IEP for beginners

[HSTEd]

The infrastructure on many rural routes will never support line speeds above 75mph. Using units geared for 100mph running on rural routes will not lead to reduced journey times in the slightest, as the frequent stop-start nature of these lines between closely spaced stations will mean that 100mph trains will probably be heavier, have slower acceleration characteristics and will be considerably worse on fuel economy over comparatively low-speed, regular stop services than a comparable 75mph unit.

We have no evidence that 75mph units are significantly lighter than 100mph unist in the present day.
The British market can only barely support a handful of viable DMU designs as it is (and frankly I think the Turbostar is the only modern one left now, Siemens and the like appear to have given up) and demanding we split this market in two by demanding some design optimised for slightly lower running to save a few pennies is not going to help keep costs down.
It will likely lead to higher unit prices which will erase any marginal operational advantage.

And most rural travel times are so heavily padded a loco hauled formation from the 70s could keep to time on them.

What such an approach is probably going to achieve is to make journey times longer and cause a dramatic increase in the operational costs of marginal rural routes: Taken to an extreme conclusion, it possibly wouldn't be long before all we had left would be the core high speed main line network to run these new 100mph trains on, as the subsidies required to support the marginal rural routes would become unsustainable. It's this sort of "one size fits all" approach that is the source of much of the criticism that is being levelled at the IEP!

Maintaining a fleet of specialised 75mph units and another fleet of specialised 100mph units would be an operational nightmare, and as fro 75mph routes "never" being upgraded, why was the Breckland line, possibly the classic "rural" line, fitted with 100mph rated signalling if there was never any chance of it being upgraded?

A uniform fleet of 100mph diesel units with end gangways is the optimal solution, it permits any unit to work any of the required diagrams and keep to time, it allows for slow and steady upgrades to line speeds over the next 30 years and it allows for reduced procurement costs due to larger order sizes.

 

[tbtc]

We have no evidence that 75mph units are significantly lighter than 100mph unist in the present day.
The British market can only barely support a handful of viable DMU designs as it is (and frankly I think the Turbostar is the only modern one left now, Siemens and the like appear to have given up) and demanding we split this market in two by demanding some design optimised for slightly lower running to save a few pennies is not going to help keep costs down.
It will likely lead to higher unit prices which will erase any marginal operational advantage.

And most rural travel times are so heavily padded a loco hauled formation from the 70s could keep to time on them.

Maintaining a fleet of specialised 75mph units and another fleet of specialised 100mph units would be an operational nightmare, and as fro 75mph routes "never" being upgraded, why was the Breckland line, possibly the classic "rural" line, fitted with 100mph rated signalling if there was never any chance of it being upgraded?

A uniform fleet of 100mph diesel units with end gangways is the optimal solution, it permits any unit to work any of the required diagrams and keep to time, it allows for slow and steady upgrades to line speeds over the next 30 years and it allows for reduced procurement costs due to larger order sizes.

You're talking about taking mainly unprofitable rural routes to speed them up to 100mph?

It's worth upgrading some routes to 100mph, especially those where there are fast roads competing (so rail needs a speed advantage).

Anyhow, we are getting off topic here - i want to hear what non-wasteful alternatives people have instead of IEP (something that only RAGNARØKR has tried to solve)

 

[HSTEd]

Anyhow, we are getting off topic here - i want to hear what non-wasteful alternatives people have instead of IEP (something that only RAGNARØKR has tried to solve)

Total electrification of all InterCity routes.
Outright purchase of the EMU stock required to run them.

Better than another PFI, epsecially one with terms apparently as poor as this ones.

 

[455driver]

Which, other than a the first few examples, will be true of IEP.

It is only "final assembly" that will be done in this country, Now what "final assembly" is open to debate and can mean anything from a bare body-shell being completely fitted out to a completed body-shell having a few stickers put on it.

Hitachi will not answer the question as to what their version of "final assembly" is.

 

[tbtc]

Total electrification of all InterCity routes.
Outright purchase of the EMU stock required to run them.

Better than another PFI, epsecially one with terms apparently as poor as this ones.

Is electrification to Inverness/ Hereford etc realistic before HSTs need to start to be replaced (on top of all of the CP5 stuff)?

And PFI is something that we are sadly lumbered with - it's not like the was any realistic chance of buying everything outright.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

RAGNARØKR - why are you trying to hide behind WS Atkins again? You were the one who talked about this "major infrastructure upgrade", not them.

