IEP Construction Progress

[RichmondCommu]

G'day everyone,

These trains have been discussed to death but I'm curious to know whether construction has actually started on the prototype.

Any information which you have would be very welcome.

Kind regards,

Richmond Commuter

 

[WatcherZero]

Theyve built a carriage mockup in the UK (at their interior designers) for testing saloon layout, fixtures and colour schemes. Hitachi's European Rail Research Centre in London is supposed to prototype the signalling, theyve subcontracted brake design/bogie integration and testing to Knorr-Bremse.

Ive not heard of any work started on full prototypes though ive heard of some testing of equipment for them in other train models in Japan.

The pre-series units are supposed to arrive in the UK for testing in early 2015 and GB Railfreight has been contracted to provide loco hauls and test drivers to operate the trains during testing and certification.

 

[Yew]

Hmm. Do
we have any pics of this mock carriage?

 

[anthony263]

It hasnt been revealed to the public or the industry although I suspect Modern Railways will hopefully manage to get some photos if it has been completed. I do hope it is open to the public so we can see how headroom is among other things.

If the pre-series units are due in 2015 then construction should start soon

 

[CP165]

There are a couple of shots on page 14 of this PDF. Although you can only partly see the passenger saloon there are good views of the mock-up cab and kitchen

http://www.railtex.co.uk/_downloads/presentations/Railtex_hitachi.pdf

The rest of the PDF also makes for interesting reading

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I've been shown a few pictures of it, inside and out, by someone who has visited it but I don't have copies of said pictures unfortunately. It does not look too bad inside, though.

 

[joeykins82]

I didn't realise that there was a programme option for the WCML, interesting. That said the document is out of date as it doesn't include the now confirmed 30x 9-car c801 sets for the ECML

 

[WatcherZero]

Well it was a copy of the presentation given by Hitachi at Railtex in what, May?

 

[D6975]

Has construction of the factory at Newton Aycliffe begun yet?

The work on the depot at Bristol Parkway has been underway for a while, they've pushed several thousand tons of soil and old ballast around by the looks of it.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ground was officially broken 1st November, though I think the Government made a PR hullabaloo out of earlier site clearance works too.

 

[swt_passenger]

I didn't realise that there was a programme option for the WCML, interesting. That said the document is out of date as it doesn't include the now confirmed 30x 9-car c801 sets for the ECML

The original (2009?) ITT included WCML (South) i.e. Euston to Northampton fast services, a XC option for the SW/NE axis; and Kings Cross to Kings Lynn.

All the above was in addition to the normally discussed GWML and ECML.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The original (2009?) ITT included WCML (South) i.e. Euston to Northampton fast services, a XC option for the SW/NE axis; and Kings Cross to Kings Lynn.

All the above was in addition to the normally discussed GWML and ECML.

I don't remember reading about there being an XC option. Kings Lynn and Northampton options I remember were covered somewhere.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't remember reading about there being an XC option. Kings Lynn and Northampton options I remember were covered somewhere.

Well it's definitely there in the copy I have downloaded, I checked before posting, but here's an archive version anyway:

Other Routes being Additional Services for other service groups over which the IE Services may be required to be deployed, subject to price and consequent confirmation of value for money namely;
•Great Western (Phase 2): West of England (full service on the Berks and Hants Line); and
•Cross Country: Penzance/ Plymouth – Edinburgh/ Glasgow via Leeds and Newcastle.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....pinvitationtotender/iepinvitationtotender.pdf

DfT web archive gives the publication date as Nov 2007, I wasn't sure because it isn't on the document - and I downloaded it in 2009...

 

[33Hz]

One thing I've not seen anywhere: Will IEP have the battery packs to enable "hybrid" acceleration and braking when on diesel power, like the Hyabusa demonstration train?

I note the presentation linked above shows French battery manufacturer SAFT as a supplier.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I thought Hyabusa was a motorcycle?

 

[Manchester77]

I thought the batteries were the emergency ones which in event of power loss would support lighting, PA etc.?

 

[jimm]

One thing I've not seen anywhere: Will IEP have the battery packs to enable "hybrid" acceleration and braking when on diesel power, like the Hyabusa demonstration train?

I note the presentation linked above shows French battery manufacturer SAFT as a supplier.

No. IEP bi-modes will run either off overhead power or the diesel engines.

 

[33Hz]

I thought Hyabusa was a motorcycle?

It's a lot of different things (it means falcon in Japanese I think), but in this case it was the name given to Hitachi's V Train 2 prototype hybrid HST.

http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/v-train-2_55.html

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/.../hybrid-technology-enters-the-real-world.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkV2xNGVP8o

No. IEP bi-modes will run either off overhead power or the diesel engines.

Pity. I thought the original IEP design with separate power cars had it. It doesn't mean they aren't running on diesel, just that the batteries provide some extra oomph when pulling away and capture energy from the regenerative braking.

