IEP Construction Progress

[joeykins82]

Either that or the TOCs concerned don't want to enter in to the IEP full service PFI contract, although they may well consider and place an order for class 800/801 SETs

 

[Zoe]

Either that or the TOCs concerned don't want to enter in to the IEP full service PFI contract, although they may well consider and place an order for class 800/801 SETs

But the requirment to go to tender thorughout the EU could result in different stock getting ordered by the TOCs even if the original intention was the IEP.

 

[HSTEd]

What other bi-mode multiple units that are fully compatible with IEPs are available?

 

[Zoe]

What other bi-mode multiple units that are fully compatible with IEPs are available?

But as I said above, would they really have to be fully compatible with the IEP? Ordering a different fleet of trains for the Plymouth/Penzanace route wouldn't be any less compatible than using HSTs on that route for many years into the future which is a possibility. If there really isn't a good reason for the trains to have to be fully compatible then I'm not sure if specifiying it as part of the contract would be allowed, it could be considered anti-competitive.

 

[NotATrainspott]

But the requirment to go to tender thorughout the EU could result in different stock getting ordered by the TOCs even if the original intention was the IEP.

As wonderful as the tendering system might be claimed to be it's still reasonably easy to bend the process one way or another without doing anything illegal. Ask for a small number of new build trains, each electric and capable of 225km/h but also fitted with an emergency power source and the possibility of conversion to bi-mode. There's very little point in Alstom, Siemens or Bombardier offering to build a very small number of an entirely new design of train to meet this so it's almost certain that Hitachi would be either the only bidder or would be the only sensible bid. In the same way it's unlikely that anyone other than Alstom or Alstom+Bombardier would be able to supply a fleet of mini-Pendolinos as they would need to tilt and be compatible with the existing fleet of 390s and 221s for rescue and operational purposes. Tendering only really works well when it's an entire fleet of new trains being ordered from a new design and where there is little need for interaction with older or other fleets, such as the Thameslink or Crossrail tenders.

 

[159220]

So IEP for Plymouth/Penzance has officially been removed as an option in the contract then rather than the DfT deciding that it will be left to the TOCs to decide if they wish to take it up?

That is my understand from what Hitachi said. It is fully upto FGW or the next TOC to decide if they want SET or a product from another manufacturer.

Interesting stuff (and nice to see this thread going back to factual discussion about IEP rather than the well trod "what if" about eVoyagers and the opinionated bashing of IEP that it was in danger of descending in to)

Thank you, it is why I added what I heard at the talk. Hopefully I am allowed to report what was said! I have been reading all the bashing about the SET for ages and the nonsense has been getting annoying. Hopefully facts shall bring us all into a reasonable discussion.

Hitachi have a fantastic optimistic outlook on the UK Railway industry, they have some fantastic products in the form of the AT 100/200/300 and SET. We shall be seeing a lot more Hitachi trains in the UK and I for one am rather excited! Whether you agree or not with the Intercity Express Programme, the product being delivered for Agility Trains by Hitachi in the form of the Super Express Train/Class 800/801 is a fantastic high quality, modern, technologically advanced goddess of the rails. (We were shown images from Japan of the cabs, stunning train!)

Next up soon is a talk from FGW, I shall be asking a lot of questions regarding the Class 800/801 (and Bombardier's Aventra).

 

[Zoe]

Ask for a small number of new build trains, each electric and capable of 225km/h but also fitted with an emergency power source and the possibility of conversion to bi-mode. There's very little point in Alstom, Siemens or Bombardier offering to build a very small number of an entirely new design of train to meet this so it's almost certain that Hitachi would be either the only bidder or would be the only sensible bid. In the same way it's unlikely that anyone other than Alstom or Alstom+Bombardier would be able to supply a fleet of mini-Pendolinos as they would need to tilt and be compatible with the existing fleet of 390s and 221s for rescue and operational purposes. Tendering only really works well when it's an entire fleet of new trains being ordered from a new design and where there is little need for interaction with older or other fleets, such as the Thameslink or Crossrail tenders.

There would need to be a good reason for insisting on compatibility though. In the case of Paddington to Penzance I'm not sure there is since the other possibilites involve having a separate fleet for these services (either HSTs or 222s) so it may well be argued that there is no need for a uniform/fully compatible fleet. Even in the case of the West Coast I seem to remember that another party was under consideration for the new 6 car trains which would have been built if First had won the franchise. I'm not sure if these would have been compatible with the 390s.

