IEP Annoucement

[WestCoast]

Yes, it means two Guards, but asking one person to "man" a ten coach 260metre long train is a bit optimistic, it'd take a long time to walk from one end to the other whilst the train is moving. Better to have two people, easier to find someone.

If we are talking strictly about guards, 11-Car Pendolinos will only have one guard ("train manager").

 

[Nym]

Not for London to Northampton services.

Why would that need an IEP when a Desiro City would be much more approriate, if you want 125 stock for the WCML it needs to be EPS or it's just a waste.

 

[Zoe]

If electrification continues as it should, Bi Mode IEPs or 22x stock, the Bi Mode diagrams can be covered by a small infill and electrifying the MML then cascading the 22x stock. So when this happens anyway, it will result in that stock being redundant.

The IEPs can be converted to EMUs and so can Voyager based units.

 

[starrymarkb]

So we will be worse off with fewer seats in each 8 car formation as proposed than we are today?! What a ridiculous state of affairs?

Possibly - remember that each coach will be 3m longer allowing for an extra 2 rows (or an extra table)

 

[Nym]

*bangs his head on brick wall*

By the time the Bi-Mode Trains are built we could have completed enough electrification to NOT NEED TO BUILD THEM AT ALL! And only have Electric only IEP trains.

Building 64 bi-mode half sets that mean either all 22x stock will be redundant in 15 years or itself will be is utterly pointless.

We don't need ANY more Diesel LDPE stock, it can all be acceived by stringing sensible wires and ordering Electric LDPE stock.

Chester - Crewe & Midland Mainline would free enough

 

[Daimler]

What I think people are forgetting is that these are going to be 26m coaches. Once you take out the space for doors/ toilet/ vestibule (which are going to be the same size on any coach), this means a substantial increase in the seating capacity per coach.

That is a very good point, and one I hadn't considered. However, I'm still not convinced by the idea of two customer service crews per train - having two buffets and two first class sections isn't an efficient use of staff, whatever may be argued about the merits of a second guard.

My other concern with short sets is that we're likely to occasionally see a 5 coach train standing in for something that should be longer - or trains that can't quite justify a 10 coach train but are a bit full when run with 5 coaches operating as the latter.

That said, the knowledge that the coaches will be 26 metres long does assuage some of my concerns.

 

[Zoe]

Building 64 bi-mode half sets that mean either all 22x stock will be redundant in 15 years or itself will be is utterly pointless.

They won't be redundant, only the engines will be and it may be worth keeping some of them for emergency power in the event of OHLE failure. The trains can be converted to EMUs and remain in service.

 

[Nym]

What formation do FGW run the HSTs in now? 2+8? Remembering nearly half of the driving cars will need to be crumple zones, is this really an increase in capacity, and why not simply make them 10 car electrics anyway?

Also, *Returns to his wall*

 

[Zoe]

What formation do FGW run the HSTs in now? 2+8? Remembering nearly half of the driving cars will need to be crumple zones, is this really an increase in capacity, and why not simply make them 10 car electrics anyway?

There most likely won't be a buffet car though and we don't know how much will be First Class.

 

[Daimler]

What formation do FGW run the HSTs in now? 2+8? Remembering nearly half of the driving cars will need to be crumple zones, is this really an increase in capacity, and why not simply make them 10 car electrics anyway?

2+8 or 2+7, depending on whether it's a full buffet set or not.

 

[Nym]

Well, the wall raised some good points, but I still think this is a good opertunity ruined, and that NEW Bi Mode trains are a waste of time and a phased withdrawl of HSTs combined with wiring other LDPE routes and ordering appropriate EMUs 390 or other LDPE EMU for them routes to cascade 180, 220, 221 and 222 stock to be converted to EDMU for 'off wires' services on all electrified routes in the UK seems to make a lot more sense.

Lancs Triangle will be finished by 2016, so that crew can toddle off and complete Crewe - Chester in a year or so, post the ICWC units saved off to Bombardier, they install panto cars, et voila ICGW has 20 EDMUs for off wires routes, will still have Life Extended HSTs on the B&H to Penzance, crews bugger off to complete the MML over a period of 3 or 4 years, gradualy phasing out the last HSTs to either Open Access on the ECML somwhere else if theres still life in them so by 2022, HSTs are out of mainstream service, MML and CWE - CHE wired and EDMUs converted from the 22x seried in Derby running all the part wired routes, and the 180s shuttling between Paddinginton and Exeter hourly on the B&H..

 

[starrymarkb]

At best I'm thinking there will be a mini buffet in 5 car sets (Think 444)

 

[swt_passenger]

Why would that need an IEP when a Desiro City would be much more approriate, if you want 125 stock for the WCML it needs to be EPS or it's just a waste.

