IEP bandwagon of hate?

[jimm]

No band wagon of hate here, just a 27 seater of cynicism. As always my test will be: Is the new train at least as comfortable for second class passengers as the train it replaces

Many here are blind to the fact that new and shiny rarely equates to best or even better from a passenger comfort point of view. I think it is because they haven't had the ability to travel on anything other than a voyager so they assume twas ever thus.

And many here have travelled on Class 800s this week and have found passenger comfort just fine - or have you missed all the posts in the Class 800 thread? I haven't read anything there suggesting people were blind to anything, or starry-eyed, but went in with their eyes and minds open.

 

[D1009]

I've bedn used to the HST since its arrival in South Wales back in 1976 and yes it has been a fabulous train for over 4 decades, and I for one will be sorry to see them come off GWR front line expresses.

I too was around when the HSTs were introduced in 1976 and there was definitely more hatred of them among the enthusiast community than there is of the IET currently. To be fair the enthusiast community was much larger then and did not have social media on which to rant about them.

 

[DarloRich]

And many here have travelled on Class 800s this week and have found passenger comfort just fine - or have you missed all the posts in the Class 800 thread? I haven't read anything there suggesting people were blind to anything, or starry-eyed, but went in with their eyes and minds open.

we will see.

 

[47802]

I'm sure most enthusiasts would prefer Werstern's, 50 and Deltic's working our Intercity Services but we are in the 21st Century, I think awful lot of crap has been said about these trains and comments about seating I find irrelevant as you can put more or less any seats in modern trains

 

[43096]

No band wagon of hate here, just a 27 seater of cynicism. As always my test will be: Is the new train at least as comfortable for second class passengers as the train it replaces

Many here are blind to the fact that new and shiny rarely equates to best or even better from a passenger comfort point of view. I think it is because they haven't had the ability to travel on anything other than a voyager so they assume twas ever thus.

This. Many, many times over.

The IEP is not a step-change from what went before. Compare how cars have advanced in the last 40 years and IEP does not represent the same improvement, though there is a strong argument that the HST was ahead of its time. HST WAS a leap in quality at the time: a 125mph, air-conditioned train with air suspension unleashed on what was in large part the 90mph, Mark 1 steam-heat railway. Enthusiasts may not have liked them at the time, but to the normal passenger they were a revelation.

 

[47802]

This. Many, many times over.

The IEP is not a step-change from what went before. Compare how cars have advanced in the last 40 years and IEP does not represent the same improvement, though there is a strong argument that the HST was ahead of its time. HST WAS a leap in quality at the time: a 125mph, air-conditioned train with air suspension unleashed on what was in large part the 90mph, Mark 1 steam-heat railway. Enthusiasts may not have liked them at the time, but to the normal passenger they were a revelation.

I'm not sure I would agree with that HST's replaced Aircon Mk2 in many cases which were a leap forward from Non AirCon stock, yes HST's were certainly a leap forward in performance, and while the new IET's may not be a massive leap forward in terms of Passenger comfort or Speed, the Bi-mode train is certainly a step forward in Technology, Operator flexibility and elimination of increasing Diesel under wires that has developed in recent years.

 

[D365]

However from what has been reported I believe that what has been built for GW and EC is more towards the 'intercity' end of the variable features.

Some posters might beg to differ

 

[Bletchleyite]

No band wagon of hate here, just a 27 seater of cynicism. As always my test will be: Is the new train at least as comfortable for second class passengers as the train it replaces

Most people who have posted have suggested it is better - more legroom and less claustrophobic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the Javelins are uncomfortable and tacky, cheap plastic rubbish. The mockups of the IEP make me think it is the same. But I won't know until I've had the chance of riding on some, for a distance. And then again how they hold up after a couple of years.

Interesting you say that as I like them. They are basically little different in interior to a 350/1, which is about spot-on for the kind of services they operate.