 

[159220]

As wonderful as the tendering system might be claimed to be it's still reasonably easy to bend the process one way or another without doing anything illegal. Ask for a small number of new build trains, each electric and capable of 225km/h but also fitted with an emergency power source and the possibility of conversion to bi-mode. There's very little point in Alstom, Siemens or Bombardier offering to build a very small number of an entirely new design of train to meet this so it's almost certain that Hitachi would be either the only bidder or would be the only sensible bid. In the same way it's unlikely that anyone other than Alstom or Alstom+Bombardier would be able to supply a fleet of mini-Pendolinos as they would need to tilt and be compatible with the existing fleet of 390s and 221s for rescue and operational purposes. Tendering only really works well when it's an entire fleet of new trains being ordered from a new design and where there is little need for interaction with older or other fleets, such as the Thameslink or Crossrail tenders.

I understand Siemens are re-mooting the Venturio concept for the UK. Members might remember is Venturio as an original HST replacement in the early 00's. But now in the form of a pure EMU and not a DMU. Could be interesting, perhaps not for GWML but for the MML!?

 

[HSTEd]

There would need to be a good reason for insisting on compatibility though. In the case of Paddington to Penzance I'm not sure there is since the other possibilites involve having a separate fleet for these services (either HSTs are 222s) so it may well be argued that there is no need for a uniform/fully compatible fleet. Even in the case of the West Coast I seem to remember that another party was under consideration for the new 6 car trains which would have been built if First had won the franchise. I'm not sure if these would have been compatible with the 390s.

They could add a handful of sets to the order for 'capacity enhancement' on the main part of the franchise.
That would allow them to claim that the order has to be compatible with the regular IEP fleet and thus eliminates all the competition.

 

[59CosG95]

I understand Siemens are re-mooting the Venturio concept for the UK. Members might remember is Venturio as an original HST replacement in the early 00's. But now in the form of a pure EMU and not a DMU. Could be interesting, perhaps not for GWML but for the MML!?

If I remember rightly, DB's Class 411 and 415 tilting ICE trains are Venturios-maybe something similar could be used for 125mph MML running? Here's the link to the ICE T: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_T

 

[159220]

If I remember rightly, DB's Class 411 and 415 tilting ICE trains are Venturios-maybe something similar could be used for 125mph MML running? Here's the link to the ICE T: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_T

I believe you are correct, the Class 411/ICE-TD was to be the platform of the original DMU Venturio UK. The Venturio is being delivered as the ICx currently: http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mob...speed-and-intercity-trains/icx/Pages/icx.aspx

Very similar to the original Venturio UK: http://www.railsystems.siemens.pl/Images_industry/Images_IMO/venturio_l_big.jpg

This is also picked from Siemens, showing the evolution of their products. With Venturio UK clearly between ICE-T and ICx (aka Venturio): https://www.cee.siemens.com/web/slo...kove/PublishingImages/vlaky_2000001506585.jpg

Though I would love to see a Venturio UK built for MML, as for this discussion. Follow on orders for Hitachi SET in the form of Class 800s for GWML are almost certain. I would imagine the only thing holding back this is the decision of where to electrify in CP6. (If as far as Plymouth the size of a Class 800 order is reduced for an increase in Class 801s for Pad-Ply)

 

[Rhydgaled]

Firstly, Hitachi confirmed that the MTU power units for the Class 800 (I did not ask with regard to the Class 801) are on a 10 year lease. At 10 years, Agility Trains can then extend the lease or return the power units to MTU. This would happen if (more likely when) the Class 800s became Class 801s due to the expansion of electrification in CP6-7. Very interesting and logical contracting I thought.

Interesting indeed, I feared financial viability of removing the engines from bi-modes would delay such an exercise until a half-life overhaul (let's say 15yrs after introduction). 10 years isn't quite so bad, but (assuming 2019 introduction for IEP) wiring the likes of Hull, Harrogate, Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham in the 2020-2024 timeframe would still leave at least 5 years of under-wires running for bi-modes. That might still see such schemes delayed by 5 years or so to co-incide with the end of the engine lease.

Secondly, the follow on orders within the original IEP specification/tender are cancelled/voided/over (I forget the specific term used). By follow on orders I mean the GWML Newbury-Penzance

IC125s to live on then, but 91s not so? Makes no sense to me, keep the 91s also (if I had to replace either, I'd probably go with the Penzance IC125s, but I think replacing either is wrong (all IC125s other than the Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance etc. route should go though)).

Hitachi stated that the relevant operators would be responsible for ordering more Class 800/801 for these services if they thought they were an operational requirement.

Hang on, that sounds more like the decision on whether these options would be taken on has been transfered from DfT to the TOCs, rather than being ruled out altogether.

Thirdly, within FGW DfT remit to source EMU units for the electrified GWML there are two sorts of requirements. One which can be addressed by Class 319s, Adventra's, Desiro City's or AT100/200 half breed (Hitachi's wording by taking the benefits of the AT 100 and 200 to make a bespoke unit for the GWML Class 165/166 replacements).

