IEP Construction Progress

[edwin_m]

- An all electric train had two under-floor transformer + cab cars at the ends.
- A bi-mode train had one transformer and one diesel/battery cab car.
- A diesel train had two diesel/battery cab cars.
...
The diesel engined power cars have 2MW max power at rail per power car, plus an additional 2MW for 90 seconds from the battery (or 1MW for 3 minutes, etc). So the 10 car all diesel model had full time 4MW (the limit of the rake's traction motors) and the electric and bi-mode variants also had 4MW continuous when running on overhead.
...
So the original bi-mode IEP offered:

- 4MW under the wires (which will be most of the core GWML / ECML routes) and is therefore more than good enough for 125 mph.

Thanks for this detail but there's one point I'm still unclear on. What is the rating of each transformer?

It seems to me that if it is 4MW then there is no need for two transformers on the straight electric, since 4MW is the rating of the traction motors, and the other transformer car could be used for passenger space instead. If it is 2MW then a bi-mode on electric would only have half the power of an electric unit, unless the diesel was used under the wires at critical times. I think this was one of RF's concerns. Or is the bi-mode half the length/weight of the others?

 

[Rhydgaled]

It seems to me that if it is 4MW then there is no need for two transformers on the straight electric, since 4MW is the rating of the traction motors, and the other transformer car could be used for passenger space instead.

I don't think there ever was a non-passenger transformer car proposed. The electric version I think was always going to be an EMU, which passengers in all vehicles. It was the self-powered (diesel/hybrid) and bi-mode versions that were once going to have a power car carrying no passengers.

Or is the bi-mode half the length/weight of the others?

I think there were full-length and half-length options for all three train types (electric, self-powered and bi-mode). The self-powered versions would have had two non-passenger-carrying diesel power cars, the bi-mode only one such vehicle. I think the concern was that the single power car would not be enough to accelerate a full-length bi-mode up some of the steepest gradients IEP was intended to tackle (I think I read the words 'Devon Banks' in connection with that once or twice).

 

[33Hz]

The transformer is 4MW and is under the floor of the end car - which was to have seating. The reason for two is not just for standardisation of the cars, but for redundancy.

You can see the layouts in the link I provided above.

I think the concern was that the single power car would not be enough to accelerate a full-length bi-mode up some of the steepest gradients IEP was intended to tackle (I think I read the words 'Devon Banks' in connection with that once or twice).

And this is where the common misunderstanding about the purpose of the batteries comes in. As I said, the batteries plus engine could provide the same power as an HST and significantly more traction force for 270 seconds (4.5 minutes) which would be enough to clear such hills - assuming the same battery capacity as the prototype Hayabusa. In fact, I'd say they had enough mass capacity spare on IEP to carry even more storage if needed - not to mention that Hitachi has produced two generations of battery since the ones on that test train, with even better energy density.

 

[edwin_m]

The transformer is 4MW and is under the floor of the end car - which was to have seating. The reason for two is not just for standardisation of the cars, but for redundancy.

Thanks - that clears it up.

Sometime when I have more time than now I will plough through the Roger Ford articles and try to remember what his objection actually was.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think Roger Ford's main objection to the original spec (that DfT supposedly OKd with Hitachi) was that he didn't believe the alleged performance of the 10 car bi-mode when off the wires, because the single diesel power pack was only the same rating as that of a 5 car unit, (as the other 'power car' contained the electric half of the train's power) and could therefore not meet the performance of the HST.

 

[gordonthemoron]

You have to take into consideration the costs for the failed coupling/uncoupling attempt and the disruption it causes when two sets that are booked to split or attach can't. I was talking to a fitters from Siemens recently and he said the Germans can't believe how much we constantly couple and uncouple trains in this country.

Really, I presume that Siemens fitters are aware of how much ICE2, ICE3 & ICETs are split/joined by DB? Plus regional services. I would say that spilt/join is more common in germany than UK

 

[euryalus]

Has anyone noted that the proposed new trains will be only 2.7 metres wide - as opposed to an average of about 2.82 metres for classic dmus such as the Class 117 units; it seems to me that the new generation express units will be as cheap and nasty as the hated Voyagers.

 

[ainsworth74]

Have you read the train specification? It would appear that the DfT are doing everything possible to specify a train that will be anything but a Voyager...

 

[gordonthemoron]

Aren't they narrower to accommodate the extra length (and are they narrow for the entire coach length or just the ends?)

 

[asylumxl]

Aren't they narrower to accommodate the extra length (and are they narrow for the entire coach length or just the ends?)

Just the ends. As the length of the coach increases, the taper needed at the ends increases but the main width can be kept the same.

 

[euryalus]

Have you read the train specification? It would appear that the DfT are doing everything possible to specify a train that will be anything but a Voyager...

The specification quoted on the "IEP" website gives a width of only 2.7 metres.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The specification quoted on the "IEP" website gives a width of only 2.7 metres.

