IEP Construction Progress

[Dave1987]

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.

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.

 

[jimm]

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

The actual trains will probably cost much the same to produce as any alternatives. The cost of the overall contract and leasing arrangements is down to the way they were arranged by DafT, which should never have been allowed to be involved in the first place and hasn't helped matters by its dogmatic refusal over many years to even contemplate electrification, no doubt influenced by the Treasury. That policy position saw IEP start life as a diesel HST replacement, eventually morphing into the current train after a series of false starts - piling on yet more costs.

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

EC definitely do not have 63 potential nine car sets at the moment, nothing like it. I suggest you've equated Class 43 power cars to whole trains, it's the only logical way you could possibly get to 63 sets. So you are out by a factor of about 2.5 for HSTs.

The part of the IEP fleet that will replace the 225/Mk4s will be about the same size as the relevant electric fleet, but the previously announced IEP numbers were far more than necessary to replace the HSTs.

Your fundamental error about '11 car' trains has been dealt with already in another reply. I'd go back to the drawing board with your entire post...

 

[Bayum]

EC definitely do not have 63 potential nine car sets at the moment, nothing like it. I suggest you've equated Class 43 power cars to whole trains, it's the only logical way you could possibly get to 63 sets. So you are out by a factor of about 2.5 for HSTs.

The part of the IEP fleet that will replace the 225/Mk4s will be about the same size as the relevant electric fleet, but the previously announced IEP numbers were far more than necessary to replace the HSTs.

Your fundamental error about '11 car' trains has been dealt with already in another reply. I'd go back to the drawing board with your entire post...

Thank you for the abrupt and quite rude post.

A message to my inbox or even a post on here asking me to look again at numbers would have sufficed.

I shall indeed go back to the drawing bad and look at the 'fundamental errors' made.

 

[swt_passenger]

Thank you for the abrupt and quite rude post.

A message to my inbox or even a post on here asking me to look again at numbers would have sufficed.

I shall indeed go back to the drawing bad and look at the 'fundamental errors' made.

I'm not entering into a discussion by PM. I just thought your post was rather more than slightly wrong - given the numbers of HSTs in EC's current fleet, which off the top of my head is only 13 sets, whereas you were presumably thinking more like 32?

 

[HSTEd]

I think they have 14 now that they got yet another MML set.
(Just how many MML sets are spare? Every time I look they've taken on another one)

 

[Bayum]

I'm not entering into a discussion by PM. I just thought your post was rather more than slightly wrong - given the numbers of HSTs in EC's current fleet, which off the top of my head is only 13 sets, whereas you were presumably thinking more like 32?

Wikipedia states that East Coast have 32 HSTs - I forgot to halve the numbers last night to get 16 train sets.

[EDIT] The East Coast website say they have 14 diesel sets. So we were both wrong.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wikipedia states that East Coast have 32 HSTs - I forgot to halve the numbers last night to get 16 train sets.

Yes, but although the table (which I've now found on wiki) does say they have 32 power cars, (not HSTs), you cannot just halve that. Just like FGW they have significantly more power cars than they have operational 'HST sets' - which is defined by the number of sets of coaches made up from their overall fleet. It is the number of semi-permanently organised rakes that is normally considered to be the number of 'HSTs'.

It is only the minor HST fleets, those of GC and XC, where they only have the basic allowance needed of 2 power cars per set.

 

[43074]

I think they have 14 now that they got yet another MML set.
(Just how many MML sets are spare? Every time I look they've taken on another one)

EC have 14 sets, of which 13 are diagrammed to work.

There are 10 EMT sets; 8 are required for service Monday to Friday, with one ''hot spare'' at Etches Park every day of the week. There are 6 diagrams on Saturday and 8 Sunday.

There aren't many more sets EC can take from EMT really.

Full diagram info for all HST operators can be found on the 125 group website.

 

[Stats]

The ICEC franchise prospectus says

Current fleet
ECML’s current fleet consists of:
• 14 diesel IC125 High Speed Trains, comprised of 32 Power Cars and
131 Mark 3 trailers owned by Angel (116 vehicles) and Porterbrook
(47 vehicles)
• 30 electric IC225 trains comprised of 31 Class 91 Locos and 302 Mark
4 Trailers owned by Eversholt

 

[Rhydgaled]

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?

