[junglejames]

Originally Posted by Zoe

We likely will know if the engines can be removed or not some time. If they can then it will certainly not have been a waste of money as it will have provided trains that can immediately benefit from the electrifcation and that has to be better than running a diesel under the wires until the electrification is extended.

Build me a fleet of bi mode 222s, or something similar, and I will partly agree. Howerver, at present, a decent EMU being dragged away from the wires is cheaper than what we are going to get. Thereofre it is not sensible. Why do the most expensive option, when the cheaper option is better.

You are going along with the DFTs train of thought, but not looking at the cost of the IEP.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by Zoe

The benefit is though that the companies now have off the shelf trains ready to build. Something that BREL wouldn't have done as they'd only built when they were asked to.

Only the internal gubbins are off the shelf. The bodies arent.
BREL when building trains quite often got the internal gubbins from elsewhere, like Brush or EE. These werent always be spoke. Therefore the advantages with the likes of Siemens and Bombardier etc may have been exagerated slightly regarding costs. Especially when you realise that Bombardier dont seem to be able to stick to a single design, even for a single class of train.

[HSTEd]

Originally Posted by junglejames

Ah, are you now moving away from IEP onto a brand new bi mode that no one has heard of? Well that is different, and as yet, because no costs exist, we cant cost it.

Plenty of people heard of it... it is just a knockoff of Project Thor's product with some of the engines removed.

Originally Posted by junglejames

As for locos being greener. Because 1 large engine is better than 7 small engines. Remember, most of the weight of the loco is doing a job, and so the train isnt dragging around as much unnecessary weight as you claim. Yes, the loco may way more than the extra weight of diesels under the IEP, but a lot of the extra weight is working. Its not like the loco is carrying tonnes of unnecessary diesel engines around inside its body.

If the only goal is to match the performance of a reasonable diesel engine like a Eurolight in terms of power:weight ratio, I only need 4 engines, not 7.

And if I can provide power to the existing traction system with only 12 tonnes, and the locomotive provides the same performance with 70-90t, I'm pretty sure everything but twelve tonnes is effectively wasted.

Originally Posted by junglejames

Thereforew, a loco capable of providing the same amount of power as the 7 smaller engines combined, will be able to do a very similar job, and will use less fuel. Science tells you 1 large is better than 7 small.

You are looking too much at the weights, and less at the actual efficiency of engines.

Uh... you have a diesel engine that will turn out as much power as 7 QSK-19s?
You would need 5250hp to do that....
And since your train is far heavier than this bi-mode you need even more power to keep your p:w ratio up.

[RichmondCommu]

I don’t understand why some people have a problem with the IEP design. HST’s are old and need replacing but the state doesn’t have sufficient funds to pay for an ambitious electrification program other than what has already been agreed. And locomotives cannot accelerate as quickly as Voyagers so that rules them out. If anything the government should be ordering more IEP’s so that all the HST’s can be replaced. Yes the IEP’s really need to be longer but no doubt more vehicles could be ordered in the future if necessary.

[LE Greys]

Originally Posted by RichmondCommu

I don’t understand why some people have a problem with the IEP design. HST’s are old and need replacing but the state doesn’t have sufficient funds to pay for an ambitious electrification program other than what has already been agreed. And locomotives cannot accelerate as quickly as Voyagers so that rules them out. If anything the government should be ordering more IEP’s so that all the HST’s can be replaced. Yes the IEP’s really need to be longer but no doubt more vehicles could be ordered in the future if necessary.

Well, the thing's going to be with us for quite a while. In fact it may be the very last non-HSL design of express passenger train for this country. There will be loads of them as well, and they may be around until the end of the century. It's important that we get it right. We got it very right with the HSTs and a bit wrong with the Voyagers (although they could be far worse). They also seem to have been designed by committee - like the old joke about the Camel. They seem to be too complicated, too long (can we really cope with 85ft coaches) and trying to be all things to all people. Having two versions, one electric and one diesel, is not on for some reason. To many people, it looks like that very British thing, a bodge.

Now, on the grounds that it just might work, I reckon there's no harm in trying, provided the design is fully tested before they start building them. Build one prototype and see if it works. If it meets all the targets, build a lot more.

[Zoe]

Originally Posted by LE Greys

Having two versions, one electric and one diesel, is not on for some reason.

In 40 years time, diesel may well be very expensive if it's available at all so I don't think it would have been a good idea to order new diesel trains.

[fgwrich]

If BI Modes are so much the answer, Why hasn't the likes of OBB / DB / Pretty much every other european country gone in for them then, as apposed to the very smart RailJets - Where the train is, a, Loco Hauled set with DVT coach. They then do something simple called changing the loco over at a certain point en route. This can be done quickly and effectively and realistically, under 4 minutes. The Southern Region did it, other regions have done it, what is soo wrong about that?

