IEP: 26 metres is too long

[RAGNARØKR]

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

Not the HST power cars but the mark 3 trailers and hauled stock. Their excellent condition came as a surprise to everyone when they were thoroughly surveyed. It was reported to a meeting at IMechE, 21 February 2011. They are a valuable asset.

BTW this threat has drifted way off topic.
--- 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.

The original posting was about vehicle length. Who moved the goalposts?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Try reading the original post. Most of the rest is just thread-drift.

I will repeat. British trains are the narrowest standard gauge trains in Europe. People are getting fatter. The maximum possible width is 2.82 metres for a vehicle 20 metres long. If vehicles are longer the width has to be reduced by an amount proportional to the square of the distance between the bogie centres. Improvement in clearance can be achieved by spending on the infrastructure but the same principle still applies and the question that then arises is value for money.

The only real issue that came up in connection with this matter of longer vehicles is something that I raised myself, that improving clearances to allow the operation of longer 26 metre vehicles could facilitate the future introduction of double-deck trains which need a minimum distance of 20 metres between the bogie centres to accommodate a lower deck. This was discussed in a Network Rail paper. But most of the comments on the thread were topic-drift.

 

[The Ham]

I will repeat. British trains are the narrowest standard gauge trains in Europe. People are getting fatter. The maximum possible width is 2.82 metres for a vehicle 20 metres long. If vehicles are longer the width has to be reduced by an amount proportional to the square of the distance between the bogie centres. Improvement in clearance can be achieved by spending on the infrastructure but the same principle still applies and the question that then arises is value for money.

...and I will repeat that the IEP's are only 2cm per STANDARD seat narrower than the maximum train width and still FIRST CLASS airline seat width! I would personally focus on getting airline seats wider, as it is much more likely that people will be sat in them for long periods of time. The longest that anyone is likely to sit on a train seat is a less than a lot of flights that happen day in day out with much more engine noise and discomfort than any train.

Also much of the clearance work that would be required would be signal & other line side infrastructure which on the GWML is being moved around for electrification anyway, so very little additional cost (if you have to move a pole anyway moving it a little bit further makes very little difference in terms of cost)

 

[sprinterguy]

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.

Premature? They'll be thirty years old at the earliest possible opportunity they could be withdrawn!

 

[tbtc]

we got the mark 4 instead, which it seems is also destined for a premature visit to the scrapyard

When are the Mk4s visiting the scrapyard? I don't imagine it'll be any time soon...

BTW this threat has drifted way off topic

Yes

Mainly because someone keeps throwing in new things to complain about (like the seats on IEP not having enough leg room and not lining up with the windows, despite none of these trains having been built yet)

British trains are the narrowest standard gauge trains in Europe. People are getting fatter. The maximum possible width is 2.82 metres for a vehicle 20 metres long

As has been pointed out, the seats on IEP are expected to be as wide as you'd get in First Class on a plane.

Most 2.82m wide stock has 3+2 seating, but you don't seem to want that either.

If we had 20m stock then a 200m train would need a lot more space for toilets and doors (etc), so have a lot fewer seats - or mabye they'd all have little leg room? You keep dancing around trying to find things to complain about without offering anything better.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

When are the Mk4s visiting the scrapyard? I don't imagine it'll be any time soon...

Yes

Mainly because someone keeps throwing in new things to complain about (like the seats on IEP not having enough leg room and not lining up with the windows, despite none of these trains having been built yet)

As has been pointed out, the seats on IEP are expected to be as wide as you'd get in First Class on a plane.

Most 2.82m wide stock has 3+2 seating, but you don't seem to want that either.

If we had 20m stock then a 200m train would need a lot more space for toilets and doors (etc), so have a lot fewer seats - or mabye they'd all have little leg room? You keep dancing around trying to find things to complain about without offering anything better.

I am supposed to come up with a set of approved drawings for an alternative train to IEP?

For what it is worth, and I have checked this out, it is possible to get 76 seats in a vehicle 2.79 metres wide externally, with about 32 in facing bays aligned with the windows, the rest in airline configuration. The length would be intermediate between 20 and 23 metres. This has the same KE as a mark 1 and could presumably go anywhere on the system.

The formula works like this. With bogie centres 14.17 apart, the permissible width is 2.82. The necessary width reduction for clearances on specific radius curves is proportional to the square of the bogie centre spacing. The first additional metre of spacing makes little difference. The next metre requires more and the one after that more still. Mark 3 stock has a bogie spacing of 23 metres which gives a permissible width of 2.74, which is the same external width as mark 1. The only stock which has used the full width has been vehicles such as class 455, 450, Networkers and related types.

