IEP postponed

[90019]

I thought about that - but how often are signals at the end of the usable section of platform? Usually (at least, where I've seen) they're down at the end of the ramp, at the earliest - if not further away, meaning that at least half of the locomotive, I'd say, could be off the end. (That is, of course, if trains can go right up to the signal before 'tripping' it - I wonder if any drivers could enlighten us?)

I think they have to stop a certain distance from them for sighting at least.

 

[Pumbaa]

I think they have to stop a certain distance from them for sighting at least.

Yes. You've also got the situation then that if say a platform can fit 11 cars, so either 2+9 HST-derivative or 11 MU (for example), to negate that by stopping the power cars off the platform you end up running a 13 car train to provide the same capacity (in theory) as an 11 car MU (11+2 PCs). So you end up paying extra to deliver the same capacity.

Doesn't work!

 

[tbtc]

Yes. You've also got the situation then that if say a platform can fit 11 cars, so either 2+9 HST-derivative or 11 MU (for example), to negate that by stopping the power cars off the platform you end up running a 13 car train to provide the same capacity (in theory) as an 11 car MU (11+2 PCs). So you end up paying extra to deliver the same capacity.

Doesn't work!

... except that a power car/ engine doesn't need to be as long as a coach, and multiple units over a certain speed need a "crumple zone" IIRC, so its nowhere near as big a difference as eleven coaches vs thirteen coaches

 

[ukrob]

... except that a power car/ engine doesn't need to be as long as a coach, and multiple units over a certain speed need a "crumple zone" IIRC, so its nowhere near as big a difference as eleven coaches vs thirteen coaches

Crumple zones are still a usable space (kitchen, bikes etc) though - a loco isn't.

 

[Zoe]

Crumple zones are still a usable space (kitchen, bikes etc) though - a loco isn't.

HST power cars contain usable space, it's just not often used now. I'd rather not have to travel on a Voyager style underfloor engine DMU from Paddington to Penzance.

 

[asylumxl]

HST power cars contain usable space, it's just not often used now. I'd rather not have to travel on a Voyager style underfloor engine DMU from Paddington to Penzance.

If you'd rather not, and a DMU becomes a reality, you can always find another way to get there.

 

[Zoe]

If you'd rather not, and a DMU becomes a reality, you can always find another way to get there.

Note I did say "rather not" and not "won't" above.

 

[asylumxl]

Note I did say "rather not" and not "won't" above.

Noted. I guess you would have hated taking the 159s to Penzance when they ran .

 

[Zoe]

Noted. I guess you would have hated taking the 159s to Penzance when they ran .

Wouldn't have minded a 50 and Mark 2 coaches though.

 

[asylumxl]

Wouldn't have minded a 50 and Mark 2 coaches though.

You'd probably get to Penzance quicker by walking.

I don't see why we don't do what the Swiss did with the RABDe 500, shoved the motors under the Standard Class carriages. Then the bat like rail-enthusiasts, with their extreme sensitivity to sound, can pay for First Class and not have to suffer the constant torture to their aural sense.

P.S. Voyager is a DEMU.

 

[Zoe]

You'd probably get to Penzance quicker by walking.

I was referring to their use on the GWR route. They were never really suitable for the stop-start nature of the former LSWR route.

 

[starrymarkb]

Besides, they can easily be part of a modular design family - like the Mk3 modular design which gave 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, Mk3, 150, 156.

Class 156 is not at all based on the Mk3 - they raided the parts bin to ease union acceptance, but its a Metro Cammell design and has more in common with the Mk4!

 

[Old Timer]

After this, electrify the GWML...

Wrong electrification plan, the better option is to infill existing routes and the Midland Cross Country Bristol to Doncaster.

To achieve anything at all you would have to electrify pretty much all of the GW and I doubt there will be a return for that going to Swansea. What would you get ? maybe three / four trains an hour terminating at Bristol of Cardiff ?

 

[tbtc]

Wrong electrification plan, the better option is to infill existing routes and the Midland Cross Country Bristol to Doncaster.

