IEP Annoucement

[Ivo]

Bristol might get more trains, but we won't. So if the IEP delivers five-car units we are losing 4-6 carriages an hour, and looking back to Adelante days.

 

[Zoe]

Bristol might get more trains, but we won't. So if the IEP delivers five-car units we are losing 4-6 carriages an hour, and looking back to Adelante days.

But they may not be quite as busy when they arrive at Bath as some people will have gone from Bristol via Badminton.

 

[Daimler]

Bristol might get more trains, but we won't. So if the IEP delivers five-car units we are losing 4-6 carriages an hour, and looking back to Adelante days.

Have I missed something? Is IEP only delivering 5 coach trains for GWML services? That would be nothing short of disastrous.

 

[Zoe]

Have I missed something? Is IEP only delivering 5 coach trains for GWML services? That would be nothing short of disastrous.

I'm sure you know that it's possible to run two units in multiple.

 

[Daimler]

I'm sure you know that it's possible to run two units in multiple.

Of course you can run two five-coach trains in multiple, but as these new trains aren't going to have corridor connections, that would mean that every GWML long-distance service would need two sets of customer service crews, not to mention the wasted space of two large cabs/luggage areas in the centre of the train - when one of the main advantages of a unit is supposed to be that there's no wasted space which could be better utilised as passenger accomodation, as the tendering process for the new Thameslink trains reveals.

I ask again - is IEP definitely only a five coach train?

 

[Zoe]

I ask again - is IEP definitely only a five coach train?

As with the engines, I don't think we will know for sure until we get the official details.

 

[Daimler]

As with most of the discussion, I don't think we will know for sure until we get the official details.

Ah, thank goodness! I was seriously worried for a moment (not that I'm impressed by any aspect of the decision ).

 

[ainsworth74]

I ask again - is IEP definitely only a five coach train?

As Zoe said we won't know for sure until more details arrive (ie a few weeks before the first one is due for testing (and about a year late!)) but my understanding has been that the pure EMU IEP is expected to be longer than the bi-mode IEP. So whilst the bi-mode might only be 5 (which also seems short to me even if it can operate in multiple) the pure EMU might well be 9 or 10 vehicles long.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes thats my understanding too, the Bi-mode will be 5 car sets and the EMU 10 car sets but its not a fixed formation you can add or remove centre cars and they wont be operated as permanent couplings, the driver cars will take whatever carriages are available from the pool without being permanently assigned certain cars.

 

[Zoe]

It will be interesting to see how they class the train, it doesn't seem to fit the loco and stock or multiple unit classes well. Yes it will be a multiple unit but if you can remove coaches from the formation you can't just give the entire set a number.

 

[Ivo]

I think that the only sensible thing to do would be to go for a brand new series. As you say, it doesn't fit loco and stock, because there aren't locos involved, but equally it's not a true MU either. Throw in the bi-mode version, and the only range that seems even remotely viable is 2xx (home of some of Britain's least popular trains). Maybe the 6xx range could be used for bi-modal units?

By the way, off topic I know but... do you ever sleep?

 

[Zoe]

I think that the only sensible thing to do would be to go for a brand new series. As you say, it doesn't fit loco and stock, because there aren't locos involved, but equally it's not a true MU either. Throw in the bi-mode version, and the only range that seems even remotely viable is 2xx (home of some of Britain's least popular trains). Maybe the 6xx range could be used for bi-modal units?

Using three digits though would suggest a multiple unit where you could give the designation to the entire set. How about we move into four digits?

 

[Nym]

Said it before and I'll say it again.
Block out the design as homogonous 'Mk5 Carrages' with traction packages and busbar passthrough on each unit. With 'specialist carrages' for either transformers, driving cabs (& crumple zones), and depending on the decision on onboard generators, removable frames of however generators per unit, or a power car.

And for "Using diesel for hotel power while under wires." or "To boost the OHL Supply." no, no, No, No, NO!

What other EMU in the world has diesel to run the heaters and lights? The're small beans compared to the traction motors.

A pendo uses 5.1MW for traction motors, the lights, all the heaters, toilet, air con and everything in a single carrage can't use more than 200kw. so in 10 carrages thats 20kw compared to what I'm estimating to be a 5 or 6Mw traction package...

