IEP East Coast

[anti-pacer]

I'm not in the know, so just wondered what's happening regarding IEP on the ECML.

Is it going ahead and if so, when? Also, what does it involve?

 

[Jatos]

Firstly: I think your answer is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/expanding-and-improving-the-rail-network/supporting-pages/the-intercity-express-programme

Personally though, I don't know why they don't just start upgrading the ECML to High Speed (I mean very high speed), and forget IEP.

It would make more sense than building a new railway line going all the way to Leeds, I am rather of the opinion with HS2, yes they need a new line to increase capacity between London and Birmingham, but to build new line beyond is senseless.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Firstly: I think your answer here: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/expanding-and-improving-the-rail-network

I don't know why they don't just start upgrading the ECML to High Speed (I mean very high speed), and forget IEP.

It would make more sense than building a new railway line going all the way to Leeds, I am rather of the opinion with HS2, yes they need a new line to increase capacity between London and Birmingham, but to build new line beyond is senseless.

The problem with that plan is all the freight and other services on the ECML that wouldn't be suitable for switching to 'true' high-speed. Essentially you'd need to build a new 'classic' line to take these services out of the way of the High Speed ones- With the cost of that, plus upgrading the existing ECML for high speed running, and the amount of money you'd save suddenly isn't all that great!

Of course, that's already going off topic, so to bring things back- East Coast IEP is conditional on a number of things, including the success of the pre-series and GWML examples.

 

[Jatos]

Ok, fair point on the freight!

 

[43074]

East Coast IEP is conditional on a number of things, including the success of the pre-series and GWML examples.

Why don't they build an IEP prototype instead of waiting for pre-series and production units to see if it works? The project has been on the DfT's drawing board for 6 years now - surely they could have built a prototype in that time because it took 2 years for an HST prototype and 4 years for an APT prototype to be built. They haven't even built a wooden cab/saloon mock up yet either, all we've seen are computer animations. :roll:

 

[43067]

Probably because they haven't built the plant at newton aycliffe yet . it's not due for completion until 2015 IIRC

 

[ainsworth74]

Though seeing as the first few are going to be built in Japan and most of the construction in the UK will be putting kits together rather than building from scratch that's not really a barrier.

 

[#1 driver]

they need a new line to increase capacity between London and Birmingham, but to build new line beyond is senseless.

why ?

what is so important about the south of the country ?

 

[Eagle]

It's where the vast majority of rail journeys occur.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Personally though, I don't know why they don't just start upgrading the ECML to High Speed (I mean very high speed), and forget IEP.

It would make more sense than building a new railway line going all the way to Leeds, I am rather of the opinion with HS2, yes they need a new line to increase capacity between London and Birmingham, but to build new line beyond is senseless.

Really, I think what is needed from new lines is capacity more than speed, though I would like to see IC225s doing 140mph in service. A new line starting between the MML and ECML, then shifting to the left a bit and calling at Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds would seem on the face of it a more sensible option for linking Leeds to London than via the outskirts of Birmingham.

As for HS2, I personally think ending the line north from London at Birmingham is senseless. If they are to do that, they should only build it for 125-150mph (which means you can curve around sensitive areas more easily). You don't need to do 200mph to beat a motorway, why use more energy to go faster than 125/140/150 if you don't need to? On longer distances where aviation is a competitor then high speed (still, 186mph like Eurostar should be plenty with so few stations).

In my opinion they should build a tunnel out the other side of Birmingham (there's so many tunnels on HS2 already one more won't make much difference) so that trains to Manchester, Liverpool, Chester, Scotland, north Wales etc. can call at Birmingham on the way to London (hence providing improved service into Birmingham from these places).

 

[transmanche]

As for HS2, I personally think ending the line north from London at Birmingham is senseless.

But they're not doing that...

 

[Eagle]

Also according to the current plans there will be services between Birmingham and the North via HS2 (all maps I've seen show the junction for the spur to Birmingham Curzon Street being triangular).

 

[Kali]

A new line starting between the MML and ECML, then shifting to the left a bit and calling at Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds would seem on the face of it a more sensible option for linking Leeds to London than via the outskirts of Birmingham.

Most of that was closed in the 60s!

As for HS2, I personally think ending the line north from London at Birmingham is senseless. If they are to do that, they should only build it for 125-150mph (which means you can curve around sensitive areas more easily). You don't need to do 200mph to beat a motorway, why use more energy to go faster than 125/140/150 if you don't need to? On longer distances where aviation is a competitor then high speed (still, 186mph like Eurostar should be plenty with so few stations).

I would assume there was never the idea to just end it at Birmingham, because other than it providing a short-term economic/social/political boost there's no real benefit to building new rather than expanding what we have. If you're going to build it you might as well build in the capability for 250mph though, that's about as fast as is economically sensible it seems. Nobody says you have to run at full speed from day one, only when you need the paths.

Are you including transfer times/other opportunity costs at either end when you're comparing speeds with motorways?

 

[junglejames]

I'm not in the know, so just wondered what's happening regarding IEP on the ECML.

Is it going ahead and if so, when? Also, what does it involve?