On ECML, no idea, as the planned ECML 9-car IEP fleet is only three diagrams less than the current EC fleet. On the GWML, assuming the electrification so far announced is going to be the limit for 10-15 years after IEP introduction, I estimate the following diagrams will be required, excluding odd trips to Paignton, Exeter and Carmarthen:

• 22 under-wires diagrams (Cardiff, Swansea and Bristol services), plus another 3 if an hourly Oxford fast is IEP-worked
• 21 bi-mode diagrams (Cheltenham, Cotswolds, Weston-Super-Mare and Westbury services)

DaFT have ordered 50 diagrams for GWML (18 9-car 'electric diagrams, the rest 5-car bi-mode). My total estimate is 43 diagrams, which using the ordered fleet would be 18 9-car and 25 5-car diagrams. 50-43 is 7, so perhaps 7 of the 25 5-car diagrams can be doubled. That still leaves 18 diagrams as unstrengthened 5-car sets. In my opinion, that's never going to work.

How does the IEP programme fair for East Coast?

...

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?

As I said above, ECML fleet size is similar, so no issues with regarded to cuts in capacity. However, I fear a Voyager-style mess on the GWML with so many 5-car sets.

IEP carriages are 26m long

...

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.

I disagree. The carriages being 26m long makes up for the MU crumple zones quite nicely for 9-car sets compared to 2+8/9 IC125/225s. However, with a 5-car IEP set compared to a 9-car IEP you lose the carriages which have most capacity. 2x 5-car IEP in multiple will cost the same as a 10-car IEP, but will have only 3 more seats than a 9-car IEP.

it must be cheaper to replace them at regular intervals than run extra coaches.

Remember a double 5-car IEP will have 4 cabs, 2 kitchens, near-double staffing and an extra coach worth of leasing costs compared to just running a 9-car IEP instead. And cab vehicles are hard to convert to intermediates. You apparently can't build extra intermediate cars for Voyagers anymore, but if you build a new fleet to replace half the Voyagers so others can be lengthened you can't use the cab vehicles.

The actual trains will probably cost much the same to produce as any alternatives. The cost of the overall contract and leasing arrangements is down to the way they were arranged by DafT, which should never have been allowed to be involved in the first place

That I can agree with, assuming the alternative was built to the same requirements spec (diesel requirement etc.) although if DaFT weren't involved the requirements might have been more sensible.

 

[Dave1987]

The actual trains will probably cost much the same to produce as any alternatives. The cost of the overall contract and leasing arrangements is down to the way they were arranged by DafT, which should never have been allowed to be involved in the first place and hasn't helped matters by its dogmatic refusal over many years to even contemplate electrification, no doubt influenced by the Treasury. That policy position saw IEP start life as a diesel HST replacement, eventually morphing into the current train after a series of false starts - piling on yet more costs.

You are right and as a result we end up with bi-mode trains, which will waste energy constantly.

 

[jimm]

Apologies for the long post that follows but I just want to make sure that Rhydgaled is under no illusions about who has said what about IEP.

On ECML, no idea, as the planned ECML 9-car IEP fleet is only three diagrams less than the current EC fleet. On the GWML, assuming the electrification so far announced is going to be the limit for 10-15 years after IEP introduction, I estimate the following diagrams will be required, excluding odd trips to Paignton, Exeter and Carmarthen:

• 22 under-wires diagrams (Cardiff, Swansea and Bristol services), plus another 3 if an hourly Oxford fast is IEP-worked
• 21 bi-mode diagrams (Cheltenham, Cotswolds, Weston-Super-Mare and Westbury services)

DaFT have ordered 50 diagrams for GWML (18 9-car 'electric diagrams, the rest 5-car bi-mode). My total estimate is 43 diagrams, which using the ordered fleet would be 18 9-car and 25 5-car diagrams. 50-43 is 7, so perhaps 7 of the 25 5-car diagrams can be doubled. That still leaves 18 diagrams as unstrengthened 5-car sets. In my opinion, that's never going to work.

