Intercity Express Programme going ahead

[150's are evil]

All depends on what they base it on. A-train ( 395) or Shinkansen. Only concern would be whether the layout is like the Japanese which is very aeroplane-like. Or more like what is taken for granted in britain. And on the whole diesel thing. I think that it is probably a bit cheaper to stick diesel engines in them than to spend more money on electrifying lincoln -ecml, hull-ecml and Aberdeen/Inverness-ecml. Correct me if I'm wrong but it just seems logical ( can't say much about GWML, don't really know much about it)

 

[Rhydgaled]

on the whole diesel thing. I think that it is probably a bit cheaper to stick diesel engines in them than to spend more money on electrifying lincoln -ecml, hull-ecml and Aberdeen/Inverness-ecml. Correct me if I'm wrong but it just seems logical ( can't say much about GWML, don't really know much about it)

Cheaper (financially) initally, quite likely. BUT in the long term it will be enviromentally more expensive, and almost certainly more expensive financially too. In other words, sticking diesels in IEP and leaving chunks of the IC network out of the electrification program would probably be a lower capital cost, but very much more expensive in operation.

Even the capital side is not as clear cut as it would seem, since every route IEP will run on needs to be cleared for 26 metre coaches. The main sections of the GWML and ECML (being mainly straight, and in the GWML case orriginally built for broad guage) will probably be quite cheap to clear compared to the more sedate lines. My suggestion is that alot of the less 'mainline' routes are not cleared for IEP, with IC125s, IC225s, Great Western's small class 180 fleet, class 22x trains (converted to bi-mode by adding pantograph cars*) and perhaps mark 3s from retired IC125 sets working with DVTs and new locomotives, being cleared already, used for these services instead.

For the ECML, Hull is under consideration for electrification**, as (I beleive) is Harrogate. If both happen, that leaves one train each way per day to Lincon. Just drag it with a class 67, you don't need to buy diesel engines for a fleet of 35 5-car bi-mode IEPs. Same story for Aberdeen/Inverness, where you can share locos with the sleepers so don't need many additional locos allocated to the area.

*The fact you need these extra vehicles, and probably Pendolinos to displace some from ICWC, is the main reason the no IEP bi-mode option is more expensive. If you kept IC125s (with a fair bit of under the wires running) on a fair few routes instead, wiring to Swansea and perhaps Cheltenham could be mostly paid for through the savings gained from not putting diesel engines in IEPs and not having to clear un-electrified routes for their long coaches.
**As part of TPE electrification project

 

[RobShipway]

Cheaper (financially) initally, quite likely. BUT in the long term it will be enviromentally more expensive, and almost certainly more expensive financially too. In other words, sticking diesels in IEP and leaving chunks of the IC network out of the electrification program would probably be a lower capital cost, but very much more expensive in operation.

Even the capital side is not as clear cut as it would seem, since every route IEP will run on needs to be cleared for 26 metre coaches. The main sections of the GWML and ECML (being mainly straight, and in the GWML case orriginally built for broad guage) will probably be quite cheap to clear compared to the more sedate lines. My suggestion is that alot of the less 'mainline' routes are not cleared for IEP, with IC125s, IC225s, Great Western's small class 180 fleet, class 22x trains (converted to bi-mode by adding pantograph cars*) and perhaps mark 3s from retired IC125 sets working with DVTs and new locomotives, being cleared already, used for these services instead.

For the ECML, Hull is under consideration for electrification**, as (I beleive) is Harrogate. If both happen, that leaves one train each way per day to Lincon. Just drag it with a class 67, you don't need to buy diesel engines for a fleet of 35 5-car bi-mode IEPs. Same story for Aberdeen/Inverness, where you can share locos with the sleepers so don't need many additional locos allocated to the area.

*The fact you need these extra vehicles, and probably Pendolinos to displace some from ICWC, is the main reason the no IEP bi-mode option is more expensive. If you kept IC125s (with a fair bit of under the wires running) on a fair few routes instead, wiring to Swansea and perhaps Cheltenham could be mostly paid for through the savings gained from not putting diesel engines in IEPs and not having to clear un-electrified routes for their long coaches.
**As part of TPE electrification project

I agree with your comments above, but I think the HST's engines have a lot more life in them especially if you replace the MK3 coaches with a more modern version and convert half the GWML power cars to have a pantograph on top with converter equipment inside, which I believe there is space for within them. This is especially so from the tests that Hitachi did using a class 43 power car in the testing if memory serves correct?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I agree with your comments above, but I think the HST's engines have a lot more life in them especially if you replace the MK3 coaches with a more modern version and convert half the GWML power cars to have a pantograph on top with converter equipment inside, which I believe there is space for within them. This is especially so from the tests that Hitachi did using a class 43 power car in the testing if memory serves correct?