So really, Wires there, energised, panto and transformer all working, DIESELS OFF!

I hate to be saying it like this but it seems that the word of common sense is here...?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The BBC still hasn't corrected the errors on this diagram, it's missing the line through Bath to Bristol and Bristol Parkway to Bristol TM off still. And the lions share of thameslink...

 

[sprinterguy]

I think that the only sensible thing to do would be to go for a brand new series. As you say, it doesn't fit loco and stock, because there aren't locos involved, but equally it's not a true MU either. Throw in the bi-mode version, and the only range that seems even remotely viable is 2xx (home of some of Britain's least popular trains). Maybe the 6xx range could be used for bi-modal units?

As well as some of its’ most popular: Classes 253 & 254 (as well as 251 and 261 if you like Blue Pullman trains).

It intrigues me that a different method of powering the auxillaries is being considered for the EMUs and EDMUs. So we are now specifying electric trains that produce carbon emissions at the point of use: That’s crackers! I’m completely in agreement with Nym’s post above. The fact that a diesel engine is being provided to give “hotel power” on the EDMUs in order to offset the additional traction power draw that will be required to shift the added weight of the diesel engines whilst under the wires, compared to the lighter EMU variant, further goes to show the absurdity of the bi-mode idea.

I could possibly begin to accept bi-mode if the same transmission system as used on the current Alexander/Dennis Enviro400 hybrid buses was employed: I’m not a technically minded man when it comes to this sort of thing, but the way I’ve had it explained to me is that the diesel engine is remote from the final drive to the traction motors, and is instead under a constant medium load, whether the vehicle is accelerating, cruising or at rest, that generates electricity into a central reservoir, which the final drive to the motors then draws out of as required for accelerating or cruising. This would negate the high revving during acceleration that is one of the most irritating features of underfloor engine DMUs, its’ place taken by a constant hum that would recede into background noise more easily. This saves an average of 15% over the emissions of a standard diesel engine, and up to 30% in the best case scenario.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It will be interesting to see how they class the train, it doesn't seem to fit the loco and stock or multiple unit classes well. Yes it will be a multiple unit but if you can remove coaches from the formation you can't just give the entire set a number.

I think that a new 6XX range for the EDMU hybrid trains would be a good idea, in the same way that the Electro-diesel locomotives had the run of the Class 70-75 range. I don’t think we’ll witness anything approaching the level of flexibility in train formations that is being suggested by some on here: Even the majority of the HST carriage rakes remain unchanged for long periods of time, only changing when an alteration to a proportion or the entirety of the fleet is made (such as FGWs’ recent buffet conversions). Only the power cars are regularly swapped. It would be operationally more convenient for an IEP operator to take an entire set out of use when maintenance is required rather than splitting trains and swapping vehicles in and out of a set, and on a railway where efficiency is king, the minimum number of carriages required to make up the specified number of trains of a certain length will be built, no more. I think the most change we would be likely to see in IEP formations would be akin to East Midlands’ tinkering with its’ Meridian trains: A carriage may be removed from each ten carriage EMU to insert into each five carriage EDMU to make a fleet of nine carriage EMUs and six carriage EDMUs, but I can’t see much in the way of set by set variations.

If needs be, two class numbers could be used to identify powered carriages and driving units, in the same way that the Blue Pullman trains used classes 251 and 261 for power cars and kitchen/parlour cars respectively. It’s worth noting that the kitchen cars on the Blue Pullman trains had an auxiliary underfloor engine to provide train supply, with the large 1000hp engines in the power cars used only for traction power. It’s interesting to see this idea being revived over half a century later…..

 

[DarloRich]

I'll be interested to find what form these trains are going to take... Will they be the motored coaches with unpowered generator cars as originally announced or will they be the short voyager clone that is has been rumored

It will be a Voyager clone - and not suitable for the requirements of the service.

Cant we just build a proper decent train rather than a cattle truck into which you cram as many people as possible.

 

[Daimler]

As Zoe said we won't know for sure until more details arrive (ie a few weeks before the first one is due for testing (and about a year late!)) but my understanding has been that the pure EMU IEP is expected to be longer than the bi-mode IEP. So whilst the bi-mode might only be 5 (which also seems short to me even if it can operate in multiple) the pure EMU might well be 9 or 10 vehicles long.