As I said above, ECML fleet size is similar, so no issues with regarded to cuts in capacity. However, I fear a Voyager-style mess on the GWML with so many 5-car sets.

I disagree. The carriages being 26m long makes up for the MU crumple zones quite nicely for 9-car sets compared to 2+8/9 IC125/225s. However, with a 5-car IEP set compared to a 9-car IEP you lose the carriages which have most capacity. 2x 5-car IEP in multiple will cost the same as a 10-car IEP, but will have only 3 more seats than a 9-car IEP.

Remember a double 5-car IEP will have 4 cabs, 2 kitchens, near-double staffing and an extra coach worth of leasing costs compared to just running a 9-car IEP instead. And cab vehicles are hard to convert to intermediates. You apparently can't build extra intermediate cars for Voyagers anymore, but if you build a new fleet to replace half the Voyagers so others can be lengthened you can't use the cab vehicles.

That I can agree with, assuming the alternative was built to the same requirements spec (diesel requirement etc.) although if DaFT weren't involved the requirements might have been more sensible.

And there you again. We have heard it all before. A double five-car IEP working a London-Oxford turn may have all of one member of staff on board - the driver - but if 110-115mph emus are bought for outer-suburban use, then the IEPs may be largely confined to Cotswold Line work at Oxford. A nine-car IEP working off-peak to Worcester or Cheltenham will be lugging around lots of empty coaches but that doesn't seem to bother you, despite your crusade against wasted energy. Etc, etc....

I assume your posts about IEP on the Great Western Coffeeshop Forum today include references to me:

I'm often told by a certain poster on another forum that interior layouts and train formations are subject to change based on comments from the TOC

Poster in question claimed FirstGW negotiations included train formation, including getting suitable length bi-mode sets rather than all 5-car. If Hitachi have indeed already ordered the engines from MTU then maybe it's too late to reduce the number of bi-modes, so we can expect to see further ECML and GWML IC-electrification kicked into the long grass. However, altering train lengths might still be possible, the components from suppliers would be similar assuming they aren't getting anyone else to build the body-structure. Getting the kitchen/buffet moved out of the depths of first class also be possible. So, any contact in FirstGW somebody can supply me with may be helpful.

All I have done, if you ever bothered to read my posts (and posts by others) and actually absorb the information they contained, was point out things that are in official DfT literature or report what I heard Mark Hopwood, the managing director of FGW say in front of several dozen people. Facts, not claims.

Such as:

Catering, the IEP specification says the following options most be allowed for, so the idea of kitchen in the end car is not set in stone, that is just something show on the draft - got that? DRAFT - interior layouts produced by DfT, same as the seating/table layouts, number of first and standard seats, etc.

6.2.6 Catering
IEP Trains must be capable of providing a range of catering services. The catering solutions provided must be capable of providing catering services at four levels:
• Level 1 - Full restaurant service or at seat first class service with meals cooked on board;
• Level 2 - Servery that provides hot and cold snacks and drinks which may be delivered by either of the following methods:
o an at seat first class service together with the replenishment of trolleys for standard class service without the provision of a Café-Bar counter service; or
o the replenishment of trolleys and the provision of a Café-Bar counter service combined together;
• Level 3 - Hot and cold snacks and drinks through a ‘Café-Bar’ style outlet; and
• Level 4 - A trolley service.

6.3 Interior Customisable Features
IEP Vehicles must allow for a menu of customisation measures, for application at franchise change or redeployment. These measures are separate from the main building block interior elements, although the configuration of the latter may influence the scope and nature of customisation.
IEP Vehicles must allow the following minimum customisation:
• interior colours (including handrails, for contrast);
• trim materials;
• soft furnishings;
• seat types, quantities and pitch;
• toilet/passenger ratio;
• First Class/Standard Class ratio;
• luggage capacity ratio;
• replace a catering area with another of the other catering options of a lower catering level as per TS1630; and
• replace a catering area with seating.