Intercity 125s are good until 2035 I think. Certainly I hope they will remain in charge of all services beyond Taunton/Exeter (except perhaps a 180 on the Paignton extension of the Westbury semi-fast) for the duration of the new franchise (which goes to 2028 I think), after which I hope electrification starts to head for Penzance).

 

[HSTEd]

Well you could quite reasonably get a case for the electrification to Plymouth once the speed improvements on the line to Bristol allow you to divert everything onto the Bristol-to-Exeter line while holding to the current timetable.

Then if TramPower really can produce electrification as cheap as they claim.... the wires could indeed reach Penzance.

 

[sprinterguy]

I agree with your comments above, but I think the HST's engines have a lot more life in them especially if you replace the MK3 coaches with a more modern version and convert half the GWML power cars to have a pantograph on top with converter equipment inside, which I believe there is space for within them. This is especially so from the tests that Hitachi did using a class 43 power car in the testing if memory serves correct?

If you are referring to the "Hayabusa" project a couple of years ago, then that converted an HST power car to a hybrid diesel-battery arrangement, and the batteries were located in a carriage adjacent to the power car, with comparatively little additional equipment added to the power car itself. Certainly nothing to the extent of adding a pantograph and transformer, etc.

 

[Bridge189]

Bearing in mind how much East Coast have praised the pendolino over the past few years I have guessed that they probably aren't interested in having IEPs. Come to think of it have EC or GW ever praised publicly the IEP?

 

[anthony263]

Bearing in mind how much East Coast have praised the pendolino over the past few years I have guessed that they probably aren't interested in having IEPs. Come to think of it have EC or GW ever praised publicly the IEP?

Nope and there have been quiet mutterings from those in ATOC saying they don't want the Hitachi's IEP particulary the bi-mode because of the cost's etc.

Too be honest I wish on this subject ATOC would sort its act out and say publicly they don't want IEP sure there may be critism of no jobs in the nborthwest but nothing to stop hitachi wining the order to built trains for crossrail or any other rolling stock contracts that come up.

Also wasnt there talk of the japaneese buying some fighter aircraft off us as well?
That is out of the water considering they have decided to order jets from the United states instead and you also have to consider how they havent ordered any trains from Bombardier etc.

 

[IanXC]

Nope and there have been quiet mutterings from those in ATOC saying they don't want the Hitachi's IEP particulary the bi-mode because of the cost's etc.

Too be honest I wish on this subject ATOC would sort its act out and say publicly they don't want IEP sure there may be critism of no jobs in the nborthwest but nothing to stop hitachi wining the order to built trains for crossrail or any other rolling stock contracts that come up.

If we've heard mutterings from ATOC, there is no doubt that the DfT are abundantly aware what the TOCs, owning groups and various industry bodies think of the project. I think its fair to say they probably don't think at this stage that going official, and public with their criticism will help their cause. Whether they will or not depending on how things turn out remains to be seen.

 

[WatcherZero]

Nope and there have been quiet mutterings from those in ATOC saying they don't want the Hitachi's IEP particulary the bi-mode because of the cost's etc.

Too be honest I wish on this subject ATOC would sort its act out and say publicly they don't want IEP sure there may be critism of no jobs in the nborthwest but nothing to stop hitachi wining the order to built trains for crossrail or any other rolling stock contracts that come up.

Also wasnt there talk of the japaneese buying some fighter aircraft off us as well?
That is out of the water considering they have decided to order jets from the United states instead and you also have to consider how they havent ordered any trains from Bombardier etc.

Was some mutterings after they awarded the contract they were having second thoughts and were willing to switch from US to British jets to save money. Cameron however didnt take any rail industry people with him in his trade tour of Asia.

 

[daniel3982]

Can anyone tell me why they have specified 10 x 26m car trains (260m in total) rather than 11 x 23m car trains (253m in total) or 13 x 20m car trains (260m in total) when it is going to mean a significant cost in gauging changes and might limit where the IEP can run?

I thought after the McNulty review, reducing costs and standardised systems were the name of the game?

 

[anthony263]

Can anyone tell me why they have specified 10 x 26m car trains (260m in total) rather than 11 x 23m car trains (253m in total) or 13 x 20m car trains (260m in total) when it is going to mean a significant cost in gauging changes and might limit where the IEP can run?

I thought after the McNulty review, reducing costs and standardised systems were the name of the game?

No idea.

The cost of modify infrastructure to accomodate the longer carriages has been pointed out on this forum before.

In fact I wonder if the carriages were only 23m how much the cost savings would be.

 

[DXMachina]

Over the lifetime of the train, the reductions in energy usage caused by having 20 bogies instead of 22 might be seriously worthwhile.