To achieve anything at all you would have to electrify pretty much all of the GW and I doubt there will be a return for that going to Swansea. What would you get ? maybe three / four trains an hour terminating at Bristol of Cardiff ?

Totally agree - a much better return (in terms of "saving" diesels) would be to concentrate on filling in local routes in the Midlands/ Lancashire etc - plus the main corridors in Yorkshire (as well as central belt Scotland). The GWML electrification is a huge cost for one or two trains an hour

 

[Zoe]

The GWML electrification is a huge cost for one or two trains an hour

Local trains would also benefit from the electrification.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Ok, 3 counter arguments coming up:

Reliability - Yes, a single engined diesel loco suffering an engine failure will be unable to continue unassisted, but modern diesel engines are reliable. Look at the EMDs, how often do they sit down on the mainline due to an engine fault? Ok, Voyagers might be more reliable than 47s, but thats comparing modern engines with 60s engines, hardly fair, plus a lot of the faults were not traction related. Units still have many single points of failure which can make the train unable to proceed without assistance. Also, unlike modern units, failed locos don't have a nasty habit of causing the assisting train to fail too. The bi-mode IEP would have had a single diesel generator coach, so if that had failed off the wires it would have been in the same situation. Electric locos are pretty reliable, as there is less so go wrong, and they have better redundancy. Beyond the transformer they usually split the traction equipment to each bogie, so most failures would result in half power at worst. Loose the pantograph and it depends on if a second is provided, but there is no reason why a second could not.

Performance - Firstly, for an Intercity train, lighting quick acceleration is not really needed. IMHO the diesel loco should be able to maintain HST timings off the wires, given a powerful enough engine. The fact that the majority of the none electrified sections would be 100mph or less means that they could be geared for that speed, improving acceleration. Remember one of these locos hauling a coaching set should out perform the same loco hauling an EMU, as the coaches will be lighter. The same would apply to the same engine in a bi-mode unit. When it comes to the electric locos a modern electric loco can be around 6MW, a Pendolino is 5MW. Distributed power does give an advantage starting, but there is no need to go flying off from a stand on a limited stop Intercity service. Electric locos real performance is at high speed. An 87 or 90 can produce 21,300lb/f tractive effort at 87mph.

Efficiency - Yes, the loco is wasted space, but savings can be made in the coaches. The underside is free from traction equipment, so equipment carried on the roof or at the ends of the coaches is instead carried there. Now, the equipment spaces on units are also crumple zones, so can't carry passengers, but would make ideal luggage space. Better yet just ditch crumple zones, but sadly I can't see that happening. One of the main aims of a HST replacement is to avoid underfloor engined diesels. The engines have to go somewhere.

As others have said, us loco enthusiasts are not trying to suggest that locos are superior to units in all circumstances, suburban railways have known the opposite for over 100 years. What we are suggesting though is that they may provide the best solution for a train able to operate on both 25kV and Diesel power. It particularly provides benefits compared to the alternatives of either a bi-mode design or haulage of EMUs off the wires. Surely the pro-unit crowd are not so blinkered that they would accept pure diesels running consdierable distances under the wires. That idea should be left back in the 2000s where it belongs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Class 156 is not at all based on the Mk3 - they raided the parts bin to ease union acceptance, but its a Metro Cammell design and has more in common with the Mk4!

Could be worse, at least they wern't suggesting the 155s and 153s were "Mk3" as they have more in common with a Leyland National Bus (and a 142). Other one is calling the 313 types "Mk3s" when they are very different in contruction, actually closer to Mk1s than anything due to the seperate underframes, even to the point where 303 vs. 314 at Newton showed similar damage to both leading vehicles (i.e not a lot left).

 

[tbtc]

Local trains would also benefit from the electrification.

True, but not many local trains west of Didcot (since the plan seems to be to wire the Thames Valley lines plus the main line to Bristol / Swansea (etc).