He wasn't referring to the width. You stated they will be hated like Voyagers. He is pointing out that there is actually specifications in the procurement stating there cannot be any toilet smell, vibration minimised, percentage of seats lining up with windows, minimum amount of table seats etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

[joeykins82]

Also, because IEP won't be tilting, the vertical taper will be more akin to the mk3/4 or the 222 than the 220/221/390.

 

[LexyBoy]

The specification quoted on the "IEP" website gives a width of only 2.7 metres.

In other words, the same as the coaches they are replacing (2.74 and 2.73 for Mk 3 and Mk 4 respectively). But longer.

2.8 metres is only common for 20 metre coaches, as used on suburban formations. Only the Turbos are 23 x 2.8+ metres, and because of that they can't go everywhere a 158 (for instance) can.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Also, because IEP won't be tilting, the vertical taper will be more akin to the mk3/4 or the 222 than the 220/221/390.

I thought the 222 has exactly the same body shell as the 220 & 221, complete with the taper?

 

[ainsworth74]

They do but the superior space managment (more stuff under the floor) means that the interior doesn't feel quite as cramped overhead.

 

[joeykins82]

The 222 always felt much more... square. These pictures seem to back that up, although it's possible that it's just the angle they were taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Refurbished222008.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:221129_C_Super_Voyager_Standard_Class_Internal.JPG

 

[ainsworth74]

They have the same bodyshell but the 222s have more stuff under the floor so the overhead feels more spacious as there isn't as much up there. The 222s also benefit from Bombardier having learned from the 220/221 production run so could tweak the design a bit to improve it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Aren't they narrower to accommodate the extra length (and are they narrow for the entire coach length or just the ends?)

Don't use logic to explain these things! It gets in the way of people who like moaning about supposed penny-pinching!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Have you read the train specification? It would appear that the DfT are doing everything possible to specify a train that will be anything but a Voyager...

Except for ordering them in short (5-car) formations. That's probably the biggest problem with Voyagers, since it is probably the hardest to fix (other than perhaps underfloor engine noise, which if I'm pedantic is another thing that won't be avoided with IEP away from the wires) and many of the others would be solved if that one was.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Except for ordering them in short (5-car) formations. That's probably the biggest problem with Voyagers, since it is the hardest to fix and many of the others would be solved if that one was.

Not enough ordered for XC to double up, plenty ordered for GW and EC to double up.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Not enough ordered for XC to double up, plenty ordered for GW and EC to double up.

EC yes, they have ordered enough to run them in pairs if they want. As for the GW, no they haven't. No way have they ordered enough to run them all doubled up. And personally, I think it is neater to run 8/9-car trains in the off-peak than pay for a 10-car train and leave 5 of those coaches in the sidings off-peak. I'm discounting portion working because I don't think it is a good thing with 120mph+ units.

 

[YorkshireBear]

EC yes, they have ordered enough to run them in pairs if they want. As for the GW, no they haven't. No way have they ordered enough to run them all doubled up. And personally, I think it is neater to run 8/9-car trains in the off-peak than pay for a 10-car train and leave 5 of those coaches in the sidings off-peak. I'm discounting portion working because I don't think it is a good thing with 120mph+ units.

Didn't say all said plenty. And that also depend son whether you have it doubled up all the way. As we know 5 cars will extend to the out reaches with 10 car on the central part.

 

[zn1]

IEP - a waste of all that money, how long did hst take to develop and go in to squadron service...this should have happened years ago...it needs to be bi-powered. simple.. build a voyager type unit, lob a pan on it, a transformer, place a diesel power divert in to the circuits JOB DONE...Bombardier wanted to do this and should have bit bullet and just developed the project. with the extra coach handling the overhead/dc plant would have been a simple unit to test as well, HS2 at night ???

 

[TheGrew]

Apparently the economics of the evoyager project didn't work out otherwise yes that would have made sense.

 

[The Ham]

Except for ordering them in short (5-car) formations. That's probably the biggest problem with Voyagers, since it is probably the hardest to fix (other than perhaps underfloor engine noise, which if I'm pedantic is another thing that won't be avoided with IEP away from the wires) and many of the others would be solved if that one was.

The reason that 5 car sets are too short for the voyager's is that there's only 5 coach sets meaning that there is no way to reconfigure them without putting valuable coaches into storage meaning you end up with less seats on the network. Conversely IEP has a limited number of 5 car sets, meaning that they could if need be lengthened if needed without needing more to be built. Also there will be a lot more coaches than the voyagers have (473 voyager coaches compared with 806 for IEP).