Interesting to see a full list of the options, and particularly interesting to see Aventra on it as the Derby offering rather than the 110mph Electrostar order.

The other requires a 125/140 mph EMU for the Oxford fasts which are currently a HST diagram. Thus FGW/DfT can order the proposed 5 Car Class 801s first required within the IEP deal, but now as a separate order through a ROSCO at reduced cost. This would then allow for Hereford/Worcester 5 car Class 800 services to be doubled with a 5 car Class 801 between Paddington and Oxford. Again, very interesting and logical.

Yes, interesting. I had assumed the current thinking was that Oxford fasts would be covered by the same 100-115mph units proposed to replace the 165s/166s. Aren't the high-density micro-buffet IC125s primarily intended for the Oxford fasts though, meaning a 5-car unit wouldn't cut it.

Operation Thor would match the cost for a like for like brand new EMU!

Ah, that explains why Thor is dead! I find it hard to believe though, how can not having to build new bodyshells etc. not save money over a new-build train? The 220/221/222 to receive a pantograph/transformer coach would need a total re-build of the entire train.

EMT did not say which 125mph EMUs they were considering, but noted that the Class 801 is a contender.

How many 125mph EMUs do they need? I guess if class 801 is a contender then I guess guage-clearance is considered quite cheap on the MML route. If that's the case, then sharing an IEP fleet with East Coast would seem sensible (the ICEC depot for IEP is Doncaster isn't it?). Then the excess bi-modes on the EC franchise if/when Hull/Harrogate are wired could be used on EMT's off-wire London services, without having two seperate bi-mode micro-fleets, and the surpluss 'electric' IEPs ordered to replace IC225s which don't need replacing can be used on the MML.

Build a Voyager-type unit? Hands up anyone who think more vehicles to that design are a good idea...

If they are intermediate cars to be inserted into existing sets to make them useful lengths for XC services (with legroom and seat-window alignment improved as a bonus) then maybe it would be a good idea. Otherwise, bad idea.

In the same way it's unlikely that anyone other than Alstom or Alstom+Bombardier would be able to supply a fleet of mini-Pendolinos as they would need to tilt and be compatible with the existing fleet of 390s and 221s for rescue and operational purposes.

Actually, that's a very interesting example. Before the ICWC franchising mistakes came out, it seemed Virgin were making use of that to ensure Alstom Pendolinos would be the new stock. However First were supposedly in negotionations with multiple potential train builders (CAF and Alstom being the front runners if I remember correctly).

Whether you agree or not with the Intercity Express Programme, the product being delivered for Agility Trains by Hitachi in the form of the Super Express Train/Class 800/801 is a fantastic high quality, modern, technologically advanced goddess of the rails.

There are certainly aspects of the class 800/801 which sound good. Unlike some, I don't think choosing Hitachi was a bad thing (although it will be a shame if the Derby factory is lost).

However, the way DaFT have ordered and specified the new trains is a let down in some respects, most noteably:

• Train length of some sets, resulting in a reduction in capacity on some Great Western services
• Porportion of bi-mode based on current/committed electrification with no allowance for potential expansion of electrification immediately after introduction of the trains (although 10 years before conversion from bi-mode to electric becomes feesible is better than the 15 years I had feared)
• Inclusion of wasteful, un-necessary, IC225 replacement component
• Removal of hot food from standard class

All DaFT's fault as far as I'm aware, Hitachi for their part will probably deliver a decent product.

(We were shown images from Japan of the cabs, stunning train!)

Mock-ups? Or has there been some construction progress of the prototype sets?

 

[jimm]

My experiences riding Voyagers and Meridians show them to be superior to HSTs, which is what I am proposing they should have replaced, ten years ago or more.

HSTs should never have made it into the 21st Century in front line service.

Well my experiences don't show any such thing, nor, to judge by an awful lot of posts in other threads here, do other people's experiences. Just because a train is electrically and mechanically reliable does not make it a good experience for the passenger if the interior is cramped, the toilets stink and they vibrate badly.

Either that or the TOCs concerned don't want to enter in to the IEP full service PFI contract, although they may well consider and place an order for class 800/801 SETs

Don't think the TOCs don't have a choice. I'm pretty sure the new long-term EC and GW franchise deals will require them to use the IEPs.

And here we go again...

