IEP for beginners

[RobShipway]

No hauling a 91+ DVT with a diesel would not be worth it but seeing as the "225's" are by no means life expired and there are wires up for them to use on the east coast then that is a side issue.

I think the crucial difference between the HS2 (which I am fully in faovour of) argument and the IEP argument is this:

The WCML is full and Im sure we can all agree on that point, building HS2 will relieve pressure on it and there is no other real cheaper solution to this.

IEP on the other hand does have cheaper alternatives. The way I look at it is that the DFT have got an idea in their head that they want bi-mode trains and they are not willing to listen to any other option apart from the one they want to hear. I think loco hauling electric traction has be proven to work with the 57's+pendo's the only real problem with these two is the fact they were never designed to be coupled together. If from the outset a loco (possibly class 68's) was designed to couple to a electric train using the delner coupler it would prob have few problems.

I have a better and cheaper idea, why not replace the 25 DVT with a HST class 43 with the engine uprated and changed so that it can be driven backwards from a Class 91 or the Class 91 can be driven from the Class 43 cab. There you have a Hybrid train no different than IEP, just with fewer seats. However, you look into the cost of make the changes in what I suggest above and what it means, then you start to realise that IEP is cheaper and possibly sceptically better in the long run.

 

[Manchester77]

I have a better and cheaper idea, why not replace the 25 DVT with a HST class 43 with the engine uprated and changed so that it can be driven backwards from a Class 91 or the Class 91 can be driven from the Class 43 cab. There you have a Hybrid train no different than IEP, just with fewer seats. However, you look into the cost of make the changes in what I suggest above and what it means, then you start to realise that IEP is cheaper and possibly sceptically better in the long run.

What like when the mark IVs weren't ready so hey used HST power cars as surrogate DVTs?

 

[Dave1987]

I have a better and cheaper idea, why not replace the 25 DVT with a HST class 43 with the engine uprated and changed so that it can be driven backwards from a Class 91 or the Class 91 can be driven from the Class 43 cab. There you have a Hybrid train no different than IEP, just with fewer seats. However, you look into the cost of make the changes in what I suggest above and what it means, then you start to realise that IEP is cheaper and possibly sceptically better in the long run.

Sorry but IEP is going to cost £2.8m per carriage. £14m per 5 car.

The total cost about £4.5bn. for around 120 x 5 car trains

Is that cheaper??

Considering the entire HS2 project from the south to the north is going to cost about £32bn and thats for an entire new high speed line

 

[ainsworth74]

Sorry but IEP is going to cost £2.8m per carriage. £14m per 5 car.

The total cost about £4.5bn. for around 120 x 5 car trains

Is that cheaper??

In order for a fair comparison to be made we would need to know the capital costs of the new (or refitted) vehicles, any new depots (or if there aren't any account for the cost of new depots in IEP figures), as well as maintenance. The IEP cost is expensive but it's buying a lot more than just a train.

 

[tbtc]

I think loco hauling electric traction has be proven to work with the 57's+pendo's the only real problem with these two is the fact they were never designed to be coupled together. If from the outset a loco (possibly class 68's) was designed to couple to a electric train using the delner coupler it would prob have few problems.

If loco hauling electric traction is such a good idea then how come we've never seen Virgin extend an EBW service to Shrewsbury/ Blackpool?

How come GNER/ NXEC/ EC would rather run diesel HSTs all the way from London to Edinburgh rather than drag 225s to Aberdeen?

Same goes with not hauling any 225s from Newcastle to Sunderland?

Why the 170s from Lowestoft to Liverpool Street instead of dragged 90s?

The one drag a week that we generally saw (the Virgin 390 to Holyhead) seems to have been unreliable, hence regular Voyager substitution.

Why did nobody tell Virgin about these "simple" couplers before now? They could have been running 390s to Shrewsbury/ Blackpool years ago.

All the evidence suggests that drags aren't as simple/ cost effective/ reliable as some would like to believe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The IEP cost is expensive but it's buying a lot more than just a train.

Precisely!

 

[Dave1987]

In order for a fair comparison to be made we would need to know the capital costs of the new (or refitted) vehicles, any new depots (or if there aren't any account for the cost of new depots in IEP figures), as well as maintenance. The IEP cost is expensive but it's buying a lot more than just a train.