Local Avonmouth trains would still need diesels, as would routes like Gloucester/ Portsmouth etc

Whereas there are a lot of lines further north where electrification would save a lot of diesels (rather than just one or two trains an hour)

Sadly its better for politicians to be seen to spread the benefits around the country, rather than concentrate it where it has a higher cost/ benefit ratio

 

[ChrisCooper]

On the offchance the GWML isn't electrified within the extended lifetime of the HSTs, what would people suggest as a solution there? The three options really are the Diesel only IEP (previously rejected once electrification was planned), i.e a distributed power DEMU with unmotored "generator cars" at each end. Underfloor engined DMUs along the lines of the 22X or 180s. Powercars top and tailing unpowered coaches, i.e a real HST2. Personally I'd go for the latter. Once again it will be viewed by the unit lovers as "rose tinted spectacles" but I don't feel that the underfloor engined model works for Intercity trains, and many agree, including ordinary users. It has always been the aim to avoid underfloor engines for HST replacement.

As for the remaining options, I really can't see the advantage of distributed power over self contained powercars. Distributed power allows better acceleration from a stand, and provides slightly better weight distribution. As has been said over and over, acceleration from a stand is not important for an Intercity train. Power on a diesel is also limited by the engine output, so adding more motors doesn't increase power. I can't imagine that removing the motors and accociated equipment from the powercars would give that big a weight saving. Self contained powercars though give the advantages of hauled stock, mainly not having traction equipment under coaches, saving space, and flexability (changing length or formation is easier). Overall the difference is small between the two, but I'm not convinced that distributed power is really that great compared to self contained powercars.

One thing I'd like to see regardless of the 3 ideas chosen would be intermediate driving coaches, allowing full length and fully gangwayed sets to run on the core 125mph routes with the possibility of splitting into half sets to serve alternative destinations beyond the core. The gangwayed driving coaches would restrict half sets to 100mph (at least when leading, although oviously steamlined end first halfsets would also need to be timed for 100mph) but considering the sort of routes they would be running as half sets this shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Pumbaa]

Class 156 is not at all based on the Mk3 - they raided the parts bin to ease union acceptance, but its a Metro Cammell design and has more in common with the Mk4!

Bad oversight on my behalf!

 

[Kingfisher200262]

First, I must declare an interest. I am Managing Director of CSRE Limited, the UK company that represents four of China's largest traction & rolling stock manufacturers.

I follow RailUKforums regularly and occasionally I contribute, hopefully in a positive and constructive way.

I've tried very hard to resist the temptation to join this particular discussion but have, in the end failed, so here goes!

The temporary pause in the IEP procurement process is no surprise and it is to Lord Adonis' credit that he has now taken this action, allowing an independent third party with solid experience in assessing whether public procurements are run correctly and offer value for money to take a look at IEP.

Of course, the primary reason for the pause is the unwillingness or inability of either the public (Government) or private (Agility) partner (or both) in this venture to move forward to contract in the current economic climate.

There is no magic solution to this, but there is one thing that is absolutely clear to me, which is that trying to create a "one size fits all" train is not viable, any more than it is viable to have Class 158s doing commuter services or Pacers doing inter-regional services (which currently both happen due to a shortage of appropriate DMUs).

The 365s are ideally suited to the duties that they perform, are relatively modern (or at least as "modern" as the "modern" Class 165 DMUs that the DfT proposes to cascade to other routes when the Thames Valley electrification happens or doesn't) and provide the perfect bridge between long distance and commuter that any train with end doors can not possibly do.

There is no need to replace the IC225 trains on the ECML. They operate perfectly adequately, provide comfortable, relatively high speed services and are sufficiently accessible to operate well past the 2020 threshold for compliance with European legislation.

The HST fleet, on the other hand, would cost a substantial amount of money to bring up to the standard required to clear the RVAR hurdle that will stop it operating past 2020 unless this work is done. Powered doors, retention toilets and other necessary additions would all add weight to the vehicles, impacting on performance and putting extra strain on the structure of vehicles that will be approaching 45 years old by that time. This is simply not realistic, so new rolling stock is definitely needed and this must be introduced in sufficient time and in sufficient numbers so that the HSTs can be retired with honour by 2020.