Interesting indeed, I feared financial viability of removing the engines from bi-modes would delay such an exercise until a half-life overhaul (let's say 15yrs after introduction). 10 years isn't quite so bad, but (assuming 2019 introduction for IEP) wiring the likes of Hull, Harrogate, Weston-Super-Mare and Cheltenham in the 2020-2024 timeframe would still leave at least 5 years of under-wires running for bi-modes. That might still see such schemes delayed by 5 years or so to co-incide with the end of the engine lease.

Then again, it might not. Since post 2019 electrification schemes have yet to start emerging, no-one knows. IEP is going to start running in 2017. And Hull may be wired in the next few years if Hull Trains can pull it off. The engines can be removed at any time, if no longer required. It is just the lease that runs for 10 years, a lease that presumably has a clause allowing Hitachi to end it sooner, at a cost.

IC125s to live on then

No, not necessarily. I'll say it again. Nothing has been decided about stock for the West Country expresses. If Hitachi and a leasing company come up with a keen price for more IEPs, what do you think an operator is going to do? Buy a new train that is compatible with the rest of its fleet, or try to keep a 1970s one going for another decade, which won't come cheap?

Aren't the high-density micro-buffet IC125s primarily intended for the Oxford fasts though, meaning a 5-car unit wouldn't cut it.

No, the high-density micro-buffet sets get to lots of places in FGW-land, except to Devon and Cornwall as a rule, but low-density HSTs do get to Oxford and on up the Cotswold Line if that's what's available for the diagram in question. And off-peak, a five-car set would be able to handle the loads on some Oxford fasts perfectly happily. Not all of them are packed to the gunwhales all day.

There are certainly aspects of the class 800/801 which sound good. Unlike some, I don't think choosing Hitachi was a bad thing (although it will be a shame if the Derby factory is lost).

However, the way DaFT have ordered and specified the new trains is a let down in some respects, most noteably:
Train length of some sets, resulting in a reduction in capacity on some Great Western services
Porportion of bi-mode based on current/committed electrification with no allowance for potential expansion of electrification immediately after introduction of the trains (although 10 years before conversion from bi-mode to electric becomes feesible is better than the 15 years I had feared)
Inclusion of wasteful, un-necessary, IC225 replacement component
Removal of hot food from standard class
All DaFT's fault as far as I'm aware, Hitachi for their part will probably deliver a decent product.

I thought we had dealt with all this before, some of it for the umpteenth time only last weekend...

Train length - nothing is set in stone yet. Yes, DfT has ordered a certain number of vehicles, but no metal has been cut for a single coach yet; the trains can be re-formed; Mark Hopwood has talked about whether something other than five-cars night be needed; to judge from the new information provided today by 159220, the TOC could go out and order more coaches for the fleet on its own account through a leasing company; etc, etc....

Proportion of bi-modes and future wiring - you have no idea what the future holds in term of more wiring, nor do I. But there is lots of potential for future electrification, building on currently committed schemes, as has been pointed out to you endlessly on previous occasions. Wires can perfectly well advance bit by bit, allowing a reduction in diesel running bit by bit. When the WCML was wired in the 1960s and 1970s, that didn't happen overnight in one big bang. It was a staged process, with the loco changeover points from diesel to electric and vice versa changing as wires advanced.

IC225 - The coaches may well keep on going elsewhere, with new traction. The 91s are a small, complex loco fleet that is not cheap to run, again as pointed out to you previously.

Hot food - is it so hard to remember all that stuff I posted just last weekend (page 3 of this thread, post 43) about the range of options for catering arrangements. Options that were required by DfT, to allow TOCs to choose what suited their plans for on-board services.

Why don't you just give it a rest now until more information emerges as a result of the work that FGW and Hitachi are doing on the design of the interiors and the trains in general, instead of repeating this stuff on a near-weekly basis?

 

[Chris125]

But as I said above, would they really have to be fully compatible with the IEP? Ordering a different fleet of trains for the Plymouth/Penzanace route wouldn't be any less compatible than using HSTs on that route for many years into the future which is a possibility.

Shouldn't be a problem - after all, if Southern can specify compatibility with their existing fleet for the 377/6 order, despite them only working with each other in normal service and replacing incompatible 455/456 units, then then there's no reason why a FGW order to replace HSTs couldn't require compatibility with the IEP fleet.

Chris

 

[Rhydgaled]

Then again, it might not. Since post 2019 electrification schemes have yet to start emerging, no-one knows.

Indeed, no one knows. The issue I have is that, because nobody knows, DaFT have specified a number of bi-modes assuming no more electrification takes place. Things like this need to be planned ahead better, we need to know what electrification will happen in CP6 so we know how many diesel trains vs electric ones we need to introduce in CP5.

IEP is going to start running in 2017. And Hull may be wired in the next few years if Hull Trains can pull it off.

