IEP - signed

[tbtc]

Kings cross to Edinburgh is a long way to drag a diesel engine under every carriage of an IEP

How much would all the diesel weigh (in terms of passengers/ total weight of the train)?

Bear in mind that we have diesel services travelling hundreds of miles under the wires as it is, having a bi-mode train travelling hundreds of miles under the wires but using the electricity seems a step in the right direction.

It's Stuart Baker of the DfT not Norman Baker the minister (although Norman is said to be an IEP supporter now).
Stuart is usually skewered on here as the perpetrator of the IEP design and now its "only supporter".
He used to work for the SRA and was a key player in the WCRM programme, and as an amateur has published a UK rail atlas.
Many more people will have had to sign it off for it to get this far.
Blame Philip Hammond probably, who could have cancelled it but didn't.

It does seem amazing that people think this one man has organised the whole thing - I just wish anyone were that powerful in UK railways (with the exception of Bob Crow)

1 train per day extending to Carmarthen

Nothing further? So it'd be easy to chop this back to Swansea and then every South Wales - London train could be electric?

 

[Zoe]

That does not mean that IEP could not be used for Plymouth and beyond. It just means that for the current order it's not planned to use them that far west.

It depends on if the trains have the power to make it to Plymouth though. Is there anywhere that states beyond doubt that they will be able to do this?

 

[tbtc]

It depends on if the trains have the power to make it to Plymouth though. Is there anywhere that states beyond doubt that they will be able to do this?

If these bi mode trains are meant to be running the London - Inverness service (through Aviemore etc) then why are people doubting their ability to deal with the route to Plymouth?

 

[HSTEd]

How much would all the diesel weigh (in terms of passengers/ total weight of the train)?

Bear in mind that we have diesel services travelling hundreds of miles under the wires as it is, having a bi-mode train travelling hundreds of miles under the wires but using the electricity seems a step in the right direction.

I've been crunching the numbers on a 9 car Class 222 ED with two pantograph trailers and seven motor vehicles recently.

I calculate that each London-Edinburgh round trip done on electric power rather than diesel would save roughly six thousand litres of fuel compared to the HST set doing the same journey. (As said ED would have similar fuel consumption figures per hundred seat.km to the HST).

I know of at least four diesel round trips between London and Edinburgh (the Highland Chieftain, Northern LIghts and the other two Aberdeen trains).

24000L/day saving for 4 9 car trainsets is rather good, and if we assume the IEP bi-mode will have similar performance.

EDIT:
ECML traction energy prices are rougly 6.5p/kWh. If we assume a 20% saving over diesel in traction output terms and a 33% diesel engine efficiency (including alternators) this gives us a value of 18.5p/ litre of diesel-equivalent.

Compared to a roughly 70p/litre price for red diesel.... and you are into £3090/round trip in fuel savings alone. 330 round trips a year gives you nearly £1.09 million per year in savings.

 

[swt_passenger]

It depends on if the trains have the power to make it to Plymouth though. Is there anywhere that states beyond doubt that they will be able to do this?

Only in Modern Railways, and quite a while ago.

DfT have never updated anything on their own site about various significant changes to IEP - they haven't ever even mentioned the change to underfloor engines from what I can find online - everything I've picked up has been from the magazines.

The lack of visibility of changes following Hitachi being given preferred bidder status is what makes some people think there should be a legal challenge, because what is being delivered is so different to what Alstom and Bombardier/Siemens tendered for...

 

[junglejames]

Its funny how things change, and enthusiasts (not just on here) are now wanting *more* Pendolini built (having been dead against them a couple of years ago). How quickly the pendulum changes...

Whats also funny is how a pendy lover quickly picks up on any little tit bit, however small, to try and make those that dont like them seem stupid.

Anyway, TBTC, I hate to break it to you, but you have just picked up the wrong tit bit.

What is it people dont like about pendys? Answer, the interior.
What have people commented on, regarding whats good about the pendy? Answer, the electrikity parts.
What MU have most people claimed has the best interior? Answer, the 180.
What have people been asking for instead of IEPs? Nope, not a pendy, but a 180/390 MU. ie a 180 type body, and the electrikity bits from the 390.

