AGV and Siemens' Velaro for instance.

 

[TGV]

And those of us with back and wrist problems that appreciate having minimal levels of transmitted vibrations and resonance into said pieces of their body.

I'm with you on that. My preference on long distance high speed services are TGV like formations (or HST in the UK if you like) as power cars and dedicated passenger vehicles have a win-win scenario. Better traction than a single loco (of given power) but retaining passenger comfort.

It doesn't clear the hurdle of flexibility in formations though. At least TGV's don't.

 

[Nym]

Is it too much to ask for a comfy seat without a QSK19F rumbling under you?

 

[Zoe]

I'm with you on that. My preference on long distance high speed services are TGV like formations (or HST in the UK if you like) as power cars and dedicated passenger vehicles have a win-win scenario. Better traction than a single loco (of given power) but retaining passenger comfort.

With power cars you are wasting two coaches of the train that could have been used for passengegers. It may have been a good idea 30 years ago but times have changed and there is no longer any need for separate power cars.

 

[TGV]

As an aside, the most disappointing train journey I had in the UK was from St Pancras to Sheffield on an East Midlands DMU. The class number escapes me just now, but it's a 22X. Anyway, the underfloor diesels droned the whole way there with a loud and irritating tone. When idling the vibration was really pretty bad.

A thoroughly disappointing experience if I'm honest.

 

[Nym]

Most EMUs use 'power cars' anyway without having all axles powered...

 

[TGV]

With power cars you are wasting two coaches of the train that could have been used for passengegers. It may have been a good idea 30 years ago but times have changed and there is no longer any need for separate power cars.

Obviously, yes. But my point was that it still holds the best balance between performance and comfort. And remember, TGV duplex sets are still being delivered. I think the future is pretty much all MU though for the reasons we have all discussed at length.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But that's exactly it. By coinciding the deadline with the tender submission, DfT have a get-out clause for not going ahead with it.

Plus, as the main proponent of IEP is no longer working on the programme (thank ***) other industry insiders and heavyweights have been a little more forthcoming with their reservations. It is speculated (note, speculated, I am merely repeating industry rumour mill) that Greening has finally been briefed on what a ridiculous idea it is, now that the project saviour has been removed.

I won't take it as dead until it is officially killed, but I think it looks more and more likely every week.

I reckon it's too late to cancel (unless it's unaffordable).
Too much political capital spent on jobs in Newton Aycliffe.
At the very least Hitachi will get a big order for something, if only EMUs.
Happy to be proved wrong...

 

[MCR247]

Scotland-Birmingham services?

Not quite none, but there are only a few 221s on Virgin Trains electric-only diagrams between Birmingham and Scotland or London and the West Midlands - I'd estimate 7 or 8 diagrams...

The quote was ALL the time. That same 221 can also be found in Chester, so not really all the time

 

[Yew]

Zoe, remember the end equipment carriages, just look at the door positions on a mk3 and a pendolino.

say they have 1m at the end of each carriage, excepting on the outermost end of the driving cars, that gives us 8x2x1m = 16m.

now on the driving coaches of a pendolino, the first 3rd of a 23(24?)m coach is not suitable for passanger accomodation, usually having bike spaces, and kitchens and maybe a guards office. now 2/3 of 23 = is just under 16m.

now 16+16 gives us 32m of room for powere cars, however we need a few things to fit in. Bike spaces, the kitchen, and the guards office. so for bike spaces, Voyagers (I think?) use vertical storage, storing two bikes either side of the corridor, so say 1m for those. now for the kitchen, the best thing I can think is an entension of the buffet, but I dont think you could get something smaller than 2x5m even with the reduced catering that is often seen of IC services these days. now for a guards compartment, we could either use the back cab (I think fire protection systems stop the use in this way in HST's but im sure some method can be sorted out, as we have passangers on top of engines in MU's

so 32-6 gives us 26m to fit two locos in. Now a HST power car is 18m long, now even though that is 5m too long, there is a reasonable amount of wasted space, for example the space for the secondart cab, that wasnt featured in production models. Also remember that it was made with 1970's technology so most likely there will be some space savings there.

overall, It would be a matter of less than 10m. Which for the improvements in quality of environment (especially for DMU's) I would say is worth it.

 

[junglejames]

I don't know why people object to the use of underfloor engines on this route considering they are used on much longer routes.

Just because they are used on longer routes, doesnt mean its the right thing to do. They have complained about 222s because they want a more pleasant journey. Sounds very fair to me. Come on Zoe, I think even you understand that.

 

[Zoe]

They have complained about 222s because they want a more pleasant journey. Sounds very fair to me. Come on Zoe, I think even you understand that.

As far as I know, most of the general public couldn't care less if there are underfloor engines or not. It's not much different to a National Express coach. Yes some stakeholders may not like them but at the end of the day if they can be used from Plymouth to Birmingham and beyond I don't see any reason why they couldnt be used from Plymouth to Paddington.

