IEP: 26 metres is too long

[IanXC]

One advantage of IEP is that long coaches mean that on a 200 metre train you don't need so many doors/ toilets (etc), and by avoiding some of that duplication there's more room for seats.

Lets compare an eight coach IEP (8x 26m = 208m) with a ten coach 20m coach (10x 20m = 200m, so pretty comparable). Since we are talking new trains, we are talking large "universal" toilets and DDA-width doors, so this matters a lot more than thirty-something years ago when HSTs were being built.

The 20m coach train would need twenty doors on each side and ten toilets. The 26m coach train would need sixteen doors on each side and eight toilets, so have a lot more space for seats.

Plus the 10x 20m train would need 20 bogies and associated equipment, where the 8x 26m would only need 16. That swems a pretty systemice reduction in maintenance costs to me!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Plus the 10x 20m train would need 20 bogies and associated equipment, where the 8x 26m would only need 16. That swems a pretty systemice reduction in maintenance costs to me!

If bogies are the issue then the answer is articulation, is it not?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pink, purple and turquoise decor?

Does this mean First were destined to run the WCML franchise?



If they can do the lines round Middlesbrough (which weren't build by Brunel!) then I'd imagine many lines could take them, but (as you say) why would anyone get clearance for them to work something like Edinburgh - Glasgow when they have always been based in NSE-land?



One advantage of IEP is that long coaches mean that on a 200 metre train you don't need so many doors/ toilets (etc), and by avoiding some of that duplication there's more room for seats.

Lets compare an eight coach IEP (8x 26m = 208m) with a ten coach 20m coach (10x 20m = 200m, so pretty comparable). Since we are talking new trains, we are talking large "universal" toilets and DDA-width doors, so this matters a lot more than thirty-something years ago when HSTs were being built.

The 20m coach train would need twenty doors on each side and ten toilets. The 26m coach train would need sixteen doors on each side and eight toilets, so have a lot more space for seats.

So, do you want shorter coaches if it means seats crammed together? You'd have a lot more legroom in IEP!

The situation regarding classes 165/166 is set out in the RSSB paper. There is no need to speculate on what might be.

As regards longer vehicles, agree you do save a bit of space on entrances, but not all vehicles need to be DDA compliant, and there is also the issue of station dwell time if there are fewer doors.

It is interesting that an important reason FOR clearing the system to accept longer vehicles has not come up in this discussion. Network Rail produced a document discussing the possibility of running double-deck trains. One of the points made that with 26 metre long vehicles, there is 20 metres between the bogies which is regarded as a minimum below which there is insufficient space for a lower deck.

 

[tbtc]

The situation regarding classes 165/166 is set out in the RSSB paper. There is no need to speculate on what might be

I'd have thought it fairly obvious that Network Rail (and Railtrack/ British Rail) had little need to worry about obtaining route clearance for 165/166s on routes that they were never going to be used on.

I'm sure Pacers haven't been cleared on all Network South East lines but it doesn't mean they couldn't run on them

IIRC a 165 former a Shrewsbury - London service a couple of years ago without any bother.

As regards longer vehicles, agree you do save a bit of space on entrances, but not all vehicles need to be DDA compliant

So you'd rather that the HST replacement was 8x20m EMUs (with some/many coaches non-accesible) than 10x26m EMUs?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

OK, so by building our network first we didn't build it as well as we could have done, problem is we are stuck with it so have to build trains that fit within our network that can cope with the number of passengers that our network carries, which is now more than it carried when there were many many more miles of track.

It may well be that to regrade the tight bends to allow 26m long coaches may be cheaper than it is to lengthen all the stations along the route (which may include rebuilding bridges, redesigning junctions, replacing signals, etc.). As by being 26m long coaches a train can fit in more seats per train of a similar length by have less doors [18 on one side on a 9x26m coach train rather than 20 on a 10x23m coach train], toilets, walkways between cariages, etc. Likewise a train made up of 23m long coaches has more seats than a train of the same length made up of 20m long coaches. Therefore to have the same number of seats a train of 20m long coaches has to be longer than a train that has 23m long coaches which too is longer than a train made up of coaches of 26m long with the same number of seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Cramming seats in is to do with the fact that there are a lot of people that want to travel by train, see my comments above about number of seats per train of the same length with different coach lengths.