So Hull Trains might even electrify one of the routes IEP bi-mode is intended for before IEPs reach squadron service on East Coast? Doesn't that sound silly to you?

The engines can be removed at any time, if no longer required. It is just the lease that runs for 10 years, a lease that presumably has a clause allowing Hitachi to end it sooner, at a cost.

Exactly, a cost. And who will pay that cost? My fear is nobody will want to pay it and as such electrification will be defered until that cost is gone.

No, not necessarily. I'll say it again. Nothing has been decided about stock for the West Country expresses. If Hitachi and a leasing company come up with a keen price for more IEPs, what do you think an operator is going to do? Buy a new train that is compatible with the rest of its fleet, or try to keep a 1970s one going for another decade, which won't come cheap?

No, the high-density micro-buffet sets get to lots of places in FGW-land, except to Devon and Cornwall as a rule, but low-density HSTs do get to Oxford and on up the Cotswold Line if that's what's available for the diagram in question.

I know they get to lots of places, but I assumed the need for capacity and reduced need for catering facilities applied to PAD-Oxford more than any other route, and hence inspired the introduction of micro-buffet sets.

And off-peak, a five-car set would be able to handle the loads on some Oxford fasts perfectly happily.

Really, with no standing passengers at all, for entire diagrams?

IC225 - The coaches may well keep on going elsewhere, with new traction. The 91s are a small, complex loco fleet that is not cheap to run, again as pointed out to you previously.

Nevertheless, the 91s are an asset that will not be life expired in 2020 and replacing them with new traction is more (wasted, in my opinion) expendeture.

Hot food - is it so hard to remember all that stuff I posted just last weekend (page 3 of this thread, post 43) about the range of options for catering arrangements. Options that were required by DfT

Options required by DfT, but apparently (going on draft layouts (yes, I know they are drafts)) they have now decided that the snack trolley is the option they wish to provide for standard class passengers.

 

[Zoe]

Shouldn't be a problem - after all, if Southern can specify compatibility with their existing fleet for the 377/6 order, despite them only working with each other in normal service and replacing incompatible 455/456 units, then then there's no reason why a FGW order to replace HSTs couldn't require compatibility with the IEP fleet.

I expect Southern required compatibility so that the units could work with others if the need were to arise but a new fleet of say 9 car trains for use on the Paddignton to Plymouth/Penzance route is not going to need to work with other units so I'm not sure the trains would have to be compatible. Also by not requiring compatibilty I expect other train builders would be more interested and some may be able to offer a cheaper alternative.

 

[The Ham]

I expect Southern required compatibility so that the units could work with others if the need were to arise but a new fleet of say 9 car trains for use on the Paddignton to Plymouth/Penzance route is not going to need to work with other units so I'm not sure the trains would have to be compatible. Also by not requiring compatibilty I expect other train builders would be more interested and some may be able to offer a cheaper alternative.

Depends on service patterns, if they start to run portion working, so either more places in Cornwall have a direct service and/or more frequent but shorter trains in Cornwall so not all the services would need to be 9 coaches long (bearing in mind that a 9 coach IEP will have more capacity than a HST and they aren't all exactly jam packed all the way through Cornwall).

If this were to be the case then it would make sence to be able to have a single uniform fleet. If the order was for up to 170 coaches (17 pairs of 5 coach sets as a straight swap for the 17 HST's) then it is unlikley to be a large enough order for somone else to bother with designing their own alternitive.

However I would have thought that 170 maybe too many, as the TOC would probably use their existing 5 coach sets and replace these with new 9 coach sets. Also there wouldn't need to be as many spares as there would already be some spares within the existing IEP fleet rather than needing spares for the micro fleet. All that before you see any journey time improvements and/or portion working reducing the number of sets required (although there maybe some extra sets required for a more frequent service).

Although having said that they may want 170 IEP coaches so that they could lengthen some of their existing sets from 9 to 10 coaches (giving an increase in seating numbers to at least 703, of which 127 are first class rather than 627 of which 101 are first class). As although the longer 10 coach sets may not be needed by 2020 the coaches for them could be a small follow on order early on in the 2020's, as 5 years of growth from the intorduction of the IEP's could be 27.6% increase in passenger numbers assuming a 5% year on year growth. Even at 2.5% growth that would be a 13.1% increase in passenger numbers, which would use up most of the 18% increase capacity that the IEP's have over the HST's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So Hull Trains might even electrify one of the routes IEP bi-mode is intended for before IEPs reach squadron service on East Coast? Doesn't that sound silly to you?

Not really, there would still be plenty of routes which would need it.

Exactly, a cost. And who will pay that cost? My fear is nobody will want to pay it and as such electrification will be defered until that cost is gone.