The other big difference is that Hitachi wants to break into the European market so wants to keep its factory busy. Therefore follow on orders maybe fairly easy to get as the production line may have quiet periods until there is another big order. What better way to use that spare capacity than with a small follow on order to keep your European presence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
(just as a note the number given above is for all 22x class coaches including the 222's)

 

[NotATrainspott]

IEP - a waste of all that money, how long did hst take to develop and go in to squadron service...this should have happened years ago...it needs to be bi-powered. simple.. build a voyager type unit, lob a pan on it, a transformer, place a diesel power divert in to the circuits JOB DONE...Bombardier wanted to do this and should have bit bullet and just developed the project. with the extra coach handling the overhead/dc plant would have been a simple unit to test as well, HS2 at night ???

If by 'voyager type unit' you mean a train with electric motors powering the wheels then IEP is one. Then they're fitting a pantograph and transformer (or two) to it. Then they're fitting diesel engines to some of the carriages as well. Then they're making sure that the toilets don't smell and that they have enough seats on them.

The opinion of most railway people it seems is that the Voyager design was an unmitigated failure. There is enough wrong with it that the IEP spec document specifically deals with every single problem people had with them so that it would not be repeated. As this spec document is what the bids for IEP had to meet, there wasn't much of the Voyager design suitable for a new build fleet to replace the HSTs.

Bombardier were offering to add pantograph carriages to the existing fleet of 4 car 220s but they were going to source the electrical components from their own factory on the Continent rather than from Alstom in Preston, where the rest of the traction package on the 220s and 221s came from (so that they would be compatible with the Alstom 390s). The work was also going to cost more than is currently worthwhile for them to spend them and they weren't going to get the good publicity of the work being done here so the plan was shelved.

HS2 isn't going to be finished until all the IEPs that will be built have been built. If you meant HS1, remember that it shuts overnight for maintenance and requires TVM-430 signalling on all trains. Apart from the 373s, 374s and 395s there will be no other passenger trains travelling on it for a long time, whether under test or in service.

 

[The Ham]

The opinion of most railway people it seems is that the Voyager design was an unmitigated failure. There is enough wrong with it that the IEP spec document specifically deals with every single problem people had with them so that it would not be repeated. As this spec document is what the bids for IEP had to meet, there wasn't much of the Voyager design suitable for a new build fleet to replace the HSTs.

The biggest problem with the 220's and 221's is that they are too short and had little spare capacity if passenger numbers went up. Unfortunately for Virgin they went up a lot which caused them a lot of the problems that people complain about.

Given that each 9 coach IEP will have about 15% more seats than a full length HST, there is at least 3 years worth of passenger growth (5%) assuming the HST that the IEP is replacing is full (rather than reducing the capacity of the trains they are replacing like the Voyagers did).

Any further passenger growth beyond this, as would be the case now, would require extra services and therefore extra stock. Which even if GW run all their 5 coach sets doubled up all the time, there will be nearly the same number of sets available as the current number of HST sets. There are 117 class 43 locos, as these run paired up that's 58 HST's (with one spare loco), it is rumoured that 17 sets will be retained for WofE services meaning that 41 sets are left, 21 of these will be replaced by the 9 coach IEP's and the 36 x 5 coach IEP's will replace at least 18 of the remaining 20. However given that Thames Valley services will be run by EMU's it could well be that GW will be able utilise EMU's for some services (i.e. those going to Oxford) which currently run as HST's, especially if they can run at 110mph.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The reason that 5 car sets are too short for the voyager's is that there's only 5 coach sets meaning that there is no way to reconfigure them without putting valuable coaches into storage meaning you end up with less seats on the network. Conversely IEP has a limited number of 5 car sets, meaning that they could if need be lengthened if needed without needing more to be built.

???? How can you lengthen them without building more coaches? Only by shortening the nine car sets or by placing driving vehicles into storage. You still can't turn a driving vehicle into an intermediate one easily. The latter is exactly the same problem as Voyagers. The only thing that can be said about IEP is that at least some sets would be a decent length and some too short, rather than Voyagers which are all too short.

There are
...
58 HST's (with one spare loco), it is rumoured that 17 sets will be retained for WofE services meaning that 41 sets are left, 21 of these will be replaced by the 9 coach IEP's and the 36 x 5 coach IEP's will replace at least 18 of the remaining 20. However given that Thames Valley services will be run by EMU's it could well be that GW will be able utilise EMU's for some services (i.e. those going to Oxford) which currently run as HST's, especially if they can run at 110mph.

Ok, 17 WofE IC125 sets + 39 IEPs (21 9-car plus 18 10-car (half the number of 5-car sets)). That's 56 trains to replace the current 58, which might work if they weren't planning enhanced frequencies (primarily Bristols and a semi-fast to Westbury, I believe, which I think add to arround 12 additional diagrams).

 

[swt_passenger]

There are 117 class 43 locos, as these run paired up that's 58 HST's (with one spare loco)...

You sure about this? I'm sure that, just like East Coast, FGW have a somewhat larger pool of HST power cars than operational HST coaching stock sets.

Isn't the effective number of 'HSTs' more like 54 or so?