Indeed that is true. but considering that they are going to build an entire new line for around 6 times as much it doesn't seem like great value for money. And the only way those costs will be recouped is in ticket prices!

 

[AndyLandy]

Indeed that is true. but considering that they are going to build an entire new line for around 6 times as much it doesn't seem like great value for money. And the only way those costs will be recouped is in ticket prices!

I wonder what's covered in that cost. I assume it makes no provision for rolling stock, once said line is completed?

 

[HSTEd]

Tear down the entire 12000 track mile network and replace it with Shinkansen lines.

It would solve all these problems

 

[AndyLandy]

Tear down the entire 12000 track mile network and replace it with Shinkansen lines.

It would solve all these problems

What? Not maglevs? (Aren't Shinkansens standard track anyway?)

 

[Erniescooper]

All the evidence suggests that drags aren't as simple/ cost effective/ reliable as some would like to believe.

Too right ,its not like its proven technology like hi-speed bi-mode.:roll:

 

[jimm]

All the evidence suggests that drags aren't as simple/ cost effective/ reliable as some would like to believe.


QUOTE]

Too right ,its not like its proven technology like hi-speed bi-mode.:roll:

Well 100mph bi-mode trains are extremely well-proven technology in France, so 125mph ones might just be possible, mightn't they?

SJ runs X2000 trains as 2 x 7 car sets at busy periods, more often now the X3000 have come into service. Doesn't bother me I only come to the UK at most once a year but I am amazed at people's willingness to accept poor travelling conditions.

But it sounds as if there is a need for more railways, and before 2026. And the London termini have had their platforms shortened to make them into shopping malls so there is room to put the space back again without building new railways. They could also adjust the ratio of first and second class - SJ sometimes charge less for first class to fill them up, and a bit of tuning of the fares could shift passengers off the high peak. But then again it is easier to assert that "it can't be done"

So you come to the UK once a year, but you have an MP asking questions on your behalf. Does this MP know where you live?

The last time you started on about London stations, I pointed out that the additional circulation area at Paddington had made the station a far more passenger-friendly environment. Remove it and you have ever-growing numbers of people in a cramped space. Or are cramped stations better than the cramped trains we apparently have to suffer?

SJ sometimes charge less for first class to fill them up

Do they? Would that be like discounted first class advance fares offered by several UK operators? I think it might...

On more general points, a number of people keep going on about dragging diesel engines around under the wires. If you had diesel locos working on the Cotswold Line, could someone please explain how they are going to get to a servicing depot for the regular heavy maintenance that such a punishing duty would require (stops and starts every seven minutes or so most of the way), if not by running for miles under the wires? The nearest GW depot with loco servicing facilities is Old Oak Common, 60 miles from Oxford. LM has fuel at Worcester but there are no heavy maintenance facilities. Any locos working Swindon-Cheltenham would presumably have to travel to and from Bristol to get some tlc and fuel, so again miles of light engine running under wires.

I have yet to see anyone come up with a credible figure for the 'few' locos that would be needed to cover the Cotswold Line, with an hourly off-peak frequency, stepping up to half-hourly in the peaks and where trains turn back at four different stations across the course of the day at present, meaning it is not some neat, regular sequence of out and back trips on the same run all day.

There has also been discussion of interiors and train lengths. The GW franchise invitation to tender made clear that DafT was prepared to listen to proposed variations on its plans. The IEP seat layouts linked to back up the thread are indicative schemes, nothing more.

No-one from DafT has ever explained how you could operate 2x5-car IEPs on peak Cotswold Line trains, with all the short platforms, suggesting that some sort of longer bi-mode would be an inevitable requirement. FGW md Mark Hopwood has spoken recently about the 180s often being near-full now on some off-peak Cotswold trains west of Oxford, and wondered how you accommodate future growth if the next generation of trains only has five coaches, with not many extra seats? I suspect the other bidders for the GW franchise may be thinking along similar lines.

 

[Erniescooper]

Well 100mph bi-mode trains are extremely well-proven technology in France, so 125mph ones might just be possible, mightn't they?

I have no doubt for a minute that Hitachi will make a train that will work well , the point was that it hardly seems fair to condemn something untried as unreliable when championing the cause of something else that is untried .