And if BI Mode DMUs are soo green, why is Mr Adrian Shooter not ordering a fleet of new DMUs then? Because Loco Haulage works out better - and as already commented on somewhere on here, the smaller the engine is, the more the parts will be moving - increase in maintenance, as well as the case of the size of the engines vs the emissions restrictions - a Large loco can be EU complient, will a 5/6/7/8/9 DMU equally be? Personally i think not.

Overall, im with Jungle James on this one.

[HSTEd]

Originally Posted by fgwrich

If BI Modes are so much the answer, Why hasn't the likes of OBB / DB / Pretty much every other european country gone in for them then, as apposed to the very smart RailJets - Where the train is, a, Loco Hauled set with DVT coach. They then do something simple called changing the loco over at a certain point en route. This can be done quickly and effectively and realistically, under 4 minutes. The Southern Region did it, other regions have done it, what is soo wrong about that?

SNCF has apparently decided on no more DMUs at all and has declared itself to be delighted with the bi-mode fleet it has recently acquired.
RailJet was a very specific case of OBB having a fleet of 140mph electric locomotives lying idle. It only went for them over EMUs because coaches are cheaper than multiple unit carriages if you assume locomotives are free.

Otherwise why would DB just have committed to abandoning loco hauled intercity trains almost entirely with the ICx programme?

Originally Posted by fgwrich

And if BI Mode DMUs are soo green, why is Mr Adrian Shooter not ordering a fleet of new DMUs then? Because Loco Haulage works out better - and as already commented on somewhere on here, the smaller the engine is, the more the parts will be moving - increase in maintenance, as well as the case of the size of the engines vs the emissions restrictions - a Large loco can be EU complient, will a 5/6/7/8/9 DMU equally be? Personally i think not.

Overall, im with Jungle James on this one.

As far as I am aware.... there has not been a single hauled passenger stock order since privatisation.
And that was the Mark 4s.

And there is no reason that a DMU engine cannot be made emissions compliant now that we have things like AdBlue becoming common and cheap.
It is time that people accept that this is the era of the multiple unit.
Even the Irish appear to have abandoned loco hauled operations almost entirely.

Loco haulage is dead for new orders outside of very contrived circumstances
Adrian Shooter has no access to the capital required to purchase new multiple units for Chiltern at the present time, the only available stock was Mark 3s, and thus he had no other choice than to hire them and make them suitable for operations, because the alternative was additional sort formed services to meet DfT economic targets.

Also Chiltern is trying to project some sort of main-line image and thus would probably not like the logical choice for its services (Turbostars/Sprinters) serving its "premier" routes that it peddles in a feeble attempt to be anything other than a commuter company.... but I degress

[DjU]

Originally Posted by Pumbaa

(created new topic to hopefully prevent it getting assimilated by fantasy hype).

Surely you knew that was folly!

[fgwrich]

Anyway, moving on and back to IEP - I wonder if, there's a chance that Alstom will kick up a fuss over the EC IEP contract just as theyve done in france with the Eurostar ICEs/SNCF Duplex TGVs, as they seem to be lining themselves up for it. (And at least a Pendo would be more british than some paint slapped, sticker slapped Japanese 'Poo Tube')? If so, perhaps Hitachi could be forgoing a rather hollow victory? Especially with the likelihood of the inclusion of OLE into Swansea and TPE North / Hull..

As for a previous comment about comparing the pendolinos to IEP - One of the reasons as to why im already prefering the Pendo to IEP is the quaility. My only grips with the pendo really were just about the window size and toilet smell - Smell has apparently been solved by Virgin & Alstom engineers, but who can't say that IEP Will end up with the same problem too? Whereas, the only Hitachi product that's in a slightly similar league in this country is the 'Javelin', And having sampled those a few times, i can't say im that impressed with them - Both from an Interior point of view, the interiors rather drab and uninspiring, and i was hardly impressed with the cheap 'chocolate box' plastic interior panels - especially the mock metal cover over the destination screens, which constantly vibrated throught the journey.

[sprinterguy]

Originally Posted by Yew

Kings cross to Edinburgh is a long way to drag a diesel engine under every carriage of an IEP. I wouldn't be suprised if eventually a TOC ripped out the diesel engines and put a loco on the front (maybe even generating electricity for the standard traction motors?)

There won't be a diesel engine under every carriage of IEP. There will be four diesel engines, and hence powered vehicles, in an 8 or 9-car Bi-mode set.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by Zoe

Which is quite strange considering no-one has actually been on an IEP yet so can't really compare the journey experience against a 390.

Indeed, although at this stage the objections against the IEP are being primarily levelled at the comparative high cost and complexity of the project when cheaper, easier to implement, alternatives are available, rather than the expected standard of passenger comfort.