It would be to use on the 2 tph LM Northampton services that currently run on the fast lines at only 100. A 125 mph EMU would release the immediately following paths for more Pendolino services, and it has been shown that there are significant stretches where an IEP could run at 125 mph without tilt, it's in the route strategy already.

I think it was covered in Modern Railways ages a couple of years ago as well.

 

[Daimler]

At best I'm thinking there will be a mini buffet in 5 car sets (Think 444)

Not impressive considering the bi-modes will logically be operating on longer distance services than the EMUs.

 

[Nym]

Why not just have a big follow on order of 390s that can be used on the Northamptons and Brum/Manc - Scots?

 

[krus_aragon]

Also, the five coach units will be able to detach to serve "branches" which can't justify a 260metre train (and don't have the space to accommodate one). It gives a chance to some early morning/late night services which wouldn't be profitable for a long train, could work okay with a smaller one.

Furthermore, the units can pair up on their way to London, and only take up one path on the busier parts of the network (e.g. Chester/Lancashire Voyager services join together for Crewe-London)

 

[starrymarkb]

Not impressive considering the bi-modes will logically be operating on longer distance services than the EMUs.

Which is what I was thinking!

 

[Blindtraveler]

a point zoe but doesnt the whole thing shout lack of planning to you? More shorter trains in more paths may have been ok then, but not now even. due to rising numbers of passengers thanks to Internet deals and discounts and things like the rising cost of fuel which has hit air travel in particular the higher frequancy runs are themselves experiencing issues. Whats it going to be like in years to come? Iep needs, particularly the bimode moddle needs to take a good loock at this and rethink. You cant easilly find more ECml Paths, and the runs north of EDB see the current 8 or 9 car trains stretched and these figures too wil just keep rising. for me, expensive as its now getting, flying seams to make more sense.

At the time it was thought that by doubling the frequency you could halve the length of the trains. It was only Virgin's aggressive marketing campaign at the start of Operation Princess that resulted in the sudden increased in demand and overcrowding. Had this not been the case we'd likely all be saying what a success it was.

 

[tbtc]

Furthermore, the units can pair up on their way to London, and only take up one path on the busier parts of the network (e.g. Chester/Lancashire Voyager services join together for Crewe-London)

This would make a lot of sense.

e.g. a single unit does Cheltenham - Swindon, or Hereford - Oxford then couples to another unit to head to London

Could even have a Newquay portion on Penzance trains, or a Paignton portion on Plymouth trains or a Fishguard portion on the Swansea services... so longer services into London, fewer paths needed in the Thames Valley etc.

 

[Daimler]

This would make a lot of sense.

e.g. a single unit does Cheltenham - Swindon, or Hereford - Oxford then couples to another unit to head to London

Could even have a Newquay portion on Penzance trains, or a Paignton portion on Plymouth trains or a Fishguard portion on the Swansea services... so longer services into London, fewer paths needed in the Thames Valley etc.

It does make sense, there's no doubt. However, my concerns with regard to the additional staff provision required and - by extension - the provision of service on these new trains would still not be answered. It would be disappointing - particularly with regard to the Newquay/Penzance example - if a full buffet (and preferably travelling chef) service could not be offered on the longest journeys on the GWML.

I'm not sure how to resolve this issue while keeping the advantages of fixed-formation trains. Obviously, in 'the old days' portions to places such as Newquay would divide from the 'main train' rather than just having the main train split at a station, meaning that the Newquay 'portion' would enjoy the full level of service until the junction station, without needing to duplicate first class hosts, buffet staff, or - I think crucially when we're talking about trains which will have just five coaches - the large buffet/galley area needed to prepare good on-train food (or even serve a reasonable selection of pre-prepared food).

While I'm not advocating a return to trains which have no fixed formation, I do think that with regard to offering passengers the service that such long journeys 'deserve', two short trains may not be ideal.

 

[Blindtraveler]

they may not use ful speed capabilitty but units such as voyagers and 180s can in 15 or so years time be refurbished and transferred to runs like WAG express, Wales to manchester/Birmingham, Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/Inverness with extended EDMU versions put onto some TPE runs which by then may wel have a mish of wired and unwired sections. This in turn releases units like 170s which by then will be 20 to 25 years old for suburban work, baring in mind that by then units such as 158s will be gone and the turboes by then wil be nearly gone too so even if its glory days are over we wil stil need stock and with a bit of luck future governments wil take a better look at wires and if this happens and more schemes go ahead a lot of Dmu Units woant be replaced meaning the voyagers and there friends could spend there final years in traffic running fast commuter trains, all be it rebuilt to that type of spec.