Fitting an auto coupler and through train wiring to a loco is hardly rocket science , Virgin and two other TOC's were taken enough by the idea to include it in there west coast bids and I far as I can tell that's three more TOC's than have taken an interest in IEP .

A small part of me feels very sorry for Hitachi as the meddling from DFT has turned what could have a competive train into something too expensive for TOC's to lease and little chance of further orders .

 

[The Ham]

Do you actually know how much TOC's pay for electric compared with diesel? Plus I wonder how much It would cost each journey to haul that dead diesel engine. That cost would have to go on ticket prices.

I thought that the cost of the electricity was included in the track access charges paid to NR and that the TOC had to buy their own diesel for their trains. Although thought I don't know the exact figurers it does mean that electricity is a cheaper power source than diesel.

 

[sprinterguy]

[*]It will be uncomfortable, due to squeezing in as many seats as possible.

88 seats per coach, holy cow they are gonna cram the seats in!! Just a I thought they would. That is unreal!!

No, they won't. 88 seats per carriage is exactly the same capacity that BR specified for their 26 metre mark 5 stock for the Intercity 250 project, and BR are not often criticised for leading us astray with regards to seating layouts when compared to more modern designs of regional and long distance stock.

An increase in capacity by twelve seats for an additional 3 metres of vehicle length, as has been explained by another poster, seems in perfect proportion when historical practice is considered: The 20 metre mark 2 carriages seated 64 (All in bays of 4 around tables), the 23 metre mark 3s - After the first refurbishment - seated 76, and hence the 26 metre IEP carriages seat 88.

88 seats per carriage seems to be pretty much the norm in the 26 metre carriages that are used across Western Europe, and that is with all the seats arranged in roomy bays of four aligned perfectly with the windows. Even the Swiss Pendolinos, with 26 metre carriages, seat either 80 or 88 (I cannot recall which) in standard class, and that, again, is with 90% of the seats arranged in bays of four around tables and with every seat lining up with the windows. 88 seats in a 26 metre vehicle is not cramming them in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Aha I'd imagine that if this forum was here in the 60s/70s we'd have people talking about how the new class 252/3s will need too much money being put into clearances and platform extensions and that the class 55s are more reliable etc etc etc

Precisely: Old copies of Modern Railways will reveal that in the seventies the HSTs were criticised for introducing airline seating and for seats that did not line up with the windows, as well as for having limited luggage space compared to older long distance trains. And there was an extensive programme of gauge clearance carried out on the routes that the HSTs were going to operate over as part and parcel of their introduction to accommodate the new longer carriages, just as there is for the IEP programme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I
And just to clarify (in case anyone's in any doubt), the IEP proposed design document has the IEP intermediate vehicles as 25m over the body ends and 26m over the gangway ends.

Indeed, and just to add some additional detail, the passenger saloon length of a mark 3 carriage (As built, which is still the arrangement used in the majority of mark 3s) is 17.42 metres, while that of the IEP vehicles that fit 88 seats is pretty much dead on 20 metres.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Stop comparing Sweden to Britain. It's a completely different system with completely different demands placed on it.

Perhaps there has been money wasted all the way through BR, RT+TOCs, and NR+TOCs. Buying a fleet of luxury cruise-ships-on-bogies isn't how to fix it.

How about using the space standards in a mark 1 as a yardstick? 2+2 in third class with 6ft 3in facing bays and 2+1 in first class with 7ft facing bays? Those were not luxury cruise-ships-on-rails. Trains should at least not be worse sixty years on.

A 26 metre vehicle with doors near the end should have 19 metres of saloon length. About 80 seats seems reasonable. 84 might just about go. 88 sounds like cramming. But short of seeing a detailed drawing it is impossible to make a judgement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, they won't. 88 seats per carriage is exactly the same capacity that BR specified for their 26 metre mark 5 stock for the Intercity 250 project, and BR are not often criticised for leading us astray with regards to seating layouts when compared to more modern designs of regional and long distance stock.

An increase in capacity by twelve seats for an additional 3 metres of vehicle length, as has been explained by another poster, seems in perfect proportion when historical practice is considered: The 20 metre mark 2 carriages seated 64 (All in bays of 4 around tables), the 23 metre mark 3s - After the first refurbishment - seated 76, and hence the 26 metre IEP carriages seat 88.