 

[alexl92]

I don’t know about build/ride quality, and as a musician I have no problem with the Japanese (Roland, Yamaha & Yanagisawa etc produce top quality instruments and gear), but I just think these new trains are desperately ugly and un-imaginitely designed, same as the boring Javelins. The HST has beauty in its lines. These just look like a mis-shaped sausage to me.

 

[Harbouring]

I too was around when the HSTs were introduced in 1976 and there was definitely more hatred of them among the enthusiast community than there is of the IET currently. To be fair the enthusiast community was much larger then and did not have social media on which to rant about them.

Reading through some old RM's from the late seventies and early eighties and there was definitely plethora of anti HST comments. Especially around commuters using them for short distances, sounds familiar? 'Twas ever thus.

 

[johnw]

There is bound to hate, a unit that has been built to the specifications of the former Labour governments transport department with sliding doors!. It’s not a tube train!

 

[43096]

the Bi-mode train is certainly a step forward in Technology, Operator flexibility and elimination of increasing Diesel under wires that has developed in recent years.

You are Stuart Baker and I claim my tenner!!!!

Step forward in technology? Errrrrr, no. They are slower on diesel than the trains they replace, for a start. Electro-diesel (not this bi-mode DfT-speak) trains are nothing new: Class 73 debuted in 1962 and the EMD FL9 dates from the 1950s. SNCF has had its electro-diesel AGCs since 2004.

 

[AM9]

There is bound to hate, a unit that has been built to the specifications of the former Labour governments transport department with sliding doors!. It’s not a tube train!

So we have a Victorian Dad on the forum. Wake up, we don't have slam doors anymore, - and Hitach have proven that sliding doors are just as effective on high speed trains as plug doors.

 

[jimm]

This. Many, many times over.

The IEP is not a step-change from what went before. Compare how cars have advanced in the last 40 years and IEP does not represent the same improvement, though there is a strong argument that the HST was ahead of its time. HST WAS a leap in quality at the time: a 125mph, air-conditioned train with air suspension unleashed on what was in large part the 90mph, Mark 1 steam-heat railway. Enthusiasts may not have liked them at the time, but to the normal passenger they were a revelation.

You are Stuart Baker and I claim my tenner!!!!

Step forward in technology? Errrrrr, no. They are slower on diesel than the trains they replace, for a start. Electro-diesel (not this bi-mode DfT-speak) trains are nothing new: Class 73 debuted in 1962 and the EMD FL9 dates from the 1950s. SNCF has had its electro-diesel AGCs since 2004.

So, here we go again. Yet more accusations against these trains on the grounds of things they were never supposed to achieve.

"Step-change from what went before"... I must have missed that bit in the specification. The IEP project was set up to develop a replacement for the HST, a next generation, if you like, in the same way that the TGV in France and ICE in Germany have gone through several generations since the 1980s - just that being Britain, we do things in a stop-start manner, not an evolutionary one.

The TGV and ICE were transformational for services in their home countries when they first appeared, just like the HST here - I don't recall anyone berating subsequent models of those trains for not providing a step-change there.

You could argue that the 390s were a step-change from what went before them on the WCML, 125mph and tilt-wise, but when it comes to the passenger environment on board? I don't think so. Such as, er, seats next to a large bit of plastic panelling, rather than a window... supposedly a crime unique to the Class 800.

I rate the 800 interior as a distinct improvement on GWR HSTs and a few other things I can think of, especially something beginning with V.

How many more times do we have to hear the one about them being slower on diesel than the trains they replace? The DfT-ordered IEP 800s were never intended to operate above 100mph in normal service on diesel power - from the end of next year they will only be doing so for a few miles on the route to Bath, which should end once they get finally on with wiring all the way to Bristol. And a bit of the Berks & Hants, which will mostly be full-power-all-the-time Class 802-operated and where 110mph is the limit.

 

[The Ham]

This. Many, many times over.