With regards to the costs of the IEP it depends on how you count what is required for IEP, as a lot of projects that are needed for it will be carried out anyway (e.g. do you count the electrification of the GWML or what about the new singalling to allow the IEP's to run at 140mph?). For example the document you linked to lists the W12 gauge clearance of the GWML sepratly, a lot of this work would be required for IEP. Also given that the dimensions of IEP are known the W12 clearance for GWML may include minor extra costs to enable the IEP's to run (i.e. if the track has to be realigned then the costs would almost be the same if the track is moved across be a distance within set ranges).

The document also (on page 12) lists the CP5 costs of IEP as £258million (about 6%), meaning that unless the remining £850 million plus has to be spent in the few years between the start of CP6 and the start of running of the IEP's the figure of 25% is a little off.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Once I make a point about the issue you raised (i.e. width of the trains) you shift your argument to the total amount of space in a train (but mostly length).

I'd love to have trains where it costs so little to run that it's paid for soley by our taxes but with 1+1 seats with their own table with loads of space, but it's never going to happen because to have seating that sparcly spaced would mean massive costs per seat, whilst low train fairs would mean massive demand for seats and therefore crampt seating.

A lot of your arguments are based on what would be nice to have, rather than what is likely to happen in the real world.

You have actually made the case for articulation rather than longer vehicles, but let that pass. Also see my point about another reason altogether FOR clearing the system to accept longer vehicles, which nobody mentioned.

I will come back to my original point. Given that 2+2 seating is regarded as usual for standard class, and given the basic facts of geometry, vehicles should be as wide as possible especially as people are getting wider. But when it comes to costs, it all depends on how it is decided to spend the money.

The rest is digression from this original point. Speed costs. Typically, they rise proportionately to the square of the speed. Thus 140 mph running costs double 100 mph running. In the bad old days of steam, heavy trains of coal and other bulk commodities were pulled by small steam locomotives - about 1000 hp. These trains were loose-coupled and the idea was that the train would be got on the move gradually and then kept rolling at about 20 mph. The wagons had an axle load of between five and ten tons. This was fuel-efficient and easy on the track. Now we have diesels with three times the power, pulling wagons with a 20 ton axleload at speeds of up to 70 mph. There are reasons for it but it is not easy on the track nor energy-efficient.

On the passenger side, there is an analogous situation. At the very end of the steam era, London to Glasgow took around seven hours. There were three trains a day plus the night sleepers. The day trains were typically 15 mark 1 vehicles except in the summer when they ran to 17 - that left the locomotive off the end of the platforms at Euston and Glasgow Central. The summer timetable also included additional relief trains, usually made up of elderly stock. The trains were, as mentioned, spacious and comfortable, there were restaurant cars serving full cooked meals and the return fare was the best part of a working man's wages for a week.

Make of that what you will, but what we have now is the journey time cut down to little more than half, cramped trains, very expensive standard fares and lots of cheap offers for those able and willing to commit themselves to travelling well before they make their journey. Given the choice of different compromises, one has to wonder if this is what was really wanted or whether it is a state of affairs that was just drifted into?

As regards speed, there are break points. At speeds of below 50 mph, tramway type operations are possible. Above 100 mph, the EU regulations for high speed railways have to be complied with. Energy consumption goes up exponentially, as do other costs of equipping and operating the railway, and of building it, if it is a new line. I am not sure whether these decisions are made through careful evaluation or because it is just assumed that faster is better. The airlines at least had to settle for subsonic flight for the past 40 years because the sound barrier is a much more significant cost barrier.

A further question in relation to speeds is whether higher speeds are worth while. When the HST was introduced, there was through running to from Paddington to Bath. Nowadays, trains typically stop several times, which means that there is less 125 mph running now than in the early 1980s. Due to development all along the route the GW main line is now more similar to the South Western main line and would probably do perfectly well with a fleet of similar trains on those stretches that are due to be electrified.

