IEP for beginners

[Dave1987]

Actually the MTU power plant used in the Class 172 has rather impressive fuel efficiency.

The primary problem that the new emissions regs is causing for DMUs is not anything to do with fuel consumption, but that power plants with sufficiently high power outputs are becoming difficult to fit into the volume available.
This is why we have not had a class of Turbostars with QSK-19s or similar in it yet.

The latest generation of technologies such as selective catalytic reduction should allow this restriction to be overcome and permit high power diesels to be built which are sufficiently compact. As appears to be the case with the engines for the IEP.

From what I have been told new dmu's in complying with emissions regs, the exhaust system makes them very fuel inefficient. Class 172's very inefficient compared with 150's they replaced.

 

[LexyBoy]

OK, another thing which I don't think has been mentioned yet: will IEP be repeating the mistake made with Voyagers of replacing an infrequent service but long service with more frequent but shorter trains? OK, it's not an issue with the train design, but we're talking about IEP not IET.

For example, I believe that Cheltenham will have hourly direct London trains, rather than two-hourly as at present. Assuming this will be a 5-coach IEP, this is 315 seats total compared to 557 on an HST. That gives barely any increase in total seats on direct services (and a decrease if you include the Swindon services), but will probably boost demand considerably. And peak services which are currently full will have to be run with a longer train or doubled up.

 

[Wath Yard]

What are the loadings like after Swindon? I can't imaging you need a 557 seat train between Swindon and Cheltenham and passengers travelling from Swindon - London have other options, as Bristol and Swansea trains also stop there.

 

[LexyBoy]

What are the loadings like after Swindon? I can't imaging you need a 557 seat train between Swindon and Cheltenham and passengers travelling from Swindon - London have other options, as Bristol and Swansea trains also stop there.

I can't say for certain, but on the occasions I've used them they've been busy - you'll get a seat but probably 75% occupied.

A lot of people travel to Swindon from the west - there's probably similar numbers leaving as boarding at Swindon IME.

 

[tbtc]

as I said a loco would not have to be refueled as often so could stable at the attachment station

The engines on an IEP are only going to be used on the unelectrified sections and the useage is going to be shared between all of the engines on board.

DMUs manage some rather long distances without having to stop for refuelling.

Just dont complain if ticket prices go through the roof to pay for it!

Is it cheaper to pay for extra locos/ extra staff/ extra movements/ dragging full length trains (instead of portion working)?

Nobody seems to know the maths - other than the fact that the total cost of renting IEP (including depot/ maintenance facilities) will cost more than just the ROSCO lease of something like a 225 (where the TOC would have to pay for depots/ maintenance).

On another thread there was a discussion of the logistics of this process and the waste of fuel that can occur due to spillage

Yes, and a figure of 5% spillage was mentioned. Are you telling me that there would be significantly more fuel spilled into IEP engines than there would be into a locomotive? Or are you just trying to confuse things?

The break-even point for locos is generally accepted to be 5/6 cars. There were other reasons for the 9 car 222s

Why were Voyagers and Adelantes all built with five coaches?

Why were Pendolini built with nine coaches?

Or is this "break even point" just another guess?

In which case why were the rest of the 390s not built to that length?

I don't know. But it spoils your "why didn't we use long coaches on the WCML" argument if you realise that the line is cleared for 25m coaches.

If it was possible to clear the WCML (inc diversionary routes like the S&C) for these 25m coaches then I'd be interested to hear about the "significant" infrastructure costs required to allow IEP.

Why drag from Hurst Green to Uckfield when the whole route to London can perfectly well be run with a DMU?

Are you saying that we should use DMUs all the way from Inverness to London?

If the technology on the Weymouth 33s was so amazing then why was it not used on the Uckfield line? Why take DMUs all the way into London (and have to change the services because of emission problems at Victoria) when there was a simple reliable way to drag EMUs? Could it be because things weren't quite as simple or reliable?

It suggests nothing of the kind. It has more to do with the fact that the outer ends of the system were considered unimportant and it was easier to let the relatively small number of through passengers change trains

So now we should consider the Worcester/ Cheltenham (etc) passengers that they are unimportant and ought to change trains instead of getting a through service?

 

[Wath Yard]

I can't say for certain, but on the occasions I've used them they've been busy - you'll get a seat but probably 75% occupied.

