Composition of proposed IEP Fleet

[PhilipW]

Putting together information mainly from the new edition of 'Rail' magazine (Issue 665 - Page 6) but from other information around, it would appear that the IEP Fleet is to be as follows:

100 trains consisting of
-- 11 trains of 8 coaches (88 coaches)
-- 89 trains of 5 coaches (435 coaches)
giving a total of 533 coaches.

Of the 100 trains:
30 are Electric consisting of
-- all 11 of the 8-coach trains (making 88 coaches)
-- 19 of the 5-coach trains (making 95 coaches)
70 are Bi-Mode consisting of
-- 70 of the 5-coach trains (making 350 coaches)

Great Western is to receive:
-- all 11 of the 8-coach Electric trains (88 coaches)
-- 9 of the 19 Electric 5-coach trains (45 coaches)
-- 35 of the 70 Bi-Mode 5-coach trains (175 coaches)
giving a total of 55 trains and 308 coaches

East Coast is to receive:
-- 10 of the 19 Electric 5-Coach trains (50 coaches)
-- 35 of the 70 Bi-Mode 5-coach trains (175 coaches)
giving a total of 45 trains and 225 coaches

So of the 533 coaches, 183 are Electric and 350 Bi-Mode

Note that East Coast is to keep all its stock of Class 91 plus Mark IV coaches until further notice, so the new stock just replaces and augments its 13-strong HST Fleet.
With all its HST Fleet being 8-coaches (I think), the new allocation of 225 coaches gives a net addition of 121 coaches over the HST stock of 104 (13 times 8), so that is quite a reasonable net addition.

I don't have comparable figures for Great Western where anyway the plan is to keep some of the HSTs for the Plymouth/Penzance trains for a while longer (no time frame given).

Hopefully with a supply of HSTs being freed up, not all will go to the scrap heap straightaway, some may be used for other secondary services (Worcester, Hereford et al).

I hope this Table is useful and informative. I believe it to be correct but am happy to receive corrections if anyone feels some have to be made.

 

[Zoe]

With all its HST Fleet being 8-coaches

East Coast HSTs have nine coaches.

 

[gordonthemoron]

so presumably that means that Aberdeen/Inverness services will be one of the following:

1xbi mode
2xbi mode
1xbi + 1xleccy with the electric section dropped/picked up at edinburgh

 

[PhilipW]

Thanks Zoe.
So to amend my figures. The current East Coast HST Fleet then becomes 117 coaches (13 times 9).

With an IEP allocation of 225 coaches, this gives a net increase of 108 coaches to East Coast. Still good.

 

[sprinterguy]

I like the idea that a five carriage Bi-mode IEP train running beyond the limits of electrification can be coupled to a pure EMU on the core section under the wires. This is what I had hoped.

What I really don’t like is just how miniscule the provision of “full length” trains is, and how much of the order is for dinky five carriage units is: Fantastic, we’re doomed to forty years of double staffing of trains, a limited amount of passenger flow along the length of the train and duplication of facilities in both halves of a ten carriage train formed of two five carriage units, that will take up space that could be better used for seating in a single, long ten carriage unit. Everything that BR learnt through the operation of the APT-T trains about the inefficiencies and complications of splitting of a single train into two halves, and all the lessons picked up from doubled up Voyager operation on XC and Adelante operation on FGW, have just been thrown out of the window.

On the bright side though, at least there’s going to be plenty of jobs for on-train staff available, and at Kings Cross and Paddington you’ll be guaranteed a seat on a half empty train by walking up to the front unit whilst the majority of passengers cram into the rear five carriages nearest the concourse! First Great Westerns’ “Coach E Syndrome” is set to get worse!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
...And another thing, what on earth are East Coast meant to do with all those additional trains? They can’t run fifteen carriage formations, especially not with 26 metre carriages, as they won’t fit in the platforms. All I can think is that provision is being made for five carriage IEP trains to replace Hull Trains’ and Grand Centrals’ current train fleets, and possibly for some to be used on Crosscountry services on the East Coast from Glasgow.

I suppose it's still very early days and these figures will, I imagine, be subject to widespread change and alteration over the next three or four years or so.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

It does seem very shortsightsed that these trains are only 5 & 8 coaches, see above comments re XC and other firms who long distance services with short trains.

I would of thought that allowing too for future growth, a minimum length of 8 coaches and perhaps 10-12 coaches should be considered. FGW for example only having 5-8 on their routes now is not enough....Even regional services, say Pompey to Bristol/Cardiff and many in the Midlands and North are only 2-3coaches, they may be nice trains but not when you are squashed in like sardines. rgds.