If longer stock is to be built to the full width, clearances have to be increased and curves straightened out. It is not a matter of just moving a few poles. The GW infrastructure permits 23 x 2.82 which are the dimensions of classes 165/166.

A benefit of clearing for 26 vehicles is that it removes one of the obstacles preventing the running of double-deck trains, but nobody apart from me has mentioned it on this thread.

As regards the finished product, it is impossible to provide standard class passengers with the amount of space that they would have been accustomed to in a mark 1/mark 2 SO, let alone the space they got in a 1950s SK. At £2.8 million a vehicle, it is unaffordable. The seats have got to be crammed in to make the thing pay. There is no need to wait and see.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...and I will repeat that the IEP's are only 2cm per STANDARD seat narrower than the maximum train width and still FIRST CLASS airline seat width! I would personally focus on getting airline seats wider, as it is much more likely that people will be sat in them for long periods of time. The longest that anyone is likely to sit on a train seat is a less than a lot of flights that happen day in day out with much more engine noise and discomfort than any train.

Also much of the clearance work that would be required would be signal & other line side infrastructure which on the GWML is being moved around for electrification anyway, so very little additional cost (if you have to move a pole anyway moving it a little bit further makes very little difference in terms of cost)

What have airlines got to do with this discussion?

 

[tbtc]

I am supposed to come up with a set of approved drawings for an alternative train to IEP?

Well, you are complaining about the seats in a 26m IEP coach being too close together, yet you want 20m coaches (which would mean a lot more space taken up by doors and toilets, so less space for seats in a train of the same length).

You complain that an eight coach IEP would have large dwell times at stations, yet you want to keep slam door HSTs running for another thirty years?

Hence my confusion.

Would a 20m coach with 76 seats require 3+2 seating?

 

[Yew]

Well, you are complaining about the seats in a 26m IEP coach being too close together, yet you want 20m coaches (which would mean a lot more space taken up by doors and toilets, so less space for seats in a train of the same length).

You complain that an eight coach IEP would have large dwell times at stations, yet you want to keep slam door HSTs running for another thirty years?

Hence my confusion.

Would a 20m coach with 76 seats require 3+2 seating?

I was recently wondering if a shorter coach, with only one vestibule per coach, with internal power doors on wider corridor connections could work. (think like on Eurostars, but mounted on conventional bogies, so say on a 15m coach) you could have two vestibules per 30m, instead of two vestibules per 26 meters on the proposed IEP.

 

[tbtc]

I was recently wondering if a shorter coach, with only one vestibule per coach, with internal power doors on wider corridor connections could work. (think like on Eurostars, but mounted on conventional bogies, so say on a 15m coach) you could have two vestibules per 30m, instead of two vestibules per 26 meters on the proposed IEP.

Two vestibules shared between two 15m coaches?

Like a Pacer?

(sorry if I'm getting confused and missing the point!)

 

[sprinterguy]

Mark 3 stock has a bogie spacing of 23 metres which gives a permissible width of 2.74, which is the same spacing as mark 1.

The distance between bogie centres on a mark 3 is 16 metres, but I presume that was just brief lapse in concentration whilst typing given that the overall vehicle length is, indeed, 23 metres.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A benefit of clearing for 26 vehicles is that it removes one of the obstacles preventing the running of double-deck trains, but nobody apart from me has mentioned it on this thread.

That's because vertical clearance is the far greater obstacle to be overcome when considering double decker trains, and is a factor that would be further compounded if using longer rolling stock.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

That's because vertical clearance is the far greater obstacle to be overcome when considering double decker trains, and is a factor that would be further compounded if using longer rolling stock.

There is a whole paper on the subject of DD trains for the UK published by Network Rail. Length is one issue, width between station platforms is another and vertical clearances as another. If I recall, the clearance work for large containers has helped the latter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, you are complaining about the seats in a 26m IEP coach being too close together, yet you want 20m coaches (which would mean a lot more space taken up by doors and toilets, so less space for seats in a train of the same length).

You complain that an eight coach IEP would have large dwell times at stations, yet you want to keep slam door HSTs running for another thirty years?

Hence my confusion.

Would a 20m coach with 76 seats require 3+2 seating?