OK, Mott McDonald, Interfleet, DeltaRail, Serco, whatever. The introduction of vehicles significantly different in dimensions from those which are currently a tight fit on the system is not a trivial matter.

Should be interesting to watch.

 

[Gareth Marston]

"The Industry" thinks that 10x26m carriages will have fewer seats than HSTs have?

Must be great for legroom though, eh?

remember c40% of each end unit is a designated crumple zone so on a 10 car IEP its not 10 x 26 m worth of passenger accommodation. 2 5 car bi modes will be equivalent of 6 26 m coaches and 4 15m ones. Say a 9 car HST is roughly equivalent when joined and remember the 5 car bi modes will duplicate up things like train manager, catering, first class accommodation.

 

[HSTEd]

Is electrification to Inverness/ Hereford etc realistic before HSTs need to start to be replaced (on top of all of the CP5 stuff)?

And PFI is something that we are sadly lumbered with - it's not like the was any realistic chance of buying everything outright.

It would require a second HOOP train, but with such an investment (as I understand it it's only 30 million pounds or something of that order) it should be easily manageable.

Then again I woudl like a third HOOP train and then never order another diesel hauled/powered passenger vehicle ever again.

And as to PFIs, if you don't like them you should vote for me when I stand in 2015! (I am standing so I can complain for the rest of my life that I gave the people a chance to escape the mess we are in but they didn't take it.... that sort of smarmyness is worth £500 I think)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

remember c40% of each end unit is a designated crumple zone so on a 10 car IEP its not 10 x 26 m worth of passenger accommodation. 2 5 car bi modes will be equivalent of 6 26 m coaches and 4 15m ones. Say a 9 car HST is roughly equivalent when joined and remember the 5 car bi modes will duplicate up things like train manager, catering, first class accommodation.

It would not be 40% of the vehicle.

As I understand it its roughly 33% of a 23m vehicle.
Which is ~7.7m.

And remember that space is not entirely wasted, the Train Managers office and catering spaces that you mention can be placed in there.
This means 30.8m of "wasted" space at most.
That means there is ~229.2m of available passenger space on the unit.

Now catering takes up somethingl ike 10m of a Mark 3 on East Coast and then there is the Guard's office which uses up another 2m or so.
So 9 x 23m - 12m comes out at 195.2m.

So the HST looses badly by more than a whole tenth Mark 3.
And it still wins by effectively half Mark 3 even if you assign the end spaces as entirely "wasted" and require each train to have catering spaces in the passenger usable space.

Since a HST tends to have two (or sometimes 2.5 including the buffet) first class vehicles under normal circumstances, you don't really waste anything by "duplicating" it, since presumably the 5-car sets would only have one First class vehicle each, possibly even one of the end vehicels that is not full length.

 

[ainsworth74]

remember c40% of each end unit is a designated crumple zone so on a 10 car IEP its not 10 x 26 m worth of passenger accommodation. 2 5 car bi modes will be equivalent of 6 26 m coaches and 4 15m ones. Say a 9 car HST is roughly equivalent when joined and remember the 5 car bi modes will duplicate up things like train manager, catering, first class accommodation.

I'm not sure about HST capacities but two five-car IEPs will (according to the DfT draft layouts) have 540 standard class seats and 90 first class seats. Whilst the nine-car version will have 526 standard class and 101 first class. How does that compare to existing HSTs?

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm not sure about HST capacities but two five-car IEPs will (according to the DfT draft layouts) have 540 standard class seats and 90 first class seats. Whilst the nine-car version will have 526 standard class and 101 first class. How does that compare to existing HSTs?

A typical FGW high density HST formation has 118 first class seats and 395 standard class. A 9-car IEP train is largely comparable in terms of total train length to a 2+8 HST formation, too.

 

[ainsworth74]

So if anything IEP represents a loss of first class seating rather than standard (where it looks like quite a boost).

 

[jimm]

OK, Mott McDonald, Interfleet, DeltaRail, Serco, whatever. The introduction of vehicles significantly different in dimensions from those which are currently a tight fit on the system is not a trivial matter.

Should be interesting to watch.

Whatever indeed.

