IEP for beginners

[Chris125]

What makes me chuckle about this project is that there have been people on here saying IEP is going to be a disaster. It's quite funny because there isn't even a prototype let alone production units so how anyone can judge the project is ridiculous. Let it play out and then judge, there is nothing to base this view on judge figures etc:roll:

People are too afraid of the new

If it was just enthusiasts against the IEP then you might have a point, but this is about so much more than the normal LHCS vs MU arguments or interior taste - the hostility, especially from inside the industry, comes from the cost (not helped by being a PFI) and the way it was procured.

The DfT tried, in effect, to design a train themselves and have been redesigning it ever since - it's even survived a complete u-turn on electrification. The Foster Review looked into it but it's been going on so long (and at such huge expense) it's got too much inertia for anyone to stop.

Chris

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Hi. I have been reading this forum daily for about a week since I found it, and I am curious why everyone hates the IEP. I have seen a picture of it and it looks all pointy and fast. So what gives?

Rotten value for money. The subject was discussed in detail in a report by Sir Andrew Foster who recommended that the subject be competely reviewed but Sir Humphrey won the day.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't see the problem with having a diesel loco waiting in the platform to haul an electrostar at the end of the wires. That would def save hauling dead wait of bi-mode train.

But at busy stations like Edinburgh Waverley there simply isn't the capacity to allow light engine movements. And thats before we get on to acceleration issues.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I think a lot of the hate stems from enthusiasts like myself, who love the HST, and will naturally hate any replacement, I however am going to try my best to embrace the IEP.

I am not an enthusiast but I know a decent train when I see one and it is something like this one I travelled on last week.

And you cannot feel vibration coming up through the floor. Apart from that I couldn't care less what sort of power it runs under but in practice most the trains that come up to this standard are loco-hauled or EMUs, though the engine vibration and noise on the Danish IC3 trains does not intrude if you sit in the centre-car of a 3-car set.

 

[D365]

390s were designed to be able to run to 140mph and to tilt; any train built to those specifications was always going to have small-ish windows.

IC225/Mk4?

 

[RichmondCommu]

IC225/Mk4?

They were never designed to tilt.

 

[455driver]

What makes me chuckle about this project is that there have been people on here saying IEP is going to be a disaster. It's quite funny because there isn't even a prototype let alone production units so how anyone can judge the project is ridiculous. Let it play out and then judge, there is nothing to base this view on judge figures etc:roll:

People are too afraid of the new

If you wait until it is in service it is too damn late to do anything about it. :roll:

So half the trains will be dragging diesel engines around for no good reason (the political decision not to wire to Swansea is not a good reason and was simply taken to make the bi-mode look viable) increasing the amount of energy to get the thing moving and increasing wear and tear everywhere, the leasing costs are through the roof, seating will no doubt be designed by a "committee" and will be cra um uncomfortable, luggage space will be at a premium in the quest for more seats etc etc.

By the time it is built it is too late and we are stuck with and paying for this monstrosity for the next 30 years wondering why something wasnt done at the planning stage.

I am not afraid of new, just afraid of stupidity!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

What makes me chuckle about this project is that there have been people on here saying IEP is going to be a disaster. It's quite funny because there isn't even a prototype let alone production units so how anyone can judge the project is ridiculous. Let it play out and then judge, there is nothing to base this view on judge figures etc:roll:

People are too afraid of the new

It's the price tag for a start. Nothing to do with prototypes getting built. The tender process ended up by running very close to breaking the EU rules as there were so many post-tender alterations that it should have gone out to bidding again on the revised specification.

It reminds me of how the Civil Service go about defence equipment procurement. This kind of thing should not be left to Sir Humphrey.

 

[Manchester77]

This is exactly what I mean. No one actually can say that IEP will be a failure and prove it because it can't be. You can provide all the documentation etc but we simply won't know until there's one in service. Yes you have opinion but none of it is correct until we have hard proof. In the words of Pete Waterman 'you can do all the figure you like but a railway will always come out and surprise you'
And I leave you with that to rip to pieces and penalise.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

They were never designed to tilt.

IC225/class 91 were built to a narrow profile so that tilt might be possible as a retro-fit feature.

 

[Nym]

They were never designed to tilt.

Yes they where actually...

 

[RAGNARØKR]

But at busy stations like Edinburgh Waverley there simply isn't the capacity to allow light engine movements. And thats before we get on to acceleration issues.

Have you analysed the track layout at Edinburgh Waverley and established this as fact?

 

[455driver]

They were never designed to tilt.

Of course they were.

What about Eurostars and the French thingies (cant remember ), they have decent sized windows.

edit its TGVs

 

[RAGNARØKR]

This is exactly what I mean. No one actually can say that IEP will be a failure and prove it because it can't be. You can provide all the documentation etc but we simply won't know until there's one in service. Yes you have opinion but none of it is correct until we have hard proof. In the words of Pete Waterman 'you can do all the figure you like but a railway will always come out and surprise you'
And I leave you with that to rip to pieces and penalise.

The price tag does not make it look good, and that is enough to begin with. And they would not be the first train in recent years to be a failure.

 

[tbtc]

A few quick things about IEP:

Any new stock would come with inflated costs - either through PFI procurement or the high profits that ROSCOs take. That's not specific to IEP.

There will be two carriages without underfloor engines in the five coach bi-mode IEP (?) and they'll be indistinguishable from the "electric" versions when running under the wires.

This is exactly what I mean. No one actually can say that IEP will be a failure and prove it because it can't be. You can provide all the documentation etc but we simply won't know until there's one in service. Yes you have opinion but none of it is correct until we have hard proof. In the words of Pete Waterman 'you can do all the figure you like but a railway will always come out and surprise you'
And I leave you with that to rip to pieces and penalise.