Yes but it is possible to add about 1.5 metres without significantly reducing the width. If you look at a 20 metre vehicle, you will see that the bogies are very close to the ends. There is a formula for width reduction at the outer ends just as for between the bogie centres. If you put the formulae on a spreadsheet you will find it is possible to add length at the ends without tapering. The 76 seat vehicle came out an intermediate length and with 2+2 seating can have facing bays 1.9 and reasonably spaced unidirectional seating. Of course you lose 50cm each end for crumple zones but the space is always usable eg for equipment cabinets etc.

Thread drift noted but whether station dwell times are an issue depends on where the trains are running, doesn't it? But given the proposal to use a version of IEP on some commuter routes, they could be even worse than HSTs as there are more passengers per vehicle.

Another issue with SDT is stepping distance. It was specified that IEP should be NO WORSE THAN a mark 3 but in some situations they are problematic. Continental style retracting devices would be worth considering - people seem to get on and off more confidently when they are not having to look down to check where they are stepping.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Two vestibules shared between two 15m coaches?

Like a Pacer?

(sorry if I'm getting confused and missing the point!)

Eurostars are, I believe, 16 metres and have doors on alternate sides at each end of each vehicle. This seems quite a good arrangement.

The IC3 trains are a 3-car articulated set and have a set of doors in the end cars and no doors in the centre cars. I believe the 4-car ER2 trains are similar. Again the centre car is 16 metres.

If I recall the Eurostars are 2.82 metres wide. This would be because the steadier running of the articulated vehicles means that tolerances can be reduced. There is a lot to be said for articulation. Some of the advantage is that linkages which in a conventional vehicle have to go on the bogie under the floor can be relocated into the space between the vehicles, thereby giving more freedom to optimise the design.

 

[jopsuk]

there's not much of the network has been cleared for W10- and even then, that only allows for 3896mm above rail height. By comparison, a TGV Duplex is 4320mm- as, as far as I can determine, are most other french double deck stock.
Trying to find details of German/Danish Bombardier stock- can find the width (2784 mm!) but not the height- I'd assume though that they're taller than 3896mm

 

[sprinterguy]

Eurostars are, I believe, 16 metres and have doors on alternate sides at each end of each vehicle. This seems quite a good arrangement.

If I recall the Eurostars are 2.82 metres wide. This would be because the steadier running of the articulated vehicles means that tolerances can be reduced. There is a lot to be said for articulation. Some of the advantage is that linkages which in a conventional vehicle have to go on the bogie under the floor can be relocated into the space between the vehicles, thereby giving more freedom to optimise the design.

Eurostar vehicles are 18.7 metres long, just like TGVs, and as you correctly say, 2.82 metres wide.

 

[tbtc]

So spend millions on replacing bridges/ tunnels etc to allow double deck trains, but 26m coaches would require too much clearance to be economic?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

So spend millions on replacing bridges/ tunnels etc to allow double deck trains, but 26m coaches would require too much clearance to be economic?

Please read what I have been saying with more care. I am not advocating it, I was quoting the Network Rail discussion paper on the subject. There might be a policy within NR. At least the IEP infrastructure work would then be killing two birds with one stone.

 

[jopsuk]

Do you have at the very least the title of the Network Rail paper you're "quoting" from? Some sort of proper reference, so that others can look it up (if they have appropriate access, if access happens to be limited)?

 

[The Ham]

What have airlines got to do with this discussion?

Only that Airlines are an alternative to travelling by train for some of the longer routes, so if people want more space at their seat than a standard seat on a train their only option would be to travel first class by train as a first class airline seats would be the same size as the "too narrow" IEP seats.

Also that if the IEP seats are too narrow for the "ballooning" UK population then standard class airline seats are far too narrow for them and the population of the USA who have a much larger problem with obesity and where there are many more of them that fly, often for much longer journey times.

Therefore I would assume that it would be acceptable to have the IEP seats, as proposed or if they are not acceptable, then there is a much bigger fish to fry in the form of the airline industry and we should focus our efforts on that before worrying overly much about the IEP's.

 

[starrymarkb]

I don't think anyone does 'First Class' on UK domestic flying

BA is all economy on domestic (though the first few rows have greater pitch and some the central seat folds away for Eurobusiness so best avoided sitting on a folding one if you want comfort). Easyjet and Flybe are also all Economy. Will be interested to see what Virgin offer.

Also on most inter Europe hops business seating is the same as economy but the middle seat of each block of 3 is kept free.

 

[IanXC]

...I would assume that it would be acceptable to have the IEP seats, as proposed or if they are not acceptable, then there is a much bigger fish to fry in the form of the airline industry and we should focus our efforts on that before worrying overly much about the IEP's.

