IEP infrastructure problems

[RAGNARØKR]

It seems I was right after all about the potential problems with the longer IEP vehicles. They will foul platforms at Bristol Temple Meads. It is referred to in the File on Four programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b060zvnd

 

[jimm]

It seems I was right after all about the potential problems with the longer IEP vehicles. They will foul platforms at Bristol Temple Meads. It is referred to in the File on Four programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b060zvnd

What you told us was that they would foul places all over the network, not the odd platform under the main train shed at Temple Meads. Platforms which they will not be using anyway if the current practice of the London services using platforms at the east side of the station continues.

 

[swt_passenger]

Apart from which, the gauge clearance programme for IEP is already included in the overall programme costs, so it is a total non-issue.

The BBC might as well announce that electric trains cannot run until a line is electrified...

(Don't bother mentioning IPEMUs please, we have other threads for that...)

 

[furnessvale]

It seems I was right after all about the potential problems with the longer IEP vehicles. They will foul platforms at Bristol Temple Meads. It is referred to in the File on Four programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b060zvnd

I don't think there is anything unusual in this. Exactly the same thing happened when Pendos were introduced on the WCML, and I am sure it has happened throughout history as new stock has been introduced.

 

[TheNewNo2]

What you told us was that they would foul places all over the network, not the odd platform under the main train shed at Temple Meads. Platforms which they will not be using anyway if the current practice of the London services using platforms at the east side of the station continues.

The plan though is to double the frequency of BRI-PAD, keeping the current 2tph from platform 13/15 via Bath, and adding two more from the old shed via Bristol Parkway.

 

[RobShipway]

If I am correct there was problems when the HST's where introduced with the Mk3 stock back in 1976 being able to get to platforms at Bristol Temple Meads, so as has been said above this is nothing new.

 

[edwin_m]

Even if the IEPs didn't routinely use the curved platforms at TM, they would be cleared for them on grounds of operational flexibility, unless there was a huge cost in doing so. For example if the old shed or the high-numbered platforms are closed due to engineering works, a Sunday service might use the platforms in between.

 

[D6975]

The plan though is to double the frequency of BRI-PAD, keeping the current 2tph from platform 13/15 via Bath, and adding two more from the old shed via Bristol Parkway.

Except that the plans to use the old Brunel shed now seem to have been shelved. Services via Parkway will have to use the curvy platforms in the Digby Wyatt part of the station.

 

[WatcherZero]

Or all the platforms that had to be lengthened for the 11 car pendos... oh the humanity.

 

[AM9]

Ate the bogie centres longer as I thought that they were the same as MKIII 23m cars with tapered ends?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Ate the bogie centres longer as I thought that they were the same as MKIII 23m cars with tapered ends?

I have never been able to establish this. Mark III bogie centres are 16 metres, thus there is 3.5 metres of overhang at each end.

For the sake of a stable ride, the further apart the bogie centres are, the better. It reduces the amount of relative movement between adjacent vehicles, and the stress on curves.

Continental 26 metre stock usually has the bogies about as close to the ends as a 20 metre vehicle in the UK.

The overhang is proportional to the square of the distance between the bogies.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Hitachi data sheets published a while back had the bogie centres at 17m.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The Hitachi data sheets published a while back had the bogie centres at 17m.

In which case there is an additional overhang of 2 cm.

On 200 metre radius track, with bogies at 16 metre centres, the excess overthrow is 3.5 cm, with bogies at 17 metre centres it is 5.5 cm.

There is a larger effect at the ends; the kick-out is 19 cm for the longer vehicle.

There is, however, scope for reducing clearances by tighter control of the position of the track.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't see what you are getting at, to be honest.

I think its reasonable to think NR already know what they need to do to gauge clear the new stock, so why do you personally need to be worried about the exact dimensions?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I don't see what you are getting at, to be honest.

I think its reasonable to think NR already know what they need to do to gauge clear the new stock, so why do you personally need to be worried about the exact dimensions?