Strategic electrification is a good idea and this is undeniable. However, it does not make economic or practical sense to electrify all routes that HSTs currently serve. Asking passengers to change train where the wires run out is not a practical solution because non railway savvy passengers would never understand the reasoning and would therefore kick back, especially when connections fail to work.

Using diesel locos to haul electric trains would provide a solution, but Virgin found this very inconvenient when adopting this solution for the North Wales coast.

Under floor diesel engines are a good idea, but not for long journeys especially when they are being introduced on routes where unpowered coaching stock was previously used.

We have tried to be quite low key and humble in promoting our Polaris product as a solution for IEP, but we genuinely believe that the configuration that Polaris employs is the best compromise (if compromise is the right word) to balance passenger expectations, performance needs, Network Rail demands for track-friendly trains, whole-life cost and reliability requirements.

Polaris uses two small diesel engines and one 3 MW electric traction set in each power car and the power developed is transmitted through the control system to traction motors that are mounted on the power cars and the trailer car nearest to each power car. This minimises the through train cabling and enables trailer cars to be added or removed quickly and easily to cater for demand fluctuations.

GPS and route date is used to control the four diesel engines automatically, ensuring that the driver always has sufficient available power without running engines unnecessarily, thus saving fuel.

A 25 kV bus line that runs the length of the train provides even more redundancy, ensuring that in most situations, the train should be able to continue under its own power, be that electric or diesel.

When IEP was first commenced, the rolling stock industry in China was not nearly as developed as it is now. China is now building more high speed lines and high speed trains than anywhere else in the world. For Polaris, British design and Chinese manufacturing, with UK final assembly would provide a suitable, affordable and appropriate replacement for the HST and I hope that Sir Andrew Foster will consider Polaris when he assesses the Agility Super Express against the alternatives.

Whilst I am happy to answer any questions that forum members may have, I would prefer not to get into a debate about whether Polaris is the right product or not for the IEP. I'm simply posting to explain what we believe the right configuration for IEP should be. Whether Polaris is the right product or not is for others to decide.

 

[Dennis]

We have tried to be quite low key and humble in promoting our Polaris product as a solution for IEP, but we genuinely believe that the configuration that Polaris employs is the best....

Stop dithering and get a dozen over here; with the current rolling stock situation I cannot see them sitting around idle for very long unless they are complete lemons.

With all the talk of 1300 new vehicles, rolling stock plans, high speed lines, open access, line reopenings and electrification, why not showcase a small fleet and let us see how good these products really are; if they are good enough and the price is right, I feel sure more orders would soon arrive.

 

[Old Timer]

A 25 kV bus line that runs the length of the train ..

Unless things have changed, there was a safety prohibition on high voltage power cables running through a train. Certainly this applies to trains passing through tunnels.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Since the 390s and 395s both use them, things must have changed, and both of those run through tunnels. AFAIK the tunnel part only applies to "Underground Trains" hence why the London Underground trains don't have traction buses, and the 313s on the Moorgate line isolate them on 750v (they have them to get the 750v supply from the PTSO to the motor coaches when on 25kV).

 

[jopsuk]

class 390 and 395 both have a cable running along the roof- on the 395 this is definitely 25kV. Common practice on Japanses designs. I'd presume they know what they're doing, as most of their networks are run by EMU- with (as far as I'm aware) absolutely no loco-hauled or semi-loco hauled (TGV, ICE 1 & 2, HST style) passenger services

 

[323235]

If you had a choice would you travel in peace and quiet in a mark 3 coach, or a voyager coach with the noise and vibration from the underfloor engine?

It's a Mark 3 for me everytime as the windows line up to the seats and they are much comfier and the environment is quieter. The only time I have enjoyed travelling on a Voyager was when the engine on my coach was isolated.

 

[Chafford1]

First, I must declare an interest. I am Managing Director of CSRE Limited, the UK company that represents four of China's largest traction & rolling stock manufacturers.