 

[junglejames]

As far as I know, most of the general public couldn't care less if there are underfloor engines or not. It's not much different to a National Express coach. Yes some stakeholders may not like them but at the end of the day if they can be used from Plymouth to Birmingham and beyond I don't see any reason why they couldnt be used from Plymouth to Paddington.

Zoe, if you wanted you could use underfloor engines on services from Paris to Beijing if you really wanted. But it doesnt mean it is the right thing to do. Virgin introduced DMUs, but that wasnt the correct thing to do.

As shown, the amount of lost space in a HST isnt much more than an MU. This is worth it for the extra comfort you get.

I think it was Pumbaa who said MUs are cheaper to run and maintain. This is untrue. Efficiency wise, LHCS is more efficent than say a 7 car DMU. For electrics, efficiency would be about the same.
As for maintenance. It goes without saying that having one of something is better than having 7 of something, even if they are smaller.

Also, LHCS has similar track access charges to MUs when you get to about 8 coaches.

Nym has argued the rest. He puts it better than I can.

 

[Woody]

As far as I know, most of the general public couldn't care less if there are underfloor engines or not. It's not much different to a National Express coach. Yes some stakeholders may not like them but at the end of the day if they can be used from Plymouth to Birmingham and beyond I don't see any reason why they couldnt be used from Plymouth to Paddington.

Passengers don't want to be put above the motor though. Class 222 Meridians were apparently considered for the West of England service but First Great Western managing director, Mark Hopwood, is reported as saying 'stakeholders did not find this acceptable, as they did not like the underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors of those trains'.

 

[Nym]

Nym has argued the rest. He puts it better than I can.

Thanks

And yes, I have... But some people are stuck in their ways...

Not saying I'm not here, but I don't resort to illogical arguments.

 

[Bridge189]

Passengers don't want to be put above the motor though. Class 222 Meridians were apparently considered for the West of England service but First Great Western managing director, Mark Hopwood, is reported as saying 'stakeholders did not find this acceptable, as they did not like the underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors of those trains'.

Yes and Garnett said the same thing about voyagers and GNER.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Zoe, remember the end equipment carriages, just look at the door positions on a mk3 and a pendolino.

say they have 1m at the end of each carriage, excepting on the outermost end of the driving cars, that gives us 8x2x1m = 16m.

now on the driving coaches of a pendolino, the first 3rd of a 23(24?)m coach is not suitable for passanger accomodation, usually having bike spaces, and kitchens and maybe a guards office. now 2/3 of 23 = is just under 16m.

now 16+16 gives us 32m of room for powere cars, however we need a few things to fit in. Bike spaces, the kitchen, and the guards office. so for bike spaces, Voyagers (I think?) use vertical storage, storing two bikes either side of the corridor, so say 1m for those. now for the kitchen, the best thing I can think is an entension of the buffet, but I dont think you could get something
smaller than 2x5m even with the reduced catering that is often seen of IC services these days. now for a guards compartment, we could either use the back cab (I think fire protection systems stop the use in this way in HST's but im sure some method can be sorted out, as we have passangers on top of
engines in MU's

so 32-6 gives us 26m to fit two locos in. Now a HST power car is 18m long, now even though that is 5m too long, there is a reasonable amount of wasted space, for example the space for the secondart cab, that wasnt featured in production models. Also remember that it was made with 1970's technology so most likely there will be some space savings there.

overall, It would be a matter of less than 10m. Which for the improvements in
quality of environment (especially for DMU's) I would say is worth it.

Yes that "reduced" EC catering that actually expanded the kitchen into the first bay of coach K and trolley dock points being added in all first class coaches. As mentioned the current EC catering requires more kitchen space than any past offer:roll:

 

[ainsworth74]

As mentioned the current EC catering requires more kitchen space than any past offer

And yet the resultant portions are smaller than any past offering on the ECML but remember all passengers are satisfied :roll:

 

[Nym]

It's posher, hence smaller portions and larger kitchen? Have they had Gordon Ramsey consult on it or something?

 

[Aictos]

Passengers don't want to be put above the motor though. Class 222 Meridians were apparently considered for the West of England service but First Great Western managing director, Mark Hopwood, is reported as saying 'stakeholders did not find this acceptable, as they did not like the underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors of those trains'.

Which is funny considering as the Class 222s were designed with the idea to make them less cramped then the 220s and the 221s as the 222s have a different interior which has more components fitted under the floors which frees up more space within the body.

Personally there's nothing wrong with the 222s, if First placed a large enough order they could have ordered enough for both Hull Trains and Great Western leaving the 180s to go elsewhere.

Hull Trains could have had 5 car Class 222s while Great Western could have had 9 car Class 222s for express services to Oxford, Exeter St Davids, Bristol Temple Meads etc...

 

[Chris125]

There is still the issue of what to do for the non-electrified sections. Will bi-mode versions be available and if so how is this different to the IEP?

Loco-haul EMU's as a pre-electrification stop-gap and/or use bi-mode 220/222 fleet when they are cascaded by electrification schemes. If nothing else it will avoid the horrendous PFI aspect of IEP.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

There are very few off wires "Intercity" services that do not have rapid start stops at some point, once the GWML electrification is completed the only ones that come immediately to mind are the Cross Country ones.

