I.E.P.

[The Stationmaster]

But remember what the only part of the APT was that made it into squadron service...

 

The first-c;lass seat was used in the Mk4 coach.

 

And the reclining mechanism didn't (and a lot of the time still doesn't in my experience)

 

Edit - correct typo

[woodenhead]

But remember what the only part of the APT was that made it into squadron service...

 

The first-c;lass seat was used in the Mk4 coach.

 

The metal stick with a plastic ball on top that sounded the horn.

[CWJ]

Some interesting opinions on here... I'm not sure how factual some of them are! I was fortunate to attend a presentation on IEP by the DfT and Hitachi last night; one of only three such presentations which have been given so far as the DfT are waiting until they have confirmed the specification in more detail before releasing information into the public domain. This may explain why there is a lot of speculation around.

 

As someone who has always been a worshipper of the glorious mode of transport that is the HST, I too was sceptical about all this "bi-mode" stuff (or 'electro-diesel' in plain English). However, with the exception of rumbling underfloor engines affecting passenger comfort, I'm now pretty convinced that IEP is the way forward. I won't even attempt to explain why, I'd just recommend that you wait for the official info from the DfT before making up your own minds. It's very easy to criticise something but I'm yet to hear of anyone coming up with a better suggestion

 

Cheers,

 

Will

[Catkins]

But remember what the only part of the APT was that made it into squadron service...

 

The first-c;lass seat was used in the Mk4 coach.

 

And the power cars gave us the 91s.

 

Some interesting opinions on here... I'm not sure how factual some of them are! I was fortunate to attend a presentation on IEP by the DfT and Hitachi last night; one of only three such presentations which have been given so far as the DfT are waiting until they have confirmed the specification in more detail before releasing information into the public domain. This may explain why there is a lot of speculation around.

 

As someone who has always been a worshipper of the glorious mode of transport that is the HST, I too was sceptical about all this "bi-mode" stuff (or 'electro-diesel' in plain English). However, with the exception of rumbling underfloor engines affecting passenger comfort, I'm now pretty convinced that IEP is the way forward. I won't even attempt to explain why, I'd just recommend that you wait for the official info from the DfT before making up your own minds. It's very easy to criticise something but I'm yet to hear of anyone coming up with a better suggestion

 

Cheers,

 

Will

 

I would like to echo what has been mentioned elsewhere;-

Why not go for the OBB / Bombardier "Railjet" arangement using a loco+stock+driving trailer?

With the loco, we could use electric or diesel, where applicable. The hauled rakes can be strengthened very easily if needed. The locos will be the most expensive part of the project, but that will be balanced by the fact that the stock can be quickly built 'off the drawing board' - very much like the D800s were in Swindon.

[Guest Phil]

There are many issues with the IEP project - depending on who you listen to.

 

In my mind I don't see how a 26m bodyshell is any more beneficial if the profile has to be narrower than a "full figured" 23m vehicle. As someone from another forum writes - it's like thinking of 26m class 153 bodyshells. But they have already reaIised that placing the doors at the ends of the bodyshells creates too large a gap between step board and platform edge, on curved platforms like erm York or erm Newcastle or erm Bristol Temple Meads. Those doors have had to be moved further towards the centre of the coach as a result. Granted, those 5 x 3=15 extra metres is over half an extra coach, but at the expense of comfortable seating ?

 

The bi mode concept was originally based on 5 car (26m) units with three out of the five powered by the equivalent power output of a voyager engine (750hp). Now it is acknowledged that 5 x 750hp (or 700hp based on recent suggestions) under a voyager easily allows an excess of power. Three equivalent engines under a five car however is different. There are suggestions that the Bi mode under diesel would not maintain the 125mph expected of the current voyager type trains. This is of course, not an issue north of Edinburgh or west of Bristol where there is negligable 125mph running away from the OLE.

 

By far the greatest issue I have is that the deal has been done with Hitachi, prior to all the spec changes, which are still happening. The IEP or SET as it then was known as, is a totally different train to that which all the bidders originally submitted outline tenders for. On that basis I think the DfT should have the balls to admit the project has gone sour, rip it up, and restart the tendering process.

 

I will be biased in this because I don't feel at ease doing business with a country that doesn't agree to reciprocal free trade. In other words, if Japan won't allow Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier onto it's metals, then why should they enjoy an exclusive privilege here in the UK ?

