IEP Annoucement

[w1bbl3]

I don't really think NXEC (Anglia) will have any real use for them. They're overpowered, too heavy for SP speed limits and diesel rather than electric. Possibly removing the engines and fitting pantograph and transformers would work, but they're more likely to go to TPX or XC, where their high speed and diesel engines would be more useful. Even FGW could use them on semi-fast services on main lines.

I had considered the idea of cascading on to TPX or XC in both cases where does the relatively young fleet currently used cascade onto... voyagers are IMHO to big for class 158/159 replacement and the poor route availability of class 185's precludes the same.
TPX just needs extra cars inserting into the current fleet not different trains.

Voyagers could be converted to bimode and kept with XC by insertion of a pantograph car. Lengthening the fleet by one or two cars and ideally ordering a few additional sets makes sense generally anyway, as with passenger growth they are already to small for the route.

Meridian's do at least generally have one surplus car (the buffet) in each set that could be taken out of service for conversion into a pantograph / transformer car. I can't recall when Anglia / NXEA last acquired new build trainset's for GEML london services. The mkIII's where IIRC cascaded as HST stock built up and the 90's came from WCML. DVT's where new builds to reduce operating cost off the back of the 91's & mk4 being ordered for ECML.

IMHO MML would be more suited to 390's or 395's stock as a future order than IEP should electrification ever happen.

 

[ainsworth74]

The mkIII's where IIRC cascaded as HST stock built up and the 90's came from WCML. DVT's where new builds to reduce operating cost off the back of the 91's & mk4 being ordered for ECML.

I think you're getting confused. The 90s+Mk3s+DVT came almost straight from Virgin off of the WCML (I think some might well have been used by GNER temporarily in between use on WCML and GEML). Before then the GEML had been operated by 86s+Mk2s+Mk2 DBSOs. Of that the Mk2 coaching stock was I think new build, not sure about the 86s they might not have been, I'm not sure.

Intercity stock on the GEML never had anything to do with the build up of HSTs in the late 70s early 80s and everything to do with the arrival of 390s on the WCML. Similarly the DVTs originate from the WCML push-pull sets. Once the 390s entered squadron service the 90s+Mk3s headed of to the GEML.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The 86s were secondhand; moved to the GEML after electrification.

Before that 47s were used.

Ironically the 86s were themselves available as a result of some startlingly new traction on the WCML which was called class 90s...

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks for that, always been a bit curious about the traction history on the GEML. When was electrification completed by the by?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Sorry... can't remember exactly; I'll have to look it up but I suspect I'll get beaten to it by someone else...

 

[ainsworth74]

It's all good thanks for the traction info

 

[WatcherZero]

Some new details in latest RAIL

Depots
North Pole depot - main depot (former Eurostar depot)
Stoke Gifford (Bristol) - secondary depot (new build in the middle of the Bristol lines fork)
Swansea Malliphant - overnight servicing
Cardiff Tidal - overnight servicing
Worcester - overnight servicing (shared facility)
Exeter - overnight servicing (shared facility)
Plymouth Laira - overnight servicing (shared facility)

IEP
The bi-mode power will be a 670-940hp (500-700kw) AGU under three coachs, each AGU weighs 16t and one would have been carried by the EMU version to allow a 40mph limp home anyway so they decided to use the AGU as primary power and so it saves weight on a single power car which would have weighed 60t. Agility admit they got the initial design wrong saying they were stuck in the HST mentality designing a like for like replacement rather than improving the formation. The power rating is a range as while their base design engine is the Cummins QSK19 which develops 550kw they are also talking to other engine builders and asking them to compete on price/performance. The engines being offered are Euro 3B truck engines with slight modifications which have better emmission standards than any off the shelf Loco engine due to size. They say they prefer the 700kw engine size as it offers highest performance. Two engines have been bought and will be tested under a passenger car in Japan from September to check noise and vibration levels. They openly admit that catering crews will have to be doubled.

Trains have got heavier, a larger transformer was fitted because of the under supply of power on earlier design the 10 car version now has 4.5MW over original 4MW, but also Dft have mandated other improvements on original bid spec such as reclining seats in first class, more tables, partition doors, more electrical sockets, bike storage, luggage storage and conductors rooms and a cafe bar. They have also strengthened the crashworthiness of the passenger cabins. This all means the ten car trains now weigh 438t compared to their bid weight of 412t and Dft specification of max 362t with a target weight of 332t.