Apparently the deal to replace the HSTs on the ECML has been signed. Although cant be 100% sure. It wasnt signed at the same time as the GWML deal was, and ive heard differing stories since as to whether the ECML will definitely get them. But recent noises seem to suggest that it will, yes. However thats only to replace the HSTs. There's no deal to replace the 225s. As to whether they will eventually replace the 225s, that probably depends how much map maker can persuade the gullible politicians. Going by the fact we have IEP at all, it isnt exactly proving a difficult job to pull the wool over the eyes of the politicians.

As to what it involves. Its a simple task of replacing good trains with s**t trains. Heres to getting vibrated out of our seats by 900hp lumps underneath us. If you ask me, we would be better widening the motorways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why don't they build an IEP prototype instead of waiting for pre-series and production units to see if it works?

The pre series is the prototype! Its not possible to get anything out sooner.

The project has been on the DfT's drawing board for 6 years now - surely they could have built a prototype in that time because it took 2 years for an HST prototype and 4 years for an APT prototype to be built.

Ah but that 6yrs has been taken up with an awful lot.
Hitachi breaking the laws of physics.
Arguing that they havent, then eventually admitting that they were wrong and a journalist was actually more intelligent than they were.
Redesigning it all again, to such an extent the train was unrecognisable.
The DFT/ Hitachi deciding to redesign it all a 3rd time
The DFT suspending the whole thing.
The DFT finally deciding to go ahead with it.
Only then did they start the detailed work, like financing it etc etc.

In a fraction of the time, the ROSCOs have apparently (according to someone else seemingly in the know) already got designs on the drawing board to improve the HSTs, and give them a little pantograph on top.
But no, its seemingly against the law for FGW to have a single type of Intercity train. They must have 4 instead (well actually its only 1, but with an extra 3 types pretending to be IC).

They haven't even built a wooden cab/saloon mock up yet either, all we've seen are computer animations. :roll:

There is a cab mockup. Lets just say the line of sight is apparently s**t.

 

[SkinnyDave]

The chief exec of Agility trains has wrote to Rail magazine in response to Rail Mags good piece asking Hitachi to prove it is competitive agains other options.

I do believe East Coast has committed to IEP to replace HST only.
IC225 replacement is still up for debate as dft and Eadt Coast are looking at different options to compare.

I am not biggest fan of this for East Coast but it would it not be a nightmare having say a Pendolino fleet and an IEP fleet to maintain

 

[Chris125]

I would assume there was never the idea to just end it at Birmingham, because other than it providing a short-term economic/social/political boost there's no real benefit to building new rather than expanding what we have.

It has always been the plan for the network to extend beyond Birmingham because the full Y network is needed to deliver the bulk of the capacity and economic benefits - phase 1 on it's own would never make sense.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

Most of the HST improvement options are pushed only by people who own HST sets, and thus have the most to lose from them being replaced.
They don't really make very much sense for anyone else to support.

 

[junglejames]

Most of the HST improvement options are pushed only by people who own HST sets, and thus have the most to lose from them being replaced.
They don't really make very much sense for anyone else to support.

Do they not? Depends how good the job is. Both Chiltern and FGW seem to think the HSTs can go on for a while yet, and at present it is only the Mk3s that really need something doing to them. The power cars are apparently quite fine as they are.

So perhaps the plans arent that far fetched.

 

[HSTEd]

Do they not? Depends how good the job is. Both Chiltern and FGW seem to think the HSTs can go on for a while yet, and at present it is only the Mk3s that really need something doing to them. The power cars are apparently quite fine as they are.

So perhaps the plans arent that far fetched.

THe power cars aren't electric and thus for the majority of the HST fleet will be worthless pretty soon.
FGW needs msot of its fleet to be bi-mode or electric, EC likewise and Chiltern don't even have a route where HST sets would prove useful.
The Mark 3s might be able to go "on for a while yet" but they almost certainly will not go on for long enough to cover the reconstruction they need and the purchase of new power units required to propel them either on bi-mode or pure electric power.

If they could be converted to electric trainsets using existing resources you might be able to do something but we need 125mph trains and there are no spare 125mph electric locomotives.

 

[Rhydgaled]

THe power cars aren't electric and thus for the majority of the HST fleet will be worthless pretty soon.
FGW needs msot of its fleet to be bi-mode or electric, EC likewise and Chiltern don't even have a route where HST sets would prove useful.
The Mark 3s might be able to go "on for a while yet" but they almost certainly will not go on for long enough to cover the reconstruction they need and the purchase of new power units required to propel them either on bi-mode or pure electric power.

If they could be converted to electric trainsets using existing resources you might be able to do something but we need 125mph trains and there are no spare 125mph electric locomotives.

Can class 43s be regeared to a lower top speed? Would a 100mph class 43 with 5 or 6 coaches and a DVT be useful? Something like that might not go amiss on ATW's busier Manchester services, though I suppose there are 67s for that so really all that's needed for that are the mrk3s from the IC125s I guess. Alternatively, somebody could buy some new 125mph electric locos, there's already talk of buying some to replace 91s, why not to suplement them instead?