Why not just have a big follow on order of 390s that can be used on the Northamptons and Brum/Manc - Scots?

 

[w1bbl3]

This would make a lot of sense.

e.g. a single unit does Cheltenham - Swindon, or Hereford - Oxford then couples to another unit to head to London

Could even have a Newquay portion on Penzance trains, or a Paignton portion on Plymouth trains or a Fishguard portion on the Swansea services... so longer services into London, fewer paths needed in the Thames Valley etc.

Whilst that does make sense however on that basis DaFT have seriously over ordered IEP electric for GWML and under ordered bimode..

The way I see it is remote locations beyond electrification are going to be downgraded to core only service...

As an example IEP GWML "core" (offpeak) is supposed to have:
5tph to bristol >
thus
1tph to swansea = IEP bi-mode
1tph to cardiff = IEP electric
1.5tph to temple meads = IEP electric
1.5tph to the west = IEP bi-mode
0.5tph to cheltenham = bi-mode
1tp to worcester = IEP bi-mode

Now I make that only 2.5tph IEP electric's required for the off peak service, for peak it actually gets worse.

GWML Peak
2tph to swansea = IEP bi-mode
1tph to temple meads? = IEP electric
1tph to weston super-mare = IEP bi-mode
1tph to the west = IEP bi-mode?
2tph to worcester = IEP bi-mode

Yet the order ratio is 60% bimode, 40% electric.

Can you imagine the choas of basically a pure 2x5 IEP bi-mode service turning up at reading in the peak which is what will happen if swansea and cheltenham are not downgraded to 1tph and 0.5tph peak respectively.

The bi-modes should have been ordered as 5 car and 8 car sets not just 5 car's for doubling up, anyway out of peak are all the bimodes really going to end up tucked away at old oak and st philips marsh so the eletric's can come out.
In doing so there would be a crazy amount of ECS moves to rid paddington, temple meads and cardiff of bimodes having come from beyond the wires that are not needed until the evening rush.

 

[Zoe]

I will say again, Temple Meads to London is to be 4 tph. Unless Philip Hammond isn't telling the truth this is most likely what we will get.

 

[w1bbl3]

Well either FGW as the local TOC are giving out the wrong information or the transport Secretary is, we'll have to wait until 2016 to find out which party was correct of course

Do wonder where DaFT think two temple meads IEP electric terminators are to going to be stabled as IIRC there are not two spare easterly bays suitable for 8 car sets, or will these continue on elsewhere as bimodes.. say exeter / taunton.

 

[WatcherZero]

Could be bays or sidings built somewhere as part of the electrification construction. Station platform modifications often happen during rolling stock programmes. I also make the existing two eastern facing bays at 350m.

 

[bnm]

I will say again, Temple Meads to London is to be 4 tph. Unless Philip Hammond isn't telling the truth this is most likely what we will get.

With Matthew Golton of FGW saying otherwise at the Travelwatch South West meeting this past Saturday. He said that Bristol will have a total of 5tph but didn't make clear how they would be routed. Logically Bristol Parkway will keep it's 2tph service to Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads will keep 2tph routed via Bath Spa. That only leaves 1 additional service.

 

[Zoe]

Don't forget the ability of the IEP to split. One of the Welsh services could split at Bristol Parkway with half going to Temple Meads.

 

[swt_passenger]

With Matthew Golton of FGW saying otherwise at the Travelwatch South West meeting this past Saturday. He said that Bristol will have a total of 5tph but didn't make clear how they would be routed. Logically Bristol Parkway will keep it's 2tph service to Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads will keep 2tph routed via Bath Spa. That only leaves 1 additional service.

The GW RUS has 5 tph to 'Bristol' offpeak with IEP and electrifcation. It has 2to Temple Meads via Bath, 2 to South Wales via Bristol Parkway, and the extra one is to Temple Meads via Parkway.

 

[anthony263]

Wasn't there an idea with the extra London - Bristol TM service to allow the London - South wales services to be sped up by missing out some stations such as Didcot parkway?

 

[gwilisandt]

It is possible to have two high speed 5-car trains coupled together and only one train crew.
The Japan Railways have a few trains designed this way..

See this site for the series 681 train, used by JR West.
http://www.mtm.or.jp/eng/railway/ec/681.html

The flat end has corridor connections that come out of the covers on the front, so two flat ends can be coupled together. Obviously it needs careful planning to make sure the two flat ends end up together, so probably won't happen in the UK!

The raised drivers cab may have trouble with our loading gauge too.

Mike.