How much clearance needed for IEP?

[jimm]

The problem of seats not having windows seems to be mainly at the ends of the carriages and caused by the external doors sliding into a recess. You could get as many as six seats having no view at just one end of a coach. What is more, these seats are narrower than the others due to the 'wall' having to be thicker to accommodate the internally sliding external door(s).
I certainly would not like to be stuck in such at seat having paid the same fare as someone who not only has a view but a bigger seat as well! (Don't know how fat people will manage).

Clearly, the TOC's are going to lay out the interiors as they think fit but I think that the DfT should impose some 'rules' on this matter. Surely, these blanked off areas at the ends of the coaches could be used for toilets, luggage racks & bicycle storage areas?

Speaking of toilets - I would certainly hope that we have automatic soap dispensers & water flushing of hands rather than having to touch 'contaminated' handles.

The DfT should impose some rules? The IEP is the DfT's train... they agreed to seats without windows. If the operators had been given any say, I suspect they would have insisted on plug doors and windows for all seats (even if not perfectly aligned, before we go off down that tangent...).

 

[MarkyT]

Many TGVs are 2.9m wide, but some (TGV Sud-Est) are 2.81, same as E*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV

Neil

I would have thought the Eurostar 373s, as UK 'classic compatibles', would have a slightly more pronounced 'tumblehome' at solebar level to clear the greater UK high platform edge protuberance. even if they had the same car body width above this as the early Sud-Est TGVs.

 

[edwin_m]

I would have thought the Eurostar 373s, as UK 'classic compatibles', would have a slightly more pronounced 'tumblehome' at solebar level to clear the greater UK high platform edge protuberance. even if they had the same car body width above this as the early Sud-Est TGVs.

The Eurostar actually complies to UK1 gauge, which is wider than (for example) C1 gauge below platform level but slightly narrow above. Diagrams here:

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...re/Railway Group Standards/GERT8073 Iss 1.pdf

 

[jav]

The problem of seats not having windows seems to be mainly at the ends of the carriages and caused by the external doors sliding into a recess. You could get as many as six seats having no view at just one end of a coach. What is more, these seats are narrower than the others due to the 'wall' having to be thicker to accommodate the internally sliding external door(s).
I certainly would not like to be stuck in such at seat having paid the same fare as someone who not only has a view but a bigger seat as well! (Don't know how fat people will manage).

Clearly, the TOC's are going to lay out the interiors as they think fit but I think that the DfT should impose some 'rules' on this matter. Surely, these blanked off areas at the ends of the coaches could be used for toilets, luggage racks & bicycle storage areas?

Speaking of toilets - I would certainly hope that we have automatic soap dispensers & water flushing of hands rather than having to touch 'contaminated' handles.

The blanked off areas at the end of the carriages are used for toilets, luggage racks, cycle storage , crew rooms etc. So they are not really blanked off at all, The TOC gets to choose from a range of standardised flexible fittings that can go into these spaces when specifying their trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the area between the door and the vehicle end, which is much more tapered than the Mk3 because of the longer coach, provides enough space for most of these facilities. It's unfortunate that Hitachi apparently refused to accept sliding plug doors for the SET but has subsequently adopted them for the AT200, presumably including the Scotrail build.

As a compromise it would be good if the TOCs didn't reserve the narrow seats. Then people couldn't complain that they'd booked a window, and there would always be a few unreserved seats near each door.

Whats unfortunate about Hitachi refusing to accept sliding plug doors which have a failure rate nearly 5 times that of there own sliding pocket door? Doors are one of the least reliable components on a train, i think most passengers couldn't care what the door looks like as long as it works.

 

[Murph]

Whats unfortunate about Hitachi refusing to accept sliding plug doors which have a failure rate nearly 5 times that of there own sliding pocket door? Doors are one of the least reliable components on a train, i think most passengers couldn't care what the door looks like as long as it works.

Just a guess, and I admit that it's possible that Hitachi may be able to address the issue, but plug doors presumably tend to offer better environmental sealing against drafts, rain, etc. They are also more aerodynamic, but that's probably a fairly small concern in the grand scheme of things. We've already got extensive use of plug doors on trains, is there really a significant concern about their reliability on anything other than metro-type services (with much higher door frequency)?

 

[Kristen29mk]

I am working on this project at the moment ,interesting seeing where the issues are not just on platform lengths

 

[Mintona]

With Hitachi's doors the drafts and rain aren't an issue due to the rods that force the door closed. I imagine this also helps with aerodynamics as there aren't any gaps.

 

[edwin_m]

Whats unfortunate about Hitachi refusing to accept sliding plug doors which have a failure rate nearly 5 times that of there own sliding pocket door? Doors are one of the least reliable components on a train, i think most passengers couldn't care what the door looks like as long as it works.

So why have they now included them on the AT200 design, a regional train that will have a lot more door operations than an IEP?

 

[WatcherZero]

Probably as Abellio specified them.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The "seats lining up with the window" argument is pretty tired now, given that we've not had seats fully lining up with windows for a decades - given that the generation who'll use IEP will spend much of their journeys using ipads/kindles etc.