The above customisation must be possible without alteration to load bearing structures and must not dictate the need for bodyshell variations.

The full document is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

And from the Great Western Francise Invitation to tender issued by DfT in July 2012, pages 77 (italics are mine):

under Schedule 8 of the MARA the Secretary of State can vary the MARA (and TARA) in certain circumstances and to the extent that a Bidder wishes to develop proposals that may involve:
alteration of the Rules of the Fleet and/or Rules of the Depot; changes to the maintenance or any facility where the maintenance provider carries out stabling of the IEP Fleet or minor or routine maintenance of the IEP Fleet; re-marshalling of the sets comprised in the IEP Fleet as long as this is still compliant with the Train Technical Description and the Train Technical Specification (as both terms are defined under the MARA); minor changes to the performance capabilities of a set or any vehicle comprised in a set; and changes to the passenger environment of a set (including in respect of the catering areas).
If Bidders wish to develop proposals that involve variations to the IEP contract that would need to go through the process in Schedule 8 of the MARA, then:
Bidders will need to present fully worked up proposals that have the full and unequivocal backing of Agility Trains Limited that they are deliverable within the timescales set out in their Bid. This will include suitable assurances regarding any changes needed to financing arrangements;
Bidders will need to make clear that they are taking on the risk that the eventual prices of the variations proposed are different to those which are set out in their franchise Bid; and Bidders will need to either secure the Department’s agreement that such changes that are proposed are beneficial and should continue beyond the end of the Franchise term or set out what arrangements they propose to put in place at the end of the Franchise Term (including in the event of early termination).

The full document is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3596/invitation-to-tender.pdf

And I heard Mark Hopwood say that in the light of heavy current loadings on some Class 180-worked FGW services and the rate of growth in passenger numbers that he was not convinced that five-car IEPs were the way to go. So it's a safe bet that view has been communicated to DfT, especially as the scrapping of the franchise bidding means that FGW is now going to be in charge - assuming that they get another two years on top of the current agreement - of the introduction to service of the IEPs.

And if you want to write to someone at FGW, why not Mr Hopwood, or is that too obvious for you?

 

[HSTEd]

Energy is cheap (especially for electric running or largely electric running).

All the major costs involved in running a train tend to be only weakly related to train length.

It doesn't cost much more to run a 10 car train than a 5 car one.

So we should order all trains to the longest practical length.

 

[starrymarkb]

Are the French not building a new bi-mode 200km/h intercity unit (though I understand that they are not requiring high speed running off the wires so each coach only has a 400hp engine)

 

[The Ham]

Remember a double 5-car IEP will have 4 cabs, 2 kitchens, near-double staffing and an extra coach worth of leasing costs compared to just running a 9-car IEP instead. And cab vehicles are hard to convert to intermediates. You apparently can't build extra intermediate cars for Voyagers anymore, but if you build a new fleet to replace half the Voyagers so others can be lengthened you can't use the cab vehicles.

Nice miss qoute, but the extra lease cost for the extra coach is only relevent when the train is running paird up there will be a fair amount time during the day when only 5 coaches will be running.

The other cost which can be used for offsetting the extra staffing costs is the track access charges, if all trains were 9 coaches rather than 5 for the 65 miles from Oxford to Worster for 10 services a day each way over 360 days a year at 6ppm that is £112,000 of extra track access charges, which is more than enough to cover the one extra coach from London to Oxford (£22,000) and still leave enough for two full time equivilant posts paying £45,000. Given that some of your staff would be catering staff it may even be possible to have enough money for three extra full time equivilant posts.

However as the existing HST's have a track access charge of 117.88ppm for a 8+2 set up, if IEP has the same train cost for a 10 coach train then the cost difference would be even higher as the track access charge per coach would be 11.788ppm, meaning that in the above the money avaible for staffing is £165,500 or 3.67 full time equivilant posts being paid £45,000 per year or even more postst than that as many of the extra staff required could well be lower paid non safety critical staff.