When people say they want more 390s, this is what they mean. Its been branded about so much, that its assumed everybody knows what is meant by 'more 390s instead of IEP'. No tilt, and no aluminium bodies. Instead the best bits from the 180, combined with the best bits from the 390 (the bits made in Preston)

 

[HSTEd]

When people say they want more 390s, this is what they mean. Its been branded about so much, that its assumed everybody knows what is meant by 'more 390s instead of IEP'. No tilt, and no aluminium bodies. Instead the best bits from the 180, combined with the best bits from the 390 (the bits made in Preston)

Not all of them.

When I say I want 390s, I want 390s. Whether 6 car ones or 8 car ones or 11 car ones.

But then I also want widespread roll out of tilt with the trains being delivered with XC style disabled tilt systems that can be reactivated if TASS can be implemented on other lines.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not all of them.

When I say I want 390s, I want 390s. Whether 6 car ones or 8 car ones or 11 car ones.

But then I also want widespread roll out of tilt with the trains being delivered with XC style disabled tilt systems that can be reactivated if TASS can be implemented on other lines.

Tick. They can improve the interiors as they go.
Start with Birmingham-Scotland.

 

[Failed Unit]

But surely the best solution for ECML is a traction change at Edinburgh!

Drag 1 - Inverness
Drag 2 - 0755 Aberdeen - Edinburgh then become Thunderbird at Waverley then 2030 Edinburgh - Aberdeen
Drag 3 - Thunderbird. 1025 Edinburgh - Aberdeen, 1455 aberdeen - Edinburgh, 1830 Edinburgh - Aberdeen, south bound sleeper.
Drag 4 Northbound Sleeper, 0955 Aberdeen - Edinburgh, 1430 Edinburgh - Aberdeen, 1830 ish Aberdeen to Edinburgh.

No wasted miles with Diesels, you could even take the 91 off if you really wanted!

 

[HSTEd]

But surely the best solution for ECML is a traction change at Edinburgh!

Drag 1 - Inverness
Drag 2 - 0755 Aberdeen - Edinburgh then become Thunderbird at Waverley then 2030 Edinburgh - Aberdeen
Drag 3 - Thunderbird. 1025 Edinburgh - Aberdeen, 1455 aberdeen - Edinburgh, 1830 Edinburgh - Aberdeen, south bound sleeper.
Drag 4 Northbound Sleeper, 0955 Aberdeen - Edinburgh, 1430 Edinburgh - Aberdeen, 1830 ish Aberdeen to Edinburgh.

No wasted miles with Diesels, you could even take the 91 off if you really wanted!

How long will all those switchovers take?
Bi-mode takes no additional time compared to through operations using normal stock.

 

[PhilipW]

Just to say that I too read in 'Modern Railways' (albeit some time back) that a Bi-Mode IEP running on diesel would not be capable of running over the Devon banks from Newton Abbot to Plymouth. So the furthest west it was planned to use it would be to Paington.

I think these comments meant that a Bi-Mode could get to Plymouth but it would be at a reduced speed to that of an HST today. Therefore its use on this route would be a 'downgrade' rather than an 'upgrade'.

This was written a while back so perhaps things have changed; I don't know.

As to the question 'How can they get over the hills from Perth to Inverness if they can't manage Newton Abbot to Plymouth', I'm afraid I can't answer that either. Perhaps it is due to the gradients involved.

 

[junglejames]

I did read that the IEP wouldn't be able to run west of Newton Abbot though as it would not cope with the Devon banks. I'm not sure how true this is but if this is the case then I would expect HSTs to be retained for Plymouth services.

Not sure about power, but the reasons for IEPs not heading to Plymouth and Penzance are down partly to the stakeholders, and partly due to the rubbish nature of these trains. 1- The stakeholders seem quite sensible people, and decided they werent going to accept a dumbing down of their services. They would rather the diesel engine was in the proper place.
2- It would cost far too much money to gauge clear the route for these stupid 26m long coaches. Its costing enough as it is to bring these funny things into service. No point spending extra money for no reason.

Anyway, all this has the added benefit of making the Cornish services greener. So its all good.
Just wait for the rest of the GW network to kick up a stink now, when they realise Cornwall are keeping decent trains, and they are being fobbed off with an anorexic poo tube.