There would then still remain the question of the HST vehicles which have another 25 years of useful life in them. Given the existence of this asset, perhaps the most cost-effective solution would have been to use them as intermediate cars in push-pull mode. It might even have been possible to re-engineer the HST power cars into electric locomotives and/or control trailers. In his report on the IEP, Foster argued that alternatives should be looked at but seemingly there was not sufficient interest. It can not be assumed that consultants or manufacturers will come up with the most cost-effective solutions as they are themselves interested parties who have nothing to gain from cost-saving.

So when you say that seating density is matter of cost - you are right, but it depends on who is setting the priorities for spending, and what those priorities are. Comfort has clearly dropped well down the list in the UK, and whilst people grumble, they tolerate. On mainland Europe, complaints about matters like this are liable to be more vocal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd have thought it fairly obvious that Network Rail (and Railtrack/ British Rail) had little need to worry about obtaining route clearance for 165/166s on routes that they were never going to be used on.

I'm sure Pacers haven't been cleared on all Network South East lines but it doesn't mean they couldn't run on them

IIRC a 165 former a Shrewsbury - London service a couple of years ago without any bother.

So you'd rather that the HST replacement was 8x20m EMUs (with some/many coaches non-accesible) than 10x26m EMUs?

There is a map which shows where 165/166 can run. The research has been done.

The HST does not need replacement. The trailer cars are good for 25 years. This was reported to a meeting of IMechE. They can be made up into unit trains with an electric loco, which might be a re-engineered power car, with four or five trailers for running in push-pull mode, or into EMUs, similar to class 442 or whatever. A few additional vehicles may need to be built to satisfy accessibility requirements. I would not have money spent on route clearance for longer vehicles, unless it is part of a well thought-out plan to run double-deck trains. For new build I would aim to optimise vehicle length at a width of 2.8 metres.

 

[jopsuk]

The HST does not need replacement. The trailer cars are good for 25 years. This was reported to a meeting of IMechE.

Wasn't that about five years ago? Clock keeps ticking!

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi,
The report you linked to about the current limitations of the 165/166's is very comprehensive.

It goes through a cost benefit analysis of the various options. Essentially it seems as if the most cost effective answer is 26m long carriages for Intercity and long distance and 23m or 20m for everything else.
That accounts for the lower cost per train of the 26m carriages, the extra design work to taper them to fit the kinematic envelope and the civil works to make 'em fit.

It also comprehensively states why double decker trains as used elsewhere in the world aren't suitable for the UK.

It all comes down to cash.
If 26m carriages work out best for the IEP and Intercity stock once all costs are considered, that's what will happen.
The cascade of 165/166's will happen and they'll end up wherever the cost/benefit ratio is best.

As for comfort, who now really cares? Society just isn't (generally) prepared to pay for it - low cost is king. For those who do want better, there's always first class on the longer routes.

Cheers!
Jason

 

[IanXC]

If bogies are the issue then the answer is articulation, is it not?

Errr no, no it isn't. That introduces all kinds of other problems and is another discussion altogether.

BR embarked on a programme of route clearance for the Mark 3 vehicles, as they generally represented an increase in vehicle length, for pretty much the same reasons as IEP vehicles are of an increased lenght. Do you believe this work was a mistake?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On the passenger side, there is an analogous situation. At the very end of the steam era, London to Glasgow took around seven hours. There were three trains a day plus the night sleepers. The day trains were typically 15 mark 1 vehicles except in the summer when they ran to 17 - that left the locomotive off the end of the platforms at Euston and Glasgow Central. The summer timetable also included additional relief trains, usually made up of elderly stock. The trains were, as mentioned, spacious and comfortable, there were restaurant cars serving full cooked meals and the return fare was the best part of a working man's wages for a week.

Make of that what you will, but what we have now is the journey time cut down to little more than half, cramped trains, very expensive standard fares and lots of cheap offers for those able and willing to commit themselves to travelling well before they make their journey. Given the choice of different compromises, one has to wonder if this is what was really wanted or whether it is a state of affairs that was just drifted into?

I'm sorry, have I missed something here? Last time I checked an anytime return for London to Scotland cost about the average working week's wages. Why should those who can commit to specific travel plans loose the opportunity to buy discounted Advance fares?

There are commercial and demand reasons why restaurant cars are no longer common (see East Coast). As you point out there have been major journey time improvements, there have also been major safety improvements. I think the vast majority of passengers will see those as more preferable travelling conditions to those you are advocating the benefits of.