 

The only realistic choice the DfT should have is ;

 

establish a 2012 cost analysis for electrification of the UK system - based on the fact that diesel will continue to escalate in cost.

decide on an uber strategic electrification policy

plan a strategy of how best to use the current "Inter City" rolling stock in the next thirty years

 

Then and only then - submit invitations to tender for some appropriate "Inter City" rolling stock.

 

Some people get hung up on dragging heavy diesel engines, fuel and other kit around - have to say I am not impressed, but perhaps do that the exisitng 22x fleet by inserting panto/transformer cars. The new build kit should go hand in hand with a large electrification project, with the strategic intention that the 22x will be the last real diesel "Inter City" designs.

[Guest Phil]

One thing i should have added is perhaps this country should admit that the current railway system is like some of our other "institutions". It is just too bloody expensive to run. Look at our wonderful mail service. The British prided itself on getting most first class mail delivered by 9am the next day. When do you get your mail delivered now, and this is despite serious moder technology in terms or road rail and air transport. I hear rumours of dramatic hikes in charges for stamps and post in general - this undoubtedly being attributed to a hiving off of part of the post to private operators.

 

Perhaps people living west of Exeter need to realise that as they will never be on an electrified route, they'll need to change trains at Exeter or Taunton, or even Bristol based on the current GW OLE plan. People in Shropshire are some of the most recent to have to reaccept this, unlike people in Barrow in Furness or Windermere et al who faced it thirty or forty years ago.

 

Train travel will definately not be a luxury in future, and people need to accept that aircraft style seating and above inflation fares are the future for rail travel, IEP or no IEP

[Kris]

There are suggestions that the Bi mode under diesel would not maintain the 125mph expected of the current voyager type trains. This is of course, not an issue north of Edinburgh or west of Bristol where there is negligable 125mph running away from the OLE.

 

For most of the London > West Country trains they will be off power from Reading not Bristol.

[CWJ]

Why not go for the OBB / Bombardier "Railjet" arangement using a loco+stock+driving trailer?

Because the performance would be woefully inadequate on our congested railway where acceleration is critical. Distributed traction will improve performance, allowing more flexible pathing.

 

With the loco, we could use electric or diesel, where applicable. The hauled rakes can be strengthened very easily if needed.

This would have been true a few decades ago, but we no longer have the infrastructure for seperate locos and carriages. The IEP will have 5-car, 8-car and 5+5car formations, so how could you provide a loco-hauled equivalent? You'd end up either with over-powered, 10-car locos on 5-car trains, or struggling, 5-car locos on 10-car trains. Again, congestion comes into the equation - would we have time to change locos on every inter-city train passing through the likes of Edinburgh, while increasing capacity?

 

The locos will be the most expensive part of the project, but that will be balanced by the fact that the stock can be quickly built 'off the drawing board' - very much like the D800s were in Swindon.

I'm not aware of any 21st-century coaching stock to the UK loading gauge which has already been designed, but correct me if I'm wrong. A loco-hauled train, with loco, would need just as much design as a multiple unit so I'm not sure if this is really an advantage.

 

In my mind I don't see how a 26m bodyshell is any more beneficial if the profile has to be narrower than a "full figured" 23m vehicle.

I agree that another squeezy-Voyager train would be a backward step! However, the IEP profile won't be much smaller than a MkIII coach, it's just the ends which will be tapered in. Far better than the 'tilting' profile used on Classes 220, 221, 390 and Mark IV stock. Modern construction also allows the walls to be very thin (even thinner than the Class 395s), increasing interior space.

 

There are suggestions that the Bi mode under diesel would not maintain the 125mph expected of the current voyager type trains. This is of course, not an issue north of Edinburgh or west of Bristol where there is negligable 125mph running away from the OLE.

Agreed - diesel power would only be used in these areas, and also in the event of the OLE being out of action. Goodness knows how much delay that will prevent on the ECML!

 

The only realistic choice the DfT should have is ; establish a 2012 cost analysis for electrification of the UK system - based on the fact that diesel will continue to escalate in cost.... ..decide on an uber strategic electrification policy...