I also follow the general consensus of opinion that the IEP train is not the optimum solution to HST replacement as regards value for money and standardisation of long distance fleets. However, I am not opposing the project outright at the moment and not until after the final layout for the internal arrangement has been decided on and published in detail. We may get a train that is markedly better in terms of interior specification than the often derided Voyagers and Pendolinos.

From the few details that we already know about the formation and internal arrangement of the IEP trains, they would appear to be shaping up to incorporate a number of features that the Voyagers are criticised for lacking: As I said above, on the full length Bi-mode sets only four vehicles will be powered and be fitted with diesel engines which means that on the 9-car sets intended for the East Coast, more than half the carriages in the train will be unpowered trailers, like, you know, loco hauled coaching stock that many forum members avidly support. And as far as the electric only trains are involved, the noise of electric motors on current trains like the 390s is negligible anyway. The two driving cars on the 5-car sets will also be unpowered.

The toilets are also to be located on the far side of the exterior doors to the passenger saloon, which should hopefully help to keep any potential unfortunate odours, which hopefully these trains won't suffer from anyway, out of the saloon.

If the previously stated vehicle capacities for the IEP trains still hold true, then the 26 metre carriages of the IEP trains will also demonstrate a dramatic increase in seating capacity and efficient utilisation of the available space compared to Bombardiers’ 22X classes, and to an extent the HSTs, too.

Finally, I am glad to see the IEP contract signed as if the project was dropped altogether then an awful lot of money has already been invested in design and development of the IEP, which would all have been for nothing. No doubt delivery times for alternative replacement rolling stock would be even more protracted than the present expected IEP delivery dates, as the convoluted procurement process would have to be embarked on all over again. Given that the proposed service entry dates for the first IEP trains have slipped back four years from 2013 (Or was it even late 2012 as originally proposed?) to 2017, it is good to see some forward movement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by Failed Unit

In the same way as I would welcome 395s on the east coast London - Newark service.

I should imagine that the electric IEP sets, particularly the 5-car ones, will be in essence a "stretched" version of the 395. All the promotional material that has been previously published points towards something that is at least visually similar. Although hopefully with enhanced seating of course, more befitting of Intercity rolling stock. The seating presently fitted to the 395s is amply comfortable and suitable for blasting down to the South East on journeys of 60 – 90 minutes, but would probably be found wanting for longer distance travel.

[jonmorris0844]

Originally Posted by fgwrich

Just another little pointer, not all underfloor engines are a good idea as this 108 just west of Totnes proves.

Chuck some new seats on that and I'm sure it would still make a good replacement for a Pacer even in that condition.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by Zoe

What's the point of committing to a new fleet of diesels that would have a lifespan of at least 40 years when fossil fuels may be in the history books before that time?

Why can't you build a diesel train now that can be easily be converted to electric in the next 20-30 years, as we extend electrification?

Make sure it's ready for a pantograph and that the engines are simply swapped out? Who knows - the space set aside for fuel tanks could even be replaced with batteries if we crack battery technology by then and can have trains drawing less current in operation (or even operating in some areas without wires at all).

[Zoe]

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

Why can't you build a diesel train now that can be easily be converted to electric in the next 20-30 years, as we extend electrification?

Then you lose the benefit of having the ability to use electric power when under the wires. With bi-mode the trains will have this ability immediately and you won't have the situation where you are having to run diesel engines under the wires for the electrified part of the route.

[David]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Then you lose the benefit of having the ability to use electric power when under the wires. With bi-mode the trains will have this ability immediately and you won't have the situation where you are having to run diesel engines under the wires for the electrified part of the route.

However, if you buy EMUs and use them under the wires, your are carting less weight around, trains require less maintanence, less energy is required to get the train to 125mph and keep it there and diesel locos can be bolted on for the parts that are not under the wires. for the Leeds - Aberdeen - London - Leeds diagram (providing Leeds - York gets wired), your looking at roughly 260 miles of diesel haulage out of a diagram length of roughly 1060 miles.

[Zoe]

Originally Posted by David

However, if you buy EMUs and use them under the wires, your are carting less weight around, trains require less maintanence, less energy is required to get the train to 125mph and keep it there and diesel locos can be bolted on for the parts that are not under the wires. for the Leeds - Aberdeen - London - Leeds diagram (providing Leeds - York gets wired), your looking at roughly 260 miles of diesel haulage out of a diagram length of roughly 1060 miles.

Then you could end up with the situation of a fleet of diesel locomtives ordered with a lifespan of at least 40 years having no use in just 20 - 25 years.

[WatcherZero]

The IEP is supposed to be of a modular design where down the line they can just remove the engine tray/raft.