You keep saying all this stuff but you have not produced a single bit of hard evidence for your alleged "major infrastructure upgrade" - not named a single location where such work is going to be carried out, nor shown us where to find a single document describing any such thing.

I have tried myself but have failed to find a mention of it in Network Rail's western route business plan for 2014-19, nor signs of them doing any work on the GWML remotely resembling a "major infrastructure upgrade" to improve clearances for IEP coaches, even as they press on with actual work on the railway to improve clearances for electrification, and let new contracts for more such work. Maybe they've just forgotten this other "major infrastructure upgrade" of yours...

There's lots of information in that western business plan about major infrastructure upgrades that are going to be happening by 2019, and other major infrastructure upgrades happening elsewhere on the network in the other regional plans, but nothing about a major infrastructure upgrade for IEP. Why is that?

A typical FGW high density HST formation has 118 first class seats and 395 standard class. A 9-car IEP train is largely comparable in terms of total train length to a 2+8 HST formation, too.

The FGW high-density HST fleet is split roughly 50-50 between those with a kitchen-buffet and the ones with mini-buffets in a standard class trailer.

The kitchen-buffet sets are as you describe capacity-wise but the ones with mini-buffets have just two first class coaches, offering 96 seats, but an extra standard coach, taking capacity in standard up by 80 or so seats, giving a total of about 580 for both classes combined, so the nine-coach IEP has a slight edge in first class and 30 or so more standard seats even than these super-HD HSTs.

Someone will know the exact figures, but there's about 18 or so of each type of HD set.

Sorry my original post was written in temper and not very usefull . Rail business intelligence obtained their information from a freedom of information request to Lord Attlee , including Pfi it worked out to an annual cost of £449m or £12.3b in total over the 27.5 years of the contract . With a guess at inflation Lord Attlee worked the total to £17.8b and they divided this by the total of diagrammed units to get the monthly lease costs.

Which doesn't answer my question. Are they direct cost for cost comparisons? There are an awful lot of costs lumped into the IEP contracts which are not included in conventional train leasing contracts.

It would require a second HOOP train, but with such an investment (as I understand it it's only 30 million pounds or something of that order) it should be easily manageable.

It really isn't that simple. There are places you just can't use the high-output trains, even on the GWML, due to clearances, structures etc. The first pilings for overhead masts put in on the route, at Pangbourne, were installed by traditional methods. And even if you have another train, and the skilled staff you need, can the suppliers actually churn out enough components to feed them and keep them running? If not, then that's a very expensive asset doing nothing.

And could train builders keep up with the need for new stock, especially when they would be faced orders falling off a cliff - ie plants closing - once you finish this breakneck programme, assuming you can actually find the money for it all somewhere? This country's feast and famine approach to rolling stock orders has done a lot to decimate the trainbuilding industry over the years. People huff and puff here about British-built but the very places many of our most recent trains have come from, Germany and Japan, plus the French, tend to order new trains steadily to help keep their plants in business.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Whatever indeed.

You keep saying all this stuff but you have not produced a single bit of hard evidence for your alleged "major infrastructure upgrade" - not named a single location where such work is going to be carried out, nor shown us where to find a single document describing any such thing.

I have tried myself but have failed to find a mention of it in Network Rail's western route business plan for 2014-19, nor signs of them doing any work on the GWML remotely resembling a "major infrastructure upgrade" to improve clearances for IEP coaches, even as they press on with actual work on the railway to improve clearances for electrification, and let new contracts for more such work. Maybe they've just forgotten this other "major infrastructure upgrade" of yours...

There's lots of information in that western business plan about major infrastructure upgrades that are going to be happening by 2019, and other major infrastructure upgrades happening elsewhere on the network in the other regional plans, but nothing about a major infrastructure upgrade for IEP. Why is that?

Suppose for a moment that you are right. Do you think all the accommodation work for IEP has been done already or can be buried at minimal cost within the other work being done on the GWML? What about the ECML? What about the other routes on which it is planned to run the trains? And what about the longer term as use of the trains spreads on to other routes?

Do you know what are the implications for the infrastructure when stock is introduced, to larger dimensions than any used previously? How do you think infringements to the loading gauge are identified?

It is not unknown for anticipated costs to be under-estimated. When the RVAR were being introduced, the official documents stated that the costs would be next to nothing as they could be absorbed. Then there was that WCML upgrade, the cost of which went from a projected £1.8 billion to a final out-turn of more than four times that amount, with the ambition for 140 mph running being abandoned. Past experience suggests that statements in business plans should be read with caution.