For instance you do not need two drivers and two gaurds and two catering staff, rather you could get away with one driver two gaurds and four catering staff (one in standard an one in first in both portions) on a paired up IEP, however on a 9 coach IEP you would well need one driver and one gaurd and two, if not three, catering staff (one in first and possibly two in standard, where there could be 438 passengers) As such staff costs are no where near double, as the most you'd be looking at one gaurd and two catering staff. However a chunk of your staff costs for the catering would be covered by income from the passengers buying food and drink.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Energy is cheap (especially for electric running or largely electric running).

All the major costs involved in running a train tend to be only weakly related to train length.

It doesn't cost much more to run a 10 car train than a 5 car one.

So we should order all trains to the longest practical length.

... but builing more infrstructure to do away with portion working is massively more than rolling stock. Therefore as there are capacity problems into London running portion working will need to be the norm for the time being.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And there you again. We have heard it all before. A double five-car IEP working a London-Oxford turn may have all of one member of staff on board - the driver - but if 110-115mph emus are bought for outer-suburban use, then the IEPs may be largely confined to Cotswold Line work at Oxford.

Only the driver? Hang on, what about: "attention conductor, call for aid activated"? I make that three staff. And I am aware that currently PAD-Oxford seems to be planned to suburban EMUs with IEP confined to Cotswolds, which is why I listed the 3 IEPs required for PAD-Oxford seperately.

A nine-car IEP working off-peak to Worcester or Cheltenham will be lugging around lots of empty coaches but that doesn't seem to bother you, despite your crusade against wasted energy. Etc, etc....

It doesn't bother me because I don't expect there to be empty coaches by the time a service to PAD departs Reading, even between the morning and evening peaks, and providing 2x 5-car as far as Oxford/Swindon and splitting seems terribly wasteful and awkward also. And, in the peaks, I imagine at least the seating capacity of a 2+8 IC125 will be needed on all routes. Maybe replacing the 5-car IEP fleet with a mix of 9-car and 7or8-car units would be more appropriate than all 9-car though, I don't claim to know.

I assume your posts about IEP on the Great Western Coffeeshop Forum today include references to me:

I couldn't remember who it was, I just knew I had been told that.

All I have done, if you ever bothered to read my posts (and posts by others) and actually absorb the information they contained, was point out things that are in official DfT literature or report what I heard Mark Hopwood, the managing director of FGW say in front of several dozen people. Facts, not claims.

Appologies, with information I read on forums, I don't always remember what is fact and what is claims. ellendune on the Coffeeshop though seems to suggest that sorting out the train formations is going to be too much to ask, only the draft (yes, I get that) interior layouts. So, as regards train formation alteration, one of you is wrong. I hope it is you who is right and these plans for 5-car sets are abandonded.

And I heard Mark Hopwood say that in the light of heavy current loadings on some Class 180-worked FGW services and the rate of growth in passenger numbers that he was not convinced that five-car IEPs were the way to go. So it's a safe bet that view has been communicated to DfT

That sounds hopeful.

And if you want to write to someone at FGW, why not Mr Hopwood, or is that too obvious for you?

I do not know who at FirstGW is responsible for what, so I don't know who is the most suitable person to contact regarding IEP variations. If Mr Hopwood is that person then I will write to him.

the extra lease cost for the extra coach is only relevent when the train is running paird up there will be a fair amount time during the day when only 5 coaches will be running.

When it is doubled you have extra lease costs, when it is single you don't have enough capacity. Neither state is welcome.

One gaurd and two catering staff extra (on top of one driver, one gaurd and two catering staff) is almost double staff, the only staff member not duplicated is the driver. Staff costs maybe not almost double, but staff numbers are almost doubled.

... but builing more infrstructure to do away with portion working is massively more than rolling stock. Therefore as there are capacity problems into London running portion working will need to be the norm for the time being.

Why do you need to build infrstructure to avoid portion working? That doesn't make sense to me. If the platforms at PAD aren't long enough portion working won't help get more coaches on the platform, it just costs you almost a whole coach worth of seats in the same train length (10x 26m coaches).

 

[YorkshireBear]

This is giving me some good information on construction progress.