88 seats per carriage seems to be pretty much the norm in the 26 metre carriages that are used across Western Europe, and that is with all the seats arranged in roomy bays of four aligned perfectly with the windows. Even the Swiss Pendolinos, with 26 metre carriages, seat either 80 or 88 (I cannot recall which) in standard class, and that, again, is with 90% of the seats arranged in bays of four around tables and with every seat lining up with the windows. 88 seats in a 26 metre vehicle is not cramming them in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Precisely: Old copies of Modern Railways will reveal that in the seventies the HSTs were criticised for introducing airline seating and for seats that did not line up with the windows, as well as for having limited luggage space compared to older long distance trains. And there was an extensive programme of gauge clearance carried out on the routes that the HSTs were going to operate over as part and parcel of their introduction to accommodate the new longer carriages, just as there is for the IEP programme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, and just to add some additional detail, the passenger saloon length of a mark 3 carriage (As built, which is still the arrangement used in the majority of mark 3s) is 17.42 metres, while that of the IEP vehicles that fit 88 seats is pretty much dead on 20 metres.

The class 180 bays are 1.90m. Electrostar bays are 1.80m. Mark 2 bays were 1.95m. Mark 1 bays were 6ft 3in. Class 158 are 1.75m

1.8m is starting to get cosy. Adelantes are very acceptable with modern seating. Seating pitch can be reduced if the airline style arrangement is used but this has disadvantages especially for passengers travelling in groups. It also results in the loss of luggage space between seat backs, which then has to be provided somewhere else.

Surveys have shown that passenger preferences are about 1/3 are for facing bays, 1/3 are for airline and 1/3 have no preference. Sorry I cannot reference this but it was fed into the the design work for the X3000 train (formerly Gröna Tåget).

88 seats in a 26 metre vehicle sounds tight but you would need to look at the plans.

 

[sprinterguy]

How about using the space standards in a mark 1 as a yardstick? 2+2 in third class with 6ft 3in facing bays and 2+1 in first class with 7ft facing bays? Those were not luxury cruise-ships-on-rails. Trains should at least not be worse sixty years on.

A 26 metre vehicle with doors near the end should have 19 metres of saloon length. About 80 seats seems reasonable. 84 might just about go. 88 sounds like cramming. But short of seeing a detailed drawing it is impossible to make a judgement.

As I have said above the passenger saloons in the IEP carriages that seat 88 look to be dead on 20 metres long. Taking your dimensions for seating bays in a mark 1 carriage, the IEP carriages would seat 84. Not very far away from the 88 that are being fitted into the IEP carriages, which seems quite reasonable given that many of the seats will be arranged in airline pairs and not in bays of four. 80 to 88 seats looks to be the norm in long distance single deck stock in Western Europe for 26 metre carriages, all in roomy bays of four aligned with the windows.

 

[jimm]

I have no doubt for a minute that Hitachi will make a train that will work well , the point was that it hardly seems fair to condemn something untried as unreliable when championing the cause of something else that is untried .

Fitting an auto coupler and through train wiring to a loco is hardly rocket science , Virgin and two other TOC's were taken enough by the idea to include it in there west coast bids and I far as I can tell that's three more TOC's than have taken an interest in IEP .

A small part of me feels very sorry for Hitachi as the meddling from DFT has turned what could have a competive train into something too expensive for TOC's to lease and little chance of further orders .

And I didn't say using locos wouldn't work - but as I pointed out in the rest of my post there are an awful lot of associated issues around the use of diesel locos that people here seem to ignore - quite apart from finding a loco that is going to be able to handle the constant start-stop cycle that working the Cotswold Line requires, that can run at 110mph, which is projected as the speed limit in places on the route for IEP - and also be suitable for this afterlife hauling freight that people talk about - anyone care to nominate one? If the specification for IEP is asking a lot, that looks like a loco with a near-impossible specification as well.

And will there actually be any need for such machines to work freight in the future? Current projections of future electrification have already put any new dmu orders in the deep freeze. If the banks are wondering about the prospects of dmus being needed over a 30-plus year lifespan, are they any more likely to want to pay for locos with vague prospects of earning a return over a similar period? It's not as though, after the influx of Class 66s and 70s, that the current UK fleet of purpose-built freight diesel locos will be off to the scrapyard any time soon.

 

[sprinterguy]

1.8m is starting to get cosy.