I follow RailUKforums regularly and occasionally I contribute, hopefully in a positive and constructive way.

I've tried very hard to resist the temptation to join this particular discussion but have, in the end failed, so here goes!

The temporary pause in the IEP procurement process is no surprise and it is to Lord Adonis' credit that he has now taken this action, allowing an independent third party with solid experience in assessing whether public procurements are run correctly and offer value for money to take a look at IEP.

Of course, the primary reason for the pause is the unwillingness or inability of either the public (Government) or private (Agility) partner (or both) in this venture to move forward to contract in the current economic climate.

There is no magic solution to this, but there is one thing that is absolutely clear to me, which is that trying to create a "one size fits all" train is not viable, any more than it is viable to have Class 158s doing commuter services or Pacers doing inter-regional services (which currently both happen due to a shortage of appropriate DMUs).

The 365s are ideally suited to the duties that they perform, are relatively modern (or at least as "modern" as the "modern" Class 165 DMUs that the DfT proposes to cascade to other routes when the Thames Valley electrification happens or doesn't) and provide the perfect bridge between long distance and commuter that any train with end doors can not possibly do.

There is no need to replace the IC225 trains on the ECML. They operate perfectly adequately, provide comfortable, relatively high speed services and are sufficiently accessible to operate well past the 2020 threshold for compliance with European legislation.

The HST fleet, on the other hand, would cost a substantial amount of money to bring up to the standard required to clear the RVAR hurdle that will stop it operating past 2020 unless this work is done. Powered doors, retention toilets and other necessary additions would all add weight to the vehicles, impacting on performance and putting extra strain on the structure of vehicles that will be approaching 45 years old by that time. This is simply not realistic, so new rolling stock is definitely needed and this must be introduced in sufficient time and in sufficient numbers so that the HSTs can be retired with honour by 2020.

Strategic electrification is a good idea and this is undeniable. However, it does not make economic or practical sense to electrify all routes that HSTs currently serve. Asking passengers to change train where the wires run out is not a practical solution because non railway savvy passengers would never understand the reasoning and would therefore kick back, especially when connections fail to work.

Using diesel locos to haul electric trains would provide a solution, but Virgin found this very inconvenient when adopting this solution for the North Wales coast.

Under floor diesel engines are a good idea, but not for long journeys especially when they are being introduced on routes where unpowered coaching stock was previously used.

We have tried to be quite low key and humble in promoting our Polaris product as a solution for IEP, but we genuinely believe that the configuration that Polaris employs is the best compromise (if compromise is the right word) to balance passenger expectations, performance needs, Network Rail demands for track-friendly trains, whole-life cost and reliability requirements.

Polaris uses two small diesel engines and one 3 MW electric traction set in each power car and the power developed is transmitted through the control system to traction motors that are mounted on the power cars and the trailer car nearest to each power car. This minimises the through train cabling and enables trailer cars to be added or removed quickly and easily to cater for demand fluctuations.

GPS and route date is used to control the four diesel engines automatically, ensuring that the driver always has sufficient available power without running engines unnecessarily, thus saving fuel.

A 25 kV bus line that runs the length of the train provides even more redundancy, ensuring that in most situations, the train should be able to continue under its own power, be that electric or diesel.

When IEP was first commenced, the rolling stock industry in China was not nearly as developed as it is now. China is now building more high speed lines and high speed trains than anywhere else in the world. For Polaris, British design and Chinese manufacturing, with UK final assembly would provide a suitable, affordable and appropriate replacement for the HST and I hope that Sir Andrew Foster will consider Polaris when he assesses the Agility Super Express against the alternatives.

Whilst I am happy to answer any questions that forum members may have, I would prefer not to get into a debate about whether Polaris is the right product or not for the IEP. I'm simply posting to explain what we believe the right configuration for IEP should be. Whether Polaris is the right product or not is for others to decide.

A very interesting post!

I have 3 questions for you:

Roger Ford estimates the cost of each Super Express Train in March's Modern railways as £2m per vehicle. What is the approximate equivalent cost for the Polaris counterpart?