 

[jimm]

Suppose for a moment that you are right. Do you think all the accommodation work for IEP has been done already or can be buried at minimal cost within the other work being done on the GWML? What about the ECML? What about the other routes on which it is planned to run the trains? And what about the longer term as use of the trains spreads on to other routes?

Do you know what are the implications for the infrastructure when stock is introduced, to larger dimensions than any used previously? How do you think infringements to the loading gauge are identified?

It is not unknown for anticipated costs to be under-estimated. When the RVAR were being introduced, the official documents stated that the costs would be next to nothing as they could be absorbed. Then there was that WCML upgrade, the cost of which went from a projected £1.8 billion to a final out-turn of more than four times that amount, with the ambition for 140 mph running being abandoned. Past experience suggests that statements in business plans should be read with caution.

Yet more bluster. You are the person who proclaimed on this forum that there would have to be a "major infrastructure upgrade" before IEP could turn a wheel in the UK. Yet despite being asked on many occasions to produce any evidence, you still haven't. A simple answer to a simple question is all that's needed.

Yet again, you seem to be suggesting that Network Rail haven't been thinking about the implications of introducing 26m rolling stock, even though they have known DfT was planning for it back in the middle of the last decade - and have been planning for it themselves as a result. But for some reason or another, they haven't suggested they will be carrying out a "major infrastructure upgrade" to specifically address this terrible problem you claim to have identified with 26m coaches.

So yet again, I will have to remind you about something I posted previously which you appear to have not read/forgotten/chosen to ignore - the Cotswold Line redoubling project, completed in August 2011, on which design work began way back in 2008, was executed with the need to operate 26m IEP coaches accounted for and without a single bridge or platform or other structure being laid waste along 20 miles of railway in the process. How odd...

 

[HSTEd]

It really isn't that simple. There are places you just can't use the high-output trains, even on the GWML, due to clearances, structures etc. The first pilings for overhead masts put in on the route, at Pangbourne, were installed by traditional methods. And even if you have another train, and the skilled staff you need, can the suppliers actually churn out enough components to feed them and keep them running? If not, then that's a very expensive asset doing nothing.

Indeed, Is hould have said a second HOOP train and its associated support equipment, which includes the assets used in places where the HOOP train cannot bef ore various reasons.

Skilled staff are available in significant numbers on the continent and elsewhere, and not that very highly trained staff are actually required, given a few months it is likely sufficient staff for a second HOOP-associated electrification team could be put together.

As to suppliers, as the equipment designs are apparently owned by Network Rail itself and not by any contractors it would be possible to source parts from additional suppliers should the currrent suppliers not be able to handle the increase in demand.

And most of the equipment used in overhead wiring is already generic (big metal beams and tubing of various diameters) or could be produced without much delay since it is relatively simple to tool for.

And could train builders keep up with the need for new stock, especially when they would be faced orders falling off a cliff - ie plants closing - once you finish this breakneck programme, assuming you can actually find the money for it all somewhere? This country's feast and famine approach to rolling stock orders has done a lot to decimate the trainbuilding industry over the years. People huff and puff here about British-built but the very places many of our most recent trains have come from, Germany and Japan, plus the French, tend to order new trains steadily to help keep their plants in business.

As the objective is merely to avoid ordering a new set of diesels I am not sure that you can really argue that ordering electrics instead of diesels is going to exacerbate this problem.

The programme I envisage would take something on order of 10-12 years to reach completion, so you have 12 years to replace all the diesel stokc in use assuming no old electrics are scrapped.

Its rather similar than todays programme, and once the programme is finished there will be all those obsolete electrics to replace as well.
Its not really heavily front loaded as far as train orders go, especially if capacity enhancement requirements continue as they have done.

ANd I have my doubts that large amounts of rolling stock will ever be built in the UK again, the Hitachi "assembly" plant is probably just a sop that will close once the IEP orders are complete and the eyes of the media are no longer on it.

 

[corfield]

Well, having followed the numerous IEP debates here, and having started at a point of supporting a pure EMU fleet with some distributed diesel locos for drags; I for one am now convinced that IEP is the right thing for our railway, and that bi-mode is significantly better on balance than alternatives.

