IEP Annoucement

[Zoe]

Anyway, have they commited to using diesel for the generators?

Underfloor engines haven't been ruled out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will the IEP come to Penzance or not?

Not initially. HSTs are to be retained on the route although a future IEP order for Plymouth and Penzance is a possibliity.

 

[tbtc]

Can I be the first to complain that the windows on the IEP won't line up with seats (or some other spurious reason to grumble)?

 

[Nym]

Underfloor engines haven't been ruled out.

But, logic for homogonisation of carrages would imply a seperate generator carrage, and this doesn't nessesarrally need to be Diesel.

I know a Jet Engine powered train sounds silly, but it's entirely do-able, and I'm not on about turbofans, gas turbines. Basically, it needs to generate the same kw at rail as an HST or it will be useless in Diesel mode in the west country. And I think they will be coming to Plymouth, if for nothing else but the 1tpd via Bristol. They might (journey times permitted) route them all as extentions of Bristol TM services, hopfully allong with an increase in service frequency.

IEPs for XC are currently looking ideal IMO, wondering slightly if they will have 3rd Rail Pickups

 

[142094]

Good news for Newton Aycliffe, just wonder how long it will be there for. Hoepfully not another flash in the pan like some former companies in the area.

 

[Ivo]

Am I the only one who seems to think that that Shadow Secretary sounds a bit clueless?

(N.B.: In case you haven't guessed, having missed the live film I am watching it at present.)

 

[Zoe]

But, logic for homogonisation of carrages would imply a seperate generator carrage, and this doesn't nessesarrally need to be Diesel.

That would seem to suggest you are using an EMU as the starting point and having the ability to run it on diesel rather than using the DMU as the starting point and adding pantographs to run the traction motors when under the wires.

 

[klewer]

Underfloor engines haven't been ruled out.

Where's your source for this? Can't imagine they'd want to haul dead diesel engines around?

 

[Zoe]

Where's your source for this?

Well until they actually say they have ruled it out you can't assume they have done so. Only the bi-mode IEPs would be fitted with them though.

 

[starrymarkb]

But, logic for homogonisation of carrages would imply a seperate generator carrage, and this doesn't nessesarrally need to be Diesel.

I know a Jet Engine powered train sounds silly, but it's entirely do-able, and I'm not on about turbofans, gas turbines. Basically, it needs to generate the same kw at rail as an HST or it will be useless in Diesel mode in the west country. And I think they will be coming to Plymouth, if for nothing else but the 1tpd via Bristol. They might (journey times permitted) route them all as extentions of Bristol TM services, hopfully allong with an increase in service frequency.

IEPs for XC are currently looking ideal IMO, wondering slightly if they will have 3rd Rail Pickups

Bombardier have been hawking a Gas Turbine train for a while without any orders, unfortunately Gas Turbines are very thirsty so is a non starter

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

 

[Nym]

That would seem to suggest you are using an EMU as the starting point and having the ability to run it on diesel rather than using the DMU as the starting point and adding pantographs to run the traction motors when under the wires.

Since thats what I've read in all meterial previously released about the project, yes, basically an EMU without driving cars, and the drive comes from either Transformer Car, Generator Car or DVT. And I'm sudgesting running off a generator, not nessesarraly diesel, gas turbines are lighter

 

[Zoe]

Remember also Philip Hammond send in Novemeber that underfloor engines were under consideration so I wouldn't rule out that possibility until we get more details.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since thats what I've read in all meterial previously released about the project, yes, basically an EMU without driving cars

I'd have thought you'd retain driving cars as you'd only need the generator car for bi-mode.

 

[Nym]

Well until they actually say they have ruled it out you can't assume they have done so. Only the bi-mode IEPs would be fitted with them though.

If it's designed properly it could work, where it can easily be removed for servicing (sevice intervals are very diferent), such as the generator set is on an underside frame that can be quickly removed. Then it can still acceive good homogonisation as the electric version will not have any (or only one for emergency power) generator set fitted within the coaching rake.

Conversion would involve: Remove generator set (on the rig designed to do so), if it doesn't contain the diesel tank, drain and remove that.

I'm imagining a 30ft long frame with an engine, generator and diesel tank on?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Remember also Philip Hammond send in Novemeber that underfloor engines were under consideration so I wouldn't rule out that possibility until we get more details.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd have thought you'd retain driving cars as you'd only need the generator car for bi-mode.

And a transformer car, when I read Hitachi's origonal proposal it was

Electric only: Transformer : Coaches : DVT
Bi-Mode: Transformer : Coaches : Generator
Diesel Only: Generator : Coaches : DVT or Generator

 

[Zoe]

What you are suggseting seems to be a cross between a multiple unit and loco hauled stock, interesting.

 

[Nym]

What you are suggseting seems to be a cross between a multiple unit and loco hauled stock, interesting.

Just depends on if they still want the emergency power generator (then underfloor would make sense, homogonisation pepole). And yes, a single transformer/panto/driving car, and a DBSO/DVT at the other end... Alternativly bi mode could be a sockking great engine at the operside end to the transformer.

Would proberbly make more sense if I stoped using the word loco, and said Driving/Transformer carrage instead. It isn't technically a locomotive but panto pickup and transformer. The generator would supply the same busbar. Albeit a single generator at t'other end of t'rake or a set of 8 or 9 generators under the other carrages, or a combination of the two.

 

[Zoe]

If the go for the generator car option though then even if the initial sets are underpowered for running west of Newton Abbot then a high power generator car could be produced in theory. If they go for the underfloor engines option then you are stuck unless they change the engines.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Can I be the first to complain that the windows on the IEP won't line up with seats (or some other spurious reason to grumble)?