 

[Failed Unit]

How long will all those switchovers take?
Bi-mode takes no additional time compared to through operations using normal stock.

But it will be slower north of Edinburgh, the sets are stood at Waverley anyway. BR could switch 47s with 86s at New Street in under 10 minutes. Most railway professional have discredited the change of loco arguement. Even if it was valid is it worth spending all that extra money for such a small timesaving on an 8 hour journey?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just to say that I too read in 'Modern Railways' (albeit some time back) that a Bi-Mode IEP running on diesel would not be capable of running over the Devon banks from Newton Abbot to Plymouth. So the furthest west it was planned to use it would be to Paington.

It's more likely that the 26m coaches need extra clearance round the South Devon curves (not the gradients), and they want to avoid the cost, at least at this stage.
Might also trigger a new depot at Plymouth.

 

[Failed Unit]

Not sure about power, but the reasons for IEPs not heading to Plymouth and Penzance are down partly to the stakeholders, and partly due to the rubbish nature of these trains. 1- The stakeholders seem quite sensible people, and decided they werent going to accept a dumbing down of their services. They would rather the diesel engine was in the proper place.
2- It would cost far too much money to gauge clear the route for these stupid 26m long coaches. Its costing enough as it is to bring these funny things into service. No point spending extra money for no reason.

Anyway, all this has the added benefit of making the Cornish services greener. So its all good.
Just wait for the rest of the GW network to kick up a stink now, when they realise Cornwall are keeping decent trains, and they are being fobbed off with an anorexic poo tube.

They would force it through irrespective of what the stakeholders thought. The stakeholders back in BR days didnt want to lose direct services from London - Cleethorpes, Middlesborough, Blackpool and Shrewsbury (and Aberwystwth) they were ignored. They will just say your choice direct train with IEP if it was capable or change at Plymouth.

 

[HSTEd]

But it will be slower north of Edinburgh, the sets are stood at Waverley anyway. BR could switch 47s with 86s at New Street in under 10 minutes. Most railway professional have discredited the change of loco arguement. Even if it was valid is it worth spending all that extra money for such a small timesaving on an 8 hour journey?

....
How much does a handful of QSK-19 style diesels cost compared to these massive locomotives you want to order?
Extra weight carried under electric power is not really a major cost in terms of extra energy expenditure use.
Electricity is cheap per kWh of delivered power.

And what does moving locomotives around Waverley do to the capacity of the station?

And currently we have a ridiculous situation where Sprinters and Turbostars beat HSTs in stop to stop times on the Aberdeen and Inverness routes.
This is not really acceptable.

EDIT:
Since all future trains will be multiple units, loco changes means tacking diesels onto the trains.

 

[Zoe]

Anyway, all this has the added benefit of making the Cornish services greener. So its all good.

Even though they will not be able to benefit from the electrification between Paddington and Bristol/Newbury?

 

[Failed Unit]

....
How much does a handful of QSK-19 style diesels cost compared to these massive locomotives you want to order?
Extra weight carried under electric power is not really a major cost in terms of extra energy expenditure use.
Electricity is cheap per kWh of delivered power.

And what does moving locomotives around Waverley do to the capacity of the station?

And currently we have a ridiculous situation where Sprinters and Turbostars beat HSTs in stop to stop times on the Aberdeen and Inverness routes.
This is not really acceptable.

EDIT:
Since all future trains will be multiple units, loco changes means tacking diesels onto the trains.

Nothing, the class 67 is already built! As is the 91 for electric traction!

 

[HSTEd]

Nothing, the class 67 is already built! As is the 91 for electric traction!

Class 67s will need a massive refit for TDM equipment and have insufficient power to shift that Mark 4 formation anywhere near fast enough to keep to time.
(A class 67 and a DVT comes to approximate weight of a pair of HST power cars, but has far less power).

 

[junglejames]

I've been crunching the numbers on a 9 car Class 222 ED with two pantograph trailers and seven motor vehicles recently.

I calculate that each London-Edinburgh round trip done on electric power rather than diesel would save roughly six thousand litres of fuel compared to the HST set doing the same journey. (As said ED would have similar fuel consumption figures per hundred seat.km to the HST).

I know of at least four diesel round trips between London and Edinburgh (the Highland Chieftain, Northern LIghts and the other two Aberdeen trains).