88 seats in a 26 metre vehicle sounds tight but you would need to look at the plans.

No, it's not. Not least because as you admit yourself not all the seats on an IEP are going to be in bays of four, there will be many airline pairs. Based on the dimensions that you have provided, the known passenger saloon length on the IEPs and common UK and European practice, 88 seats in a 26 metre vehicle does not seem particularly tight.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

So you come to the UK once a year, but you have an MP asking questions on your behalf. Does this MP know where you live?

Yes. Are you offended by this? I pay UK taxes. I am entitled to know where my money is going.

The last time you started on about London stations, I pointed out that the additional circulation area at Paddington had made the station a far more passenger-friendly environment. Remove it and you have ever-growing numbers of people in a cramped space.

The original circulation area was The Lawn which was turned into a shopping area. Then another level was put in over the top with more shopping. Since the primary purpose of Paddington is, so far as I am aware, as a railway station, The Lawn could be returned to its original use and additional shopping space, if required, can go in over the top on an extension of the mezzanine. Not sure what English Heritage would have to say.

On more general points, a number of people keep going on about dragging diesel engines around under the wires. If you had diesel locos working on the Cotswold Line, could someone please explain how they are going to get to a servicing depot for the regular heavy maintenance that such a punishing duty would require (stops and starts every seven minutes or so most of the way), if not by running for miles under the wires? The nearest GW depot with loco servicing facilities is Old Oak Common, 60 miles from Oxford. LM has fuel at Worcester but there are no heavy maintenance facilities. Any locos working Swindon-Cheltenham would presumably have to travel to and from Bristol to get some tlc and fuel, so again miles of light engine running under wires.

I have yet to see anyone come up with a credible figure for the 'few' locos that would be needed to cover the Cotswold Line, with an hourly off-peak frequency, stepping up to half-hourly in the peaks and where trains turn back at four different stations across the course of the day at present, meaning it is not some neat, regular sequence of out and back trips on the same run all day.

There has also been discussion of interiors and train lengths. The GW franchise invitation to tender made clear that DafT was prepared to listen to proposed variations on its plans. The IEP seat layouts linked to back up the thread are indicative schemes, nothing more.

No-one from DafT has ever explained how you could operate 2x5-car IEPs on peak Cotswold Line trains, with all the short platforms, suggesting that some sort of longer bi-mode would be an inevitable requirement. FGW md Mark Hopwood has spoken recently about the 180s often being near-full now on some off-peak Cotswold trains west of Oxford, and wondered how you accommodate future growth if the next generation of trains only has five coaches, with not many extra seats? I suspect the other bidders for the GW franchise may be thinking along similar lines.

FRom what you are saying it sounds as if the Cotswold line needs to be electrified all the way to Worcester as part of the rolling programme. Which would call for another electrification team or two.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I have said above the passenger saloons in the IEP carriages that seat 88 look to be dead on 20 metres long. Taking your dimensions for seating bays in a mark 1 carriage, the IEP carriages would seat 84. Not very far away from the 88 that are being fitted into the IEP carriages, which seems quite reasonable given that many of the seats will be arranged in airline pairs and not in bays of four. 80 to 88 seats looks to be the norm in long distance single deck stock in Western Europe for 26 metre carriages, all in roomy bays of four aligned with the windows.

84 seats is ten and a half bays. 88 is 11 bays which means that the seating pitch must be reduced by about 5 cm. That should be all right in a mixture of airlines and bays, but means that passengers cannot keep large items of luggage close by where they are sitting.

 

[tbtc]

it hardly seems fair to condemn something untried as unreliable when championing the cause of something else that is untried

Bi-mode seems to work well abroad.

Regular drags doesn't seem to have worked since the days of 33s on the Southern region.

Fitting an auto coupler and through train wiring to a loco is hardly rocket science

...and yet no TOC/ ROSCO has introduced this in almost two decades since privatisation, despite the obvious number of places "just beyond the wires" that could benefit from dragged electric trains.

Why did TOCs not start running to Shrewsbury/ Hull/ Sunderland (and leave the market open for Open Access) if it was simple to couple a loco to a 225/ Pendolino?

We could have had trains from London to Bolton/ Blackpool etc years ago (if these auto couplers worked).

short of seeing a detailed drawing it is impossible to make a judgement

That doesn't tend to stop some people from having opinions though, does it?