I can't agree that modern stock is not as comfortable as old stock; indeed I have travelled from Aberdeen to Penzance on a Voyager, and only felt remotely uncomfortable at Bristol, in comparison 2 hours on a Mark 1 is quite enough thank you.

 

[tbtc]

There is a map which shows where 165/166 can run. The research has been done

There's a map showing what they've been cleared for. Often clearance is a paper issue - why would you check clearance for 165/166s on lines when there's no realistic chance of them working there?

165/166s aren't enormous - they are no wider than some other trains and no longer than some other trains - it's just the combination of length and width that causes problems on certain lines, but a lot of that is to do with the doors - then again the 158s have similar door problems (hence not being allowed on many Scottish routes) and we don't see lots of threads complaining about them.

 

[sprinterguy]

There is a map which shows where 165/166 can run. The research has been done.

The map shows where 166s have been cleared to run, and where they haven't with regards additionally to areas of possible gauge infringements, and not where they actually can run, and could run if it was deemed to be necessary.

If you look at the map above that one, apparently mark 2 vehicles are not cleared to run on the North Transpennine route between Huddersfield and Stalybridge, despite the fact that mark 2s were staple rolling stock on many Transpennine services for a number of years, and the high number of railtours that still traverse the line, utilising mark 2 stock! I wouldn't take those maps as any sort of guarantee of the maximum possible range of certain types of rolling stock.

 

[Drsatan]

A further question in relation to speeds is whether higher speeds are worth while. When the HST was introduced, there was through running to from Paddington to Bath. Nowadays, trains typically stop several times, which means that there is less 125 mph running now than in the early 1980s. Due to development all along the route the GW main line is now more similar to the South Western main line and would probably do perfectly well with a fleet of similar trains on those stretches that are due to be electrified.

The reason all Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads services now stop at Reading, Didcot, Swindon & Chippenham (along with one train a day which stops at Keynsham) is because there's more demand for travel to and from intermediate stops than there was in 1976, purely because of new traffic flows. A good example would be long distance commuting to Paddington from Swindon, Bath or even Bristol, which would have been very unusual in 1976. Similarly, compared to 1976, far more services from Paddington to the West Country call at intermediate stations between Reading and Taunton.

Besides, the IEP will be suited to Paddington - Bristol Temple Meads services because EMUs accelerate more quickly (assuming the power supply can cope). I can't imagine the need for a separate fleet of trains for PAD-BRI services.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Wasn't that about five years ago? Clock keeps ticking!

No the clock is not ticking. The current life expectancy of mark 3 stock has been given as 60 years, and the last of it dates from the early 1980s. There is, apparently, some corrosion around the toilet areas which can be dealt with, as can fatigue problems with the bogies. It is likely to outlast the more recent aluminium-bodied vehicles, concerning which there is a "known unknown" regarding their fatigue life, in particular, the seam welding of the extruded aluminium plank bodyshell components
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The reason all Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads services now stop at Reading, Didcot, Swindon & Chippenham (along with one train a day which stops at Keynsham) is because there's more demand for travel to and from intermediate stops than there was in 1976, purely because of new traffic flows. A good example would be long distance commuting to Paddington from Swindon, Bath or even Bristol, which would have been very unusual in 1976. Similarly, compared to 1976, far more services from Paddington to the West Country call at intermediate stations between Reading and Taunton.

Besides, the IEP will be suited to Paddington - Bristol Temple Meads services because EMUs accelerate more quickly (assuming the power supply can cope). I can't imagine the need for a separate fleet of trains for PAD-BRI services.

Which of course raises another question about the IEP - that of station dwell time. And a fleet based on the Siemens class 350 or 444 would surely have handled these fast "stoppers" at half the price. What was the DfT thinking of when it specified the things?

 

[tbtc]

Which of course raises another question about the IEP - that of station dwell time

Are you comparing their station dwell times to the slam door HSTs?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Errr no, no it isn't. That introduces all kinds of other problems and is another discussion altogether.

BR embarked on a programme of route clearance for the Mark 3 vehicles, as they generally represented an increase in vehicle length, for pretty much the same reasons as IEP vehicles are of an increased lenght. Do you believe this work was a mistake?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm sorry, have I missed something here? Last time I checked an anytime return for London to Scotland cost about the average working week's wages. Why should those who can commit to specific travel plans loose the opportunity to buy discounted Advance fares?