The IEP is not a step-change from what went before. Compare how cars have advanced in the last 40 years and IEP does not represent the same improvement, though there is a strong argument that the HST was ahead of its time. HST WAS a leap in quality at the time: a 125mph, air-conditioned train with air suspension unleashed on what was in large part the 90mph, Mark 1 steam-heat railway. Enthusiasts may not have liked them at the time, but to the normal passenger they were a revelation.

The 80x have the capability to run at 140mph so have the capability to go faster than the units that they replace. However will not be able to do so until NR sort out in cab signalling for the routes.

You also have to remember that they will also be used to replace some units that can only run at slower speeds (i.e. the 16x's).

As such there is an improvement over the trains they are replacing.

 

[AM9]

So, here we go again. Yet more accusations against these trains on the grounds of things they were never supposed to achieve. ...

These comments aren't surprising from somebody with a login of '43096'. Those type of rants don't even further that poster's HST evangelising crusade.

 

[47802]

You are Stuart Baker and I claim my tenner!!!!

Step forward in technology? Errrrrr, no. They are slower on diesel than the trains they replace, for a start. Electro-diesel (not this bi-mode DfT-speak) trains are nothing new: Class 73 debuted in 1962 and the EMD FL9 dates from the 1950s. SNCF has had its electro-diesel AGCs since 2004.

Yes of course how stupid of me there is not much difference between an IET and the class 73 and its 600hp Diesel Engine. The fact that these trains were only required to do 100mph on Diesel but with the engines on full power are not much slower than a HST is testament to how good the trains are in my book and gets this shambolic electrification project out of the mire, and that they can be a viable alternative to HST's on longer Off Wire Sections

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does everything have to be revolutionary? These trains are evolutionary, and by the looks of it in a very good way.

I really like the Class 444, for example. It’s not groundbreaking (little more than an evolution of the venerable 442), it’s just a good train.

 

[43096]

These comments aren't surprising from somebody with a login of '43096'. Those type of rants don't even further that poster's HST evangelising crusade.

Given that you don't know me, then I'd suggest you're not in a position to comment.

HST should have been replaced 10 years ago, rather than applying the sticking plaster of the refurbishment schemes. Instead we've thrown money away on that, then wasted more on probably the most over-priced train ever built, compounding that with an inability to get the infrastructure ready for it (IEP started 12 years ago, so not like there wasn't time...), such that we then have to p*ss more money away on variation orders to make the trains work on the bodged infrastructure. And that's before we get on to the extra running costs of doing this...

 

[47802]

Given that you don't know me, then I'd suggest you're not in a position to comment.

HST should have been replaced 10 years ago, rather than applying the sticking plaster of the refurbishment schemes. Instead we've thrown money away on that, then wasted more on probably the most over-priced train ever built, compounding that with an inability to get the infrastructure ready for it (IEP started 12 years ago, so not like there wasn't time...), such that we then have to p*ss more money away on variation orders to make the trains work on the bodged infrastructure. And that's before we get on to the extra running costs of doing this...

Yes I agree HST was overdue for replacement, but the decision was taken that electrification would be the primary replacement for HST's unfortunately that has turned out to be a shambles. As for the train itself yes the initial order was likely overpriced, but it has enabled both the Dft and TOC's to place additional orders at more reasonable costs, and we have ended up with a train which appears to be far more capable in diesel mode than originally specified and for those moaning about underfloor diesel engines is apparently fairly quiet.

 

[jimm]

Given that you don't know me, then I'd suggest you're not in a position to comment.

HST should have been replaced 10 years ago, rather than applying the sticking plaster of the refurbishment schemes. Instead we've thrown money away on that, then wasted more on probably the most over-priced train ever built, compounding that with an inability to get the infrastructure ready for it (IEP started 12 years ago, so not like there wasn't time...), such that we then have to p*ss more money away on variation orders to make the trains work on the bodged infrastructure. And that's before we get on to the extra running costs of doing this...

You're really not interested in facts are you, when a good rant will do instead?

It may well be the case that HSTs should have been replaced 10 years ago, but they weren't and the TOCs were told the DfT was going to take care of it, so their hands were tied from that point on, as they were never going to get DfT consent to lease something else.

