IEP setback

[LexyBoy]

The power consumption of the hotel services on one mark 3 vehicle is 20kW (in round figures). It is a bit less when in heating mode than in cooling mode.

Could be a lot more if everyone's got their laptop/hair straighteners/toaster/kettle plugged in! 160 kW for an 8-coach rake (or 215 hp in old money) is not insignificant. I would have thought that heating would use more power as it's presumably just resistive heating, whereas the aircon uses heat pumps which should use less power for the same temperature difference?

 

[HSTEd]

Could be a lot more if everyone's got their laptop/hair straighteners/toaster/kettle plugged in! 160 kW for an 8-coach rake (or 215 hp in old money) is not insignificant. I would have thought that heating would use more power as it's presumably just resistive heating, whereas the aircon uses heat pumps which should use less power for the same temperature difference?

Being as most air conditioning sets available can simply work in heating mode as a heat pump.... it would be rather strange if the stock was not fitted with them now, even if originally they were fitted with resistive heaters.

 

[LexyBoy]

I was not aware of that, makes sense!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Mechanical components will still tend to settle into a routine...

To say nothing of the people who have to keep the systems running.

There was, I am told, a problem with mark 3 stock when it was first transferred to the GE. The previous operators had not been maintaining them in accordance with the manual. When the trains arrived on the GE, the manual was followed, and this gave rise to the trouble. It took careful research to dig out what had been happening. Once the established procedure had been followed, the problems stopped. There may have been some minor mods made as well.

The introduction of the class 73 stock on the original Gatwick Express was also problematic initially and took a while to resolve problems that had arisen.

Engineering systems are kept going by people.

 

[33Hz]

I've only given this topic passing attention of late so this may seem like an old question: When did IEP bi-mode change from having a single large power car to underfloor engine rattle-and-hum rubbish, and for why?

 

[aylesbury]

There are quite a few express emu,s around that could be built to our loading gauge,and by the time replacements are needed for the ECML units more will be available.Units such as the new channel tunnel ones and the DB ICE are a good start for an ECML train.This could be a chance to move away from current thinking,first class comparments,better quality standard class,family accomodation,and an improved catering concept.If some of these ideas actualy were commissioned traveling could again become a pleasure. Certainly we need the DFT to be removed from train allocation for franchises ,and the operators allowed to come up with trains that do the job and provide comfortable units for passengers.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I've only given this topic passing attention of late so this may seem like an old question: When did IEP bi-mode change from having a single large power car to underfloor engine rattle-and-hum rubbish, and for why?

The all-diesel version (HST replacement) was axed, leaving bi-mode and electric-only.
The electric-only would have to have an underfloor diesel engine for backup.
So Hitachi dumped the power car in the bi-mode, substituting more underfloor diesel engines instead.
The electrification programme also had an impact, because it reduced the number of bi-modes needed.
On top of that, only the GW order is certain (21 10-car electric and 36 5-car bi-mode).
The IEP 5-car bi-mode will thus be very similar to the proposed e-Voyager.

 

[33Hz]

So the perceived need for a (unique) back-up generator on the electric version means that travelers to the West Country will have to put up with the under-floor racket? Great.

What about the traction battery (demonstrated by the Hyabusa test train) that could supply an extra 2MW for a few minutes?

 

[The Ham]

So the perceived need for a (unique) back-up generator on the electric version means that travelers to the West Country will have to put up with the under-floor racket? Great.

What about the traction battery (demonstrated by the Hyabusa test train) that could supply an extra 2MW for a few minutes?

IEP is not going to the West Country when it is first introduced and will retain the IC125's for the time being (probably until more electrification and/or lots of testing around Dawlish has happened). Once IEP starts running down there and Cross-country starts running EMU's (and towards the end of the life of Voyager) then the business case for electrifying the line gets a lot stronger.

The back up generators will only be used on the electric versions when there is no power. Therefore a few minutes of power isn't going to be much good, they also allow the trains to limp home at 40mph.

 

[LE Greys]

I've only given this topic passing attention of late so this may seem like an old question: When did IEP bi-mode change from having a single large power car to underfloor engine rattle-and-hum rubbish, and for why?

It also might have had something to do with the fact that it had a massive power unit and no motors. Meaning that if it had to be taken off the set for maintenance, it would require a shunter to move it around the depot, or the set would be out of commission for the entire time of the power unit overhaul.

 

[Bridge189]

Going back to the original post, I don't believe IEP trance II will happen as the 225s are not old enough as far as trains go to justify an all out replacement and they were purpose built for a 35-40 year life on the ECML and cannot really be cascaded anywhere else. They also still fit in with current health and safety laws and aren't under the "grandfathers rights" like the HSTs are with regards to toilet flushing (MK4s have tanks) and slam doors (MK4s have power).