A lot of people travel to Swindon from the west - there's probably similar numbers leaving as boarding at Swindon IME.

75% sounds like a large overestimation to me when Kemble and Stroud combined only generate a little over 1,000 passengers per day combined and off peak services using smaller trains between large cities have lower loadings than that.

 

[LexyBoy]

75% sounds like a large overestimation to me when Kemble and Stroud combined only generate a little over 1,000 passengers per day combined and off peak services using smaller trains between large cities have lower loadings than that.

It was an estimate as I say, but most of the traffic is from Cheltenham and to a lesser extent Gloucester. And 1000 passengers isn't trivial when there's only one or two trains which would suit commuters needing to get to work for 9.

 

[The Ham]

The break-even point for locos is generally accepted to be 5/6 cars. There were other reasons for the 9 car 222s.

Yes, fleet uniformity. By running one or two vehicles within a fleet the maintenance costs are a lot lower than running 4 or 5. It also means that there are a lot less "reserve" sets sat around.

Also many people who say that we should go for loco trains forget that the HST's run with 2 locos partly to keep the weight of the loco down but mostly to maximise the acceleration of the train, which then means that the HST's don't reach the above break even point of 5 or 6 cars per loco (as 8+2 is 4 cars per loco). Which means that one loco for IC services is not ideal; possibly resulting in lower speeds and therefore longer journeys which leads to the possibility of more trains being needed (either double heading trains or more rolling stock).

There is a facility at Oxford for refuelling of the present DMUs. You put up a small building to handle the simpler maintenance tasks under cover. That deals with this difficulty. IEPs will also need new maintenance facilities.

Yes IEP needs new maintenance facilities, however that is included in the overall cost. Although it sounds easy enough to have a little workshop at Oxford, to run locos how many times across the network would this need to happen. Also how many extra staff would you need to man such mini depots or would you have them travel around as they were needed, all of which pushes the cost up.

OK, I agree, the system has been ready for 26 metre vehicles for the past decade and all those Voyagers and Adelantes could have been made up of 26 metre long vehicles. How does that sound?

I'm glad you are seeing sense!!! However, that is because 10 years ago there wasn't the passenger demand to need to run 26m long coaches (in the same way that there wasn't the demand to run 23m stock when much of the network ran 20m stock and so on). One of the reasons that the Voyagers were as short (in number of coaches) as they are is because they were believed to be adequate for the passenger demand. Unfortunately they have become their own worst enemy as they have made it fairly easy and comfortable to use the XC services so they have become a lot busier.

Just the news that Oxford is getting electric trains has resulted in people choosing to live there a number of years before the trains are even due to be delivered. Meaning that IEP has already started to have an impact on where people are living.

 

[Wath Yard]

And 1000 passengers isn't trivial when there's only one or two trains which would suit commuters needing to get to work for 9.

That's a fair point but at odds with the point you were originally making, which was by increasing the frequency from 2 hourly to hourly it would cause overcrowding. If there are indeed a large number of people who use a small number of services to get to/from work then that would imply the off peak services are quite lightly used and an increase in passengers due to an increase in frequency wouldn't cause overcrowding even if they reduce the capacity of the trains.

 

[LexyBoy]

That's a fair point but at odds with the point you were originally making, which was by increasing the frequency from 2 hourly to hourly it would cause overcrowding.

It's a thread about the IEP, I don't have to be consistent!

But my point regarding the peaks was that those people will be getting the same train, but if it's 5 car there will be less capacity (in the morning peak there are hourly HSTs BTW).

Off-peak there's a lot of air carted round at the moment, so yes having an hourly, shorter, train is a good move (as long as they remember that Friday & Sunday afternoons are not "off peak" in terms of demand!).

Note that I did phrase my original post as a question - I don't know in detail the proposed diagramming of IEP, and it's certainly not as radical as what VXC did.

 

[Kali]

Also many people who say that we should go for loco trains forget that the HST's run with 2 locos partly to keep the weight of the loco down but mostly to maximise the acceleration of the train, which then means that the HST's don't reach the above break even point of 5 or 6 cars per loco (as 8+2 is 4 cars per loco).