Trains to Aberdeen and Inverness have a large number of start stops in the northern part of the journey and trains to Penzance have an insane number of start stops during the final part of the journey.

For these journeys distributed traction makes a great deal of sense.

Even once we reach longer non stop runs, the higher accelerations (and higher tractive efforts per tonne) available to vehicles with distributed traction equipment permits the train to achieve faster timings than loco hauled sets, this may only amount to a couple of minutes but a couple of minutes really matters in these days when travel times are everything. (This effect becomes increasingly apparent as speeds are increased, as can be seen on the timetables for the Shinkansen in comparison with other high speed systems using non distributed traction equipment)

Increasing acceleration is a simple and cheap way to improve average line speeds without spending large amounts on infrastructure work, especially when you consider the ability of multiple units to take advantage of differentials due to lower peak axle loads. (Loco hauled rakes on Liverpool Norwich would loose all the time they gained and more on the Breckland line, even if they were 125mph capable on other parts of the route)

Note: Distributed traction equipment does not neccesarily mean distributed diesel engines.

As for the flexibility argument, it will soon become possible, if it is not already, to build an EMU that could change its length as easily as a loco hauled rake could as I have sort of demonstrated above. Additionally increasingly advanced electronics technology will reduce the amount of equipment that has to be carried above the solebar by allowing more to be packed in below platform level, where it would not prejudice the internal volume available to passengers.

And from personal experience on loco hauled stock at home and in Europe its hard to notice any real difference between intercity EMU stock and intercity hauled stock as far as ride comfort goes, with that largely being down to the track, the speed and the condition of the train in question.

 

[Zoe]

There are very few off wires "Intercity" services that do not have rapid start stops at some point, once the GWML electrification is completed the only ones that come immediately to mind are the Cross Country ones.

Even Cross Country has frequent stops when off the wires.

 

[HSTEd]

Even Cross Country has frequent stops when off the wires.

Good point, I forgot that XC goes down there too......

 

[tbtc]

I think it was Pumbaa who said MUs are cheaper to run and maintain. This is untrue. Efficiency wise, LHCS is more efficent than say a 7 car DMU

There aren't a lot of seven coach DMUs though (a handful of EMT 222s).

Passengers don't want to be put above the motor though. Class 222 Meridians were apparently considered for the West of England service but First Great Western managing director, Mark Hopwood, is reported as saying 'stakeholders did not find this acceptable, as they did not like the underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors of those trains'.

Ideally nobody wants to sit above an engine, but realistically train design involves a lot of compromise. If you just ask "would you rather sit above an engine or not sit about an engine" then its obvious what answer you'll get. But you need to weigh it up against the "cost" of doing so.

 

[Woody]

There aren't a lot of seven coach DMUs though (a handful of EMT 222s).



Ideally nobody wants to sit above an engine, but realistically train design involves a lot of compromise. If you just ask "would you rather sit above an engine or not sit about an engine" then its obvious what answer you'll get. But you need to weigh it up against the "cost" of doing so.

Replacing the iconic go anywhere HST on a franchise as diverse as Great Western was never going to be easy given that you cant electrify the entire FGW HST service network overnight.So what the solution?.If we dont want to repeat the huge waste of precious resources that occurred say in the 1955 modernistion plan when we were still building brand new steam engines as late as 1960 only to scrap them in 1965(Evening Star) when the rest of Europe was already switching to diesel and electric we really need to think out of the box electrification wise or we we risk yet another lost opportunity to add to the sad history of lost opportunities on our railways.(Nationalisation,1955 modernistation plan,Beeching and of last but not least a deeply flawed rail privatistion).

 

[RobShipway]

Replacing the iconic go anywhere HST on a franchise as diverse as Great Western was never going to be easy given that you cant electrify the entire FGW HST service network overnight.So what the solution?.If we dont want to repeat the huge waste of precious resources that occurred say in the 1955 modernistion plan when we were still building brand new steam engines as late as 1960 only to scrap them in 1965(Evening Star) when the rest of Europe was already switching to diesel and electric we really need to think out of the box electrification wise or we we risk yet another lost opportunity to add to the sad history of lost opportunities on our railways.(Nationalisation,1955 modernistation plan,Beeching and of last but not least a deeply flawed rail privatistion).

Having gone on both the Voyagers, Meridians, Adelantes they ride quite smoothly even with the engine underneath, however as I think I said in this thread before replacing the iconic HST needs to have both electric & Diesel power at both ends such that you can give the passengers the smoother ride that they deserve. The power should be such that the trains can do 125mph off the wires and up to 175mph plus on the wires if possible.

 

[Chris125]

...needs to have both electric & Diesel power at both ends such that you can give the passengers the smoother ride that they deserve. The power should be such that the trains can do 125mph off the wires and up to 175mph plus on the wires if possible.

Your not asking for much are you?

Chris