Of course you get rumours around about possible transfer of the fleet to the MML or GEML of which neither would suit the 225s as they don't cope with stop start very well but are top class long distant cruisers.

With regards to the above post I believe the GEML is currently first set to get the IEP with the ECML later but no firm order has been made for the EC.

 

[ainsworth74]

Going back to the original post, I don't believe IEP trance II will happen as the 225s are not old enough as far as trains go to justify an all out replacement and they were purpose built for a 35-40 year life on the ECML and cannot really be cascaded anywhere else.

Tranche two of IEP is going to have nothing to do with common railway sense (much like tranche one of IEP ) and everything to do with politics. If the government of the day wants the factory at Newton Aycliffe to remain open for a few more years then IEP will be ordered for the ECML. If they're not fussed either way then it likely won't be ordered (for the reasons that you and others have stated). To my mind it's as simple as that. We can pontificate about the rights and wrongs until the cows come home but as far as I can tell this will having nothing to do with what's best for the railway and everything to do with what's the best politically.

 

[LE Greys]

Tranche two of IEP is going to have nothing to do with common railway sense (much like tranche one of IEP ) and everything to do with politics. If the government of the day wants the factory at Newton Aycliffe to remain open for a few more years then IEP will be ordered for the ECML. If they're not fussed either way then it likely won't be ordered (for the reasons that you and others have stated). To my mind it's as simple as that. We can pontificate about the rights and wrongs until the cows come home but as far as I can tell this will having nothing to do with what's best for the railway and everything to do with what's the best politically.

The story of the railways since 1948, surely!

 

[ainsworth74]

The story of the railways since 1948, surely!

Oh quite, it's just become more obvious (rather hilariously) since it was privatised! I would also suggest, in fact, that it's been the story of the railways since the mid to late 1800s let alone since nationalisation.

At least BR was, for the most part, left to it's own devices when it came to ordering rolling stock.

 

[The Ham]

Tranche two of IEP is going to have nothing to do with common railway sense (much like tranche one of IEP ) and everything to do with politics. If the government of the day wants the factory at Newton Aycliffe to remain open for a few more years then IEP will be ordered for the ECML. If they're not fussed either way then it likely won't be ordered (for the reasons that you and others have stated). To my mind it's as simple as that. We can pontificate about the rights and wrongs until the cows come home but as far as I can tell this will having nothing to do with what's best for the railway and everything to do with what's the best politically.

Given the initial IEP order will be fully delivered in about 10 years time (once the 225's will be about 30 years old) depending on if the government can find a way of dragging out the next order to start delivery in 2025 it is not unreasonable that the 225's could be replaced with IEP towards the 225's 40th birthday.

 

[ainsworth74]

Given the initial IEP order will be fully delivered in about 10 years time

The last I heard the order was supposed to be finished around 2018-19 (and that's including the ICEC units)!

 

[The Ham]

The last I heard the order was supposed to be finished around 2018-19 (and that's including the ICEC units)!

OK, in about 7 years time (I forgot how far through the 2010's we'd got), however the IC225's will still be about 30 at that point, which was kind of my point.

The other possibility is that the IEP option which have been planned for use for the IC225's could be used elsewhere (for instance the MML or XC), to strengthen existing routes if demand continues to grow or the all electric versions used more on the ECML/GWML with the bi-models being used on more off wire services. Then with a 3rd order after that to replace the IC225's.

 

[DXMachina]

You've still forgotten it seems: 2018 is 5 years away

 

[33Hz]

The other factor causing them to have cold feet on tranche 2 could be that HS2 Classic-Compatibles might cause a cascade of Pendolinos in 2026 and be ready to replace some IC225s in 2031.

If they can eek out the 225s that far then those Newcastle/Leeds services still going down the ECML could be served by the Pendolinos displaced from the WCML. The rest would be IEP bi-modes.

 

[AndyLandy]

The other factor causing them to have cold feet on tranche 2 could be that HS2 Classic-Compatibles might cause a cascade of Pendolinos in 2026 and be ready to replace some IC225s in 2031.

I can't see the Pendolinos anywhere other than the WCML for the foreseeable future. As and when HS2 displaces the London-Birmingham corridor, I can see the WCML fast paths being used for more capacity on other routes. For sure HS2/CC will serve some additional destinations, but I suspect there'll still be need for IC services on existing routes, like Chester, and perhaps new services to the likes of Blackpool. I doubt we could serve everywhere with HS2.