HSTs aren't really a great thing to look at - they aren't a fantastic design of DMU, to be honest, the maximum tractive effort of a powercar is terrible, iirc something like 18k lbf ( vs say a 47, at 55-60k ) which is why they take forever to get up to speed.

Yes IEP needs new maintenance facilities, however that is included in the overall cost. Although it sounds easy enough to have a little workshop at Oxford, to run locos how many times across the network would this need to happen. Also how many extra staff would you need to man such mini depots or would you have them travel around as they were needed, all of which pushes the cost up.

As does lugging dead diesel engine packs and fuel around ( do we know how big the fuel tanks are going to be yet? ). That cost should be somewhat easier to work out than all the costs associated with seperate haulage, at least...

You could leave one attached to the EMU and get that to tow it to a London depot every now and then

 

[Manchester77]

HSTs really aren't good DMUs...

...because they're loco hauled trains. Is this what you means they're class 43s hauling mark III coaches

 

[ainsworth74]

The phrase 'can of worms' comes to mind. When delivered they were considered DEMUs (and numbered on TOPS accordingly as class 253 and 254) since then it is generally accepted by most (but by no means all) that they've become loco's and stock. However the classification of HSTs is not a debate for this thread.

 

[RobShipway]

It's a thread about the IEP, I don't have to be consistent!

But my point regarding the peaks was that those people will be getting the same train, but if it's 5 car there will be less capacity (in the morning peak there are hourly HSTs BTW).

Off-peak there's a lot of air carted round at the moment, so yes having an hourly, shorter, train is a good move (as long as they remember that Friday & Sunday afternoons are not "off peak" in terms of demand!).

Note that I did phrase my original post as a question - I don't know in detail the proposed diagramming of IEP, and it's certainly not as radical as what VXC did.

I thought within the order for IEP there was 7 or 9 car Hybrid trains which from my understanding would be doing teh routes to Cheltneham/Worcestor etc... that is beyond the wires. I believe the remaining HST's would still be doing the services to the South West?

 

[sprinterguy]

I thought within the order for IEP there was 7 or 9 car Hybrid trains which from my understanding would be doing teh routes to Cheltneham/Worcestor etc... that is beyond the wires. I believe the remaining HST's would still be doing the services to the South West?

The only 9-car Bi-mode trains are 13 sets in daily service for East Coast. The proposed order was altered when electrification to Swansea was announced: The GWML order presently consists of 21 x 9-car electric IEP trains and 36 x 5-car Bi-mode IEP trains. HSTs will indeed continue to operate the services to Plymouth and Penzance.

 

[AndyLandy]

The only 9-car Bi-mode trains are 13 sets in daily service for East Coast. The proposed order was altered when electrification to Swansea was announced: The GWML order presently consists of 21 x 9-car electric IEP trains and 36 x 5-car Bi-mode IEP trains. HSTs will indeed continue to operate the services to Plymouth and Penzance.

Do we know how many HSTs they'll be keeping for those services? I'm curious to see how many HSTs are being displaced by IEP. I assume the 5-car bi-modes effectively count as half an HST set? (According to Wikipedia, FGW currently operate 54 HST sets)

 

[Erniescooper]

Nobody seems to know the maths - other than the fact that the total cost of renting IEP (including depot/ maintenance facilities) will cost more than just the ROSCO lease of something like a 225 (where the TOC would have to pay for depots/ maintenance).

Yes but it does'nt make any difference in the figure quoted for Pendolino , Network Rail own the WCML Alstom depots and Alstom pay rent on them . The cost of depots is included in the £37.5k per diagrammed vehicle per month that Angel charge Virgin for leasing them , exactly the same arrangement as Agility trains would be charging £74k per diagrammed vehicle per month for IEP .

 

[Dave1987]

According to the Wikipedia entry. The DFT have made an order for 596 carriages. Total order £4.5bn but I read recently that the total cost had gone up to over £5bn. Mad mad fools. Just like FSTA for the MOD this project should have been scrapped ages ago.

 

[AndyLandy]

According to the Wikipedia entry. The DFT have made an order for 596 carriages. Total order £4.5bn but I read recently that the total cost had gone up to over £5bn. Mad mad fools. Just like FSTA for the MOD this project should have been scrapped ages ago.

That's 137 more vehicles than sprinterguy says are on order for FGW. Does that mean an order for some ECML units has been included too?

