IEP Annoucement

[Zoe]

cant see punterrs, particularly those from inverness liking the thought of 5 cars on there chieften.

If five car sets were used then then would most likely run two sets in multiple.

 

[Blindtraveler]

but as these new coaches are longer the platforms at many stations wil be too short

 

[ainsworth74]

I think Blindtraveler raises an interesting point. On the GWML the 5-car IEP makes some sense due to the number of services that will need splitting on route. But on the ECML nearly all the services that IEP is going to end up on the ECML don't need to spilt on route, therefore would there not be a case for building a 7-8 car IEP from the start for the ECML?

 

[Zoe]

but as these new coaches are longer the platforms at many stations wil be too short

Selective Door Opening?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But on the ECML nearly all the services that IEP is going to end up on the ECML don't need to spilt on route, therefore would there not be a case for building a 7-8 car IEP from the start for the ECML?

How about running the Higland Chieftan and Northern Lights as a combined 2 x 5 combination and then splitting at Edinburgh?

 

[ainsworth74]

How about running the Higland Chieftan and Northern Lights as a combined 2 x 5 combination and then splitting at Edinburgh?

Yeah I had that idea as well, but it would mean either cutting Aberdeen services back to one each way per day (like the present Chieftan) or increasing the number of Inverness services to match the number of Aberdeen.

 

[junglejames]

What advantage? 1/4 less seating capacity on FGW HSTs for example. You are aware that we have the highest peacetime usage of trains with a 50% increase in the number of passenger journeys since the HST was introduced. So what you gain from your rose-tinted view of the past you quickly lose as passengers are put off travelling when they either cannot get a seat after purchasing a walk-up ticket, or cannot book an Advance because the lack of seats mean the Advances sell out much quicker.

Yes it's nice to be able to sit at a table and have an unobstructed view, but I'd rather any seat than no seat at all. FGW had to do something about the lack of seats on their HSTs.

Their solution should be applauded, not derided. More seats, which are well designed and comfortable (a soft seat does not equal comfort), no lesser legroom in the airline seats compared to the original layout, power sockets for every pair of seats and a flip down table that will support a laptop. And they managed to do this and still have every 'window' seat with at least a partial view.

Yes, maybe the seat backs are a little high and the lighting can be a bit harsh, but my number one concern is getting a seat. Prior to the refurb of the FGW HSTs that was getting increasingly difficult.

Eh, and just to add. 90% of this is entirely your point of view. So dont have a go at others just because they have a different view point.
FGWs refurb? Dont get me started. Comfort? Eh, my point of view, but those seats are awful. Hard (yes in my book the softer they are, the more comfortable they are), upright, far too high. Tacky colour schemes.
The legroom is the only good thing.

If FGW should be praised for squeezing more seats into a coach, and at the same time, sticking two fingers up at families who like tables, then what about GNERs attempt at getting more capacity on their HSTs? Surely they deserve a Knighthood for such an obvious answer. Still plenty of tables, nicer, larger seats, and oh, look at that, an extra coach.
There is a big difference between FGWs approach and GNERs approach. FGW went for the cheap option. Discounting the refurb (which they were more than likely going to do anyway, and which GNER also did) how much has this cost FGW?

Anyway, onto the Bi Mode. Having only paid half attention to this subject, as to be honest, Im getting fed up with the stupidity of it all (the IEP that is, not the discussion about it), I noticed people saying 3 engines in 3 of the coaches. 9 engines for a 5 car train?? Are they really going to be so underpowered on diesel power that they need this many engines?

And people kept saying I was thinking of the dark ages when i kept saying we should have LHCS?? Sounds like I was thinking along the sensible lines.
I keep saying it. Like for like is what we need. We know it works.
Swansea would need electrifying, as would MML (both should be anyway), and then order 125mph EMUs, and like for like HST replacements for those services to Plymouth and beyond, and also EC services to Aberdeen and Inverness. Thats my choice anyway.

The other option, which will probably provide us with just as good a train, and will be cheaper, is to scrap all these rules saying Mk3s need to be altered by 2020 (pull out of Europe if its them), and keep the existing trains. Hey, even do a majr major rebuild of the power cars if you want. Theyve easily got 10yrs left in them as it is. Another major rebuild after that, and you have even longer. Doing nothing isnt usually a good option, but Im not convinced DaFTs plans will provide better.