 

[campainr]

What services are 5 car trains be used for and why so many? Is it just to allow greater flexibility with options to form 5/10 car services as necessary?

 

[edwin_m]

One thing I've not seen anywhere: Will IEP have the battery packs to enable "hybrid" acceleration and braking when on diesel power, like the Hyabusa demonstration train?

Hybrid batteries are unlikely to be worthwhile as the bi-modes will spend most of their time (including the highest speed running) in electric mode where lots of extra batteries would be just even more dead weight. I think originally the view was that there would be a lot more diesel running which might have made the hybrids more useful.

 

[33Hz]

Batteries do nothing for high speed running, it's about fuel saving during acceleration. It can double the tractive effort for a couple of minutes or so.

They were proposing about 1 tonne of batteries (on a ~ 400 tonne train). The experimental trains have shown 20% fuel saving so clearly it is worth it.

 

[BananaRepublic]

The Diesel/Battery Hybrid option was dropped when a decision was made to change the configuration from power generation in the end driving vehicles (as originally proposed by Hitachi), to the underfloor multi-engine configuration that has been ordered for production trains.

Unlike the Hayabusa HST test train, where the batteries were accommodated in an adjacent vehicle to the Class 43 power car, the production model would have placed the batteries in the driving power car with the diesel generator and electrical power equipment.
This made for a very heavy vehicle.
As one of the IEP criteria was a weight reduction (less wear on the track), I don't know if this played a part in the decision to change?

Another factor in the change of configuration, was the announcement that the GWML would be electrified after all.
At the time of the IEP bids, the prospect of electrification of the GWML had been put off way into the future. Effectively cancelled TFN and the expectation was that the GWML IEP trains would only be all-diesel (two driving power cars), or rather Diesel/Hybrid in the case of Agilty Trains' (Hitachi's) winning bid, with the all-electric and Bi-Modes only going initially to the ECML.

Following the about turn and announcement on GWML electrification, the resulting situation meant part electrification of the Great Western. Therefore in addition to all-Electric trains, Bi-modes would be going there too and the all-diesel version was completely dropped from the programme. This then raised the question as to whether the original Bi-Mode (one power car) had sufficient grunt to do the job off the wires.
The result was a change to multi underfloor engines and the end of the Diesel/Hybrid proposal as the heavy batteries could no longer be accommodated. As Edwin says, there was also concern about carrying around the extra dead weight of the batteries.

 

[edwin_m]

Batteries do nothing for high speed running, it's about fuel saving during acceleration. It can double the tractive effort for a couple of minutes or so.

They were proposing about 1 tonne of batteries (on a ~ 400 tonne train). The experimental trains have shown 20% fuel saving so clearly it is worth it.

At low speeds the tractive effort depends mostly on the proportion of weight on motored axles, so the batteries would have come into play at slightly higher speeds when the prime mover couldn't supply the maximum power demand of the motors. Presuably this was intended to combat the low installed power of the earlier IEP design, as discussed at length by Roger Ford.

If the IEP set achieved the same saving as Hyabusa when running on diesel power then this would be reduced by a factor of about five because the unit would be on electric power about 80% of the time (a guess on my part but I think it's the right ball park thinking of the duties these units will operate). The weight penalty would apply with both power source but if it is as little as 1 tonne in 400 then even the reduced energy saving would pay for it.

However the hybrid system would still represent a cost and a risk. Once the likely ratio of electric to diesel running became clear, and the power car idea was dropped, then I guess it was done for by the greatly reduced benefits plus the space problems of trying to fit the batteries somewhere under the floor along with both electric and diesel traction equipment.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Presuably this was intended to combat the low installed power of the earlier IEP design, as discussed at length by Roger Ford.

It was proposed as a means of achieving and exceeding the fuel savings that the original specification required, bearing in mind at the time a large percentage of the order was to be all-diesel.

If the IEP set achieved the same saving as Hyabusa when running on diesel power then this would be reduced by a factor of about five because the unit would be on electric power about 80% of the time

At the time, there was to be 100% running on diesel on the GWML, as electrification had been completely ruled out by the DfT.
The change of power arrangement occurred around the time of the U-turn on electrification.

 

[edwin_m]

It was proposed as a means of achieving and exceeding the fuel savings that the original specification required, bearing in mind at the time a large percentage of the order was to be all-diesel.



At the time, there was to be 100% running on diesel on the GWML, as electrification had been completely ruled out by the DfT.
The change of power arrangement occurred around the time of the U-turn on electrification.

Indeed so, and hence my comment in my previous post "once the likely ratio of electric to diesel running became clear".

 

[BananaRepublic]

Indeed.

 

[Bayum]

How does the IEP programme fair for East Coast?

I know they're getting 30 nine car and 12 five car EMUs, and then 13 nine car and 10 five car hybrids.

That totals 65 sets in all - but at the moment East Coast have 47 potential 9 car sets - the order is for four less nine car units than they have at the moment - but they get another 22 five car units.