 

[Dave1987]

That's 137 more vehicles than sprinterguy says are on order for FGW. Does that mean an order for some ECML units has been included too?

Yes according to the entry they will be cascaded onto the East Coast and GW lines.

 

[sprinterguy]

That's 137 more vehicles than sprinterguy says are on order for FGW. Does that mean an order for some ECML units has been included too?

Yes, all of those that are replacing the HSTs on the East Coast, although the final size of the order will be dependent on the judgement of the new East Coast operator. I believe that the ECML order is confirmed but not financially closed. The DfT have specified the ECML order (as a base guide) to consist of 13 x 9-car Bi-mode IEP sets, 10 x 5-car Bi-mode IEP sets and 12 x 5-car Electric IEP sets (227 carriages for East Coast, 369 for Great Western bringing the total to 596) "to be available for passenger service each weekday".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do we know how many HSTs they'll be keeping for those services? I'm curious to see how many HSTs are being displaced by IEP. I assume the 5-car bi-modes effectively count as half an HST set? (According to Wikipedia, FGW currently operate 54 HST sets)

Logically, it would seem likely that Great Western will keep the 16 Laira based 2+8 long distance sets for the South West services. This would release 8 Old Oak 2+8 "high density" sets, 18 Old Oak allocated 2+8 "Super high-density" sets (Those recently lengthened from 2+7 by the insertion of converted former restaurant vehicles) and 10 Laira based high density sets.

That would see 36 HSTs, plus 5 class 180s and presumably a number of 166s presently used on the Oxford and Worcester runs, replaced by 21 x 9-car and 36 x 5-car IEP trains. Or alternately, 369 carriages replacing 313 carriages if you consider just the HSTs and 180s.

 

[Dave1987]

Interesting as industry experts think bi-mode trains are a stupid idea as well!! And say loco hauling much better idea.

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2011/04/time-to-derail-the-crazy-train/

 

[AndyLandy]

Yes, all of those that are replacing the HSTs on the East Coast, although the final size of the order will be dependent on the judgement of the new East Coast operator. I believe that the ECML order is confirmed but not financially closed. The DfT have specified the ECML order (as a base guide) to consist of 13 x 9-car Bi-mode IEP sets, 10 x 5-car Bi-mode IEP sets and 12 x 5-car Electric IEP sets (227 carriages for East Coast, 369 for Great Western bringing the total to 596) "to be available for passenger service each weekday".

Does that displace the IC225 fleet as well? Or is that still an optional extra. Having thought about this some more, I don't think running a mix of IEPs and IC225s on the ECML is going to make best use of the paths. I'd expect to see a wholesale move to IEP, giving you fleet commonality and pathing speeds.

Logically, it would seem likely that Great Western will keep the 16 Laira based 2+8 long distance sets for the South West services. This would release 8 Old Oak 2+8 "high density" sets, 18 Old Oak allocated 2+8 "Super high-density" sets (Those recently lengthened from 2+7 by the insertion of converted former restaurant vehicles) and 10 Laira based high density sets.

I add that up to 52 sets. Is Wikipedia wrong, or are there a couple of other sets "floating"? (Or maybe my maths isn't working!) WP suggests there are actually 117 power cars, so that's nine more 43s not accounted for, which I assume are spares.

 

[RobShipway]

Does that displace the IC225 fleet as well? Or is that still an optional extra. Having thought about this some more, I don't think running a mix of IEPs and IC225s on the ECML is going to make best use of the paths. I'd expect to see a wholesale move to IEP, giving you fleet commonality and pathing speeds.



I add that up to 52 sets. Is Wikipedia wrong, or are there a couple of other sets "floating"? (Or maybe my maths isn't working!) WP suggests there are actually 117 power cars, so that's nine more 43s not accounted for, which I assume are spares.

Are you including any as spare Andy?

 

[AndyLandy]

Interesting as industry experts think bi-mode trains are a stupid idea as well!! And say loco hauling much better idea.

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2011/04/time-to-derail-the-crazy-train/

In fairness, I find it unsurprising that Wolmar holds this view. Although there is a valid question about which experts were asked any why they hold their viewpoint. If there is a definite downer on bi-mode, it would be nice if some of these folks could provide us some numbers to understand why they've reached that conclusion.