Even if electrification of a line was due to happen in say lease x plus 1 year and was defered so that it happened in lease x plus 8 years that isn't a very long deferment. However all it would likley mean is that another line is elctrified first.

No, not necessarily. I'll say it again. Nothing has been decided about stock for the West Country expresses. If Hitachi and a leasing company come up with a keen price for more IEPs, what do you think an operator is going to do? Buy a new train that is compatible with the rest of its fleet, or try to keep a 1970s one going for another decade, which won't come cheap?

I would suggest buying more IEP's is fairly likely, as it would enable GW to also be able to look at lengthening other existing IEP's.

Really, with no standing passengers at all, for entire diagrams?

Why not, given that some Oxford services are run by a pair of 3 coach 166's.

Nevertheless, the 91s are an asset that will not be life expired in 2020 and replacing them with new traction is more (wasted, in my opinion) expendeture.

Depends, it maybe better to replace the 91's a few years early at say 30 years old to then be replaced with a new loco to run in service for another period of time rather than try and run the 91's for a long time after they are life expired.

Options required by DfT, but apparently (going on draft layouts (yes, I know they are drafts)) they have now decided that the snack trolley is the option they wish to provide for standard class passengers.

Trollies do not mean that passengers can't have hot food at their seats, as it could be possible for there to be a microwave in the catering facilitiy in stadard class, which in the draft layouts is up to 3 and half coaches (91m) from any standard seat, although most stardard seats are within 2 coachs (52m). However as it is a draft layout these could be altered so that it is shorter than this by providing an extra trolly store/cartering facility even if they don't go for a micro buffet.

 

[ainsworth74]

So Hull Trains might even electrify one of the routes IEP bi-mode is intended for before IEPs reach squadron service on East Coast? Doesn't that sound silly to you?

A bit but all this has developed in the last 18 months or so therefore after decisions about train fleet composition (and of course no steel has been cut so we could yet see a change in the make up of the order) were taken before this all developed (and it isn't a done deal yet though hopefully it will be soon!).

Really, with no standing passengers at all, for entire diagrams?

You are aware of portion working? Off-peak 5-car sets will be the norm but in the peak doubled up 10-car sets will be. You seem to be clinging to the notion that these trains will run as 5-car sets all the time. This will not be the case.

I expect Southern required compatibility so that the units could work with others if the need were to arise but a new fleet of say 9 car trains for use on the Paddignton to Plymouth/Penzance route is not going to need to work with other units so I'm not sure the trains would have to be compatible.

Though of course if they are compatible they can use existing maintenance facilities, existing training facilities (for both crew and fitters) and during disruption can swap diagrams with other trains.

Honestly since when did EU tendering law require companies to disadvantage themselves by forcing them to abandon long established principles of operating uniform train fleets whenever possible?

 

[Rhydgaled]

You are aware of portion working? Off-peak 5-car sets will be the norm but in the peak doubled up 10-car sets will be. You seem to be clinging to the notion that these trains will run as 5-car sets all the time. This will not be the case.

Yes, I am aware of portion working, but my opinion is that is should only be used with gangwayed-units like class 158s. With units like IEP, if used in multiple they should only be coupled/uncoupled out-of-service at the ends of services. But even then, I think some of them will end up running along at times when they don't provide enough capacity because at peak times the whole lot might need to be doubled, and I don't think there are enough units to run all diagrams doubled for part of the day.

Not really, there would still be plenty of routes which would need it.

Not on East Coast. That franchise I think only has 10 diagrams that extend beyond the wires at present. Unless Grand Central go bust/pull-the-plug like Wrexham and Shropshire did and the East Coast franchise takes over the services.

Trollies do not mean that passengers can't have hot food at their seats, as it could be possible for there to be a microwave in the catering facilitiy in stadard class

Can you fit a microwave in the trolley stowage area (the size of a standard toilet I think) given the trolley needs to fit in there too? And why can't they do something like swapping the Kitchen with the first class section of the composite coach, so that the kitchen/buffet is between first and standard like on the IC125 and IC225 fleets.

 

[HSTEd]

I am still not convinced that portion working without split destinations is worth it. (So for example Liverpool-Norwich with 4 cars LIverpool-Nottingham and 2 cars Nottingham-Norwich)

Once you consider the operational problems and the additional costs it starts to look like a false economy, additional staff, additional vehicles, reduced capacity over the 'busy' end of the route and all that.

The marginal savings seem to be just that, pretty marginal.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I am still not convinced that portion working without split destinations is worth it. (So for example Liverpool-Norwich with 4 cars LIverpool-Nottingham and 2 cars Nottingham-Norwich)

Once you consider the operational problems and the additional costs it starts to look like a false economy, additional staff, additional vehicles, reduced capacity over the 'busy' end of the route and all that.