I am sure it will be expensive as a PFI, but we all know that the nature of the procurement is virtually irrelevent to the technical spec and capabilities of the equipment, and the reasons for PFI are regrettable but probably unavoidable.

I am sure it will be a perfectly good and comfortable travelling environment, just as pendos and voyagers are (for all except a small and vocal but otherwise irrelevent minority). If you are overly fat or want a more luxurious travelling environment, first class offers that. Most people just want a seat, and one larger than a first class airline seat seems a pretty good deal. Any tapering seems to be in the ends where it's hardly an issue anyway.

The infrastructure costs, if they exist to any significant level, are just something we need to face in order to get a more efficient use of longitudinal space as part of the overriding need to provide enough seats for all the people that want to travel (and thus to d something to keep tickets down); just as we need to face the infrastructure costs of electrification, network speed/capacity and station improvements for the long term benefits they bring. I am sure clearing for 26m will take a little time and require some investment (interesting on pendo cabs being 25m though) but once done it will reap benefits for ever and we will assuredly start to see other longer new trains taking advantage of that investment also. Just as we did with the move to 23m coaches decades ago - it's time to make the next increment.

As the weights show, bi-mode's additional weight is fairly insignificant (circa 5-10%) and I fail to see how carrying that (which is less than the difference between the IEP bi-mode and comparable DMUs or EMUs; let alone without adding a loco onto the EMU !) could remotely equate to the costs of procurement, manning and operation of a fleet of locos across the country. Further, the one thing we do know for certain is the benefit (to growth in usage) of direct services in which bi-mode, particularly in the smaller sets, offers unparallelled flexibility in adding/changing service destinations and frequency patterns, plus accomodating expansion & electrification changes that would otherwise have to be fairly static through being forced to rely on fixed numbers and prepared locations for the locos and having to have all the crew, stabling and support arrangements in place to use them (and sufficient for all potential EMUs in the non electrified areas simultaneously which is likely to change significantly over the lifetime).

All in all, I am happy to throw my hat in that IEP will be ok, and bi-mode is the way ahead. Congrats in particular to those arguing for the latter - you persuaded me by a country mile !

To those arguing for LHCS and/or loco drags - it comes across very strongly that you have "situated the appreciation" and decided what you want long before thinking about the factors involved, and certainly not considering change either; and are mainly trying to shoehorn that solution in at any physical or mental expense. It's not very convincing.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Yet more bluster. You are the person who proclaimed on this forum that there would have to be a "major infrastructure upgrade" before IEP could turn a wheel in the UK. Yet despite being asked on many occasions to produce any evidence, you still haven't. A simple answer to a simple question is all that's needed.

Yet again, you seem to be suggesting that Network Rail haven't been thinking about the implications of introducing 26m rolling stock, even though they have known DfT was planning for it back in the middle of the last decade - and have been planning for it themselves as a result. But for some reason or another, they haven't suggested they will be carrying out a "major infrastructure upgrade" to specifically address this terrible problem you claim to have identified with 26m coaches.

So yet again, I will have to remind you about something I posted previously which you appear to have not read/forgotten/chosen to ignore - the Cotswold Line redoubling project, completed in August 2011, on which design work began way back in 2008, was executed with the need to operate 26m IEP coaches accounted for and without a single bridge or platform or other structure being laid waste along 20 miles of railway in the process. How odd...

To determine the extent of the issue it will eventually be necessary to run a gauging train over the routes on which it will operate. This will include a vehicle of the proposed dimensions, with soft build-outs in the centre and ends. These days, the build-outs consist of polystyrene blocks. Where curved tracks are adjacent, two such vehicles will have to be run past each other to ensure that no infringement takes place. Gauging problems due to overthrow do not arise on straight runs of track such as you have cited. So it is quite possible that the entire length of the Cotwold Line could take 26 M vehicles without difficulty. Even 26 x 2.82. Trouble arises typically, at junctions and approaches to major stations, where radii can be down to the minimum of 200 metres. There are serious difficulties if the site is in an urban area with little room for taking additional land. The junctions around Newcastle were mentioned in another thread as an example.

Due to laser surveying techniques Network Rail has a better knowledge of the infrastructure than previously but ultimately it is the train that will find the restricted clearances. Unexpected situations arise - there was no obvious reason why parts of the station had to be cut back at Shoreham - on a straight stretch of track - to accommodate the class 158.