 

[swt_passenger]

Trains for the ECML could just mean 'trains for the franchise currently known as East Coast.'

However it could also include trains for FCC's Cambridge/Kings Lynn service - 5+5 to Cambridge with 5 onward. That would go along with two current issues - the decision not to include Kings Lynn on the Thameslink network, and the 2016 capacity study proposal for 125 mph trains to Cambridge...

 

[mallard]

The ECML allocation may also be provision for the "aspirational" services to Lincoln and Nottingham.

 

[swt_passenger]

The ECML allocation may also be provision for the "aspirational" services to Lincoln and Nottingham.

Nottingham is no longer an option - although it was raised in the draft 2016 capacity review with much ensuing publicity, the final version of the same document explains why it won't happen.

 

[Waddon]

I would assume that any of these sets could have extra carriages built and added to them in future, as in the current Pendolino increase?

 

[mallard]

Nottingham is no longer an option - although it was raised in the draft 2016 capacity review with much ensuing publicity, the final version of the same document explains why it won't happen.

I always thought the Nottingham suggestion was odd, considering the Nottingham-Grantham line is so slow and EMT already provide good connections to London. Lincoln seemed much more reasonable, since an ECML service would be much faster than EMT's token service.

 

[LE Greys]

Note that East Coast is to keep all its stock of Class 91 plus Mark IV coaches until further notice, so the new stock just replaces and augments its 13-strong HST Fleet.

OK, so the Electras stay on the ECML instead of either transferring to the MML or East Anglia. While I do like them, I reckon they will hold the speed down, since each path will have to be planned for either an Electra or an IEP. After all, one might have to deputise for the other. Why not go the whole hog and build an additional 30 11-car electric sets for the ECML? Cost, obviously. Well, that cost-saving measure is going to deliver new trains, but no timetable improvements. It also means no electric stock to cascade to the MML, assuming that gets electrified.

Forgive me for being a bit browned off.

 

[gordonthemoron]

won't the IEP be heavier than Electra?

 

[LE Greys]

won't the IEP be heavier than Electra?

Distributed traction = improved adhesion. IEP will be faster out of stations and up the banks.

 

[gordonthemoron]

but aren't both GWML & ECML largely flat?

 

[LE Greys]

but aren't both GWML & ECML largely flat?

I wasn't really considering the GW, being a Hertfordshireman.
King's Cross going north, acceleration zone, 1 in 107 to Finsbury Park and ruling 1 in 300 (I think) to New Southgate.
Peterborough going north, acceleration zone roughly flat but followed by Stoke Bank at ruling grade 1 in 200
Grantham going south, other side of the above
Grantshouse (can't remember, but toughest incline)
I'm not counting the Aberdeen Road and the Highland ML

However, the important point is out of stations. I expect an IEP to accelerate like a Pendolino, while an Electra is awfully slow for the first minute or so because of low adhesion and high gearing. A 67 is faster.

 

[TGV]

Never mind 125mph FCC services to Cambridge - put them on the fast FCC PBO services - at least they can use 125mph infrastructure from day 1. Today's 1640 or 1710 would benefit from this as they'd blend more seamlessly with the 1650 GC or 1719 EC services respectively up to Huntingdon or even on to PBO.

That all said, I'm not a fan of 5 car units with all the complexity of a bi-mode design. It's going to be a complex version of a voyager if you ask me.

What happened to all the proper trains?

 

[ainsworth74]

What happened to all the proper trains?

Spreadsheets, accountants and attempts to improve efficiency clubbed them to death

 

[w1bbl3]

If these are properly reconfigurable in depot as is being stated unlike Pendolino's or voyagers then surely a 2x5 could be converted into a 1x8 by dropping the two central driving cars... or for that matter a 8+5 could be converted into a 11 car set by the same method.
This would however leave a surplus of driving cars ideal for a follow on intermediate car order.

 

[Anonywave]

What I really don’t like is just how miniscule the provision of “full length” trains is, and how much of the order is for dinky five carriage units is: Fantastic, we’re doomed to forty years of double staffing of trains, a limited amount of passenger flow along the length of the train and duplication of facilities in both halves of a ten carriage train formed of two five carriage units, that will take up space that could be better used for seating in a single, long ten carriage unit.

Cant they just design it with gangways?

...the decision not to include Kings Lynn on the Thameslink network...