The marginal savings seem to be just that, pretty marginal.

But when you start regularly leaving people at Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport it suddenly becomes worth it.

 

[HSTEd]

But when you start regularly leaving people at Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport it suddenly becomes worth it.

The superior solution is to put 4-car sets on the entire route, you avoid the insane set shuffles at Nottingham and the ridiculously long delay in the platform.

This is just yet another example of Penny pinching.
They complain about capacity shortages and then put 9-car sets that cost as much as 10-car sets on the services out of London Paddington.

 

[YorkshireBear]

You find me some more units then. Then i will agree.

 

[starrymarkb]

I am still not convinced that portion working without split destinations is worth it. (So for example Liverpool-Norwich with 4 cars LIverpool-Nottingham and 2 cars Nottingham-Norwich)

Once you consider the operational problems and the additional costs it starts to look like a false economy, additional staff, additional vehicles, reduced capacity over the 'busy' end of the route and all that.

The marginal savings seem to be just that, pretty marginal.

I'd say there could be a fair saving with Portion working - Take SWT's 159 fleet at Salisbury

A 9 car 159 train arrives from London, the rear 3 coaches are detached and 6 coaches continue to Exeter. Meanwhile the detached set shunts across to the Eastbound platform and is attached to the front of the next London bound train. Crews usually change at Salisbury so the driver that does the shunt could then wait with the unit for the next eastbound service. Another way it could be worked (I don't have the timetable/diagram) is the detached unit then forms a Salisbury to London Semifast with the opposite working attaching to the next service from Exeter

Either way it's better use of a three car unit then leaving it attached for a 4-5 hour round trip to Exeter where it will be mostly carrying fresh air and will be off the platform at most stations (which hold 6x23m but not 9x23m)

Assuming all services are strengthen it's a potential saving of at least 8 units

 

[HSTEd]

You find me some more units then. Then i will agree.

Well its strange, we seem to be ordering hundreds of vehicles right now, a few more won't make any difference.

I'd say there could be a fair saving with Portion working - Take SWT's 159 fleet at Salisbury

The Exeter is a special case which is rather unlike the system anywhere else.

For instance journey time from Oxford to Great Malvern is only 90 minutes.
That implies a total of 3 hours end to end from Paddington.

The 5+5 mechanism requires something like 11 sets or 55 cars. (7 on the Malvern Rotation and 4 on the Oxford Rotation)
The 9 throughout mechanism requires 7 sets, which is only 63 cars.

8 cars and I have just saved space for future capacity enhancements and removed the need for the crew of the second unit.

Assuming all services are strengthen it's a potential saving of at least 8 units

Would we need the full 9 cars if it was a fixed formation train?
They would likely not require so much first class seating if it was not required to provide the seating on the Exeter portion with one set and that all sets be identical.

 

[jopsuk]

I am still not convinced that portion working without split destinations is worth it. (So for example Liverpool-Norwich with 4 cars LIverpool-Nottingham and 2 cars Nottingham-Norwich)

Once you consider the operational problems and the additional costs it starts to look like a false economy, additional staff, additional vehicles, reduced capacity over the 'busy' end of the route and all that.

The marginal savings seem to be just that, pretty marginal.

it can have other advantages- take the split working for the Kings Cross (and peak Liverpool Street) to Kings Lynn services. These split at Cambridge, with the rear 4/8 terminating, as north of Cambridge passenger demand is much lower and several stations are 4-car only.

There's also peak Kings Cross-Cambridge services that split at Royston having run to there fast, with the front section continuing fast to Cambridge only, whilst the rear becomes a stopping service (again, short platforms), destination Cambridge!

 

[The Ham]

The Exeter is a special case which is rather unlike the system anywhere else.

Although many other services would enable two towns to have a service whilst only using one path into/out of London.

 

[jimm]

And here we go yet again...

The issue I have is that, because nobody knows, DaFT have specified a number of bi-modes assuming no more electrification takes place.

No, you are the person who keeps making assumptions, or rather, alleging that no more electrification will take place because of bi-modes. Your proof for this is what? They have specified bi-modes because there are a lot of heavily-used FGW services running through to and from London that go beyond the wires but which can take advantage of the wires where they are up, if operated by a bi-mode. I note you have completely ignored my points about gradually spreading wires and the WCML electrification. No surprise there. Presumably that doesn't fit in with your 'fears'.

So Hull Trains might even electrify one of the routes IEP bi-mode is intended for before IEPs reach squadron service on East Coast? Doesn't that sound silly to you?

East Coast runs all of one train a day each way between Hull and London. It is a nice boost to capacity but in a context where Hull Trains is running all day, not a big deal. You really are clutching at straws now in your paranoia about IEP.