 

[jimm]

Are the French not building a new bi-mode 200km/h intercity unit (though I understand that they are not requiring high speed running off the wires so each coach only has a 400hp engine)

They are six-car intercity bi-modes, derived from the Alstom regional bi-mode design, though the maximum speed in both traction modes is 160kmh/100mph (not that surprising, given the routes they will work) and engines are 350kw/469hp. They will replace SNCF's remaining sets of loco-hauled Corail coaches (a contemporary of the Mk3) used on non-TGV main lines and long-distance inter-regional services.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ders-electro-diesel-inter-city-trainsets.html

Only the driver? Hang on, what about: "attention conductor, call for aid activated"? I make that three staff. And I am aware that currently PAD-Oxford seems to be planned to suburban EMUs with IEP confined to Cotswolds, which is why I listed the 3 IEPs required for PAD-Oxford seperately.

It doesn't bother me because I don't expect there to be empty coaches by the time a service to PAD departs Reading, even between the morning and evening peaks, and providing 2x 5-car as far as Oxford/Swindon and splitting seems terribly wasteful and awkward also. And, in the peaks, I imagine at least the seating capacity of a 2+8 IC125 will be needed on all routes. Maybe replacing the 5-car IEP fleet with a mix of 9-car and 7or8-car units would be more appropriate than all 9-car though, I don't claim to know.

I couldn't remember who it was, I just knew I had been told that.

Appologies, with information I read on forums, I don't always remember what is fact and what is claims. ellendune on the Coffeeshop though seems to suggest that sorting out the train formations is going to be too much to ask, only the draft (yes, I get that) interior layouts. So, as regards train formation alteration, one of you is wrong. I hope it is you who is right and these plans for 5-car sets are abandonded.

That sounds hopeful.

I do not know who at FirstGW is responsible for what, so I don't know who is the most suitable person to contact regarding IEP variations. If Mr Hopwood is that person then I will write to him.

Yes, only the driver. How do you think FGW/Thames Trains/BR have been running driver-only-operated pairs of Turbos between London and Oxford since 1993? Since we don't know what trains will be doing what jobs between Oxford and London in future, we can't say for sure, but HSTs work a number of services between those two points as in-fill turns between long-distance duties, so that may continue to be the case with IEP, and, as I said, there are Turbo turns between London and the Cotswold Line where there is only a conductor on board for the leg of the journey west of Oxford, so that arrangement may also continue with IEP.

It may not bother you, but it sure as hell bothers the TOCs who are paying for track access and energy. Another of the things I keep repeating, but you never seem to remember, is that after HSTs replaced 180s on off-peak Cotswold Line trains in 2008-9, FGW very quickly brought 166s back on most of those jobs, so as not to run lots of empty coaches up and down at great expense west of Oxford. In the peaks they will use 2x5-car further west (unless some longer bi-modes are eventually built as well).

Well at least you remembered something - but clearly not the sources of the information. Information which I have now posted here several times and stated where it came from. Perhaps this time you will remember that it was DfT that said variations in formation and interiors are possible. Does the person posting on the Coffeeshop forum know about those DfT documents?

I also said FGW's top manager had raised questions about five-car sets - but that's not to say that he would be advocating a fleet that is all nine-car either and he still has to work with the hand dealt to him by DfT in terms of the overall order placed and the scope of GW electrification authorised so far.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is giving me some good information on construction progress.

I think that was dealt with in the first few posts. That there wasn't any yet...

 

[Stats]

I think that was dealt with in the first few posts. That there wasn't any yet...

So perhaps this thread should be locked as the discussion above has been flogged to death in other threads, or renamed?

 

[The Ham]

When it is doubled you have extra lease costs, when it is single you don't have enough capacity. Neither state is welcome.

When it's doubled you have the extra lease costs of one coach, but that is for half the time, the other half the time when it's running as 5 coaches it's four coaches less, so over the course of the journey it works out cheaper. When it's single in the peaks there may not be enough capacity on certain routes, however it could be possible to run them paired up during the peaks so as to provide more capacity than at present with a HST. The extra stock used in the peaks can then allow some mainternance to happen between the peaks, so the overall cost isn't much more.