 

[jimm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimm
So you come to the UK once a year, but you have an MP asking questions on your behalf. Does this MP know where you live?
Yes. Are you offended by this? I pay UK taxes. I am entitled to know where my money is going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimm
The last time you started on about London stations, I pointed out that the additional circulation area at Paddington had made the station a far more passenger-friendly environment. Remove it and you have ever-growing numbers of people in a cramped space.
The original circulation area was The Lawn which was turned into a shopping area. Then another level was put in over the top with more shopping. Since the primary purpose of Paddington is, so far as I am aware, as a railway station, The Lawn could be returned to its original use and additional shopping space, if required, can go in over the top on an extension of the mezzanine. Not sure what English Heritage would have to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimm
On more general points, a number of people keep going on about dragging diesel engines around under the wires. If you had diesel locos working on the Cotswold Line, could someone please explain how they are going to get to a servicing depot for the regular heavy maintenance that such a punishing duty would require (stops and starts every seven minutes or so most of the way), if not by running for miles under the wires? The nearest GW depot with loco servicing facilities is Old Oak Common, 60 miles from Oxford. LM has fuel at Worcester but there are no heavy maintenance facilities. Any locos working Swindon-Cheltenham would presumably have to travel to and from Bristol to get some tlc and fuel, so again miles of light engine running under wires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimm
I have yet to see anyone come up with a credible figure for the 'few' locos that would be needed to cover the Cotswold Line, with an hourly off-peak frequency, stepping up to half-hourly in the peaks and where trains turn back at four different stations across the course of the day at present, meaning it is not some neat, regular sequence of out and back trips on the same run all day.

There has also been discussion of interiors and train lengths. The GW franchise invitation to tender made clear that DafT was prepared to listen to proposed variations on its plans. The IEP seat layouts linked to back up the thread are indicative schemes, nothing more.

No-one from DafT has ever explained how you could operate 2x5-car IEPs on peak Cotswold Line trains, with all the short platforms, suggesting that some sort of longer bi-mode would be an inevitable requirement. FGW md Mark Hopwood has spoken recently about the 180s often being near-full now on some off-peak Cotswold trains west of Oxford, and wondered how you accommodate future growth if the next generation of trains only has five coaches, with not many extra seats? I suspect the other bidders for the GW franchise may be thinking along similar lines.
FRom what you are saying it sounds as if the Cotswold line needs to be electrified all the way to Worcester as part of the rolling programme. Which would call for another electrification team or two.

MPs are meant to represent people living in their constituencies. Clearly you don't live in a UK constituency, so I think I have every right to question why my money, as a UK taxpayer, is being spent answering questions from people who don't live in the UK. Especially when that money is being spent on a desperate attempt to prove your assertion on this forum that the introduction of IEP will require "a major infrastructure upgrade", despite your continued failure to provide any evidence of any such thing being announced by Network Rail, the very company that would be responsible for carrying out any such "major infrastructure upgrade" - something that really shouldn't require the involvement of an MP to uncover, if it were ever going to happen. I couldn't see any sign of your "major infrastructure upgrade" due to the dimensions of IEP coaches in Network Rail's western route business plan the other day either - surely the very place such a thing would be explained. All manner of other major infrastructure upgrades are mentioned, but not one to do with the length of IEP coaches. How odd.

The Lawn at Paddington is a confined area, with only some of the platform ends adjacent to it anyway. The alterations made at Paddington created a large circulation area for railway passengers using this railway station. What you suggest would punch an awkward hole into that circulation area. What are you going to call for next in your 'bring back the 1950s' musings? Should Liverpool Street also be turned back to its former state, where there used to be a couple of long platforms that effectively cut the station in two?

It would be lovely to see the Cotswold Line electrified but it just isn't going to happen in the short term. Once XC wires go up past Worcester, also allowing the possibility of electric regional services from Birmingham to Worcester and Hereford in conjunction with a Cotswold scheme, the prospects of it happening will improve. In the meantime, some other solution is required to maintain through services to Paddington for a number of years to come.

 

[Dave1987]

Bi-mode seems to work well abroad.

This is not the point. The point is that you are dragging the dead weight of the diesel engines under the wires! That is a ridiculous waste of energy. Plus you are not taking into account that IEP is incredibly expensive for what it is. And that means higher fares....