Anything that reduces drag will save detectable amounts of power and money.

 

[tbtc]

Can anyone tell me why they have specified 10 x 26m car trains (260m in total) rather than 11 x 23m car trains (253m in total) or 13 x 20m car trains (260m in total) when it is going to mean a significant cost in gauging changes and might limit where the IEP can run?

I thought after the McNulty review, reducing costs and standardised systems were the name of the game?

Good point. Having a standard 23m carriage length would make some things simpler.

I don't know whether you'd get more seats in a 10x26m train (with presumably twenty doors and ten toilets?) compared to a 13x20m train (with presumably twenty six doors and thirteen toilets?), despite 13x20 being longer?

This also suggests that IEP is going to be quite restricted in where it can go away from the mainlines (compared to HSTs that run to Inverness/ Newquay/ Skegness etc) - would cost a lot to bring all of those lines up to a suitable "gauge" clearance

 

[HSTEd]

One might even argue in favour of ~17m coaches now that we have wide corridor connections like those on S-stock.

 

[tbtc]

One might even argue in favour of ~17m coaches now that we have wide corridor connections like those on S-stock.

Didn't we try those and call them "Pacers"?

 

[anthony263]

Didn't we try those and call them "Pacers"?

Yep and I will be glad to get rid of the dam things

 

[HSTEd]

Didn't we try those and call them "Pacers"?

They also tried something similar called the "TGV" or the "Talgo" and they seem quite succesful

 

[Martin222002]

They also tried something similar called the "TGV" or the "Talgo" and they seem quite succesful

Unfortunately there would be costs associated with gauge clearances for 17m TGV style articulated coaches, as this was why the North of London Eurostars which GNER used were not aloud north of York, as they would be out of gauge on the tight corners on the approach to Newcastle station I believe.

 

[jopsuk]

It's a real pity that back in the earlier days of standardising rolling stock British Rail didn't clamp down harder and declare a "British Standard" for passenger rolling stock dimensions- the profusion of slightly different dimensions of 70s/80s/early 90s rail vehicles meant no proper standardisation come privitisation. If carriage lenght, door position, cariage width, floor height etc had all been specified to the mm at an ealrier date, clearence would be less of a problem. Would it have been so bad for the Mark 3 to have been the same length as the Mark 2?

 

[Failed Unit]

Unfortunately there would be costs associated with gauge clearances for 17m TGV style articulated coaches, as this was why the North of London Eurostars which GNER used were not aloud north of York, as they would be out of gauge on the tight corners on the approach to Newcastle station I believe.

I am not sure if the tried to be honest, if the had gone to Edinburgh they would not have had the same set throughput. They were restricted to 110mph as well initially so they would have not have kept time.

On the short runs the reduced numbers of doors did impact loading times.

 

[sprinterguy]

Good point. Having a standard 23m carriage length would make some things simpler.

I don't know whether you'd get more seats in a 10x26m train (with presumably twenty doors and ten toilets?) compared to a 13x20m train (with presumably twenty six doors and thirteen toilets?), despite 13x20 being longer?

I can do a few comparisons:
8 carriage IEP (208 metre length): 106 first class seats, 422 standard.
9 carriage 390 (216.9 metre length): 145 first class seats, 298 standard.

Now if you were to just base it on the number of standard class seats you could fit in the full length of either of those two formations, essentially mirroring the standard class portion of these trains right across the middle of the formation, you would have:
8 carriage IEP: 592 seats
9 carriage 390: 520 seats

And if you were to form up an eleven carriage rake of 20 metre long mark 2 carriages (216.3 metres long; technically they're 19.66m in length), and to be fair to the other formations noted above we'll consider that a brake vehicle is included at either end which would be the equivalent of the crumple zone in the modern units, plus two micro-buffet vehicles, then that would give a total of 606 seats.

 

[tbtc]

I can do a few comparisons:
8 carriage IEP (208 metre length): 106 first class seats, 422 standard.
9 carriage 390 (216.9 metre length): 145 first class seats, 298 standard.

Now if you were to just base it on the number of standard class seats you could fit in the full length of either of those two formations, essentially mirroring the standard class portion of these trains right across the middle of the formation, you would have:
8 carriage IEP: 592 seats
9 carriage 390: 520 seats

And if you were to form up an eleven carriage rake of 20 metre long mark 2 carriages (216.3 metres long; technically they're 19.66m in length), and to be fair to the other formations noted above we'll consider that a brake vehicle is included at either end which would be the equivalent of the crumple zone in the modern units, plus two micro-buffet vehicles, then that would give a total of 606 seats.

As ever, very interesting reading, cheers

 

[Rhydgaled]

sprinterguy, can you explain how you get more standard class seats into a 208m IEP than a 216.9m class 390? Less legroom, or does the reduced number of toilets and doors with the longer carriges create over 8.9m of extra space for seats?