So all in all:
43 nine car trains,
22 five car trains.

How will this impact on the passenger when they come into service? Will it be the same issue Virgin had with the introduction of the Voyager class - too small trains to replace their predecessors? Will the five car trains be permanently coupled to make up for that - in which case why not build a ten car train?

ALSO - East Coast at the moment run trains in 11 car formation - are the IEP trains the same length as these 11 car trains? If not, why aren't more carriages added?

 

[NotATrainspott]

How does the IEP programme fair for East Coast?

I know they're getting 30 nine car and 12 five car EMUs, and then 13 nine car and 10 five car hybrids.

That totals 65 sets in all - but at the moment East Coast have 63 potential 9 car sets - the order is for less nine car units than they have at the moment - but they get another two which will be the five car trains.

So all in all:
43 nine car trains,
22 five car trains.

How will this impact on the passenger when they come into service? Will it be the same issue Virgin had with the introduction of the Voyager class - too small trains to replace their predecessors? Will the five car trains be permanently coupled to make up for that - in which case why not build a ten car train?

ALSO - East Coast at the moment run trains in 11 car formation - are the IEP trains the same length as these 11 car trains? If not, why aren't more carriages added?

The IC 'core' will almost certainly be made up of the 9 car units and doubled up 5 car units. These 5 car units can then split to run off onto the extensions - Inverness/Aberdeen come to mind but the open-access routes could be folded into ICEC as well.

EC run sets of 9x23m passenger coaches in between either two HST power cars or a 91 and a DVT, none of which are able to carry passengers or do any real revenue-earning work. IEP carriages are 26m long and the trains are multiple units with revenue-earning end cars: 9x23m is 207m whereas 9x26m is 234, more than entire existing carriage length longer. Since more of the train length will be seated areas than with more shorter carriages, there will be even more capacity on board. As a result, the capacity of a 5 car half set won't be too problematic on most of the routes where they have currently no choice but to run a whole set at the moment.

The IEP spec says that the trains must be capable of having anywhere between 5 and 12 carriages and the time taken to reform must be less than an overnight stay at a depot. The capacity of two 5 car IEPs is roughly the same as a single 9 car IEP due to having two fewer cab ends. Ordering extra carriages is likely at some point once the basic design is proven and the Hitachi order book looks empty - there's nothing better for politicians than drib drabs of good news provided by incremental ordering.

 

[Dave1987]

This incessant desire to couple and uncouple sets is only going to cause mega problems in the future. The couplers get a hammering through constant attachments and detachments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The IC 'core' will almost certainly be made up of the 9 car units and doubled up 5 car units. These 5 car units can then split to run off onto the extensions - Inverness/Aberdeen come to mind but the open-access routes could be folded into ICEC as well.

EC run sets of 9x23m passenger coaches in between either two HST power cars or a 91 and a DVT, none of which are able to carry passengers or do any real revenue-earning work. IEP carriages are 26m long and the trains are multiple units with revenue-earning end cars: 9x23m is 207m whereas 9x26m is 234, more than entire existing carriage length longer. Since more of the train length will be seated areas than with more shorter carriages, there will be even more capacity on board. As a result, the capacity of a 5 car half set won't be too problematic on most of the routes where they have currently no choice but to run a whole set at the moment.

The IEP spec says that the trains must be capable of having anywhere between 5 and 12 carriages and the time taken to reform must be less than an overnight stay at a depot. The capacity of two 5 car IEPs is roughly the same as a single 9 car IEP due to having two fewer cab ends. Ordering extra carriages is likely at some point once the basic design is proven and the Hitachi order book looks empty - there's nothing better for politicians than drib drabs of good news provided by incremental ordering.

Still a very very very expensive train. I would have expected a lot lot more for the price especially considering the cheaper alternatives.

 

[The Ham]

This incessant desire to couple and uncouple sets is only going to cause mega problems in the future. The couplers get a hammering through constant attachments and detachments.

As appears to be a major problem for SWT's where they have lots of service splits throughout the day?!?! (note I'm thiinking of not only the nearly new 444's and 450's but also the older 159's and 158's)

In all seriousness though, if they take such a pounding then it must be cheaper to replace them at regular intervals than run extra coaches. For instance an extra DMU coach is about £110,000 per year just to lease which would give you very little extra capacity on long distance services. However I would suggest that money would enable you to change a few couplers each year which is proberbly all that would be needed.

Even if more are needed than could be paid for by the lease of 1 coach, by the time you've lengthend just two 5 coach set to 9 coaches that would be (with the other variable costs) basicly an extra £1,000,000 (or £22,000 per coupler for all the 5 coach sets per year).

However as you are likely to need more 9 coach sets than that, even if you have to replace every coupler every year it is likely to work out better value to run the shorter sets. This would before including the extra revenue that there would be from serving more destinations.