Coachs originally had two doors at either end of the coach where they tapered to maintain clearance on corners but they realised that that would make large stepping distances on curved platforms so doors have been moved slightly towards the centre of the coach before the tapering and the space at the ends is now occupied by toilets/guards room/bike or luggage storage. This did however mean they could get rid of retractable steps and save maintenence hassles and speeds door opening.

They have only just started meeting to discuss the interior layouts but this will vary by operator and service it operates, some will have a full kitchen while others will have a cafe bar and storage/seating/toilets depends on the type of service operated.

The maximum length of the trains will 12 car by simply adding in another carriage though Dft's initial order will be 5 and 8 car sets, Agility have also already prepared a 12 car IEP design to bid on the replacement of East Coasts IC225's, in that design five cars would be traction powered and there would be one diesel engine for limp home mode.

Power
Train/Electric power/diesel power/weight (tare)/seats/weight per seat
5 Car Bi-mode, 2.6MW, 1.5-2.1MW, 249t, 309, 0.81t
5 car Electric, 2.6MW, n/a, 233t, 309, 0.75t
10 car electric, 4.5MW, n/a, 438t, 696, 0.63t

Formation
Five Car
1. DPTS, 60 seats standard
2. MeS, 88 seats standard
3. M(e)S, 64 seats standard, catering
4. M(e)C, 30 seats first, 38 seats standard
5. DPTF, 29 seats first, disabled toilet

Eight Car
1. DPTS, 48 seats standard, disabled toilet
2. M(e)S, 88 seats standard
3. MES, 88 seats standard
4. TS, 72 seats standard, cafe bar
5. TS, 88 seats standard
6. M(e)C, 30 seats first, 38 seats standard
7. M(e)F, 56 seats first
8. DPTF, 20 seats first, kitchen

D- Driving Car, P- pantograph, T- trailer car, M- motor car, e- diesel engine, (e)- diesel engine in bi-mode version, S- standard class, C- standard and first class, F- First class.

 

[w1bbl3]

Interesting I didn't think GWML plymouth was to form part of the IEP service, obviously it is if Laira being used for overnight servicing. I assume the diesel power figures are for 550kw engines not 700kw.

Also of note is the weight per passenger which is lower than:
Super voyager at 1.13t
Pendolino at 1.05t
Voyager at 0.93t
Class 180 at 0.87t
Class 395 at 0.81t

for all power options, if the figures prove correct then wow, Hitachi have designed one of the lightest intercity trains available in Europe.

IEP electric is not far off best in class figures for a European electric trainset. I can very much see Hitachi collecting follow on orders for MML, ECML 225 and GWML west assuming the trains are reliable in service.

 

[silentone]

In their effort to make it simpler it seems to have gotten incredibly and hideously more complex.

I've already heard grumblings about Aberdeen & Inverness being made up of 2 5-car sets and how they would have to be double crewed.

I've also never quite understood why the kitchens on newer trains are located in the driving cars, on the MK3 & 4's it seems quite sensible to have them in the centre of the train for various reasons. The biggest I can think of is a fire, it's hardly an everyday event, in the centre of the train it splits the train in two (the vehicle can be removed at a depot). But surely that's better than having it up next to the driver!! After the fire this would mean the entire driving car would be removed and the entire train could end up out of service.

 

[Ivo]

Does it really make sense to have the disabled toilet in First?

 

[silentone]

Really there should be one in each, and I'm pretty sure that with the DDA even the HST's where going to have to be fitted with First Class disabled toilets eventually.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've also never quite understood why the kitchens on newer trains are located in the driving cars, on the MK3 & 4's it seems quite sensible to have them in the centre of the train for various reasons.

My understanding is that it's due to safety regulations requiring that the first 1/3 or so of the leading vehicle of a train which operates at 100mph+ cannot have passenger accommodation. So to try and put this otherwise dead space to some use builders have started putting the kitchen in this space. I agree it doesn't really make much practical sense but then what is these days when it comes to procuring new rolling stock?