24000L/day saving for 4 9 car trainsets is rather good, and if we assume the IEP bi-mode will have similar performance.

EDIT:
ECML traction energy prices are rougly 6.5p/kWh. If we assume a 20% saving over diesel in traction output terms and a 33% diesel engine efficiency (including alternators) this gives us a value of 18.5p/ litre of diesel-equivalent.

Compared to a roughly 70p/litre price for red diesel.... and you are into £3090/round trip in fuel savings alone. 330 round trips a year gives you nearly £1.09 million per year in savings.

Now take off the loss you are making by having IEPs, and you actually find you are losing money, not saving money. Remember the £20,000 per vehicle per day increase in leasing costs, compared to something like a pendy. So no doubt an even bigger increase compared to the HST.

Also, its fine claiming all these savings by having IEP instead of HSTs under the wires, but it would seem as though the figures arent taking everything into account. Wasnt it Mr Garnett himself who said he would be happy to see the wires taken down? From what I remember, this wasnt just because of how unreliable the OHL is. I believe part of the reasoning was cost. Something I think DRS have partly commented on (and no Im not on about the part about extra locos and drivers etc etc). Diesel trains are supposedly cheaper to operate and run than electric trains. Are your costs taking into account the access charges for electric trains?
Then we have the fact these IEPs are heavier than normal electric stock, and the advantages of HSTs under the wires increases still further.

However, yes, having diesel under the wires does seem a little bit daft. But why do we have to solve it the expensive way? Lets do it the cheaper way. Dragging pure electric stock away from the wires.

 

[LE Greys]

....
How much does a handful of QSK-19 style diesels cost compared to these massive locomotives you want to order?
Extra weight carried under electric power is not really a major cost in terms of extra energy expenditure use.
Electricity is cheap per kWh of delivered power.

And what does moving locomotives around Waverley do to the capacity of the station?

And currently we have a ridiculous situation where Sprinters and Turbostars beat HSTs in stop to stop times on the Aberdeen and Inverness routes.
This is not really acceptable.

EDIT:
Since all future trains will be multiple units, loco changes means tacking diesels onto the trains.

Surely, the speed limit deferentials accound for the speed difference. There are a few 85/SP100 limits up there (although most are 85/HST100).

Attaching locos does not affect capacity too much if handled well. The eastern end of Waverley has several bay platforms that are hardly used, where the sleeper locos often stable for the day. With push-pull, as used on Bournemouth-Weymouth, it would be easy to attach a loco from the eastern end of Waverley with minimum platform occupancy. Even if you continued to use 91s, switching them to the southern end (eastern at Waverley) would make the exchange easier, even if it means a reversal at Newcastle.

 

[junglejames]

Not all of them.

When I say I want 390s, I want 390s. Whether 6 car ones or 8 car ones or 11 car ones.

But then I also want widespread roll out of tilt with the trains being delivered with XC style disabled tilt systems that can be reactivated if TASS can be implemented on other lines.

Thats one hell of a cost for such small benefits. The ECML doesnt really need tilt.
Something like the WCML, yes, but the cost of enabling tilt on the ECML surely will never outweigh the very small time benefits.

 

[Failed Unit]

Class 67s will need a massive refit for TDM equipment and have insufficient power to shift that Mark 4 formation anywhere near fast enough to keep to time.
(A class 67 and a DVT comes to approximate weight of a pair of HST power cars, but has far less power).

The 67s already drag mk4 sets around at 100mph, which is the line speed north of Edinburgh. But we will have to just disagree, for me the bi-mode is a waste of money. traction swapping or dragging is the correct way forward. I just can't see how having 5 loco's is worse than have at least 8 sets with multiple diesel engines to maintain and a lot of energy wasted carrying fuel and the enginer while they are under the wires. But hey I am an engineer rather than dft!

 

[junglejames]

How much would all the diesel weigh (in terms of passengers/ total weight of the train)?

Bear in mind that we have diesel services travelling hundreds of miles under the wires as it is, having a bi-mode train travelling hundreds of miles under the wires but using the electricity seems a step in the right direction.