And yet we'll have people complaining about the seats being too soft/ hard on trains not even built yet

Have you analysed the track layout at Edinburgh Waverley and established this as fact?

Have you abandoned your suggestion of doing the loco swapovers at Haymarket?

 

[Manchester77]

Exactly what I mean. I just thnk it's a but rash to be judging a none existent train

 

[Dave1987]

I agree with 455driver you need to get it right in the prototype stages otherwise you are stuck with a bloody awful train for 30 odd years. They need to be designed with good breaking and acceleration stats but also have the comfort of what they are replacing ie the mk3 coach. Now does anyone believe that will actually happen? I don't! Also the cost per coach is hideously expensive.

 

[Chris125]

Exactly what I mean. I just thnk it's a but rash to be judging a none existent train

It's not just the train being judged though - it's the design philosophy, procurement process, long term cost, and supposed superiority over more conventional alternatives.

It might be a fantastic train to travel in, but the questions being raised would be just as valid - is it worth the massive cost or are cheaper alternatives more suitable? Is bi-mode necessary given the rolling programme of electrification now expected? Is the PFI arrangement still a suitable way to fund the fleet or would traditional leasing be cheaper? Is the diesel engine on the straight electric really necessary? Should we give train orders to Hitachi, and potentially harm Derby's Bombardier factory, when Japan is a closed market? Given how many times the EMU/Bi-mode and 5/8/10-car ratio has changed, can we be confident they've got it right now? Should it have been re-tendered given the changes to the design since the bid was accepted? Do Hitachi really intend to build (sorry, assemble) continental rolling stock in Newton Aycliffe? It's hard to have much confidence in the DfT's assurances.

Chris

 

[455driver]

Given how many times the EMU/Bi-mode and 5/8/10-car ratio has changed, can we be confident they've got it right now?

Even if it is right for now (unlikely) will it be right in 10/20 years time?

Highly unlikely.

 

[Wath Yard]

Even if it is right for now (unlikely) will it be right in 10/20 years time?

Highly unlikely.

Quite possibly but your reason for why LHCS is superior is technically correct in that you can alter the length based on demand, but it doesn't happen in practice and didn't happen in the later days of BR either. Using arguments from the 1970s when the operation of the railways was very, very different isn't very convincing.

 

[Dave1987]

I think this is where a HST is useful though! You can add and take off carriages.

 

[Wath Yard]

You might be able to do it but no TOC does.

 

[Dave1987]

But having a power car each end and carriages means that if train lengths do need to increase you can quite easily. Whereas multiple units are fixed length.

 

[ainsworth74]

But having a power car each end and carriages means that if train lengths do need to increase you can quite easily. Whereas multiple units are fixed length.

Are they? 222s seem to be able to change length fairly easily...

 

[Wath Yard]

No they're not. You can add carriages to units just as you can to an HST, and there is no point arguing that you can add carriages to an HST when there are no carriages to add, nobody does it and nobody ever has on a day to day basis. HSTs can easily have carriages swapped but they have always run in fixed formations, so do GA's Mk III sets and EC's MK IV sets and you can swap carriages on a unit if you really want to.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Have you analysed the track layout at Edinburgh Waverley and established this as fact?

Yes and its blatantly obvious (even to you) that not only are the approaches to Waverley full to capacity but that there is no space to stable a locomotive. Which of course is why you suggested Haymarket, something which you now appear to have forgotten about! And in all honesty it's hard to see why Haymarket would prove to be the better option. Not only that, but there will be a time delay whilst the loco is coupled to the train.

 

[rebmcr]

No they're not. You can add carriages to units just as you can to an HST, and there is no point arguing that you can add carriages to an HST when there are no carriages to add, nobody does it and nobody ever has on a day to day basis. HSTs can easily have carriages swapped but they have always run in fixed formations, so do GA's Mk III sets and EC's MK IV sets and you can swap carriages on a unit if you really want to.

Exactly. So once changing lengths is ruled out, there's really no reason to cram all the traction into a single carriage at each end. It's much better for the track if the weight is distributed amongst all the axles.

A fleet of pure EMUs would be best, either Pendolino-likes or the Adelinos that Alstom mentioned not long ago. Fit the bare minimum of them needed for operating non-wired routes with one or two DMU carriages, to make a bi-mode D/EMU, but make sure those carriages are convertible to regular EMU so that if electrification takes place in the vehicles' lifetime, we can stop pulling the engines around.

Performance would probably be lower in D-mode but those would seem to be not more than around 100-mile extra routes beyond the wires.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes they where actually...

Fair enough! That's the great thing about this forum; always learning!

 

[Wath Yard]

A fleet of pure EMUs would be best, either Pendolino-likes or the Adelinos that Alstom mentioned not long ago. Fit the bare minimum of them needed for operating non-wired routes with one or two DMU carriages, to make a bi-mode D/EMU, but make sure those carriages are convertible to regular EMU so that if electrification takes place in the vehicles' lifetime, we can stop pulling the engines around.

I've no idea what an Adelino is but if it's like an Adelante then no thanks, I quite like getting to my destination. The Pendolinos are nowhere near the required MTIN specified and offer a very poor passenger environment. Besides, Alstom was shortlisted and pulled out so why should we be purchasing Alstom products? Hitachi state that the engine will be removable from the bi-modes.

 

[Harbon 1]

Didn't we have a seating layout linked on here a few months ago? Which was basically a voyager again with an over the top amount of disabled toilets, no bar/buffet for an intercity train and the ditching of the likeable diesel power car in one of the driving cars for annoyingly loud, vibrating underfloor engines.

Could this start the beginning of a revolution, where Voyagers are better than a train?

I do hope they don't put the sewage pipes next to the exhaust again