 

[Zoe]

If FGW should be praised for squeezing more seats into a coach, and at the same time, sticking two fingers up at families who like tables, then what about GNERs attempt at getting more capacity on their HSTs? Surely they deserve a Knighthood for such an obvious answer. Still plenty of tables, nicer, larger seats, and oh, look at that, an extra coach.
There is a big difference between FGWs approach and GNERs approach. FGW went for the cheap option. Discounting the refurb (which they were more than likely going to do anyway, and which GNER also did) how much has this cost FGW?

There is a difference: GNER's stock did not have to be used on outer suburban commuter services. FGWs HSTs are used on both long distance intercity and outer suburban commuter servics so that high density seating had to be installed or you would have more people standing.

 

[button_boxer]

I noticed people saying 3 engines in 3 of the coaches. 9 engines for a 5 car train?? Are they really going to be so underpowered on diesel power that they need this many engines?

As far as I understand it's not a question of underpowered or overpowered, it's a question of emissions regulations. A larger number of less powerful engines gives the same power output as one large one but the combination is cleaner overall.

 

[Zoe]

As far as I understand it's not a question of underpowered or overpowered, it's a question of emissions regulations. A larger number of less powerful engines gives the same power output as one large one but the combination is cleaner overall.

It also allows for only one of three small engines to be running when under the wires if needed rather than a single large engine.

 

[sprinterguy]

Not that we yet know for sure exactly what will be offered in terms of train lengths for bi-mode IEP on the ECML, but if Inverness has to make do with the bi-mode five carriage IEP, then it would be best if a second London-Inverness train was introduced to cope with demand and match the capacity of the current single nine carriage train. This could see Kings Cross departures for Inverness mid-morning and mid-afternoon, though this throws up all kinds of concerns regarding pathing of these trains on the largely single track Highland Main Line, as well as the possibility for market growth encouraged by the more frequent service, that would not be able to be catered for with the shorter trains (The same trouble that was seen with Operation Princess). These services could operate as a pair of units as far as Edinburgh (maybe even Perth?), to cater for the passenger demand over the core East Coast main line, but I don’t see running a pair of five car units throughout to Inverness as being efficient in terms of crewing if a decent on-board service is to be provided, which you would hope it would be on an eight hour run such as this (The “Edinburgh only” portion could have a reduced First Class offering requiring fewer staff than the through train to Inverness).

Ideally, the Aberdeen line really suits electrification which would allow through running with ten carriage EMUs, although if this were to happen then it would raise questions over retaining the bi-mode Inverness service, and realistically it won’t happen. The Aberdeen traffic requires ten carriage trains, but once again I don’t think running a pair of five carriage Bi-mode IEPs throughout the journey offering duplicate services on each unit is particularly wise: It would be repeating all the inefficiencies that were learnt about during operation of the APT-P trains that led BR to conclude that dividing a single train into two portions with no walk through was a bad idea.

 

[Zoe]

The Aberdeen traffic requires ten carriage trains, but once again I don’t think running a pair of five carriage Bi-mode IEPs throughout the journey offering duplicate services on each unit is particularly wise: It would be repeating all the inefficiencies that were learnt about during operation of the APT-P trains that led BR to conclude that dividing a single train into two portions with no walk through was a bad idea.

Are you going to fill ten coaches between Edinbrugh and Aberdeen? If not then it could be combined with the Inverness service.

 

[sprinterguy]

Are you going to fill ten coaches between Edinbrugh and Aberdeen? If not then it could be combined with the Inverness service.

The problem there is that you have five carriages each for the Aberdeen and Inverness passengers from London onwards, plus demand for intermediate journeys on the ECML between Edinburgh and London, whereas the Inverness and Aberdeen trains currently have nine carriages each, catering for passengers for their respective destinations as well as intermediate ECML journeys, which are well loaded all along the ECML from London. To avoid overcrowding over the ECML as far as Edinburgh you’d have to make these services pick-up only as far as Edinburgh inclusive going north and set-down only going south at any ECML stops, diverting passengers making intermediate journeys between London and Edinburgh onto other services.