 

[silentone]

My understanding is that it's due to safety regulations requiring that the first 1/3 or so of the leading vehicle of a train which operates at 100mph+ cannot have passenger accommodation. So to try and put this otherwise dead space to some use builders have started putting the kitchen in this space. I agree it doesn't really make much practical sense but then what is these days when it comes to procuring new rolling stock?

This whole thing has turned into some farce! It should have been left to the new operators of each franchise to include the provision of new rolling-stock. In the great aim of the government not to micro-manage the railway they are doing exactly what they planned not to do.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I'm with Silentone on this one, i'm going to take a lot of convincing about the entire project. For anyone who can answer, woant the likes of ABD and INV services use 8 car bi-mode rather than 2x 5 car? Even the single 8 car is going to have some fun and games with platform lengths north of EDB.

The article says there planning to test the engines for internal vibrations etc, are any UK passenger groups being included here, as its us thats gotta put up with them!

Also hope they dont make the voyager mistake of too many disabled loos. Oh and on a closely related subject, no pendo/voyager/varius other modern smelly toilet problems please!

 

[klewer]

Thanks for that, always been a bit curious about the traction history on the GEML. When was electrification completed by the by?

Southern part (up to Colchester) was done in the 60's with the wires being extended to Norwich/Harwich around 1985-86.

 

[sprinterguy]

So with the doors moved in slightly from the carriage ends, the available saloon length is likely to be very similar to a 23 metre carriage, the difference being that the entire length of the saloon will be available for seating, as the toilets and luggage storage will be at the outer end of the carriage. Taking the mark 3 carriage as a model, purely because the small amount of space at each end of the carriage taken up by toilets makes it easy to envisage the space available if they were stripped out and replaced by seating, I can just about envisage 88 seats being fitted in to the available space over the 1980s HST TS compliment of 76. It seems to be a fairly practical use of space, although I wonder how effectively used the luggage storage areas would be in this arrangement when they are completely separate from the passenger saloon, when many passengers would like to be able to keep an eye on their luggage at all times.

Secondly, I’m concerned about the initial order for eight carriage trains, with the option to extend to ten carriages: I have a feeling that this is likely to lead to the same sort of farce witnessed with plans to lengthen Pendolinos and Voyagers. Although if further builds of IEP trains are secured for ECML 225 replacement this may not be such an issue, and conversely the 26 metre carriage length and the fact that there is seating in the driving carriages means that the seating in an eight carriage IEP train still compares well to the current total seating in a FGW 2+8 HST.

All in all, it could be a lot worse than what has been announced.

 

[Zoe]

It should have been left to the new operators of each franchise to include the provision of new rolling-stock.

We all know what the result was when we trusted Virgin Cross Country with that. Their reasoning may well have been sound but didn't take into account an increase in demand.

woant the likes of ABD and INV services use 8 car bi-mode rather than 2x 5 car? Even the single 8 car is going to have some fun and games with platform lengths north of EDB.

I don't think there is going to be an eight car version of the bi-mode train. Only the electric will have both five and eight car versions. Is there really demand for eight coaches between Edinbrugh and Aberdeen//Inverness? If not then it would be logical to split into two five car units at Edinburgh with one going to Aberdeen and the other to Inverness.

 

[ainsworth74]

We all know what the result was when we trusted Virgin Cross Country with that. Their reasoning may well have been sound but didn't take into account an increase in demand.

Yes but don't forget once they realised their mistake they did try to correct it by getting the Voyagers lengthened but were blocked by the SRA (or DfT or whoever the hell was in charge back then!) from doing so leaving us in the situation we are in today.

 

[silentone]

We all know what the result was when we trusted Virgin Cross Country with that. Their reasoning may well have been sound but didn't take into account an increase in demand.


I don't think there is going to be an eight car version of the bi-mode train. Only the electric will have both five and eight car versions. Is there really demand for eight coaches between Edinbrugh and Aberdeen//Inverness? If not then it would be logical to split into two five car units at Edinburgh with one going to Aberdeen and the other to Inverness.

Probably not the proposed 8 cars everday of the week, but certainly 5 isn't enough either and the thought of having the train split and goto Aberdeen & Inverness is going to be another farce. The post above seems to suggest a bi-mode 5-car, electric 5-car, plus an 8-car electric although then indicates an 8-car bi-mode.