There are commercial and demand reasons why restaurant cars are no longer common (see East Coast). As you point out there have been major journey time improvements, there have also been major safety improvements. I think the vast majority of passengers will see those as more preferable travelling conditions to those you are advocating the benefits of.

I can't agree that modern stock is not as comfortable as old stock; indeed I have travelled from Aberdeen to Penzance on a Voyager, and only felt remotely uncomfortable at Bristol, in comparison 2 hours on a Mark 1 is quite enough thank you.

The complex fares structure is a big turn off. People sometimes have to cancel their plans for no fault of their own. To judge from the number of empty seats, it looks as if it is a common experience. I suspect it is a case of once-bitten, twice shy, drive in future.

The point about mark 1 stock is the amount of space per passenger in standard class - you can still enjoy this kind of thing in modern vehicles but not on the UK side of the Channel.

 

[tbtc]

The complex fares structure is a big turn off. People sometimes have to cancel their plans for no fault of their own. To judge from the number of empty seats, it looks as if it is a common experience. I suspect it is a case of once-bitten, twice shy, drive in future

...and yet passenger numbers have soared in recent years?

Seems to be more popular than you realise.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Errr no, no it isn't. That introduces all kinds of other problems and is another discussion altogether.

BR embarked on a programme of route clearance for the Mark 3 vehicles, as they generally represented an increase in vehicle length, for pretty much the same reasons as IEP vehicles are of an increased lenght. Do you believe this work was a mistake?

TGVs and their many derivatives, and the Danish IC3 and ER trains, are just a few articulated trains that seem to have been highly successful. If the bogie count is an issue, but there are other advantages such as safety and ride quality.

As regards clearance work for mark 3, doesn't it depend on how much had to be spent to get the fleet into service initially? They are not, incidentally, the easiest of vehicles to board at convex platform faces such as some at Brighton. There is a hell of a gap. On the other hand, class 158 stock does well in that respect because the doors are a couple of metres in from the ends and close to the bogie centres.

 

[tbtc]

Are they the same as the ones who lost their money when they had to cancel a journey that they had paid for?

If you are so convinced that advanced fares are a "turn off" then how do you explain rising passenger numbers?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Are you comparing their station dwell times to the slam door HSTs?

No I am comparing to stock purpose built for the type of journey which is now prevalent on the GW main line-turned commuter route. If new stock is being ordered surely it should be designed for the traffic on the route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you are so convinced that advanced fares are a "turn off" then how do you explain rising passenger numbers?

But do the people who have had to cancel the journeys they have paid for come back?

 

[ainsworth74]

But do the people who have had to cancel the journeys they have paid for come back?

Well does it even matter that much? Even if we assume that every single person that's been burned by advances didn't ever come back to the railway (something I don't believe) I'd suggest it doesn't matter because growth is still strong and shows no signs of abating.

 

[IanXC]

As regards clearance work for mark 3, doesn't it depend on how much had to be spent to get the fleet into service initially? They are not, incidentally, the easiest of vehicles to board at convex platform faces such as some at Brighton. There is a hell of a gap. On the other hand, class 158 stock does well in that respect because the doors are a couple of metres in from the ends and close to the bogie centres.

Have you actually taken the time to look at the published diagrams for IEP? They make use of the exact same door layout you are advocating!

 

[tbtc]

I am comparing to stock purpose built for the type of journey which is now prevalent on the GW main line-turned commuter route. If new stock is being ordered surely it should be designed for the traffic on the route

One minute you are suggesting that we keep inaccessible HST coaches on the GWML, now you are suggesting that we build brand new stock?

 

[ukrob]

It is interesting watching the goalposts continuously being moved. I'm not sure it is worth your time to argue with the OP.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

One minute you are suggesting that we keep inaccessible HST coaches on the GWML, now you are suggesting that we build brand new stock?

So you are suggesting that the entire fleet of stock is scrapped though it apparently has 30 years life in it. How about a small build of accessible vehicles? Which might include the control trailers which would be necessary under this scheme?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well does it even matter that much? Even if we assume that every single person that's been burned by advances didn't ever come back to the railway (something I don't believe) I'd suggest it doesn't matter because growth is still strong and shows no signs of abating.