 

[sprinterguy]

sprinterguy, can you explain how you get more standard class seats into a 208m IEP than a 216.9m class 390? Less legroom, or does the reduced number of toilets and doors with the longer carriges create over 8.9m of extra space for seats?

Without knowing the specifics of the interior arrangement of the IEP trains, it is difficult to say. The currently published seating capacities for the IEP features a greater number of carriages that contain the maximum number of seats the design is intended to accomodate, which is 88.

Compare this to the Pendolino, where the only standard class carriage in a 9 car set that is fitted with the maximum number of seats is the centrally located TSO, which seats 76. The two other carriages out of the five standard class vehicles that could potentially be fitted with this many seats (The remaining two are the driving vehicle and Coach C with the shop in it) do not because they are both fitted with disabled toilets.

On the IEP trains only one carriage is denoted as being fitted with a disabled toilet. Even the vehicle fitted with a cafe bar/shop still seats 72. 88 seats is the same number as was proposed to be fitted to the 26 metre mark 5 carriages intended for Intercity 250 in BR days, so it doesn't seem as if the amount of legroom is being compromised.

 

[Martin222002]

The easiest way to think about the potential interior on the IEP 26m coaches is to take a Mk3 and then think of the entire space between the 4 exterior doors as the space for seating with 1 luggage rack at each end (ie just remove to toilets).

The extra 3 meters of the IEP coaches are split between the two ends of the coaches (after the exterior doors), with one of the ends being used for either toilets, bike storage, or guards compartment. This is all based on what was detailed in a past edition of Modern Railways. The article also had some diagrams of the DfT specified interior layout, which I will see if I can find.

 

[Photohunter71]

Better if they were to order Bombardier UK variant Traxx as well as a tag on order for some more Eurolight 3000's that DRS are getting to haul the stock when wires aren't available such as North of Edinburgh.

 

[anthony263]

Better if they were to order Bombardier UK variant Traxx as well as a tag on order for some more Eurolight 3000's that DRS are getting to haul the stock when wires aren't available such as North of Edinburgh.

I agree with perhaps ordering some diesel loco's to haul the units away from the wires.

Ideally the locomotives would be fitted with autocouplers from the start rather than being existing loco modifed like the virgin class 57's as it shopuld allow the loco to be attached quickly.

It would perhaps offer some jobs at Bombardier in Derby if the government decided to order some traxx loco's

 

[Mike C]

I am not sure if the tried to be honest, if the had gone to Edinburgh they would not have had the same set throughput. They were restricted to 110mph as well initially so they would have not have kept time.

On the short runs the reduced numbers of doors did impact loading times.

Martin222002 is correct. The curves at Newcastle pushed us out of gauge. Plus they were close to the limit of minimum radius that we can get round even if gauging wasn't an issue. Our train likes straight lines you see...

The 110mph limit was lifted south of Grantham about half way through their time with GNER. They could run at 125 or any limit that existed.

They were so over powered for that duty it was almost comical. We had an amusing incident once when we had an ADD fault on one pantograph and lost the rear power car. The conversation with the Donny signaller went something like this:

DRIVER: I can't deploy the rear pan. I'm down to one power car. Over.
SIGNALLER: OK driver, understood. What is your new speed limit? Over.
DRIVER: It says here I'm limited to 220km/h on one power car. Over.
SIGNALLER: Carry on. Out.

 

[LE Greys]

Martin222002 is correct. The curves at Newcastle pushed us out of gauge. Plus they were close to the limit of minimum radius that we can get round even if gauging wasn't an issue. Our train likes straight lines you see...

The 110mph limit was lifted south of Grantham about half way through their time with GNER. They could run at 125 or any limit that existed.

They were so over powered for that duty it was almost comical. We had an amusing incident once when we had an ADD fault on one pantograph and lost the rear power car. The conversation with the Donny signaller went something like this:

DRIVER: I can't deploy the rear pan. I'm down to one power car. Over.
SIGNALLER: OK driver, understood. What is your new speed limit? Over.
DRIVER: It says here I'm limited to 220km/h on one power car. Over.
SIGNALLER: Carry on. Out.

I hope that the upper echelons did not hear of that, they would have had the units running on one power car all the time to save money!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree with perhaps ordering some diesel loco's to haul the units away from the wires.

Ideally the locomotives would be fitted with autocouplers from the start rather than being existing loco modifed like the virgin class 57's as it shopuld allow the loco to be attached quickly.

It would perhaps offer some jobs at Bombardier in Derby if the government decided to order some traxx loco's

That sounds very sensible. If we're sticking with away from the wires, we're looking at a 100 mph Co-Co, probably a Type 5, which sounds reasonable.