Well exactly and to be honest I think that's the case with the current generation.

 

[starrymarkb]

Though they briefly went back to correct alignment in the Class 158.

That was because the 158 was built as Standard Class only with windows sized to match the original layout of standard bays/airline. However Class 159 First class has bad alignment because of the windows being spaced for standard bays.

 

[The Ham]

That was because the 158 was built as Standard Class only with windows sized to match the original layout of standard bays/airline. However Class 159 First class has bad alignment because of the windows being spaced for standard bays.

It's why the 444's don't line up as they have (in comparison) very large windows.

 

[ainsworth74]

On the door pockets causing slightly narrow seats and some with no view was there much whining about this when 395s were introduced as they suffer from the same 'problem'or is this just an IEP thing? If so why?

 

[edwin_m]

On the door pockets causing slightly narrow seats and some with no view was there much whining about this when 395s were introduced as they suffer from the same 'problem'or is this just an IEP thing? If so why?

Don't have any figures to hand but the 395 is built to something resembling C1 gauge and from the discussion above the width of the IEP is probably similar to that of a Mk3 coach which is narrower than C1. The internal width of a 395 at the door pockets is probably about the same as the internal width of an IEP away from the door pockets.

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't have any figures to hand but the 395 is built to something resembling C1 gauge and from the discussion above the width of the IEP is probably similar to that of a Mk3 coach which is narrower than C1. The internal width of a 395 at the door pockets is probably about the same as the internal width of an IEP away from the door pockets.

Right but the pockets still mean sets next to walls with no window and seats without arm-rests because they have to be closer together. Two complaints laid at the door of IEP but not the 395? The second might not be as much of an issue on 395s due to extra width but the pockets blocking a view? The same for both surely yet whilst the IEP gets grief I can't remember anyone moaning about 395s.

 

[Murph]

Right but the pockets still mean sets next to walls with no window and seats without arm-rests because they have to be closer together. Two complaints laid at the door of IEP but not the 395? The second might not be as much of an issue on 395s due to extra width but the pockets blocking a view? The same for both surely yet whilst the IEP gets grief I can't remember anyone moaning about 395s.

I can't remember if there's been a diagram of the final IEP design published or not, but surely pocket doors at the ends of the carriage shouldn't be cutting into the main saloon, only the loo or luggage racks? Are the doors really going to make that much difference to the entire saloon?

 

[47802]

I can't remember if there's been a diagram of the final IEP design published or not, but surely pocket doors at the ends of the carriage shouldn't be cutting into the main saloon, only the loo or luggage racks? Are the doors really going to make that much difference to the entire saloon?

The 395 is mainly a commuter unit with fairly short journeys times so I guess its less of an issue, while its not an issue on the driving trailers on IEP, on the non driving trailers its like a 156 for the first two seats in each carriage on one side the other side has a luggage rack, on a 376/378 Bombardier still manage to put windows in the door pockets, but not Hitachi apparently, and you couldn't put the doors to open towards the end of the carriage as the carriage tapers at the ends, except on the driving trailer it does open that way because the door is much further away from the end of the carriage to allow for large toilet.

 

[Goldfish62]

Probably as Abellio specified them.

But DfT specified sliding plug doors on the IEP and Hitachi ignored that. Must have been a pretty poor negotiating team at DfT. They should have walked away when Hitachi refused to bid as specified.

I reckon the real reason is that if Hitachi want break into the mainland Europe market then they would to produce trains with plug doors.

 

[edwin_m]

Right but the pockets still mean sets next to walls with no window and seats without arm-rests because they have to be closer together. Two complaints laid at the door of IEP but not the 395? The second might not be as much of an issue on 395s due to extra width but the pockets blocking a view? The same for both surely yet whilst the IEP gets grief I can't remember anyone moaning about 395s.

Going by the first picture on this page, the seats next to the door pockets on 395s have arm rests on the aisle side but not between the seats.

http://www.mattypsrailwaypics.com/class-395.html

The other seats have armrests between them.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wiseman2007/4033894137/

Going by this picture the SET probably has the same arrangement, with a luggage rack occupying this area on one side (I think an aisle side armrest is just visible on the far row of seats to the right, but they are slightly closer together indicating no armrest between seats):

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/hitachi-reveals-set-interiors.html

The lack of a window is probably less of an issue for 395s because firstly it's a shorter journey mainly used by commuters, and secondly I believe it's not possible to reserve seats on these journeys so nobody is "forced" to sit in one of these no-view seats except when the train is otherwise full.

Incidentally Class 156 suffers from the same problem, though only on the inner end of each coach as the corresponding area at the cab ends is part of the toilet or the cycle/luggage space.

 

[starrymarkb]

Here's the mock up, Looks like the row nearest the vestible has no view at all and the next row has very limited views (a slim strip of window at best).

You can also see they are closer together then the other seats.

 

[alastair]

Here's the mock up, Looks like the row nearest the vestible has no view at all and the next row has very limited views (a slim strip of window at best).

