Pendolino could take part in clearance trials on ECML

[swt_passenger]

I remember going on a 222 back in the days they were at Hull Trains, I always thought they were perfectly reasonable inside, and they arent the only stock I can think of that doesnt tilt while having a tilting body profile.

Tilt profiles: Mk4, 390, 220, 221, 222?

Other angled profiles that 'allow the vehicle to remain in gauge if the suspension fails' are not tilt profile stock.

 

[HSTEd]

Tilt profiles: Mk4, 390, 220, 221, 222?

Other angled profiles that 'allow the vehicle to remain in gauge if the suspension fails' are not tilt profile stock.

Indeed, Mark 4s being the major one there that noone ever seems to have a problem with

 

[junglejames]

The problem with the all-electric version is that its still wasteful - who else is building LDHS EMU's with a diesel engine underneath for emergencies? Then there's the nonsense of 5-car sets, and 26m carriages restricting its use hardly seems wise either. The whole design is just too costly with too little flexibility and no eye on the future regarding electrification or cascading.

Chris

Does the all electric version have an emergency diesel onboard as well? Mad.
Agree on everything else as well. 26m is daft. 5 car sets are daft. To me Hitachi is daft. They may be building things in the UK, but I dont like their EMUs at all. A 180 body with a 390 traction package is a much more preferable option.

 

[ainsworth74]

26m is daft.

Indeed what on earth is wrong with the C3 loading gauge which is 23m and pretty much go anywhere, you know like the HSTs these are replacing...

 

[junglejames]

I think indeed it is the same one.
Although you might describe him as a DfT civil servant, he worked for the SRA on WCRM and was one of the key people to rescue the project after Railtrack bungled it.
He is your "informed client" and was instrumental, for instance, in defining the new layouts at Rugby and MK.

I doubt he is in financial charge of the IEP programme, which seems to be its Achilles heel at the moment.
The bean-counters at the DfT/Treasury always have the last say.

So he isnt totally daft. Just got some daft ideas this time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, Mark 4s being the major one there that noone ever seems to have a problem with

Because they dont come across as tilt profiled. Still very spacious inside. A 222 isnt too bad, but still not as good as say a 180.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed what on earth is wrong with the C3 loading gauge which is 23m and pretty much go anywhere, you know like the HSTs these are replacing...

They have tried to be too clever with the IEP. They thought they could look really good by designing an ultra clever train. 26m long, bi mode etc etc. Unfortunately it provides too many problems, and is unnecessarily complicated and expensive. The HST worked so well partly because it was a simple piece of kit. Thats basically what we want now. Less chance of it failing, and cheaper to maintain.

 

[HSTEd]

Wasn't the HST basically the backup incase the APT went belly-up... which it did?

 

[DesiroDom]

Wasn't the HST basically the backup incase the APT went belly-up... which it did?

No it was a separate venture and yeah HST's were built in 1976 and the APT from 1980-86

 

[ainsworth74]

No it was a separate venture and yeah HST's were built in 1976 and the APT from 1980-86

That's not what I've read. My impression is that the HST was built as a stop-gap/back-up for APT rather than something entirely separate. The idea being that BR would get faster speeds immediately, cheaply and relatively risk free whilst they worked on APT which would lead to a much bigger revolution but would take much longer to develop as well as of course costing much more and could fail due to the rather demanding specification of APT (and of course eventually it did fail).

 

[sprinterguy]

No it was a separate venture and yeah HST's were built in 1976 and the APT from 1980-86

No, HSTEd has got it right in essence. The High Speed Diesel Train project was intended as a stop gap measure until electric APT trains were rolled out; starting with the West Coast Main line, and then probably looking to electrify the East Coast later which of course did happen, but a little later than was probably intended. The HSTs would then be relegated to secondary duties (Such as Transpennine and Edinburgh to Glasgow, for which HSTs were originally proposed). The APT team at Derby was, however, quite distant from the team working on the development of the HST, so you are right in saying that they were separate projects.

APT development was an incredibly long and protracted process: Reference was first made to the production of a 150mph capable "Advanced Passenger Train" in late 1966, and the developmental APT-E was rolled out in 1972, at pretty much the same time as the prototype HST set was finished. It was the pre-production APT-P trainsets that came about later, in 1979.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's not what I've read. My impression is that the HST was built as a stop-gap/back-up for APT rather than something entirely separate. The idea being that BR would get faster speeds immediately, cheaply and relatively risk free whilst they worked on APT which would lead to a much bigger revolution but would take much longer to develop as well as of course costing much more and could fail due to the rather demanding specification of APT (and of course eventually it did fail).

Beat me to it

 

[DesiroDom]

No, HSTEd has got it right in essence. The High Speed Diesel Train project was intended as a stop gap measure until electric APT trains were rolled out; starting with the West Coast Main line, and then probably looking to electrify the East Coast later which of course did happen, but a little later than was probably intended. The HSTs would then be relegated to secondary duties (Such as Transpennine and Edinburgh to Glasgow, for which HSTs were originally proposed). The APT team at Derby was, however, quite distant from the team working on the development of the HST, so you are right in saying that they were separate projects.

APT development was an incredibly long and protracted process: Reference was first made to the production of a 150mph capable "Advanced Passenger Train" in late 1966, and the developmental APT-E was rolled out in 1972, at pretty much the same time as the prototype HST set was finished. It was the pre-production APT-P trainsets that came about later, in 1979.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Beat me to it

You know more than me mate

 

[dave59]

The problem with the all-electric version is that its still wasteful - who else is building LDHS EMU's with a diesel engine underneath for emergencies? Then there's the nonsense of 5-car sets, and 26m carriages restricting its use hardly seems wise either. The whole design is just too costly with too little flexibility and no eye on the future regarding electrification or cascading.

Chris

The facility to 'limp' to the next station or live section in heated/air conditioned comfort would not be a bad thing. No one else is doing it but other countries have more stable weather, better quality OHLE and robust diversionary routes. Something like this sounds expensive and superfluous until the first time its needed.

The most disappointing aspect is the limited amount of stock in the IEP requirement. A government procurement should encompass the entire ex-BR IC fleet and more rather than just the HST. The Economies of scale, standardisation and phasing of orders much talked about in the McNulty report should be taken forward in the same way as a rolling programme of electrification. What is needed is a good train, not necessarily a cheap one.

It will be interesting to see how this saga unfolds in 2012 and how much influence the Rail delivery group has on the outcome.

 

[Chris125]

The facility to 'limp' to the next station or live section in heated/air conditioned comfort would not be a bad thing. No one else is doing it but other countries have more stable weather, better quality OHLE and robust diversionary routes. Something like this sounds expensive and superfluous until the first time its needed.

Any benefit has to be measured against the need to maintain these engines, fire them up on a regular basis and carry the weight and fuel of them around, and if they arent working the removal of that train from service.

Thats a massive cost to bear on every single IEP train just in case it brings the wires down or is nearby on a line where other tracks can be kept open to allow trains past. If it greatly reduced the disruption then fair enough, but realistically it wont - trains will still be in the wrong places, journey times will still be greatly affected and lines will still be blocked to allow engineers to work on site.

Chris