 

[Zoe]

The problem there is that you have five carriages each for the Aberdeen and Inverness passengers from London onwards, plus demand for intermediate journeys on the ECML between Edinburgh and London, whereas the Inverness and Aberdeen trains currently have nine carriages each, catering for passengers for their respective destinations as well as intermediate ECML journeys, which are well loaded all along the ECML from London. To avoid overcrowding over the ECML as far as Edinburgh you’d have to make these services pick-up only as far as Edinburgh inclusive going north and set-down only going south at any ECML stops, diverting passengers making intermediate journeys between London and Edinburgh onto other services.

By running a combined service to Edinburgh you'd retain the same capacity between London and Edinburgh.

 

[sprinterguy]

By running a combined service to Edinburgh you'd retain the same capacity between London and Edinburgh.

But with passengers for two further destinations on one train instead of two, and what was once two separate trains between London and Edinburgh now rolled into one, although I admit that additional London-Edinburgh trains would cover this. It all rests on whether demand for travel to Inverness and the Highland main line outstrips the capacity of a single five carriage train (albeit with longer carriages), or whether the current nine carriage HST is carrying a lot of fresh air around north of Edinburgh, as to whether an additional Inverness train can be counted as “additional” capacity if bolted onto one of the Aberdeen services.

 

[Zoe]

You could run two north of Edinburgh services each day, both splitting at Edinburgh and running to Aberdeen and Inverness.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't think East Coast need have many off-wire services. Hull now has it's own open access operator, so couldn't East Coast's Hull Executive be transfered to Hull Trains? I think that would leave only 2 or 3 trains per day north of Edinborugh for East Coast to run off-wire, am I right?

If so, Hull Trains could carry on running diesels under the wires, as OAOs operate without subsidy I doubt they would have wanted to order new bi-mode stock anyway. That would mean East Coast could have a uniform fleet of new all-electric trains (IC225s could be sent to the GWML) hauled by a diesel locomotive after Edinborough, otherwise they (East Coast) would have to maintain a VERY small fleet of bi-modes.

The only route where bi-mode might really be the only option is services out of Paddington to Hereford, Worcester and Great Malvern, and I'd really like to find an alternative to that too.

 

[Zoe]

That would mean East Coast could have a uniform fleet of new all-electric trains (IC225s could be sent to the GWML) hauled by a diesel locomotive after Edinborough, otherwise they (East Coast) would have to maintain a VERY small fleet of bi-modes.

We've discussed this before and for various reasons locomotive haulage off the wires is not possible. These include Hitachi not wanting to build a loco, the logistics of having to change a loco and the emissions associated with having a locomotive.

 

[tbtc]

I don't think East Coast need have many off-wire services. Hull now has it's own open access operator, so couldn't East Coast's Hull Executive be transfered to Hull Trains? I think that would leave only 2 or 3 trains per day north of Edinborugh for East Coast to run off-wire, am I right?

If so, Hull Trains could carry on running diesels under the wires, as OAOs operate without subsidy I doubt they would have wanted to order new bi-mode stock anyway. That would mean East Coast could have a uniform fleet of new all-electric trains (IC225s could be sent to the GWML) hauled by a diesel locomotive after Edinborough, otherwise they (East Coast) would have to maintain a VERY small fleet of bi-modes

You'd still need something for the Harrogate - London service. The line from the ECML at Selby to Hull really needs electrifying, its quite a short stretch which would save a few DMUs (including the Northern service from Hull to York).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Blindtraveler raises an interesting point. On the GWML the 5-car IEP makes some sense due to the number of services that will need splitting on route. But on the ECML nearly all the services that IEP is going to end up on the ECML don't need to spilt on route, therefore would there not be a case for building a 7-8 car IEP from the start for the ECML?