There is a big difference between buying things through a long PFI-type contract like the DfT/Agility Trains agreement and acquiring them in other ways. Per coach, the Class 802s, ordered via a leasing company, come in at a perfectly competitive price per coach.

IEP planning may have started 12 years ago, but the goalposts shifted a lot in the meantime - such as GW electrification being proposed eight years ago, which was far from a seamless piece of work, with all sorts of changes to scope, and pauses (after the 2010 election) in the next three years. As result, what the trains were expected to do and how they were to be propelled changed a lot too.

Almost all of the things you have now decided to moan about, after failing to land a blow with your previous efforts, are down to the politicians and Network Rail's project management failings, nothing to do with the Class 800 as a train.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects defending their pet project to the death. Whilst I have not travelled on one (and have no desire to rush out and try one) I have spoken to people who have travelled on them. They are here for the next 27 years no matter what people say wasting vast amounts of energy lugging tonnes and tonnes of engines and fuel under the wires. Besides my personal gripes regarding bi-mode the only things that really matter are noise levels, seat comfort, availability of luggage storage space and journey times. Noise levels I have heard nothing but good reports, fair play to Hitachi there. Seat comfort I have been told they are not suitable for long distance and that a long journey could be pretty uncomfortable after a while, but that is the fault of the DFT. Availability of luggage space is again very poor especially for large luggage, one of the reasons I believe these are commuter trains for the commuter belt and not for long distance leisure journeys. Journey times? Well the less said about that the better. 40 years of progress to just about keep up with the trains they are replacing for an enormous amount of money. 40 years of progress, one should be able to expect a lot more especially considering the enormous cost. I do not blame Hitachi they supplied what was asked, the blame lies firmly with the DFT as usual!

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects defending their pet project to the death. Whilst I have not travelled on one (and have no desire to rush out and try one) I have spoken to people who have travelled on them. They are here for the next 27 years no matter what people say wasting vast amounts of energy lugging tonnes and tonnes of engines and fuel under the wires. Besides my personal gripes regarding bi-mode the only things that really matter are noise levels, seat comfort, availability of luggage storage space and journey times. Noise levels I have heard nothing but good reports, fair play to Hitachi there. Seat comfort I have been told they are not suitable for long distance and that a long journey could be pretty uncomfortable after a while, but that is the fault of the DFT. Availability of luggage space is again very poor especially for large luggage, one of the reasons I believe these are commuter trains for the commuter belt and not for long distance leisure journeys. Journey times? Well the less said about that the better. 40 years of progress to just about keep up with the trains they are replacing for an enormous amount of money. 40 years of progress, one should be able to expect a lot more especially considering the enormous cost. I do not blame Hitachi they supplied what was asked, the blame lies firmly with the DFT as usual!

ah lugging engines and fuel under the wires, like HSTs do you mean ? or the WC voyagers ...

as for journey times thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of both economical and capacity issues ... we'll also ignore the requirements infrastructure wise that are required to allow 125 + ( cab signalling etc )

 

[The Ham]

I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects defending their pet project to the death. Whilst I have not travelled on one (and have no desire to rush out and try one) I have spoken to people who have travelled on them. They are here for the next 27 years no matter what people say wasting vast amounts of energy lugging tonnes and tonnes of engines and fuel under the wires. Besides my personal gripes regarding bi-mode the only things that really matter are noise levels, seat comfort, availability of luggage storage space and journey times. Noise levels I have heard nothing but good reports, fair play to Hitachi there. Seat comfort I have been told they are not suitable for long distance and that a long journey could be pretty uncomfortable after a while, but that is the fault of the DFT. Availability of luggage space is again very poor especially for large luggage, one of the reasons I believe these are commuter trains for the commuter belt and not for long distance leisure journeys. Journey times? Well the less said about that the better. 40 years of progress to just about keep up with the trains they are replacing for an enormous amount of money. 40 years of progress, one should be able to expect a lot more especially considering the enormous cost. I do not blame Hitachi they supplied what was asked, the blame lies firmly with the DFT as usual!