A further issue relating to gauging is that track does not remain in one place, especially on curves where it tends to drift sideways with the passage of time. This can be controlled by regular surveying and re-aligning. It may be that the intention is to do this more frequently, enabling tolerances to be reduced, in which case there will be an ongoing cost instead.

 

[tbtc]

Unexpected situations arise - there was no obvious reason why parts of the station had to be cut back at Shoreham - on a straight stretch of track - to accommodate the class 158

That may be to do with the doors - 158s are barred from certain platforms at certain stations due to the way that their doors open.

Was that a significant bit of infrastructure spending?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Well, having followed the numerous IEP debates here, and having started at a point of supporting a pure EMU fleet with some distributed diesel locos for drags; I for one am now convinced that IEP is the right thing for our railway, and that bi-mode is significantly better on balance than alternatives.

(interesting on pendo cabs being 25m though) but once done it will reap benefits for ever and we will assuredly start to see other longer new trains taking advantage of that investment also. Just as we did with the move to 23m coaches decades ago - it's time to make the next increment.

If you look at the history of this project, it began with the aim of replacing the HST fleet. It was then decided to try to eliminate as far as possible the amount of diesel running under the wires. This had never been an issue before, because it had been accepted that the overall thermal efficiency of diesel is higher than electricity. DfT also had a horror of the once widespread and unproblematical practice of using locomotives on routes which are not electrified throughout and changing from diesel to electric and vice versa at the end of the electrified part of the route. This seems to have been based on experience at Crewe where the Pendolinos are dragged towards Chester and beyond.

This led to a proposal for a train like an HST with a diesel locomotive at one end and an electric one at the other, and that was the basis of the specification which went out to tender, and which Hitachi won, though neither of the bids submitted actually complied with the full requirements of that specification.

Two things then happened. The first was the Foster report, which stated that the less expensive alternatives to the IEP should be considered, and the second was the realisation that the off-wire performance of IEP would be inferior to the HST.

Foster was ignored and the train was then redesigned with underfloor diesel engines, thereby perpetuating the undesirable feature of other high speed trains with powerful underfloor diesels - noise and vibration inside the vehicles. The resulting trains are of unprecedented complexity and the most expensive passenger trains ever to be procured for service within the UK, at £2.6 million per vehicle.

The length is also going to be an issue, as the vehicles are also 1 cm wider than mark 3 and the overthrow is proportional to the square of the distance between the bogie centres. Changes will be required to the infrastructure. I would be surprised if this is trivial, given the existing route restrictions on many existing classes of rolling stock. This is why longer end cars eg the Pendolino, are able to travel on lines normally restricted to 23 metre vehicles - the ends can be tapered.

On continental 26 metre vehicles the bogies are close to the outer ends just as they are in a 20 metre UK vehicle, which have a bogie spacing of 14.17 metres between centres ie 2.9 metres in from each end. Mark 3 stock has a bogie spacing of 16 metre between centres ie 3.5 metres in from the ends. This gives rise to stresses on the couplings and gangways which wear out faster than they should, but the problem is manageable. The bogie centre spacing on the IEP is variously given as between 17 and 19 metres. In the former case they would be 4.5 metres from the end, in the latter, 3.5 metres from the end. A close bogie spacing on a long vehicle should have interesting effects on its dynamics but we shall have to wait and see.

For my money, given that UK railway vehicles are the narrowest in Europe, and British people the most overweight in Europe, I would have preferred to see the loading gauge utilised so as to give a few cm of additional width, which would have resulted in a length of around 22 metres ie one bay longer than a mark 1.

 

[tbtc]

The length is also going to be an issue, as the vehicles are also 1 cm wider than mark 3 and the overthrow is proportional to the square of the distance between the bogie centres. Changes will be required to the infrastructure. I would be surprised if this is trivial, given the existing route restrictions on many existing classes of rolling stock. This is why longer end cars eg the Pendolino, are able to travel on lines normally restricted to 23 metre vehicles - the ends can be tapered

As Jimm has pointed out, all of these "non trivial" infrastructure upgrades you know about haven't been mentioned in all of the CP5 upgrade lists that I've seen.