I'd agree with that. However, a five coach IEP would cope with the loadings between Edinburgh and Inverness (bear in mind that Scotrail don't run anything longer, and often use single 170s on Inverness runs). A ten coach IEP splitting at Edinburgh would make sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The other option, which will probably provide us with just as good a train, and will be cheaper, is to scrap all these rules saying Mk3s need to be altered by 2020 (pull out of Europe if its them)

You'd pull out of the European Union to allow the UK to continue using Mk 3 coaches?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Aberdeen traffic requires ten carriage trains

It does, the loadings through Fife are a lot higher than for Scotrail services (growing up in St Andrews I knew a lot of people who'd specifically aim for the "long" trains (back in Intercity days)

 

[ainsworth74]

You'd still need something for the Harrogate - London service. The line from the ECML at Selby to Hull really needs electrifying, its quite a short stretch which would save a few DMUs (including the Northern service from Hull to York).

Add to that the new Lincoln services being introduced in May, as well as for that matter the Skipton service (which is still down as being a HST after Eureka). As for electrifying Selby - Hull seems like it would be a no brainer to me free up quite a few DMUs that one (as well as giving quite a few extra 180s to play with).

A ten coach IEP splitting at Edinburgh would make sense.

Perhaps but you're still left with the problem of either having to run more Inverness services or less Aberdeen. Either that or your going to be running doubled up IEPs all the way to Aberdeen when there isn't a Inverness service running. Hence my thought that a longer Bi-mode for the ECML might make sense. Also would we be running doubled up IEPs to Harrogate because a 5 car unit would be insufficient on the core ECML for a service like that.

You'd pull out of the European Union to allow the UK to continue using Mk 3 coaches?

Have you seen junglejames posts, anything for the Mk3!

Kidding james

 

[Zoe]

You'd pull out of the European Union to allow the UK to continue using Mk 3 coaches?

It wouldn't make much difference, Norway are not in the EU but still implement EU directives.

 

[tbtc]

Add to that the new Lincoln services being introduced in May

Yeah, forgot Lincoln, apologies

Perhaps but you're still left with the problem of either having to run more Inverness services or less Aberdeen. Either that or your going to be running doubled up IEPs all the way to Aberdeen when there isn't a Inverness service running. Hence my thought that a longer Bi-mode for the ECML might make sense. Also would we be running doubled up IEPs to Harrogate because a 5 car unit would be insufficient on the core ECML for a service like that.

One train a day is probably enough for Inverness. Aberdeen could always become ten coaches south of Dundee (and five north)? Same with splitting Harrogate services at Leeds?

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah, forgot Lincoln, apologies

Easily done

One train a day is probably enough for Inverness. Aberdeen could always become ten coaches south of Dundee (and five north)? Same with splitting Harrogate services at Leeds?

Yeah could do that, but it just complicates things and takes up capacity (of which there isn't much spare at Leeds). It really does seem to me that it would simpler operationally to build a longer Bi-mode IEP for the ECML, right now I don't see any advantages to having a short 5 car version on the ECML.

 

[junglejames]

There is a difference: GNER's stock did not have to be used on outer suburban commuter services. FGWs HSTs are used on both long distance intercity and outer suburban commuter servics so that high density seating had to be installed or you would have more people standing.

Outer suburban commuter services? What? Slough and Reading when used on Oxford fasts?

At the end of the day, it still comes down to how to get extra capacity no matter what runs it is used on. High density seating isnt necessary. Adding an extra coach does the same job. Difference is the cost.

 

[Zoe]

Outer suburban commuter services? What? Slough and Reading when used on Oxford fasts?

No, some make Maidenhead and Twyford calls and some also stop at many of the stations on the Berks and Hants to Westbury. The fact that HSTs run Paddington to Oxford services also makes them commuter trains and so high density seating is needed.

 

[junglejames]

As far as I understand it's not a question of underpowered or overpowered, it's a question of emissions regulations. A larger number of less powerful engines gives the same power output as one large one but the combination is cleaner overall.

No its not. 1 larger is better than loads of small.
Anyway, if its a case of emission regs, are you saying that we can get a really small engine to comply, but not a normal sized DMU engine? I cant quite believe that somehow.

Surely its more than likely an engine of the size required wouldnt fit underfloor, so its necessary to fit a load of smaller ones side by side.
Not sure, but sounds more plausible.