The length of the train north of Edinburgh probably won't be an issue as I'd guess the trains will have selective door operation.

 

[Zoe]

Where has it been said that there will be an eight car bi-mode? WatcherZero's post suggests only five car bi-mode trains. Actually reading that posts suggests ten and not eight car EMUs.

 

[Blindtraveler]

We all know what the result was when we trusted Virgin Cross Country with that. Their reasoning may well have been sound but didn't take into account an increase in demand.


I don't think there is going to be an eight car version of the bi-mode train. Only the electric will have both five and eight car versions. Is there really demand for eight coaches between Edinbrugh and Aberdeen//Inverness? If not then it would be logical to split into two five car units at Edinburgh with one going to Aberdeen and the other to Inverness.

aberdeen needs more than 5 coaches longer than 5 coaches, longer as they may be. The wriggers make these v busy and even the hsts can leave edb full and standing. Inverness, with only 1 daytime working to london, again vv popular will need more than 1 5 coach iep too! Failure to do this wil in both cases result in major crouding and to make it that bit harder, scotrails turbostars have very few spare seats, esp to inv

 

[Zoe]

How well do the Voyagers to Aberdeen cope?

 

[ChrisCooper]

This is just becoming rediculous. We are supposed to be getting some light weight train, which is now turning into the usual bloated mess we always get. This includes the electric version which is going to be carrying around an extra 16t of engine for no reason (how many other EMUs in the world have an engine for "limp home" and how often will it actually be used?). We're getting loads of 5 car trains with the need to double up crews and other facilities, and the need to split and join on route. This is despite supposedly the time to attach and detach locos being the killer for loco haulage or dragging. I though we (as in anyone with a clue about modern railways) were supposed to dislike splitting and joining on route anyway due to the time taken, the reliability issues and the safety risk (permissive working at platforms, trains carrying passengers deliberatly being crashed into each other!!!). Oh yes, we're not allowed to have a loco waiting in the platform and the train come up behind it and couple on, but having a unit in the platform and another unit coming up behind and coupling is totally different!

At the end of the day, IEP is a train designed (although that word is used loosly) by accountants and pen pushers with seeminly conflicting interests, with engineers interfearing with their own conflicting interests (including attempting not to break the laws of physics). They'll probably have to throw some stylists on the job before it's finalised to make sure its all sexy enough.

It's just one big white elephant and a massive laughing stock before it's even gone into service.

 

[Blindtraveler]

How well do the Voyagers to Aberdeen cope?

morning loadings are light due to timings and route, evenings are vv crouded and runs to london wil be murder!

5 cars just aint enough!

 

[Zoe]

This is despite supposedly the time to attach and detach locos being the killer for loco haulage or dragging.

If you read through the thread you will see this wasn't the only reason why locomotive haulage was not an option. It also seemed that Hitachi didn't want to build a locomotive and you also hae to take into account the CO2 emissions of a locomotive. Locomotive haulage also quite simply can't offer the benefits of a multiple unit.

 

[Christopher125]

The irony of all this? The Mk3 bodyshell has been found to be good for at least another 25 years.

 

[159220]

I would like to make a few points.

Firstly, who has been to Japan here? I have travelled around the country for 10 plus days on there superb rail network. Not only the Bullet trains (N700 Series AMAZING!) yet also regional intercity services (Including DMUs). When i heard Hitachi had won the contract i was thrilled. Trains in Japan are amazing and put to shame modern products such as the Desiros and Voyagers etc here. Firstly these SETs are going to be the lighest Intercity train product in Europe! Congrats to the Japanese! Then I read a comment about testing the engines in Japan for noise and vibration. Well having been there, i can assure the poster i would place the Japanese at an even higher level to us when it comes to enternal train environment demands, thus please dont mock the Japanese tests and assume they shall be invalid as "what do the Japanese know".