However there will be options, such as running protion working so that a train is formed of two IEP's and then splits on route to serve two locations.

One gaurd and two catering staff extra (on top of one driver, one gaurd and two catering staff) is almost double staff, the only staff member not duplicated is the driver. Staff costs maybe not almost double, but staff numbers are almost doubled.

However not all staff are equial, so the overall numbers makes very lttle differnce. In that just by increasing the staff numbers by 1 by making that increase on the most expensive member of staff can make a bigger difference to the cost than increasing the staff numbers by three if they are the cheapest staff.

Why do you need to build infrstructure to avoid portion working? That doesn't make sense to me. If the platforms at PAD aren't long enough portion working won't help get more coaches on the platform, it just costs you almost a whole coach worth of seats in the same train length (10x 26m coaches).

If you are running a service to two different locations (say Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare via Bath with a split at Swindon) then there is a need for more paths out of London, which there isn't space for without spending money on improvements.

 

[HSTEd]

But you get less absolute capacity in return for being able to have through vehicles from multiple destinations.

AFAIK if Crossrail was extended to Reading there would be no shortage of paths on the 'fast' lines because it would essentially be non stop between Paddington and Reading.
That would permit up to 18 trains per hour on the intermediate section.

 

[OxtedL]

Only the driver? Hang on, what about: "attention conductor, call for aid activated"? I make that three staff.

Just out of interest, how did you take a driver and a train manager and get to three?

 

[SkinnyDave]

Is it widely expected that XC will get IEP trains in the future?

 

[ainsworth74]

I wouldn't say it's at all expected let alone widely...

 

[swt_passenger]

Is it widely expected that XC will get IEP trains in the future?

My posts #11 and #13 in this thread refer to just about the only evidence. Other than that it's all gone extremely quiet since.

 

[33Hz]

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.

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.

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.

I have to say that just for once Roger Ford - and a number of his followers - are wide of the mark on this one.

In the original end power car design for the IEP, Hitachi put the traction motors and inverters under the main rake, just changing the unpowered end car for whichever variant the train was destined to be.

- 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.


Furthermore, the Hyabusa used a 960kg, 48 kWh battery pack. Compare this with four traction motors weighing a couple of tonnes used on an HST (remember the original IEP end car was a trailer) and the diesel/battery hybrid power car would be lighter.

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.

The 10 car design offered 400kN starting effort and the 5 car offered 200kN. Compare that with an HST power car which gives 1.3MW at the rail and 80kN starting effort.


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.

- 2MW continuous away from the wires, which is enough for 110+ mph.

- 4MW for 90 seconds or 2.6MW for 270 seconds when off the wires, for periods of climbing or acceleration.

- 400kN starting effort, well over twice that of an HST, for acceleration or restarts on say the Devon Banks.

- Better mass distribution than an HST.

- Better energy recovery and reuse when off the wires for the frequent stop/starts in Cornwall or Scotland and better acceleration away from curves on, say, the B&H.


And all of this without underfloor engines.

You can get all the data and configurations here: http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf


Still, we are where we are. If they wanted, they could spread the battery across the coaches. The type being considered is thermally inert while being able to supply very high power over tens of thousands of cycles (at the expensive of some energy density). That would equate to 200kg per coach or just 50kg extra mass per axle.

Indeed, in Japan have a DMU hybrid that is set up like this.


But Roger Ford said it himself:

Take a Class 22x vehicle. Take out the 750 hp 19 litre Cummins engine and fit the 14 litre engine as used in Electrostar [Note: I think he means Turbostar]. In addition to the smaller, lighter engine raft and fuel tanks you fit 250kg of batter[y]. You then have a train with the economy of an Electrostar and the acceleration of a Voyager.

There's no technical reason why that couldn't still happen with the revised IEP.

 

[Domh245]

An electrostar with a 14 litre Engine. I bet that doesn't sound like a normal one

 

[33Hz]

Indeed.

 

[swt_passenger]

An electrostar with a 14 litre Engine. I bet that doesn't sound like a normal one

I thought 250 kg of 'batter' sounded a bit fishy as well...