IEP coaches are going to be tapered at the ends - which is why the toilets etc are going to be at the extremes of the carriage (i.e. between the door and the carriage end), which will give a much larger space for seats. Good use of space.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

As Jimm has pointed out, all of these "non trivial" infrastructure upgrades you know about haven't been mentioned in all of the CP5 upgrade lists that I've seen.

IEP coaches are going to be tapered at the ends - which is why the toilets etc are going to be at the extremes of the carriage (i.e. between the door and the carriage end), which will give a much larger space for seats. Good use of space.

So all those previous gauging restrictions that have applied up to now were a fuss about nothing? If, as someone has claimed, the bogie centre spacing is only 17 metres, the dynamics of these vehicles could be interesting too.

 

[tbtc]

So all those previous gauging restrictions that have applied up to now were a fuss about nothing? If, as someone has claimed, the bogie centre spacing is only 17 metres, the dynamics of these vehicles could be interesting too.

You're claiming the significant infrastructure spending (yet are mysteriously quiet on details)

 

[asylumxl]

I think the whole "26m is too long" thread and topic is getting a bit stale now. It's obvious nobody will agree so it seems pointless to continue, whether or not your claims have basis or not.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I think the whole "26m is too long" thread and topic is getting a bit stale now. It's obvious nobody will agree so it seems pointless to continue, whether or not your claims have basis or not.

Look at the position of the bogies on these 26 metre vehicles here, which do not have or need tapered ends. A bit different from those on the IEP. Why do you think that is?

What do you think will be the effect of that difference?

 

[asylumxl]

If you don't like the IEP design why not contact Hitachi or the DfT? It's the DfT's obsession with "furnishable space" which has resulted in the requirement for 26m carriages. As with any kind of design/engineering, everything is a compromise, and it's obviously felt by Hitachi that suitable compromises have been made.

 

[Dave1987]

Well, having followed the numerous IEP debates here, and having started at a point of supporting a pure EMU fleet with some distributed diesel locos for drags; I for one am now convinced that IEP is the right thing for our railway, and that bi-mode is significantly better on balance than alternatives.

I am sure it will be expensive as a PFI, but we all know that the nature of the procurement is virtually irrelevent to the technical spec and capabilities of the equipment, and the reasons for PFI are regrettable but probably unavoidable.

I am sure it will be a perfectly good and comfortable travelling environment, just as pendos and voyagers are (for all except a small and vocal but otherwise irrelevent minority). If you are overly fat or want a more luxurious travelling environment, first class offers that. Most people just want a seat, and one larger than a first class airline seat seems a pretty good deal. Any tapering seems to be in the ends where it's hardly an issue anyway.

The infrastructure costs, if they exist to any significant level, are just something we need to face in order to get a more efficient use of longitudinal space as part of the overriding need to provide enough seats for all the people that want to travel (and thus to d something to keep tickets down); just as we need to face the infrastructure costs of electrification, network speed/capacity and station improvements for the long term benefits they bring. I am sure clearing for 26m will take a little time and require some investment (interesting on pendo cabs being 25m though) but once done it will reap benefits for ever and we will assuredly start to see other longer new trains taking advantage of that investment also. Just as we did with the move to 23m coaches decades ago - it's time to make the next increment.

As the weights show, bi-mode's additional weight is fairly insignificant (circa 5-10%) and I fail to see how carrying that (which is less than the difference between the IEP bi-mode and comparable DMUs or EMUs; let alone without adding a loco onto the EMU !) could remotely equate to the costs of procurement, manning and operation of a fleet of locos across the country. Further, the one thing we do know for certain is the benefit (to growth in usage) of direct services in which bi-mode, particularly in the smaller sets, offers unparallelled flexibility in adding/changing service destinations and frequency patterns, plus accomodating expansion & electrification changes that would otherwise have to be fairly static through being forced to rely on fixed numbers and prepared locations for the locos and having to have all the crew, stabling and support arrangements in place to use them (and sufficient for all potential EMUs in the non electrified areas simultaneously which is likely to change significantly over the lifetime).

All in all, I am happy to throw my hat in that IEP will be ok, and bi-mode is the way ahead. Congrats in particular to those arguing for the latter - you persuaded me by a country mile !

To those arguing for LHCS and/or loco drags - it comes across very strongly that you have "situated the appreciation" and decided what you want long before thinking about the factors involved, and certainly not considering change either; and are mainly trying to shoehorn that solution in at any physical or mental expense. It's not very convincing.