As for Zoes point about only needing a small engine running when under the wires. Yes, that makes sense. Needing to run any diesel engine when under the wires shows the stupidity of it all though, as many on here have said.
Oh my this is one great big farce. Where did we get these politicians and civil servants from? Cameron doesnt have a Japanese buddy does he??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, some make Maidenhead and Twyford calls and some also stop at many of the stations on the Berks and Hants to Westbury. The fact that HSTs run Paddington to Oxford services also makes them commuter trains and so high density seating is needed.

Or, an extra coach! Take your pick. Well FGW took cheap option.
Maidenhaead and Twyford? Oh my god. So now not only have FGW got **** HSTs, but they also use them on stupid services. My you really are building up a case for FGW to be shown the door. But, its all the cheap option.

 

[Zoe]

Maidenhaead and Twyford? Oh my god. So now not only have FGW got **** HSTs, but they also use them on stupid services. My you really are building up a case for FGW to be shown the door. But, its all the cheap option.

It's not stupid. Extra capacity was needed and two/three car 165s/166s were unable to offer this. FGW offered an easy solution to this by using HSTs on some peak commuter services. So far it has worked very well.

 

[ainsworth74]

Or, an extra coach!

What extra coaches? There aren't any to be had...

 

[junglejames]

We've discussed this before and for various reasons locomotive haulage off the wires is not possible. These include Hitachi not wanting to build a loco, the logistics of having to change a loco and the emissions associated with having a locomotive.

So, we have politicians who cant think beyond Hitachi, and we arent allowed emissions from a loco, but we are allowed the increased (yes increased) emissions from a DMU? Sorry Zoe, I know you insist on listening to a couple of other members on this forum, but a loco will use less fuel. Its all science, and it all makes sense, oh, and the figures are there to prove it. Despite what TDK may say, his 67s were using the same fuel as a 5 car 222.

As for the logistics. Well another case of our split up railway not being able to do things that are any more difficult than bloody easy.

Locos wont be used, because it will mean scraping the Hitachi bid. That cant be done partly because its far too much trouble for our narrow minded politicians, and because the Japanese may threaten to not give Cameron any more (s*x**l) favours!
Its all one big farce, and to be honest, even writing this is wasting far too much of my time. Again, not because of you lot, but because the whole project is stupid.

As for me pulling out of Europe for the Mk3s! Why not. I prefer Mk3s to the idiots in Europe, so obviously id prefer to do things for the Mk3s, and not the other way around.
However there is slightly more to my thinking than that. What do we get from Europe? Increased bureacracy, which means increased costs. I know they give us some money for some things, but does the amount of money we get from them add up to what we give them? Im not sure, but id guess that the only countries that end up better off from being in Europe are the ones with inefficient farmers, oh, like France! So if my thinking is right, thats even more money it costs us.

So, we dont get back from them what we put in (I stand to be corrected if thats untrue), we spend more on bureacracy, and, thirdly, if we did pull out, it saves the money we are going to spend on the ill fated Hitachi rubbish. Obviously thats not a reason itself for pulling out, but it is an added benefit!

Wouldnt happen though because the Japanese may start crying, and for some reason we dont like it when they cry.

 

[sprinterguy]

Yeah could do that, but it just complicates things and takes up capacity (of which there isn't much spare at Leeds). It really does seem to me that it would simpler operationally to build a longer Bi-mode IEP for the ECML, right now I don't see any advantages to having a short 5 car version on the ECML.

I agree, longer Bi-mode trains are needed on the ECML. A lot of what has been suggested above, including by me, regarding five carriage Bi-mode IEP trains on the ECML calls for an awful lot of splitting and joining of trains en route to cater for larger flows on the ECML proper and then ensure trains aren't carrying around a lot of empty seats for the smaller flows north of Edinburgh, which would make ECML operations less efficient than they are now! Surely that would be a backward step?

 

[Zoe]

Hitachi had already been announced as preferred bidder before the locomotive option was discussed. I don't think it would be that easy to just decide to get someone else to build the trains. A locomotive can never offer all the benefits you get with a multiple unit.

As for the EU as I said, don't think leaving the EU will change things as Norway still implement EU directives.