I will admit that having a train that can simply go from electric to diesel would be nice if it didnt have the major flaws in cost and inefficiency!

 

[jimm]

This is not the point. The point is that you are dragging the dead weight of the diesel engines under the wires! That is a ridiculous waste of energy. Plus you are not taking into account that IEP is incredibly expensive for what it is. And that means higher fares....

I will admit that having a train that can simply go from electric to diesel would be nice if it didnt have the major flaws in cost and inefficiency!

Right, so you are dragging diesel engines around under the wires. Could you now address my point about what happens if you use diesel locos instead which end up running around for miles under the wires just to get to a depot. What's the difference?

 

[tbtc]

This is not the point. The point is that you are dragging the dead weight of the diesel engines under the wires! That is a ridiculous waste of energy. Plus you are not taking into account that IEP is incredibly expensive for what it is. And that means higher fares....

So the alternative is to drag over a hundred tonnes of dead weight (e.g. a 91 and DVT) all the way from Edinburgh to Inverness when hauled by a "68"?

IEP is expensive, but that's partly because (a) it includes the cost of depots etc and (b) PFI (let's face it, every new order of trains is going to be ordered under some complicated expensive scheme like this, designed to keep the "debt" off the UK Government's books, so it would make purchasing new electric stock and "68"s expensive too).

 

[Dave1987]

So the alternative is to drag over a hundred tonnes of dead weight (e.g. a 91 and DVT) all the way from Edinburgh to Inverness when hauled by a "68"?

IEP is expensive, but that's partly because (a) it includes the cost of depots etc and (b) PFI (let's face it, every new order of trains is going to be ordered under some complicated expensive scheme like this, designed to keep the "debt" off the UK Government's books, so it would make purchasing new electric stock and "68"s expensive too).

With bi-mode you are always hauling dead weight, be the that the dead Diesel engine or dead OHLE. At least with a loco most of the time you are not hauling dead weight. Who said anything about loco hauling 225's? This is about IEP.

 

[tbtc]

Who said anything about loco hauling 225's? This is about IEP.

Okay, if not 225s then what trains are you proposing for HST replacement (especially the London - Aberdeen / Inverness/ Harrogate/ Hereford etc links where bi-mode will be useful)?

With bi-mode you are always hauling dead weight, be the that the dead Diesel engine or dead OHLE. At least with a loco most of the time you are not hauling dead weight

And by the same token, dual voltage EMUs are carrying "dead weight" around with them, but people get over this.

 

[jimm]

With bi-mode you are always hauling dead weight, be the that the dead Diesel engine or dead OHLE. At least with a loco most of the time you are not hauling dead weight. Who said anything about loco hauling 225's? This is about IEP.

And my point about using diesel locos instead and getting them to and from depots with miles of light running under wires powering absolutely nothing at all - never mind dead weight - is about IEP or not IEP too. So what's your answer? Or are you just going to ignore it as it doesn't fit in with your take on things?

 

[AndyLandy]

I'd like to see some actual, citable facts about just how catastrophic this "dead weight" will be. A pantograph and transformer can't way more than a couple of tons at the very most, so IEP isn't going to weigh a great deal more than a comparable Voyager or HST set. That, at least suggests that IEP bi-modes should come in cheaper per-mile than existing diesel traction.

 

[Dave1987]

And my point about using diesel locos instead and getting them to and from depots with miles of light running under wires powering absolutely nothing at all - never mind dead weight - is about IEP or not IEP too. So what's your answer? Or are you just going to ignore it as it doesn't fit in with your take on things?

I don't know where these light engine moves to and from depots have come from. You don't need to send DMU's to the depot each night.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd like to see some actual, citable facts about just how catastrophic this "dead weight" will be. A pantograph and transformer can't way more than a couple of tons at the very most, so IEP isn't going to weigh a great deal more than a comparable Voyager or HST set. That, at least suggests that IEP bi-modes should come in cheaper per-mile than existing diesel traction.

But they will be far more expensive to run than comparable electric traction.

 

[AndyLandy]

But they will be far more expensive to run than comparable electric traction.

In the words of Wikipedia: [[citation needed]]

I don't believe you that they will be "far more" expensive than comparable electric traction.

I will absolutely grant you that they will in fact be more expensive. But I do not believe it will be "far more"