Sorry but firstly the expense and waste of dragging that dead Diesel engine under the wires is not insignificant. Over the life of IEP you would be wasting millions of kw of energy. AND they will not electrify so far then say ow we will electrify a bit more and then a few miles more. They will do the rest in one go so that blows your bi-mode for the sake of flexibility argument out of the water. Plus industry experts, who know most about this, also totally disagree with you. Bi-mode is an unnecessary waste of money and energy.

 

[AndyLandy]

[T]he train was then redesigned with underfloor diesel engines, thereby perpetuating the undesirable feature of other high speed trains with powerful underfloor diesels - noise and vibration inside the vehicles.

This is something that I see trotted out over and over. I did Euston to Crewe on a Voyager before Christmas, and did the reverse again a couple of weeks ago. After all the hullabaloo about it, I made a specific effort to look out for this "noise and vibration" and I completely failed to notice it. I found both rides to be smooth, quiet and pleasant. Indeed I have never noticed any untoward sounds* or vibrations on Voyager trains. I notice little difference in quality of ride between a 221 and a 390.

With the provision of (admittedly, quite modest) catering services, and huge windows to watch the world go by, the Voyagers are actually perfectly pleasant trains to travel on. My only bugbear is the length. They are simply not capacious enough for the services they run. I was quite fortunate on my last two journeys, but oftentimes they are overcrowded.

*Apart from the weird beeps and buzzes. I assume they mean something to the train crew, but they can get pretty irritating if you're a passenger, listening to them going off every few minutes! Not that these are exclusive to Voyagers of course.

 

[Wath Yard]

This is something that I see trotted out over and over. I did Euston to Crewe on a Voyager before Christmas, and did the reverse again a couple of weeks ago. After all the hullabaloo about it, I made a specific effort to look out for this "noise and vibration" and I completely failed to notice it. I found both rides to be smooth, quiet and pleasant. Indeed I have never noticed any untoward sounds* or vibrations on Voyager trains. I notice little difference in quality of ride between a 221 and a 390.

Voyagers at high speed are often quieter to travel in than Pendolinos. I travel regularly on both and have never heard a single person complain about internal noise or vibration on Voyagers. It's just a fixation of some railway enthusiasts, mainly the LHCS brigade and many of those were the same people who used to have their heads out of the window listening to the loco.

 

[Dave1987]

Voyagers at high speed are often quieter to travel in than Pendolinos. I travel regularly on both and have never heard a single person complain about internal noise or vibration on Voyagers. It's just a fixation of some railway enthusiasts, mainly the LHCS brigade and many of those were the same people who used to have their heads out of the window listening to the loco.

I think that is quite harsh. I am certainly an advocate of loco hauling IEP. I have travelled on voyagers and think they are rubbish and do have a lot of engine noise, and the fact they are only 4 cars is a travisty especially considering they operate intercity routes. Even though I am an advocate of loco hauling I am not one of those people with their head out of the window. Chilterns loco hauled sets are extremely quiet, but so are their class 168's. The voyager was an appalling design.

The DFT have got an idea in their head that they want bi-mode trains and no matter what anyone says to them regarding the inefficiency of bi-mode, the lack of power so longer journey times, they will procure them cos it was their idea, no matter the fact it is a completely stupid idea. Like someone posted on another thread they should change their department name to DaFT.

 

[Wath Yard]

I think that is quite harsh. I am certainly an advocate of loco hauling IEP. I have travelled on voyagers and think they are rubbish and do have a lot of engine noise, and the fact they are only 4 cars is a travisty especially considering they operate intercity routes. Even though I am an advocate of loco hauling I am not one of those people with their head out of the window. Chilterns loco hauled sets are extremely quiet, but so are their class 168's. The voyager was an appalling design.

The fact they are 4 cars has no relevance to anything and the Voyager design isn't appalling. The Voyager's internal design is appalling but the Meridians are basically the same train and they are pretty pleasant to travel in, as is Coach D on Virgin's Voyagers as that has a far better internal layout.

The Chiltern loco hauled trains aren't quite at all. They are probably the noisiest InterCity style trains in the country, even the new plug doors hasn't reduced the amount of noise in the passenger saloon.

Personally I'd prefer to travel in a Mk III than any of the new stock, but that is my preference and I don't claim it is the preference of everybody else, and that preference has nothing to do with noise.