That was my initial understanding based on numerous MR articles, so things aren't too bad - yes, a 5-car bi-mode is far too short, but frankly that seems the least of its problems!

Said it before and I'll say it again.
Block out the design as homogonous 'Mk5 Carrages' with traction packages and busbar passthrough on each unit. With 'specialist carrages' for either transformers, driving cabs (& crumple zones), and depending on the decision on onboard generators, removable frames of however generators per unit, or a power car.

And for "Using diesel for hotel power while under wires." or "To boost the OHL Supply." no, no, No, No, NO!

What other EMU in the world has diesel to run the heaters and lights? The're small beans compared to the traction motors.

A pendo uses 5.1MW for traction motors, the lights, all the heaters, toilet, air con and everything in a single carrage can't use more than 200kw. so in 10 carrages thats 20kw compared to what I'm estimating to be a 5 or 6Mw traction package...

So really, Wires there, energised, panto and transformer all working, DIESELS OFF!

That is completely insane - don't they realise there's a reason no one else does this?

I think your idea of a 'modular' Mk5 design seems pretty logical. Unfortunately, logic doesn't seem to be playing a major part here...

 

[RichW1]

This is just a horrible feeling that's settling in my stomach. These trains need to be as good comfort-wise as the trains they replace. This looks like the proverbial dogs breakfast of a new rolling stock procurement. Why would anyone want to introduce special needs trains?!!! For god sake, no other country in Europe runs its secondary or primary Intercity services in this way, why the hell are we finding a third way? It's a crap idea and this will turn me off UK trains if I have to watch these piles of rubbish hit our tracks for the next 40years.

Diesel engines powering things whilst under electric power? NO! It's not a personal dislike perse, it's a technical fact that it's a troublesome and ridiculous thing to be doing, not to mention the absolute lies that are being spread about time-savings....absolutely no chance!

Either go electric or stick with diesel but this is a hash of a decision that sounds like 'let's have a bit of this and a bit of that while we're electrifying routes....partially!'

What the hell kind of a policy and rolling stock procurement is that? I know this'll be voyagers mark2 but more pathetic. UK did the best with what little money it had and I fear we're about to have a network of 'inbetweeners'!! Well the only line that will have any respect after this has hit service will be the west coast where at least it's fully electrified and and they have uniformity of stock that fits with a brand.

 

[anthony263]

Seems the WAG are appealing to Westminster to run the wires through to Swansea. Why not do it as part of the valley lines electrification is if does go ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12617694

I was surprised yesterday to not hear anymore news about the Swindon - Kenmble re-doubling as wasnt this supposed to be done to make it easier for London - Swansea trains to be diverted when the severn tunnel is closed when being fitted with wires.

Another shame is that the wires are only going to Bristol TM if they had gone to Taunton then that would have allowed FGW to save up to 8 DMU's which would have been replaced by EMU's which could be class 319's or maybe a new EMU's similar to those being purchased for the crossrail service.

 

[Skimble19]

At least they're not replacing the 225's at East Coast, we'll still have some decent trains!

 

[tbtc]

The five coach portions sounds an interesting way of ensuring that some branches retain a through portion to London - a ten coach train would be too long for a lot of branches (of which the GWML has a few...), and it wouldn't be worth extending platforms for the token number of direct London trains. However, five coach portions may allow this to remain (joining/splitting from the main train at Cardiff/Bristol etc)

Why would anyone want to introduce special needs trains?!!!

 

[RichW1]

The 225's are good but they look dated because of the time at which they were built right at the end of the old and a few years from a design revolution really, not their fault but they do the job well and have great comfort and good acceleration as well as top speed. Still, it would be nice (only from a modernity point of view and not an enthusiasts point of view) to get some standardisation of rolling stock on ECML; such a mish mash of IC trains.

There is a problem with 5 coach trainsets though because of needing as someone already pointed out on here, 2 train crews...total waste.

On a smaller point, can you imagine what diesel stained body sides or fronts will look like with a pantograph on top....look quite a bizarre sight...like an HST with an electric part to it. Just cannot get my head around bi-mode anything, just sounds like extra weight, maintenance over time and worse performance than would otherwise be achieved with diesel haulage at the non-electrified part until the wires arrive. This is a lack of vision for the long-term.