I think we can be pretty confident that the DfT will have done these before spending billions on IEP... There simply isn't a business case for electrifying routes such as Cornwall or Scotland with very few trains per hour.

 

...plan a strategy of how best to use the current "Inter City" rolling stock in the next thirty years

We don't have any current inter-city rolling stock which will last anything like thirty years! That's why we're buying new trains now - by the time they're up and running, the HSTs will be life-expired and the MkIV sets will be getting the life-extension treatment.

 

...Then and only then - submit invitations to tender for some appropriate "Inter City" rolling stock. Some people get hung up on dragging heavy diesel engines, fuel and other kit around - have to say I am not impressed, but perhaps do that the exisitng 22x fleet by inserting panto/transformer cars. The new build kit should go hand in hand with a large electrification project, with the strategic intention that the 22x will be the last real diesel "Inter City" designs.

This would be a good thing to do on the 220s and 221s to allow them to take power from the wires, where wires are available on the WCML and bits of the Cross-Country route. I'm not sure if there would be enough of them to cover their existing diagrams plus the ECML and GWML. Personally (and we're into opinion territory here!) I don't want to endure a Voyager for more than about an hour so they may be best cascaded to shorter routes such as the various Trans-Pennine lines or Chiltern.

 

One thing i should have added is perhaps this country should admit that the current railway system is like some of our other "institutions". It is just too bloody expensive to run.

Regrettably, this sounds about right. There is, however, a general move towards integrated route-based organisations (a bit like the 'Big Four') which might cut out some of the beaurocracy of Network Rail and the many TOCs. Also, the McNulty report is already having an effect in (slowly) getting to grips with the cost of the railways.

 

For most of the London > West Country trains they will be off power from Reading not Bristol.

I'm not sure about this; I don't think Network Rail have yet finally confirmed which lines will be electrified but Bristol will be under the wires.

[The Stationmaster]

For most of the London > West Country trains they will be off power from Reading not Bristol.

Being pedantic it will be Newbury, not Reading (unless there is a change of mind about Paddington suburban electrification). Which will leave plenty of options for bi-mode high density workings when you think about it with the unelectrified branches and the likes of Bedwyn and Banbury (removes tongue from cheek).

 

BTW Loco hauled performance need not of course be any worse than so-called 'distributed power' - all you need is enough horses and adhesion plus you have the distinct advantage that your diesel traction maintenance facility can be much smaller and won't tie in a complete trainset for relatively minor matters; it will probably come along as the next big idea.

[Kris]

I'm not sure about this; I don't think Network Rail have yet finally confirmed which lines will be electrified but Bristol will be under the wires.

 

I put my comment up because most West Country > London trains go down the Berks and Hants rather than via Bristol.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the move from 23m to 26m bodyshells is intended to save weight. An 8 car IEP would be 208m long plus coupling gear (26m x eight and have 16 bogies. This is 1m more than 9 x 23m coaches (207m plus coupling gear) with 18 bogies with (presumably) the same number of seats..

 

So you'd lose a set of bogies, as well as a set of coupling gear, doors and so on. This probably adds up to a significant reduction in power consumption and maintanance costs over the liftime of the train. I'd imagine that similar logic drove the introduction of 23m Mk3 coaches back in the 1970s.

 

(Edited to stop the software turning my maths in to smileys)

[Christopher125]

It baffles me why people want to support this - even if the technical spec could be justified, the massively inflated cost of the PFI package cant be.

 

(btw, the eVoyager concept has support because its modifying trains that already exist. Building new ones at a time when a rolling programme of electrification is back on the agenda is a whole different issue)

 

Chris

[Kris]

The main reason to support this is that some lines over which these units will be used will not be electrified in the short or medium term. In this time the HST's will be life expired and will need replacing.

[Hesperus]

Imagine an EMU arriving from London at the last electrified station on the line and drawing up to a diesel loco with matching coupling systems and MU capability that is waiting for it at the far end of the platform. The loco hauls the EMU to the destination, then propels it back. Loco uncouples and waits for the next west/northbound service while the unit heads back for the smoke.

 

I imagine it would require a certain level of signalling alteration and a slow approach to the waiting loco but surely it would be simpler? In my mind the electrical power generated by the loco could power the traction motors under the coaches as well as the loco but I accept that may be pushing it slightly.