Yes. You can.
And someone else will be along soon to winge about the livery.
Somone else to dispute the classification number.
I'm waiting to have a gripe at the menus.
And there's always someone to moan about the upholstery, the Information displays and the PA system.
Oh, and there's been another complaint already . . . .

Good news for Newton Aycliffe, just wonder how long it will be there for.

Bob Crow has been annoyed that they'll only assemble some of them at Newton Aycliffe: "why can't they be built here?"

 

[Nym]

If the go for the generator car option though then even if the initial sets are underpowered for running west of Newton Abbot then a high power generator car could be produced in theory. If they go for the underfloor engines option then you are stuck unless they change the engines.

"You can always build a bigger engine..." heh

But yeah, passenger comfort is an important consideration, so if we are going to have it with distributed traction, then having a seperate carrage with a sokking big engine in it would be most comfortable for passengers, basically the power can be supplied from either end carrage, one end using a transfomer from 25KV OHL, and the other with a massive engine. The underfloor engine option would greatly increase maintenance, as for an extended service to the engine, detach one and attach another, drive it to the north east for service, then swap it back again.

If they still want the 'Emergency get you home power source' that should be housed in the 'Driving Transformer Car' that will be standard between both bi-mode and electric only units, if that where say, a 1,000hp unit (not too big), a big enough fuel tank to keep it going as long as the generator on the other end when running off the wires then to balance with an HST (provided the aux engine in the panto/transformer is used aswell as the generator coach) it would need 2*2,250hp = 4,500hp in total. So, even with a Cummins QSK19 or similar under the floor of the Electric Transformer coach at 750hp, it would need 3,750hp at the other end to run as a 'lop sided HST with distributed traction' The Class 70 has a 3,690hp engine that fits in our loading guage, so fit an 810hp engine in one end, and one from a class 70 in the other end's full time 'generator car' then it will have the same amount of power as an HST. And provide emergency power for electric only trains.

If they can't fit the reserve power engine in the transformer car then it would have to live in the DVT to keep passenger comfort up, ie, not sitting on engines. And I'd bank on being able to find a single 4,500hp engine, or somone willing to build one, that will fit in our loading guage.

 

[j0hn0]

That post has entirely explained IEP to me, nice 1

 

[Zoe]

That post has entirely explained IEP to me, nice

Well we don't know for sure yet, it's still possible they could go for the underfloor engine DMU model with a pantograph to power the traction motors when under the wires. I say wait until we get the official details.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

HMG commit to spend £1-2billion on railways and the BBC practically ignores it.
A one-liner on BBC 5 Live at 1700 (read out in that monotone reserved for incomprehensible non-football stories), nothing at all on R4 at 1800.

BBC Wales TV at 1830 tried to give it a fair description, but the locals treated it as discrimination against Swansea and "disastrous for the West Wales economy".

Nothing on the BBC web site except as a Welsh story (duplicated in South West area, no mention of benefit to Bristol).

Strikes me they are trying to bury good news.

What do railways have to do to get a good press?

 

[tbtc]

BBC Wales TV at 1830 tried to give it a fair description, but the locals treated it as discrimination against Swansea and "disastrous for the West Wales economy"

I suspect there are a few in western Wales who would rather *no* money was spent on Wales than something benefitted the biggest city...

 

[Ivo]

Can I just add, seen as it hasn't been brought up yet, that I am pleased that they are looking into electrifying the Severn Beach Line? It is technically a stub, and therefore in theory pointless, but it is a very small route that could benefit greatly from the use of something like a 456 instead of a 143. If the Abbey Line can do it, the SVB Line can. And maybe it could be improved to a half-hourly frequency? The infrastructure is sufficient for it...

 

[Ministry]

Isn't there a precedent for bi-mode electric/diesel services in the form of the old Gatwick Express rolling stock? Surely a configuration like that would work?

 

[Zoe]

Full transcript of debate now available on Hansard at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/05.htm

 

[Greenback]

I suspect there are a few in western Wales who would rather *no* money was spent on Wales than something benefitted the biggest city...

And you would be quite correct, although not including me on this occasion!

I welcome electrification to Cardiff. I also welcome the retention of through services to Swansea, presumably including Summer services to Pembroke Dock and th edaily Carmarthen train.

However, I would like to join in with the advance moaning should the windows be smaller than those on the HST's! Or if there is insufficient luggage space!

 

[The Planner]

How the hell is electrifying to Bristol going to save 22 minutes ??? or is it some spurious figure of a non-stop train to Parkway which even then sounds impossible.

 

[Mystic Force]

If The Planner says it then it cant be possible unless they are making the line 140 mph and havent told anyone....

 

[Zoe]

If you only call at Reading and remove some of the padding you'd save some time.

 

[swt_passenger]

...Surely Reading to Basingstoke (third-rail) would be more worthwhile, and then the line could be handed over to SWT, which in theory could allow the old Brighton service to run again?

Highly unlikely, whether electrified or not. The paths between Brighton and Fareham are now used for other services, and a major reason for withdrawal of the Basingstoke - Reading leg was to make room for additional freight - and that was before XC jumped in with their extra services.

There are tidal flow peak services between Potrsmouth and Basingstoke still - the fact they only run in the peaks suggests the normal offpeak demand is covered by other trains.

 

[Zoe]

If The Planner says it then it cant be possible unless they are making the line 140 mph and havent told anyone....

You'd need ERTMS for that, I believe this was to be included in the original plan but was not confirmed today.