If you listen to File on Four, you might not be so confident about what NR knows and does not know. The IEP gauging issue is just one little thing in a disturbing overall picture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b060zvnd

It is taxpayers' money and the nation's infrastructure that is at stake.

 

[AM9]

I don't see what you are getting at, to be honest.

I think its reasonable to think NR already know what they need to do to gauge clear the new stock, so why do you personally need to be worried about the exact dimensions?

This is an interesting conversation about gauging so what's wrong about discussing the technical aspects of it?

 

[jimm]

This is an interesting conversation about gauging so what's wrong about discussing the technical aspects of it?

Not really that interesting, because the same person took us down the same dead end two years ago. If you want to read 28 pages and 400 posts, try here.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72620

 

[swt_passenger]

Not really that interesting, because the same person took us down the same dead end two years ago. If you want to read 28 pages and 400 posts, try here.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72620

Thanks for looking that up jimm, I was getting a sense that this was a repeat...

 

[AM9]

Not really that interesting, because the same person took us down the same dead end two years ago. If you want to read 28 pages and 400 posts, try here.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72620

Well I wasn't a member then and as this thread is already 16 posts long there are others who want to discuss the issues as well. I accept that members should research previous threads to see if there is a possibility that the subject has already been covered, but I don't think that extends to every poster on a thread that is already several pasts long.
But, thanks for the link anyway.

 

[RobShipway]

Having been on a Class 395 since the post that Royston Vasey made in the thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72620 the ambience of these trains is good but is not like travelling ona an HST either back in 1976 when they where introduced or like they are today with FGW which I also travelled on recently to Worcester Shrub Hill.

There was more space between the seats in the HST than in the class 395, which seems to be less space as it is going more for the commuter market than those that are travelling not just for leisure, but are travelling inter city between the likes of London, Reading, Bath, Bristol, Worcestor etc.... This is where Hitachi must with the class 800/801 trains have seating the same as the HST has today.

Getting back on subject of this thread, as was stated within the first few posts of this threads, you will always have clearance issues with any new train. You had it with the HST and MK 3 coaches, there was clearance issues with APT on the WCML from memory to do with space from the doors to the platform.

There has been clearance issues with more recent trains as well, Voyagers, Meridians, Pendolinos and Eurostar trains when used by GNER which could not travel further North if my memory is correct than Leeds due to the articulated nature of the Eurostar carriages.

Since the Eurostar trains where only in temporary use, there was not need to get clearance north of Leeds. But I think whatever the train the issues of clearance as has been stated before, would be a) factored into the budget of the trains and b) would have been thought about long a ago such that work has either already been done or is planned to be done during a feature engineering work time, such as the work on rebuilding Reading station where factors where put in place not only for the existing trains, but for the class 800/801 IEP trains as well.

What also helps in the scenario of the IEP trains, is the fact that we already have the class 395 javelins running on both HS1 and domestic routes as it is 90 - 95% the same train that the IEP trains will be, just with shorter carriages.

 

[D365]

There has been clearance issues with more recent trains as well, Voyagers, Meridians, Pendolinos and Eurostar trains when used by GNER which could not travel further North if my memory is correct than Leeds due to the articulated nature of the Eurostar carriages.

The Class 373/3 'Regional Eurostar' units leased from EIL were only cleared to York at first where the platforms were long enough. Hence the name 'White Rose'.

What also helps in the scenario of the IEP trains, is the fact that we already have the class 395 javelins running on both HS1 and domestic routes as it is 90 - 95% the same train that the IEP trains will be, just with shorter carriages.

A totally different carriage though. Not sure how that would help Network Rail.

 

[edwin_m]

A totally different carriage though. Not sure how that would help Network Rail.

Some parts of the elecctrical safety case might copy across from the 395, though probably not much given that the IEP will be running on 25kV. In terms of clearances, the 395 isn't relevant as the bodyshell is shorter and wider.

 

[Emblematic]

Some parts of the elecctrical safety case might copy across from the 395, though probably not much given that the IEP will be running on 25kV.