I'm not sure we should be frying anything under the circumstances!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Do you have at the very least the title of the Network Rail paper you're "quoting" from? Some sort of proper reference, so that others can look it up (if they have appropriate access, if access happens to be limited)?

Very long trains/Double deck trains NR

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Therefore I would assume that it would be acceptable to have the IEP seats, as proposed or if they are not acceptable, then there is a much bigger fish to fry in the form of the airline industry and we should focus our efforts on that before worrying overly much about the IEP's.

Depends where you are coming from. If your last train was an IC3, then the trains from Harwich International to Liverpool Street did not make a good impression, and it doesn't get much better wherever you travel in the UK.

 

[jopsuk]

Very long trains/Double deck trains NR

Interesting- note that this does use "GB" and "GC" height even for a short-wheelbase UK DD design; vastly larger than the W10 freight gauge many current lines are being cleared for, and it notes that GC simply won't fit under any current UK electrification.

 

[starrymarkb]

Depends where you are coming from. If your last train was an IC3, then the trains from Harwich International to Liverpool Street did not make a good impression, and it doesn't get much better wherever you travel in the UK.

But if your experience of Dutch rail was a unrebuilt 7300 in grotty condition like mine was you'd think that UK trains are not too bad...

 

[jon0844]

Depends where you are coming from. If your last train was an IC3, then the trains from Harwich International to Liverpool Street did not make a good impression, and it doesn't get much better wherever you travel in the UK.

When we went to Sweden last year, it was a 365 to King's Cross, taxi to Liverpool Street (easier with bags), Mk3 to wherever it was we had to change and then a 321 to Harwich.

We were going on holiday and while I might have noticed the very old interior of the MK3s running to Norwich, and the state of the 321 thanks to National Express spending about 5p on them, my wife didn't notice or care. I doubt most people would.

On all three trains we had a seat, which was big enough, and they were all on time. What's more, perhaps because of the time of year, all the staff were very friendly.

To be honest, the UK train travel was every bit as good as the Danish and Swedish travel (and I didn't even get to feel sick in the UK as I did on the X2000 coming back to Malmo).

 

[RAGNARØKR]

To be honest, the UK train travel was every bit as good as the Danish and Swedish travel (and I didn't even get to feel sick in the UK as I did on the X2000 coming back to Malmo).

I don't disbelieve you about feeling sick on an X2000 train but I never have. It may have been badly adjusted - you should have reported it on the SJ website. They often give vouchers to dissatisfied passengers. My worst experience was being stuck in a forest in the middle of nowhere for over four hours in one, or rather out of it, as they let people get off and take their dogs for a walk or sit and drink by the side of the track.

 

[jon0844]

It might have just been me - I wasn't feeling bad on the way up. The odd thing is that I was fine on the boat going to Denmark, and wasn't even bad on the way back - where the boat sailed a day late due to stormy weather (the incoming sailing had been seriously delayed).

 

[TGV]

There is a lot to be said for articulation. Some of the advantage is that linkages which in a conventional vehicle have to go on the bogie under the floor can be relocated into the space between the vehicles, thereby giving more freedom to optimise the design.

Articulation solves as many problems as it creates. Perfect for very high speed running on straight tracks and giving stability and comfort as well as resisting derailment/jackknifing. TGV vehicles are 18.7m in length, well, slightly less actually, but I'll not be pedantic because that dimension is the bogie pivot distance. This combined with the wide profile of a 373 (for a UK train) creates gauging problems in some locations due to centre-throw infringements on tight curves. Minimum curve radius is also an issue. Mk3s can go round curves that a TGV would not even look at.

 

[jopsuk]

How sorted for curves are Talgo trains, with their short carriage sections? I realise that with their non-bogie, non-axle wheels they're odd in many, many ways.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I think ( not 100% sure ) that Talgo sets have steerable ½ axles don't they?

 

[Yew]

Would articulation with a bogie centre length the same as that of a MK3 solve the centre throw issues? Or would the advantages of articulation for 125mph stock be reduced if the length of train was reduced?

 

[TGV]

Would articulation with a bogie centre length the same as that of a MK3 solve the centre throw issues? Or would the advantages of articulation for 125mph stock be reduced if the length of train was reduced?

It would help, yes, but you'd have a very short carriage and any performance benefits negilgible as IEP isn't a high speed train.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Would articulation with a bogie centre length the same as that of a MK3 solve the centre throw issues? Or would the advantages of articulation for 125mph stock be reduced if the length of train was reduced?

As I understand it, articulation helps as there is less movement (sway) in the suspension to be allowed for in the kinematic envelope -