You can also see they are closer together then the other seats.

Note that the table seats have a very poor window view also. Looks like the worst of all worlds.

Hopefully time for a re-think before production models appear?

 

[Envoy]

I wonder if recessed doors - as will have on these new Hitachi trains - will gather snow that may turn to ice due to the high speed at which they will be travelling? Surely, with flush fitting doors, this is not likely to be a problem? Is not the recess also making it more likely that the big external washing/cleaning brushes will leave dirt on the door edges?

I hope the internal designers have taken a Ryan Air/ Easyjet carry-on case onto their mock-up train. It surely would be a good idea to make sure that they can fit in an overhead luggage rack and also in the space under each seat. Passengers would be much more happy to have their mini cases with them rather than in the main luggage bays. (They would be darned annoyed if say the luggage racks &/or under seat space was 1 inch less than the case dimensions). I think that the seats in most trains are set too low. We could gain more legroom by mounting them higher.

Looking at the photos of the interiors, I do not see head rest covers. Are the seats going to be of a wipe clean material? Nothing is worse than getting onto a train and seeing grime where your head must go. I wish all companies were like FGW and place clean head covers on seat backs. That being so, a quick way of fitting/removing them is needed.

I hope that the seat backs are non reflective. Those on the Voyagers are a shiny cream colour and this reflects in the windows and stops you seeing out clearly. I also hope that a light sensor will be fitted to the nose of the trains so that the internal lights come on automatically when entering a tunnel and go out a few seconds after exiting a tunnel. The reflection of internal lights on the windows in daylight is most annoying. You can't rely on staff to keep turning them on and off.

Talking of tunnels, I understand that the tunnel near Narberth in Pembrokeshire might not be able to take the new trains as it curves. Not a deal breaker but probably no more 'Pembroke Coast Express' in future! (London to Pembroke Dock via Tenby).

 

[krus_aragon]

Talking of tunnels, I understand that the tunnel near Narberth in Pembrokeshire might not be able to take the new trains as it curves. Not a deal breaker but probably no more 'Pembrokeshire Coast Express' in future! (London to Pembroke Dock via Tenby).

Narberth and Pembroke aren't included in the IEP specification, nor in the clearance works: they will only go as far as Carmarthen. The Pembrokshire Coast Express is indeed on borrowed time.

 

[WatcherZero]

Don't the 350/4 have a missing window in the same spot too? I seem to remember there is even a wall indentation in a window shape.

 

[Chris125]

I wonder if recessed doors - as will have on these new Hitachi trains - will gather snow that may turn to ice due to the high speed at which they will be travelling? Surely, with flush fitting doors, this is not likely to be a problem? Is not the recess also making it more likely that the big external washing/cleaning brushes will leave dirt on the door edges?

Not only have they seen wide use in Japan but they seem to be working perfectly fine on the 140mph 395s, I see no reason to be concerned.

Chris

 

[dubscottie]

What about North of Edinburgh? Can think of a few places they may not fit through (Burntisland station and Kinghorn tunnel for example)

 

[Cherry_Picker]

...and they still can't get the seating lined up with the windows

That's a deliberate choice, surely? If you can get more seats in a carriage by aligning them to the floor space rather than the windows then more people travelling will have a seat. No amount of irrational sadface emotes on internet forums is going to change good practice, and most seats will still be by a window. Don't lose any sleep over this issue, it's really not worth it.

 

[sprinterguy]

What about North of Edinburgh? Can think of a few places they may not fit through (Burntisland station and Kinghorn tunnel for example)

All included under Network Rails’ “East Coast capability” programme to gauge clear the route for IEP, so presumably not seen as a major issue. London to Aberdeen will of course be a key route for the IEP trains.

 

[dubscottie]

All included under Network Rails’ “East Coast capability” programme to gauge clear the route for IEP, so presumably not seen as a major issue. London to Aberdeen will of course be a key route for the IEP trains.

I will watch with interest how they deal with Kinghorn tunnel.. (did a bit digging since last post)

They thought about slab track but it will not get rid of the "kink" in the middle.

However technology has moved on since the 80's so..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not only have they seen wide use in Japan but they seem to be working perfectly fine on the 140mph 395s, I see no reason to be concerned.

Chris

But does most of the brown dirt not come from passing platforms at speed? The 395's are clear at that speed but the IEP will have to pass through stations that have had grit/salt spread and will end up sucking it off the platform and onto the bodyside..

Look at the 156's. The Scotrail ones look ok around the doors as they tend to stop at every station.

English ones tend to pass through most at speed so have a higher amount of dirt around the doors.

Just an observation..

 

[RichmondCommu]

But does most of the brown dirt not come from passing platforms at speed? The 395's are clear at that speed but the IEP will have to pass through stations that have had grit/salt spread and will end up sucking it off the platform and onto the bodyside..

But unless you end up cleaning them why should you care?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Note that the table seats have a very poor window view also. Looks like the worst of all worlds.

Hopefully time for a re-think before production models appear?

That's assuming that everyone wants to look out the window. In my experience most travelers find something more interesting to do.