 

The major downside would be a lack of flexibility in the event of the wires coming down somewhere but having one big diesel engine rather than several small ones would make fuelling and servicing easier as well as providing better comfort.

 

(ducks and awaits angry response from those who know better)

[royaloak]

Imagine an EMU arriving from London at the last electrified station on the line and drawing up to a diesel loco with matching coupling systems and MU capability that is waiting for it at the far end of the platform. The loco hauls the EMU to the destination, then propels it back. Loco uncouples and waits for the next west/northbound service while the unit heads back for the smoke.

Similar to what happened with the 33/1s at Bournmouth, 4TC and 4REP arrived from Waterloo, 33/1 waiting at the far end of the platform, driver of unit couples up to 33/1 and at the same time the REP is uncoupled, 33/1 then hauls TC to Weymouth, REP waits for next up TC being propelled by a 33/1, driver of TCcouples straight onto REP, 33/1 uncoupled from the back, REP hauls TC to Waterloo.

 

SWT have several services that attach or detach on route (especially on a Sunday), it takes no more than 5 minutes (can be done quite a bit quicker) even with the modern (restrictive) signalling systems.

[Catkins]

can I just clarify some of my ealier posting?

 

1) "Why not go for the OBB / Bombardier "Railjet" arangement using a loco+stock+driving trailer?"

Because the performance would be woefully inadequate on our congested railway where acceleration is critical. Distributed traction will improve performance, allowing more flexible pathing.

 

2) "With the loco, we could use electric or diesel, where applicable. The hauled rakes can be strengthened very easily if needed."

This would have been true a few decades ago, but we no longer have the infrastructure for seperate locos and carriages. The IEP will have 5-car, 8-car and 5+5car formations, so how could you provide a loco-hauled equivalent? You'd end up either with over-powered, 10-car locos on 5-car trains, or struggling, 5-car locos on 10-car trains. Again, congestion comes into the equation - would we have time to change locos on every inter-city train passing through the likes of Edinburgh, while increasing capacity?

 

 

3) "The locos will be the most expensive part of the project, but that will be balanced by the fact that the stock can be quickly built 'off the drawing board' - very much like the D800s were in Swindon."

I'm not aware of any 21st-century coaching stock to the UK loading gauge which has already been designed, but correct me if I'm wrong. A loco-hauled train, with loco, would need just as much design as a multiple unit so I'm not sure if this is really an advantage

 

1) - Performance is a factor, but in anything, a rapid acceleration is only good on a "start-stop-start" or suburban pattern basis, and most 3XX EMU's are only powered by one motor car with four traction motors. Once a vehicle is moving the more important acceleration is the time taken to change speeds, where greater power is more of an advantage.

2) - We still have the servicing Infrastructure for "separate" Loco's and Coaches - East Coast has Bounds Green, Neville Hill, Heaton and Craigentinny - Great western has - Old Oak common, Laira, Long Rock, Canton, Swansea? - Scotrail has Haymarket, Polmadie, Aberdeen and Inverness - Anglia has Norwich.

All those locations can deal with "separate" Loco's and Coaches (currently HSTs, 91s+Mark 4s,90s+Mark 3s or Sleepers)

The motive power could be specified to provide enough power to operate a 15 coach rake at 130 MPH under the wires, and 120 MPH on diesel, exccesive performance maybe, but I am of the belief that "Big Horses that are doing relaxed work are better than Little Horses being flogged to death". it is harder to strengthen a multiple unit set, both as a permanent situation - Pendolino's, or as a temporary situation - any holiday branch line in summer, the technical issues are slowing the 11 car Pendolinos, and the ROSCO's aren't set up for daily hire of their assets. - To strengthen a rake of coaches all you do is add more on the end, a rake of coaches can also be more flexible in what facilities, and where they are in the train than any multiple unit based train.

3) - Starts with a quick history lesson;- When the Western Region got permission to build their own Hydraulic locos, they looked to germany and the already proven V200's running there, and they copied the design curve for curve, but the drawing office did it with regard to the British loading guage - a practice that has continued with the Class 59's, 66's, 67's 70's and Eurostars (TGV's with a curvier nose design) - It is possible to take a current european design and re-size sections to fit the British loading guage, and it can then lead to a quicker build time for the stock.