Oh yeh, then there's the extra noise I suggest we could even incur under the wires if these engines are going to be used for powering anything or if not that, then there'll be the vile sound of under-floor engines for over 3 hours between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and Inverness or for that matter any amount of time!!!! Voyagers are a horrible failure of IC train, why on diesel sections should we develop a train that will be louder with more vibrations than an HST off the wires; what a step back!

 

[tbtc]

There is a problem with 5 coach trainsets though because of needing as someone already pointed out on here, 2 train crews...total waste

I agree with the problem of running trains with no corridor connections in multiple (see LM 153s attached to 170s)

However, for a ten coach train, thats a lot for one "gripper" to cover, I can see some logic in giving staff a five coach "patch"

 

[RichW1]

Yeh I'd agree with a 5 coach 'patch' as such on the lesser routes through the Cotswolds or something but on routes needing much longer trains won't this be a problem with crews surely requiring access throughout? I just despair that in this day of railway use we would create 5 coach anything because of the cost benefit ratio of each coach. Just annoying that you can't just say every IC will need to be 11 cars long and where platforms aren't long enough, passenger alight from certain parts of the train. But really, I'd argue that any station with such mainline trains shouldn't be in that predicament anyway as it says a lot about the passenger use of that destination and its status.

It seems when life could be simple, DFT has complicated it which makes me sad because I support the investment in rail they're making - more than any government I can ever remember! But really, let's get some common sense and future proofing in their too!

 

[Daimler]

I agree with the problem of running trains with no corridor connections in multiple (see LM 153s attached to 170s)

However, for a ten coach train, thats a lot for one "gripper" to cover, I can see some logic in giving staff a five coach "patch"

For a guard, maybe, but it would also require two buffet crews, and two sets of first class hosts (and, if it's a train with a travelling chef service, possibly even two catering crews). That's a genuinely bad idea. Not to mention the wasted space of the cabs halfway through the train.

As for platforms being too short, why don't they just build trains pretty much the same length as they are on the GWML now, though with an extra standard class carriage to take advantage of the space saved by not having two powercars? We don't have to get hung up on 'ten coaches'...

Even then, SDO would remove any such problem.

 

[Zoe]

Diesel engines powering things whilst under electric power? NO! It's not a personal dislike perse, it's a technical fact that it's a troublesome and ridiculous thing to be doing, not to mention the absolute lies that are being spread about time-savings....absolutely no chance!

I expect this is only going to be on the bi-mode trains and would be due to needing extra power from the OHL to cart around the engines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For a guard, maybe, but it would also require two buffet crews

Who says there's going to be a buffet? I'm surprised no-one has thought of a vending machine yet on a train.

 

[Daimler]

I expect this is only going to be on the bi-mode trains and would be due to needing extra power from the OHL to cart around the engines.

In which case the traction motors aren't powerful enough! It's ridiculous - at the point of use an electric train should be carbon-neutral. The whole point is that you're trying not to have diesel trains any more! <sobs>

 

[sprinterguy]

Who says there's going to be a buffet? I'm surprised no-one has thought of a vending machine yet on a train.

Omitting a buffet?

On a long distance Intercity service?

Surely they wouldn't! hock:






...Would they?
I've increasingly little faith in the IEP specification offering anything that makes it comparable to being a direct replacement for HSTs...

 

[Zoe]

In which case the traction motors aren't powerful enough!

If the traction motors were not powerful enough then having a diesel engine to power the auxilliary systems wouldn't make any difference. The traction motors are powerful enough but it seems need to be given more power than the OHL can give them due to having to cart the engines around.

 

[Daimler]

If the traction motors were not powerful enough then having a diesel engine to power the auxilliary systems wouldn't make any difference. The traction motors are powerful enough but it seems need to be given more power than the OHL can give them due to having to cart the engines around.

A fair point, but it's still ridiculous - it's not like the OHL is unable to give enough power - think Class 92s.

 

[Zoe]

A fair point, but it's still ridiculous - it's not like the OHL is unable to give enough power - think Class 92s.

We don't know how much power the GWML OHL will be able to give. I'm sure you know that not all OHL instllations give the same amount of power.