Are you going to input into Sir Andrew Foster's independent review of IEP? Perhaps an initial contact to let him know you exist would be a good idea - no need to be 'low key and humble' anymore!

Roger Ford takes a different view on the HSTs/ Mk3 coaches in March's Modern Railways. He notes that corrosion to Mk3 coaches is limited to certain areas and rectification is simple and sees a life extended HST (to 2030/35) with power doors and retention toilets as a sensible policy in a recession (Chiltern Railways are trialling such an updated Mk 3 coach).
He also notes the 2020 disability regulations deadline is no longer a show -stopper and that DfT is adopting a pragmatic approach to minor non-compliance. Is he wrong on HST life extension?

 

[DVT82305]

Why can't their re-design the current HST into the Agility Trains design and re-design the MK3 coaches into the Agility Trains design?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Unless things have changed, there was a safety prohibition on high voltage power cables running through a train. Certainly this applies to trains passing through tunnels.

The 25 kV bus line will run along the roof line on the exterior of the vehicles. This is normal practice worldwide.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Stop dithering and get a dozen over here; with the current rolling stock situation I cannot see them sitting around idle for very long unless they are complete lemons.

With all the talk of 1300 new vehicles, rolling stock plans, high speed lines, open access, line reopenings and electrification, why not showcase a small fleet and let us see how good these products really are; if they are good enough and the price is right, I feel sure more orders would soon arrive.

Nobody's dithering, which is why we have continued with the design without having a customer. However, realistically we do need a customer to go much further as it's very difficult to get certification without having an operator on board.

 

[MCR247]

How much is a polaris per coach?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

A very interesting post!

I have 3 questions for you:

Roger Ford estimates the cost of each Super Express Train in March's Modern railways as £2m per vehicle. What is the approximate equivalent cost for the Polaris counterpart?

Are you going to input into Sir Andrew Foster's independent review of IEP? Perhaps an initial contact to let him know you exist would be a good idea - no need to be 'low key and humble' anymore!

Roger Ford takes a different view on the HSTs/ Mk3 coaches in March's Modern Railways. He notes that corrosion to Mk3 coaches is limited to certain areas and rectification is simple and sees a life extended HST (to 2030/35) with power doors and retention toilets as a sensible policy in a recession (Chiltern Railways are trialling such an updated Mk 3 coach).
He also notes the 2020 disability regulations deadline is no longer a show -stopper and that DfT is adopting a pragmatic approach to minor non-compliance. Is he wrong on HST life extension?

Firstly, I would never accuse Roger (God) Ford of being wrong about anything!

Answering your three questions in turn: -

We have always used the original IEP DfT target price of £1M per vehicle as a benchmark, though this might be a bit of a challenge, given that three years has now passed. The more important issue is the cost and availability of finance from China and the cost of maintenance, which, over the life of the trains will overshadow the capital cost. We believe that the configuration we have chosen will offer the best possible life cycle cost.

We have not yet seen the letter to Sir Andrew Foster that Lord Adonis referred to in his statement. However, the statement makes no reference to Sir Andrew consulting with possible alternative suppliers. Nevertheless, I don't see how he can assess whether the Agility offer stacks up against the alternatives, unless he establishes what the alternatives actually are. We will be deciding how best to approach this issue in the coming weeks, but I assure you I am no shrinking violet and will do my best to be heard.

I am not too concerned about corrosion in the Mk IIIs, having had recent esperience of a refurbishment myself. Actually, if Mk III coaches were considered to be acceptable in the short to medium term, a low cost, low risk way to start with Polaris would be to build power cars to top and tail Mk III coaches. It should be borne in mind however that the refurbishment cost of a Mk III coach is between £150k and £600k depending upon spec. and (though it's not directly relevant) a standard 25 metre Chinese Railways coach sells for £106k NEW! What I'm saying therefore is that by the time you've fitted powered doors (around £75k / vehicle) and retention toilets (upwards of £50k / vehicle) to Mk IIIs, it may be better to spend money on new (MK V?) coaches.