 

[HSTEd]

Once you add in the cost of the locomotives that will then be surplus to requirements ten years after they arrive once the Mark 3s go to the scrapline, you come out more expensive than simply ordering new multiple units.

I doubt the "new locomotive" plan for EC or GA will ever go ahead, the modifications to the 91s will win in the former case and some sort of AC Cl444-alike will likely win in the latter case.

 

[Dave1987]

Once you add in the cost of the locomotives that will then be surplus to requirements ten years after they arrive once the Mark 3s go to the scrapline, you come out more expensive than simply ordering new multiple units.

I doubt the "new locomotive" plan for EC or GA will ever go ahead, the modifications to the 91s will win in the former case and some sort of AC Cl444-alike will likely win in the latter case.

I doubt you are right on the GA front, the Norwich line requires an intercity set with on board catering. Plus you try telling out Norwich commuters that they can't have their intercity sets and more and they need to put up with a multiple unit. It would not go down well!! The hauled sets will be around for a while longer on GEML.

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt you are right on the GA front, the Norwich line requires an intercity set with on board catering. Plus you try telling out Norwich commuters that they can't have their intercity sets and more and they need to put up with a multiple unit. It would not go down well!! The hauled sets will be around for a while longer on GEML.

Class 444s have the same provision for on board catering (the TSRMB is a Modular Restaurant fitted vehicle) as the Mark 3 formations on GA, which certainly don't need a full buffet vehicle considering the offer they have now.

There is no reason similar units could not take over from the Class 90+Mark 3 formations.

 

[Dave1987]

Class 444s have the same provision for on board catering (the TSRMB is a Modular Restaurant fitted vehicle) as the Mark 3 formations on GA, which certainly don't need a full buffet vehicle considering the offer they have now.

There is no reason similar units could not take over from the Class 90+Mark 3 formations.

But they are only 5 car units. What's the point in having 2 x 5 car multiple units with wasted space of the middle cabs. You might as well have a proper intercity formation. With regards to the catering like I said before you try telling the Norwich commuters that they don't need a full buffet car.

 

[HSTEd]

But they are only 5 car units. What's the point in having 2 x 5 car multiple units with wasted space of the middle cabs. You might as well have a proper intercity formation.

A proper intercity formation might save the wasted space of the middle cabs, but the current sets throw away 36m of platform space with the engine and DVT which would not be wasted in a multiple unit formation.

Additionally in off peak periods the service could run with only five cars in the consist, allowing more services to be run without worrying about sets being in for maintenance of whatever.

With regards to the catering like I said before you try telling the Norwich commuters that they don't need a full buffet car.

As far as I can tell, the catering offer on GA is inferior to Hull Trains, which has a Modular Restaurant type settup on the Class 180s.

 

[junglejames]

THe power cars aren't electric and thus for the majority of the HST fleet will be worthless pretty soon.
FGW needs msot of its fleet to be bi-mode or electric, EC likewise and Chiltern don't even have a route where HST sets would prove useful.
The Mark 3s might be able to go "on for a while yet" but they almost certainly will not go on for long enough to cover the reconstruction they need and the purchase of new power units required to propel them either on bi-mode or pure electric power.

If they could be converted to electric trainsets using existing resources you might be able to do something but we need 125mph trains and there are no spare 125mph electric locomotives.

Sorry, i mean Chiltern and FGW think the Mk3s can go on for a while yet.
As for powercars not being electric. No, but my post was all about the supposed plans that the ROSCOs have for them.

If the plans were not economical, then the ROSCOs would not be suggesting it.

 

[Dave1987]

A proper intercity formation might save the wasted space of the middle cabs, but the current sets throw away 36m of platform space with the engine and DVT which would not be wasted in a multiple unit formation.

Additionally in off peak periods the service could run with only five cars in the consist, allowing more services to be run without worrying about sets being in for maintenance of whatever.



As far as I can tell, the catering offer on GA is inferior to Hull Trains, which has a Modular Restaurant type settup on the Class 180s.

Have you ever seen the intercity sets in the off peak?? There is no way 5 car units would be enough capacity in the off peak. They need to be full length all day! Also if you had 2 units you would be splitting first class so you would need to provide 2 lots of catering. Again listen to the outcry from the Norwich commuters if that happened.

 

[transmanche]

Again listen to the outcry from the Norwich commuters if that happened.

What's so special about Norwich commuters?

If a 444 is fine on London-Portsmouth and London-Weymouth express journeys, then I see no reason why a similar unit is not suitable for the London-Norwich route.

 

[The Ham]

Given that London Norwich is 114 miles whilst London Weymouth is 137 miles and although the Norwich urban area is about 4 times the size of Weymouth it is only about double the size of Dorchester and Weymouth, I don't see any problem with 444's running to Norwich rather than a loco and coaches.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Have you ever seen the intercity sets in the off peak?? There is no way 5 car units would be enough capacity in the off peak. They need to be full length all day! Also if you had 2 units you would be splitting first class so you would need to provide 2 lots of catering. Again listen to the outcry from the Norwich commuters if that happened.

There is nothing stopping a 444/2 being built as a ten car unit with first class at one end is there?

They'd actually be well suited for the Norwich route.