Err, what voltages are you under the impression that the 395s run on? :roll:

 

[AM9]

Err, what voltages are you under the impression that the 395s run on? :roll:

On classic infrastructure, - 750VDC 3rd rail.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Having been on a Class 395 since the post that Royston Vasey made in the thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72620 the ambience of these trains is good but is not like travelling ona an HST either back in 1976 when they where introduced or like they are today with FGW which I also travelled on recently to Worcester Shrub Hill.

There was more space between the seats in the HST than in the class 395, which seems to be less space as it is going more for the commuter market than those that are travelling not just for leisure, but are travelling inter city between the likes of London, Reading, Bath, Bristol, Worcestor etc.... This is where Hitachi must with the class 800/801 trains have seating the same as the HST has today.

Getting back on subject of this thread, as was stated within the first few posts of this threads, you will always have clearance issues with any new train. You had it with the HST and MK 3 coaches, there was clearance issues with APT on the WCML from memory to do with space from the doors to the platform.

There has been clearance issues with more recent trains as well, Voyagers, Meridians, Pendolinos and Eurostar trains when used by GNER which could not travel further North if my memory is correct than Leeds due to the articulated nature of the Eurostar carriages.

Since the Eurostar trains where only in temporary use, there was not need to get clearance north of Leeds. But I think whatever the train the issues of clearance as has been stated before, would be a) factored into the budget of the trains and b) would have been thought about long a ago such that work has either already been done or is planned to be done during a feature engineering work time, such as the work on rebuilding Reading station where factors where put in place not only for the existing trains, but for the class 800/801 IEP trains as well.

What also helps in the scenario of the IEP trains, is the fact that we already have the class 395 javelins running on both HS1 and domestic routes as it is 90 - 95% the same train that the IEP trains will be, just with shorter carriages.

If new stock is designed to the same length and width as previous stock and has the same suspension characteristics, then there will be no clearance problems.

The only advantage of the longer IEP vehicles is that a pair of bogies are is saved ie 9 cars have the same capacity as 10. Against that is the end space which can only be used for luggage and toilets, and is not a good place for luggage unless the intention is to provide secure lockers.

Conclusion: the IEP should have had the same kinematic envelope as mark 3, which would have avoided all clearance issues on both the routes it was intended to operate and on diversionary routes where it might have to operate.

If you listen to the File on Four programme, a number of issues are cited which show that Network Rail is not on top of its job. "One would have thought that..." it, quite reasonably, to assume a degree of competence that, to judge by the programme, is misplaced. The main thrust of the programme was the cuts in the electrification programme, which NR is unable to deliver, together with the escalating costs.

It is taxpayers' money and the country's infrastructure that are at stake.

 

[Haydn1971]

Conclusion: the IEP should have had the same kinematic envelope as mark 3, which would have avoided all clearance issues on both the routes it was intended to operate and on diversionary routes where it might have to operate.

Well it hasn't, so let's move on.... As pointed out by others, almost every new train has kinematic issues, if we didn't accept that, we would still be running with carriages 30ft long ! There are clear benefits in longer carriages, as there are clear limitations - we are where we are, no amount of discussion will wind back the clock for you I'm afraid.

 

[RobShipway]

Well it hasn't, so let's move on.... As pointed out by others, almost every new train has kinematic issues, if we didn't accept that, we would still be running with carriages 30ft long ! There are clear benefits in longer carriages, as there are clear limitations - we are where we are, no amount of discussion will wind back the clock for you I'm afraid.

We would also be still using steam engines as well.

 

[D365]

We would also be still using steam engines as well.

Which come in all different shapes and sizes, with or without tenders...

 

[Haydn1971]

Which come in all different shapes and sizes, with or without tenders...

But won't the long ones foul the platforms at Bristol ???? That's just not on

 

[edwin_m]

Actually the GWR ones were a bit wider than most, so steam engines that had no problem getting through Bristol would occasionally scrape if they went onto other companies' lines.