 

The Stationmaster says - BTW Loco hauled performance need not of course be any worse than so-called 'distributed power' - all you need is enough horses and adhesion plus you have the distinct advantage that your diesel traction maintenance facility can be much smaller and won't tie in a complete trainset for relatively minor matters; it will probably come along as the next big idea.

 

And to support the "Horses and adhesion" argument i present HS4000 'Kestrel', and 89001, ably supported by the 87's, 90's, 91's, 92's, 56's, 58's and 60's to prove that point.

[m0rris]

From a personal perspective I am worried about the IEP as I feel it is going to be the DfT's version of the Nimrod MRA4. A committee designed, over priced, poorly defined, expensive folly.

 

The introduction of diesel engines for a start worries me. It means that the individual units cost alot more as you are allowing for two forms of propulsion. It also increases the weight and running costs of the units in service. This all so that they can essentially "cut short" electrification and not go the whole hog. Partial electrification is poor planning as in the end we'll have to either; a)fully electrify the lines involved, or B) ultimately pay more long term due to higher running costs as we pay for stock that can do electric and diesel propulsion.

 

I'm not sure whether it has changed but the plan certainly used to be for 5 car units, which means for alot of the services they'll have to run as 5 or 10 car units, with no ability so get between the first 5 and second 5 carriages which'll be a bit of a 'mare" when travelling in peak times.

 

I am sure Hitachi will build the IEP to the best of their ability and I am sure that what they prduce will work well but I feel that the specified design is a very poor one that will prove to be a mistake,

 

The rumour mill was saying thay FGW have contacted Alstom with regards to creating a unit using the principles of the pendolino. IMHO this would be the best option as it would use tried, tested and effective designs. I'd be even more supportive if they were to produce a proper unit that could be operated as a single "unit" on normal services rather than faffing around with 2x 5 car units. I feel that if FGW are actively seeking new proposals for the HST replacement there must be something intrinsically wrong with this design.

[Guest Phil]

The rumour mill was saying thay FGW have contacted Alstom with regards to creating a unit using the principles of the pendolino. IMHO this would be the best option as it would use tried, tested and effective designs. I'd be even more supportive if they were to produce a proper unit that could be operated as a single "unit" on normal services rather than faffing around with 2x 5 car units. I feel that if FGW are actively seeking new proposals for the HST replacement there must be something intrinsically wrong with this design.

 

There might not be anything intrinsically wrong with the design apart from the price tag. Perhaps the First Group, if they are bidding for the new franchise, would actually like to operate something cost effective, rather than something foisted on them by the DfT, whose cosy relationship with Hitachi seems a little too obvious to be healthy. The current iteration of the IEP is not what Siemens and Alstom (and maybe Bombardier ??) submitted bids for, so how can Hitachi still remain competitive on price ? If Alstom can deliver fixedolinos to the new GW franchise for a few million quid less than Hitachi's IEP then someone in the DfT needs to be looking at the whole shambles of HST replacement in the UK.

[Fenman]

SWT have several services that attach or detach on route (especially on a Sunday), it takes no more than 5 minutes (can be done quite a bit quicker) even with the modern (restrictive) signalling systems.

 

Attaching and detaching happens twice every hour, every day, at Cambridge, where 8 or 12-car 365s split and a 4-car unit runs on to, or arrives from, King's Lynn. The process takes maybe 2 minutes, maybe less.

 

But it also demonstrates the madness of having trains where it is not possible to pass between units; people in the wrong portion of their train are unable to be directed to the right portion when a ticket check takes place (although admittedly ticket checks now rarely seem to take place, so maybe it doesn't matter: who cares about passengers anyway, this is all about the convenience of operators and DfT, isn't it?).

 

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

If Alstom can deliver fixedolinos to the new GW franchise for a few million quid less than Hitachi's IEP then someone in the DfT needs to be looking at the whole shambles of HST replacement in the UK.

Preferably it should be looked at by someone not in DfT - someone like some experienced railway rolling stock engineers, the sort of folk who came up with the HST while all the buzz-word development was being aimed at the APT; do I see a parallel here I wonder?

[devondynosoar118]

 

 

But remember what the only part of the APT was that made it into squadron service...

 

The first-c;lass seat was used in the Mk4 coach.