Its a very small step in the right direction if your looking at it from this point of view. But why not be even greener, and at less cost? Dragging north of Edinburgh.
Less fuel used north of Edinburgh, and less fuel needed for the generating of electricity south of Edinburgh (no unnecessary weight being carried around)

 

[Failed Unit]

Surely, the speed limit deferentials accound for the speed difference. There are a few 85/SP100 limits up there (although most are 85/HST100).

My understanding is it is the dwell times the reason the HSTs take longer than the sprinters. The power doors -v- the slam doors. The crew need to ensure the doors are shut and allow time to walk up the train to shut them if they are not.

 

[junglejames]

How long will all those switchovers take?
Bi-mode takes no additional time compared to through operations using normal stock.

Less than the 7/8mins the trains usually sit in Edinburgh for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even though they will not be able to benefit from the electrification between Paddington and Bristol/Newbury?

Via Newbury, without doubt still greener. Afterall, the IEPs will be starting their engines before Newbury I expect, and then theres the extra fuel used for generating the extra electricity to run these extra IEPs. OK, it wont be much, but it still adds up. Via Bristol its probably not much difference, but very few go via Bristol

 

[Failed Unit]

Less than the 7/8mins the trains usually sit in Edinburgh for.

Southbound they seem booked for about 12 minutes, northbound for some reason it isn't as long.

1200 London - Inverness is about 10 minutes fine for the change.

However the Aberdeen service going north seem to be closer to 5 minutes. Saying that as you say it is not going to make much difference to the overall journey time compared to the HST. Agree 100% that loco change is the correct thing to do - BR used to be slick at it, now we have more modern technology I am sure that it could probably be done in less then 3 - which is what most multiple units can do it. Likewise we could develop a very good coupling system and dragging unit if we did start from scratch compared to the premium we are about to pay on the IEP compared to existing designs of 125mph capable EMUs!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Via Newbury, without doubt still greener. Afterall, the IEPs will be starting their engines before Newbury I expect, and then theres the extra fuel used for generating the extra electricity to run these extra IEPs. OK, it wont be much, but it still adds up. Via Bristol its probably not much difference, but very few go via Bristol

Out of interest, how much more time would it take to go via Bristol?

ie
London, Reading, Bristol Parkway, Bristol Temple Meads, Taunton agains London, Reading, Taunton?

Would it be unviabale?

 

[junglejames]

....
How much does a handful of QSK-19 style diesels cost compared to these massive locomotives you want to order?

IEPs are costing stupendous amounts extra to run/ lease. Dragging north of Edinburgh is the cheaper option. £20,000 per vehicle per day/ month (i cant remember what it was now) just to lease (thats not including running costs). Either way, if you added all that extra cost up, Mr Brush or whoever would happily build you some locos, and give you some change.

 

[snail]

Everyone

Not everyone. Don't speak for me please.

 

[Donny Dave]

....
How much does a handful of QSK-19 style diesels cost compared to these massive locomotives you want to order?
Extra weight carried under electric power is not really a major cost in terms of extra energy expenditure use.
Electricity is cheap per kWh of delivered power.

First off all, with you harping on about IEP and bi-mode trains in general, I have to say ....

You are Stuart Baker and I claim my £5!

To power these QSK-19s (7 per train by your figures), how much extra weight is that? Remember, you have the weight of the engines, the fuel tank (and fuel) oil and all the other gubbins needed.

Fuel now .... While you will make a small saving in fuel by using 7 smaller engines compared to 2 big engines in a HST, how much more are you spening on maintanence (extra people employed and more parts needed)? Just over 2 years ago, I posted some numbers on here (they were originally posted on WNXX from where I borrowed them). A HST will use roughly 600 litres of fuel an hour, where as a QSK-19 uses 60-80l per hour.

Finally, tilting. I've noticed that you have suggested that new trains should have tilt equipment included as standard, but ....

For a start, this raises track access charges by roughly 25% (class 220 carriage is 8.72ppm* where as a 221 carriage is 12.09ppm*). It's also more equipment that needs to be maintained in case it's possibly used in the future, and most importantly, more weight that needs to be lugged around, increasing fuel useage, and therefore running costs.

As others have suggested, let's stick with EMUs or LHCS where a diesel loco can be bolted on for the parts not covered by the OHLE. Less messing around ....

* 2010 prices, possibly different now.