Secondly, All this talk of how awful 2x5 Bi-SETs shall be? Well i think this is a good thing. Now we have alot of long intercity trains running about air, what a waste! Also splitting services is nothing new in SWT land. Class 159s regulary form together to extend services where there is demand, rather than sending 6 cars down to Exeter when it shall be half full, 3 cars go. Yes i hear you all cry....Arhh but there are no corridor connections on the SETs. Correct, but when a 2x159 is formed, you will almost always have a crew of 2, plus the driver. What would be so different with 2xSET? Nothing, yet the savings from sending 8 empty cars on lesser demanded routes is hugly beneficial. Not to mention the Jobs created. We all complain that TOCs are getting rid of this and that member of staff. We should be pleased that 2x5 Bi-SETs as a standard demand a crew of 2, more secure jobs is not a bad thing!

Please also remember these SETs shall not be running to current diagrams. You can argue a HST is full and standing from Inverness to Edinburgh, yet there is one service a day currently. With the ECML gaining 35 Bi-SETs i would highly imagine the frequency on this line shall be increased.

SETs in 5 car formations may seem madness in current timetables, but please remember we are talking about a net increase in seats and serivices. 5 car Bi-SETs allow for more point to point Intercity travel, which might of not been justified if the Bi-SET was fixed at 10 cars. Also we must remember, before these are introduced we shall see new TOCs, within their proposals for 15 year contracts (The very basis is in allowing the TOCs to say what they need to run the minimum service requirement), it shall be up to the new TOCs to say they wish to have 8 car Bi-SETs, 12 car Electric SETs, SETs for Cornwall, SETs on the MML etc. The government has set the "minimum" order to get the project going, for follow on orders. Simply put Hitachi have said, additional coaches are easily put into their basic design pattern, up to 12 cars.

Added to this the SETs are a Hitachi product, the Japanese truly understand Intercity train travel to exceptionally high levels and i gladly welcome these trains to the UK as the IEP project to provide us with modern, efficient, light and flexiable to new service patterns trains.

Lastly, RIP HST. Yes they are great, but we need to start accepting they are to be replaced. (Was on one last week, the Mk3 was looking so rusty!) As a passanger, i cannot wait for a modern train environment. I might even be tempted to choose FGW SETs over SWT 159s to get to Exeter! (and i love 159s!!)

 

[Zoe]

The irony of all this? The Mk3 bodyshell has been found to be good for at least another 25 years.

The coaches may well last but will the power cars?

 

[Daimler]

If you read through the thread you will see this wasn't the only reason why locomotive haulage was not an option. It also seemed that Hitachi didn't want to build a locomotive and you also hae to take into account the CO2 emissions of a locomotive. Locomotive haulage also quite simply can't offer the benefits of a multiple unit.

You keep saying this as though there is no argument, which is quite frustrating. Yes, units have a number of benefits, but so does the idea of partial locomotive haulage.

It's not a foregone conclusion as to which is best - it depends very much on from which particular perspective you are analysing things - it's very much a matter of opinion as to what the best option is!

As for the CO2 emissions of a locomotive...erm, surely a diesel unit also produces CO2 (and before you say locos produce more, I recall a survey revealing that the 220s are the dirtiest trains running on the network today - I think it was CO2 per passenger being measured or something...).

 

[ChrisCooper]

Would be interesting to know what the CO2 per seat is for a Voyager and a dragged Pendolino on Crewe to Hollyhead, especially if the weight of a useless (for that part) pantograph coach is taken into account.

I wish some people would get it into their heads that not everyone who dislikes IEP won't accept the need for HSTs to be replaced. What people dislike is the current offering of IEP, which afterall includes HSTs going on for many years yet! HST fanboys should be wetting themselves. It's funny how much double standards there are in things like this too, those who toe the line rarely come in for similar criticism, yet could be just as much viewed as being blinkered that "new is best", that the Japs know best (despite the current offering being far from what they would have offered given free reign). Oh and lightest intercity trains in Europe. 43.8t per coach for the 10car electric (5 car will be heavier due to doubling up of some of the heavy equipment), compared to a Voyager at 46.4t, hardly a massive improvement, particularly as the Voyager is a 4 car DEMU compared to a 10car EMU. I bet the 5 car bi-mode comes out heavier than a Voyager, and remember this is the same Voyager that the IEP is supposed to be *so* much better than.

I have to admit though, I find it funny that a train that hasn't even been built, let alone entered service, can have so many rabid fanboys (although admitedly to, so many rabid haters). At least though the haters can come up with better arguments than "but it's *new* and shiny and sexy and JAPANESE!! so it *MUST* be good!!!!!