Creates excellent goodwill, doesn't it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is interesting watching the goalposts continuously being moved. I'm not sure it is worth your time to argue with the OP.

That's called thread drift or something, isn't it. The OP was about the relationship between vehicle length and width. A simple geometrical formula.

 

[IanXC]

But do the people who have had to cancel the journeys they have paid for come back?

I don't think the proliferation of apparently unused reservations has anything to do with vast number of passengers abandoning their Advance fares. Instead I think its much more likely to be a combination of people not sitting in their reserved seat, and people purchasing Anytime and Off Peak fares online, and booking reservations as a matter of course, as booking engines often push passengers in this direction.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Have you actually taken the time to look at the published diagrams for IEP? They make use of the exact same door layout you are advocating!

I was referring to mark 3 stock at Brighton and similar Southern locations. Not the IEP. The original point about the IEP was the length/width issue. Of course the doors can be located away from the ends and of course the end zone can be used for toilets, and in that respect the gap may be less than mark 3 but that was not the criticism that was being made. I would not regard the mark 3 stock as the high point of British railway vehicle design - that was the BREL International prototype train of 1986. That was based on a British profile UIC-style bodyshell. But the then head of Inter City didn't like it and we got the mark 4 instead, which it seems is also destined for a premature visit to the scrapyard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think the proliferation of apparently unused reservations has anything to do with vast number of passengers abandoning their Advance fares. Instead I think its much more likely to be a combination of people not sitting in their reserved seat, and people purchasing Anytime and Off Peak fares online, and booking reservations as a matter of course, as booking engines often push passengers in this direction.

That is setting another line of discussion running, isn't it? Why would people book a seat and then sit somewhere else?

 

[D365]

I was referring to mark 3 stock at Brighton and similar Southern locations. Not the IEP. The original point about the IEP was the length/width issue. Of course the doors can be located away from the ends and of course the end zone can be used for toilets, and in that respect the gap may be less than mark 3 but that was not the criticism that was being made. I would not regard the mark 3 stock as the high point of British railway vehicle design - that was the BREL International prototype train of 1986. That was based on a British profile UIC-style bodyshell. But the then head of InterCity didn't like it and we got the mark 4 instead, which it seems is also destined for a premature visit to the scrapyard.

Is it just me or does anyone else actually understand what he's/you're trying to get at?

By the way, the IEP batch to replace 225 sets hasn't been confirmed, and probably won't be for a while. Just saying.

 

[HSTEd]

If you are so convinced that advanced fares are a "turn off" then how do you explain rising passenger numbers?

I myself explain it in simple terms.

This is the tail end of the effect of the fuel duty escalator

 

[ainsworth74]

That is setting another line of discussion running, isn't it? Why would people book a seat and then sit somewhere else?

It is but in simple terms the answer has a few different facets. 1) People not turning up (I've made reservations for one train then travelled on a different train). 2) Not many booking engines offer the facility of choosing specific seats (though I imagine this will soon be rolled out across more TOCs) so you could be reserved into a seat you don't want so rather than sit there you move. 3) People buying Off-Peak and Anytime tickets getting reservations automatically even though they have no interest in using them. As IanXC says it's a very very poor indicator of how many people are abandoning their advance fares.

 

[Yew]

So you are suggesting that the entire fleet of stock is scrapped though it apparently has 30 years life in it. How about a small build of accessible vehicles? Which might include the control trailers which would be necessary under this scheme?
QUOTE]

I Unfortunately I cant see 30 years of life in HST's 20 maximum really

 

[HSTEd]

I Unfortunately I cant see 30 years of life in HST's 20 maximum really

Indeed, better to buy new publically owned rolling stock (not that that will happen), than continue to pay through the nose for ancient HST trailers owned by bankers.

 

[Yew]

Indeed, better to buy new publically owned rolling stock (not that that will happen), than continue to pay through the nose for ancient HST trailers owned by bankers.

Aye, HST's will have had a very good run by the end of it, I just hope IEP's can be as plesant as what they replace. Although its a shame the end product wont be like the original bi-mode proposal