Exactly, a cost. And who will pay that cost? My fear is nobody will want to pay it and as such electrification will be defered until that cost is gone.

That's your fear, but again, you don't know. Whatever happens all costs money. The kind of crash, national electrification programme you presumably favour, given your paranoia about diesel engines, would cost money. Money which simply isn't there at the moment. Nor the trained staff to do it at present, judging by issues with putting up the wires in Lancashire.

I know they get to lots of places, but I assumed the need for capacity and reduced need for catering facilities applied to PAD-Oxford more than any other route, and hence inspired the introduction of micro-buffet sets.

I have said umpteen times before that there is no catering on HSTs working Oxford-London only services, unless a Rail Gourmet trolley appears to balance out a trip on a 180 or Turbo working to and from the Cotswold Line. Micro-buffets were conceived for all those FGW HST services where a kitchen is not needed, after the plan for trolleys was abandoned.

My Quote:
And off-peak, a five-car set would be able to handle the loads on some Oxford fasts perfectly happily.

Really, with no standing passengers at all, for entire diagrams?

Really. Look at how the 180s are used now - with the possible exception of the 15.51 from Paddington to Worcester, which has lost its HST to the overhauls programme. The 180s have been carefully diagrammed to run against peak flows. And there are large parts of the day where there simply are not ever going to be 400 or more people turning up at Oxford station wanting to get on a train to London every 30 minutes - the numbers that would be needed to justify a nine-car set all the time.

And yet again, do I have to keep reminding you what Mark Hopwood said about five-car sets. Give the man and his team a chance to tackle this question. 159220's post yesterday shows things around IEP are changing all the time.

Nevertheless, the 91s are an asset that will not be life expired in 2020 and replacing them with new traction is more (wasted, in my opinion) expendeture.

The 91s will have clocked up 30 years by the time EC IEPs arrive - life-expired by typical rail standards, especially 30 years of 125mph running. Another small, expensive-to-run class of EC express locos, the Deltics, barely lasted 20 years.

Options required by DfT, but apparently (going on draft layouts (yes, I know they are drafts)) they have now decided that the snack trolley is the option they wish to provide for standard class passengers.

a. Who are "they"?
b. Where is your evidence that "they" have decided any such thing? Using words like "apparently" is not good enough. If it is "apparent" from another post on the internet, I'm afraid you'll have to do better, such as, say, a DfT document.

For instance journey time from Oxford to Great Malvern is only 90 minutes.
That implies a total of 3 hours end to end from Paddington.

I believe the aim is to get a flat two-hour timing between London and Worcester and under three hours to Hereford with IEP, which will be a lot quicker off the mark than HSTs are. The similarly fast-accelerating 180s have achieved some pretty remarkable feats of time recovery in the past on late-running services, so I don't see why these time reductions can't happen. May be time to get out your calculator again.

And whether it's seven, eight or nine coaches, that level of capacity is overkill west of Oxford off-peak, something that won't change unless Milton Keynes gets teleported to the Vale of Evesham.

it can have other advantages- take the split working for the Kings Cross (and peak Liverpool Street) to Kings Lynn services. These split at Cambridge, with the rear 4/8 terminating, as north of Cambridge passenger demand is much lower and several stations are 4-car only.

There's also peak Kings Cross-Cambridge services that split at Royston having run to there fast, with the front section continuing fast to Cambridge only, whilst the rear becomes a stopping service (again, short platforms), destination Cambridge!

Quite agree. Indeed I have made the point about Cambridge/Kings Lynn previously, after Modern Railways ran a piece comparing and contrasting London-Cambridge-Kings Lynn and London-Oxford-Worcester/Hereford

 

[NotATrainspott]

Nevertheless, the 91s are an asset that will not be life expired in 2020 and replacing them with new traction is more (wasted, in my opinion) expendeture.

Eversholt, the ROSCO which owns the 225 fleet, planned to replace the 91s if the IEPs didn't replace the whole sets. The 91s aren't being kept on ICEC and that is final.

 

[Zoe]

Though of course if they are compatible they can use existing maintenance facilities, existing training facilities (for both crew and fitters) and during disruption can swap diagrams with other trains.

Honestly since when did EU tendering law require companies to disadvantage themselves by forcing them to abandon long established principles of operating uniform train fleets whenever possible?

The current deal has Agility Trains building and maintaining and the stock for under Public Private Partnership rather than leaving it for the TOCs to maintain. The contract for this did contain an option to extend this to the Plymouth/Penzance route so if it was wanted to guarantee beyond all doubt that there would be a uniform fleet of trains then they option should have been taken up.