Are you including any as spare Andy?

I think I'm trying to find out if some of them are spare, yes.

 

[sprinterguy]

Does that displace the IC225 fleet as well? Or is that still an optional extra. Having thought about this some more, I don't think running a mix of IEPs and IC225s on the ECML is going to make best use of the paths. I'd expect to see a wholesale move to IEP, giving you fleet commonality and pathing speeds.

The IC225 replacement order for 270 IEP carriages formed into 30 x 9-car trains is still an optional extra. Only the HST replacement order is confirmed and agreed with Hitachi.

I add that up to 52 sets. Is Wikipedia wrong, or are there a couple of other sets "floating"? (Or maybe my maths isn't working!) WP suggests there are actually 117 power cars, so that's nine more 43s not accounted for, which I assume are spares.

According to the Platform 5 pocket books, Wikipedia is wrong, and FGW have 52 active sets, but 18 spare vehicles which is where the total of 54 might have come from; although those spare vehicles would not be able to form up two rakes in the correct formation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting as industry experts think bi-mode trains are a stupid idea as well!! And say loco hauling much better idea.

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2011/04/time-to-derail-the-crazy-train/

It seems that he is wrong in saying that each power unit and associated equipment will weigh 20 tonnes though, when the officially published figures show that the TWO additional engines required for the 5-car Bi-mode trains only add 16 tonnes to the total train weight compared to an electric set.

 

[Dave1987]

In fairness, I find it unsurprising that Wolmar holds this view. Although there is a valid question about which experts were asked any why they hold their viewpoint. If there is a definite downer on bi-mode, it would be nice if some of these folks could provide us some numbers to understand why they've reached that conclusion.

Well from what he has written the only people who he has spoken to who think it is a good idea are the DFT civil servants who put the proposal forward! This coupled with my fathers view surely you can see that bi-mode is a non starter? I might email RAIL magazine and ask them to do a detailed peice on why bi-mode is such a bad idea.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"Suffice to say, it is expensive and environmentally perverse to be carrying around three heavy diesel engines each five car train set weighing 20 tonnes each for use on only small sections of the journey. The alternative of having diesel locomotives waiting at the changeover point, a common solution on railways across the world, was dismissed on the spurious grounds that it would take nine minutes to hook them up, whereas in truth it could be done in two or three. Moreover, as travellers on the uncomfortable Voyager trains used on Arriva’s Crosscountry services know only too well, having big diesel engines humming loudly underneath the floor does not make for a relaxed journey."

He states three heavy diesel engines per 5 car set dont think he would get his figures wrong as he would get slated if he did

 

[AndyLandy]

Well from what he has written the only people who he has spoken to who think it is a good idea are the DFT civil servants who put the proposal forward! This coupled with my fathers view surely you can see that bi-mode is a non starter? I might email RAIL magazine and ask them to do a detailed peice on why bi-mode is such a bad idea.

That actually sounds like a very sensible suggestion. I'm genuinely surprised there's not bee more coverage of this in the rail press, given the controversial nature of the decision!

 

[D365]

@sprinterguy: Are the 12x5 car electric IEPs you mentioned earlier for Cambridge/King's Lynn fasts? The situation on these isn't very clear-cut as of yet, as well as that of the non-Thameslink Peterborough/Cambridge services.

... the ECML order ... 12 x 5-car Electric IEP ...

Well from what he has written the only people who he has spoken to who think it is a good idea are the DFT civil servants who put the proposal forward! This coupled with my fathers view surely you can see that bi-mode is a non starter? I might email RAIL magazine and ask them to do a detailed peice on why bi-mode is such a bad idea.

I am also surprised that there hasn't been a feature on this debate in a railway publication. One of many issues facing the modern railway and its decision-makers. Although I remain on bi-mode (excuse the weighty pun!).


A quick note, I recall the 5 180s are tied to GW until 2016? Does wonders for my dream to standardise fleets...

 

[sprinterguy]

He states three heavy diesel engines per 5 car set dont think he would get his figures wrong as he would get slated if he did

Personally I'll take figures from a technical release by the company that are building the trains over the opinionated ramblings of the railways' rent-a-quote man. There's no way that the diesel engines weigh 20 tonnes each.