Is that for definite though? I thought that a final decision of the service pattern was not to be made until near when the Thameslink Programme is complete.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is that for definite though? I thought that a final decision of the service pattern was not to be made until near when the Thameslink Programme is complete.

It's definite enough to be put on the Thameslink Programme website as a statement rather than a proposal:

http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/faqs/faqs_categories/public_index#question_53

 

[WatcherZero]

Reports in several different media outlets today that First will activate a break clause to exit the Great Western franchise 3 years early becuase the Intercity replacement program wont come in till 2016 rather than 2013 as originally planned and they stand to avoid £826.6m in franchise payments. They are currently losing money and they were banking on charging premium fares for the new trains as well as passenger growth. They are reportedly not considering attempting to renegotiate after seeing National Express epic failure and government blacklisting.

 

[route:oxford]

Reports in several different media outlets today that First will activate a break clause to exit the Great Western franchise 3 years early becuase the Intercity replacement program wont come in till 2016 rather than 2013 as originally planned and they stand to avoid £826.6m in franchise payments. They are currently losing money and they were banking on charging premium fares for the new trains as well as passenger growth. They are reportedly not considering attempting to renegotiate after seeing National Express epic failure and government blacklisting.

Can't blame them!

 

[ainsworth74]

See this Guardian article for the story mentioned by WatcherZero.

 

[tbtc]

Reports in several different media outlets today that First will activate a break clause to exit the Great Western franchise 3 years early becuase the Intercity replacement program wont come in till 2016 rather than 2013 as originally planned and they stand to avoid £826.6m in franchise payments. They are currently losing money and they were banking on charging premium fares for the new trains as well as passenger growth. They are reportedly not considering attempting to renegotiate after seeing National Express epic failure and government blacklisting.

Hmm. First Group will be able to renegotiate franchise terms, knowing full well that the power cars they own are only available to their bid, meaning the DFT have to chose between accepting a competitive bid from Stagecoach/Arriva/Go-Ahead/National Express (based on fewer HSTs, meaning service cuts would need to be made) or accept a "name your price" bid from First (who hold the trump cards... they're not daft are they?

Ownership of a handful of power cars could be enough to save them over £800,000,000 - wonder why other companies don't buy stock (and use it as a great bargaining tool)

 

[Zoe]

Hmm. First Group will be able to renegotiate franchise terms, knowing full well that the power cars they own are only available to their bid, meaning the DFT have to chose between accepting a competitive bid from Stagecoach/Arriva/Go-Ahead/National Express (based on fewer HSTs, meaning service cuts would need to be made) or accept a "name your price" bid from First (who hold the trump cards... they're not daft are they?

Ownership of a handful of power cars could be enough to save them over £800,000,000 - wonder why other companies don't buy stock (and use it as a great bargaining tool)

It would be better for First to have the franchise retendered in 2013. The dft have said the new franchise would be for 15 years and as First own the power cars they would be almost certain to win. If First just negotiate a deal with the dft until 2016 then they run the risk of not winning the franchise as they would no longer have their card to play.

 

[route:oxford]

It would be better for First to have the franchise retendered in 2013. The dft have said the new franchise would be for 15 years and as First own the power cars they would be almost certain to win. If First just negotiate a deal with the dft until 2016 then they run the risk of not winning the franchise as they would no longer have their card to play.

Compulsary Purchase Order?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Trains for the ECML could just mean 'trains for the franchise currently known as East Coast.'

However it could also include trains for FCC's Cambridge/Kings Lynn service - 5+5 to Cambridge with 5 onward. That would go along with two current issues - the decision not to include Kings Lynn on the Thameslink network, and the 2016 capacity study proposal for 125 mph trains to Cambridge...

I understand that the 5-car EMUs are for Cambridge services. Realistically, there's no other use for them on EC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cant they just design it with gangways?

A bit of a stretch for 125 mph running.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

5 car and 8 car!!!!!.
The bottom line here is we are in danger of another XC "Operation Princess" where the Voyagers were always going to be too short, or a WCML where the Pendo's guess what too short!!!!!!

 

[Pumbaa]

The dft have said the new franchise would be for 15 years and as First own the power cars they would be almost certain to win. If First just negotiate a deal with the dft until 2016 then they run the risk of not winning the franchise as they would no longer have their card to play.

They only own a few power cars, and they'd lease them anyway to the next franchisee. And if they tried to take them elsewhere, I'm sure DfT would block the move. It's certainly not a trump card.