 

And all the rest ended up being used to develop the Pendolino...

[The Stationmaster]

And all the rest ended up being used to develop the Pendolino...

But via a couple of other countries and the odd decade or so in between - I don't think very much APT technology made it all the way through to the Pendolino.

[Coach bogie]

 

 

The rumour mill was saying thay FGW have contacted Alstom with regards to creating a unit using the principles of the pendolino. IMHO this would be the best option as it would use tried, tested and effective designs. I'd be even more supportive if they were to produce a proper unit that could be operated as a single "unit" on normal services rather than faffing around with 2x 5 car units. I feel that if FGW are actively seeking new proposals for the HST replacement there must be something intrinsically wrong with this design.

 

Living in the NE there is a clear concern that the Hitachi plant will never be built and from my observations, I can see this view justified. Recent regular travel to both Aberdeen and London has produced much rumblings regarding IEP. One issue for the introduction of IEP on the East coast is alterations to services north of Edinburgh. Though I doubt if they would admit it officially, Scotrail would clearly like to have total autonomy in Scotland with East Coast services terminating at Edinburgh. With the new shorter and faster electrified links to Glasgow now available, the days of continuation of East Coast services to Glasgow via Carstairs must be in doubt. Termination at Edinburgh would also free up 3 hours of service time of electric units for extra services elsewhere. East Coast services beyond Edinburgh to Aberdeen are rarely full (based on return patronage every week for two years). Through services have been cut back compared to the same journeys in the 2001-4 period with last through train now just after lunch from Aberdeen. Most journeys offer a change to Scotrail at Edinburgh for the unit to Aberdeen and beyond, which works well.

 

Should East coast not run beyond Edinburgh in the future, and this would make the franchise far more attractive to prospects, then clearly there would be no requirement for IEP on the KX-ED services, just an updated Pendo for the route. I understand that this is what some of the lease companies would prefer (well they would as it is at a fraction of the IEP investment).

 

This still leaves the Western region and Cross Country challenges. Much reduced unit order brings higher unit costs.

 

With DRS introducing the new European import locos, one solution for the Western is to return to loco haul for the West of Bristol services, and Cross Country for that matter. Pendos on PAD-BTM/CDF. I have not used services beyond Cardiff, but a trusted friend who does, confirms the patronage does not warrant the extension of the wires. Similar to Scotrail, Arriva Wales could manage all services beyond Cardiff with appropriate units.

 

When DRS have ironed out any issues with the new (to UK) locos then a push pull fitted option could solve the non electrified area issues and have the added advantage of longer trains, rather than continuing with the 5 coach train farce on routes that required 11 and 12 coach trains.

 

Just my opinion based on current observations.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Edwin_m]

I don't think anybody is considering IEP for Cross Country - like it or not the Voyagers have a good few years life in them yet. Adding a pantograph car starts to make a lot of sense for Voyagers, as these spend a lot of time under the wires now and will do so even more so in future as electrification spreads, but it will be a very long time before many of the routes are electrified end to end. The same is probably true of Meridians.

 

With a train every hour Swansea is the most frequently served destination proposed for dual-mode IEP service. Due to the amount of interworking of sets between routes, this apparently leads to well over half the GW IEP fleet having to have diesel engines. Although DfT couldn't make a business case for extending electrification from Cardiff to Swansea, it has been suggested that this might become worthwhile if they took account of the Welsh Government's service aspirations (but then WG they'd presuably have to pay towards it). Indeed that the cost saving through not buying dual mode units might tip the balance on viability of electrifying to Swansea.

 

If Aberdeen and Inverness no longer have through London trains (and West of England retains HSTs) then this leave only the few-times-a-day East Coast flows (Harrogate, Hull, Lincoln) and perhaps Cotswold line for a dual-mode. If diesel locos were used for these in push-pull mode, they would not be very heavily used, but could perhaps be available as Thunderbirds for the rest of the day.

[pete_mcfarlane]

But via a couple of other countries and the odd decade or so in between - I don't think very much APT technology made it all the way through to the Pendolino.

I think the connection between the APT and Pendolino was made by the press - it was presented as the son of APT that we had to buy from the Italians, because our short sighted Government killed off the APT. This from the very same journalists who did their best to kill off the APT in 1981.