Luggage requirements have changed over the years, more and more people (following the growth in airlines who charge for his luggage) are using smaller cases for going away for weekends and other short breaks, with more people using large cases opting for road travel.

For those that do continue to use rail travel with large cases (and the above doesn't mean that they don't exist nor that they don't need luggage space) there is provision for them. Could there be more, yes. However I'm not sure that there's as much demand for it as some make out. As with all things there's a balance to be had between seating and other facilities.

I get the impression that some think we should have an average of 50 seats per coach in these new trains so that every other possibility (other than lots of people wishing to travel) is catered for.

 

[43096]

You're really not interested in facts are you, when a good rant will do instead?

It may well be the case that HSTs should have been replaced 10 years ago, but they weren't and the TOCs were told the DfT was going to take care of it, so their hands were tied from that point on, as they were never going to get DfT consent to lease something else.

There is a big difference between buying things through a long PFI-type contract like the DfT/Agility Trains agreement and acquiring them in other ways. Per coach, the Class 802s, ordered via a leasing company, come in at a perfectly competitive price per coach.

IEP planning may have started 12 years ago, but the goalposts shifted a lot in the meantime - such as GW electrification being proposed eight years ago, which was far from a seamless piece of work, with all sorts of changes to scope, and pauses (after the 2010 election) in the next three years. As result, what the trains were expected to do and how they were to be propelled changed a lot too.

Almost all of the things you have now decided to moan about, after failing to land a blow with your previous efforts, are down to the politicians and Network Rail's project management failings, nothing to do with the Class 800 as a train.

Given I was talking about the IEPs then my comment about cost is totally spot on. Well aware the 802s have been procured at a more reasonable rate.

Clearly pointless trying to have any form of debate with you as you have a closed mind. Your loss.

 

[The Ham]

That's only an answer if you have extremely deep pockets. The only answer within the budget available to them at the time was to do what they did.

Also how fast would the IC125's be if they had 9,10 or 11 coaches? The more coaches you add the slower it will go. Meaning that some sections of 125mph may only see (for instance) 115mph running. You would also see trains having problems (especially on steep slopes) of one loco failed.

 

[43096]

ah lugging engines and fuel under the wires, like HSTs do you mean ? or the WC voyagers ...

But those engines have a use when under the wires - they are propelling the train. An IEP or AT300 is lugging the engines and fuel around for no use at all - it is just dead weight. Unless the wires fall down of course.....

But I suspect you knew what was meant and are just being an *&#@ about it.

 

[The Ham]

Given I was talking about the IEPs then my comment about cost is totally spot on. Well aware the 802s have been procured at a more reasonable rate.

Clearly pointless trying to have any form of debate with you as you have a closed mind. Your loss.

The first batch of HST's (say the first 122 of the 197 class 43's) cost more than the rest of them off all the development costs were allocated to those first trains. It's the same with IEP/802's without the development costs the 802's will be cheaper than the first 122 units of the 80x's as the development costs have already been covered.

 

[Dave1987]

ah lugging engines and fuel under the wires, like HSTs do you mean ? or the WC voyagers ...

as for journey times thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of both economical and capacity issues ... we'll also ignore the requirements infrastructure wise that are required to allow 125 + ( cab signalling etc )

I have done this argument to death previously. I have made my arguments against bi-modes previously, you may not agree with them and so be it but you not convince me that a bi-mode is anything other than a energy wasting excuse for putting this country back a few decades!

From what I have read one of the reasons the costs for the GWR electrification program costs escalating so much was the insistence of the DFT of dual pantograph operation at speeds of up to 140mph because they demanded formations of 2 x 5 cars at up to 140mph. And so we have got a situation with very expensive trains travelling on diesel far more than they were ever intended to which means their performance just about keeps up with what they are replacing.