Was the InterCity Express Programme (IEP) a success or not?

[Nym]

They need to last 37.5 years to be classed as a success.

 

[northernbelle]

They need to last 37.5 years to be classed as a success.

Their design life is 27.5 years.

 

[O L Leigh]

First Group's order of 23 AT300s (13 bi-mode, 10 electric) for the WCML to me confirmed the IEP design as successful.
They were not compelled to buy from Hitachi, and there were good reasons to go with Alstom for a tilting design.

But what else were they going to order? Could Alsthom simply turn out more Pendolinos or, as a legacy product, would they no longer meet modern standards? And who does the ordering anyway? Is it really First or is it the DfT?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what else were they going to order? Could Alsthom simply turn out more Pendolinos or, as a legacy product, would they no longer meet modern standards? And who does the ordering anyway? Is it really First or is it the DfT?

They could offer a UK gauge New Pendolino, I suppose - but they wouldn't be bi-mode.

Having decided to go for a 125mph non-tilting end-door EMU for the Liverpools, though, CAF have an offering that would fit as ordered by TPE (the 397). Barring LHCS there isn't another 125mph bi-mode on the UK market, though, so those were probably a given - the FLIRT is 110mph.

 

[class26]

Personal opinion the 800`s are mediocre. and could easily have been SOOOOO much better.

Their design life is 27.5 years.

Not quiet. The contract is for 27.5 years yes, but the 27.5 years only starts when the FINAL train has been delivered though.

 

[MB162435]

I think the IET's are great and believe the program to be a success, spacious and a smooth ride, the seats are never going to be your frontroom sofa confortable at the end of the day, no matter how many refurbishments the 80x trains go through

 

[gallafent]

Wind-tunnel optimised streamlining

… in which the IETs seem to be a massive backwards step from HSTs (and mk3s in general) — the jumble of equipment boxes on the roof in particular looks a mess (compare with any other high speed train built in the last 40 years! I can think of none that doesn't have a nice smooth flat roof, including those with distributed traction!) and there's an enormous amount of wind noise from them when at speed. In fact the overall noise levels in the IETs seem substantially higher than in mk3s in general, to me. The air-con is very noisy, and motor and engine noise are both intrusive too. I'd love to hear some mesaurements made over the same sections of route including sections from a stand, under full acceleration and deceleration, and at 125mph, to compare the two types (unfortunately wasn't able to do this myself on GWR before all the HSTs had gone, and even then I had a perception that the original fit-out in the HST mk3s was quieter than the later GWR interior, with the vestibule door grilles changed, amongst other changes!) A real backward step in acoustic comfort, and to me the “jiggly” ride is really noticeable too, being far more jittery and unsettled than the HSTs. Speaking of comfort aspects, …

The Fainsa Sophia seats are also shorter than the E3000s, so the shaped headrests dig in to more people's shoulders.

… to the extent that I tend to sit forward with none of my back touching the backrest, instead just using the seat base as a perch, in an effort to increase the length of time before …

I am in physical discomfort after 30 minutes in the current seats.

… ditto. I'm 1.85m tall, so above average, but not by a huge amount.

The seats can be sorted out at some point in the future, but as for the rest, hey ho. In the end, all of the above doesn't measure the “success” of the project, since its goals were surely very different to those of the HST project in the 60s/70s (I have a recollection of a target for that, which was achieved, of <=69dB in the saloon at 125mph cruise, though I can't find the reference … and an app on my phone at least puts the IETs well above that, even exceeding it at a stand if the diesel engine is running and/or ventilation/air-con is running) … anyway, enough rambling. A much more pithy answer simply follows from:

First Group's order of 23 AT300s (13 bi-mode, 10 electric) for the WCML to me confirmed the IEP design as successful.

Exactly!

Additionally, they accelerate and decelerate well, and thus facilitate the new accelerated GWR timetable, which is a massive improvement over the old, in my experience, as well as improving recovery from disruption. There are way more seats, way more tables, way more legroom, … many other postitive aspects, despite my negativity above! They're easy trains to work on with a notebook computer, particularly in the airline seats (though the electrical environment seems to make my phone's touch screen become unusable if I have it plugged into power on these trains!), and if one wears decent noise-cancelling headphones then the acoustic problems go away. The electronic reservations, when working, are far easier to assess than the old paper ones. The window blinds are good, as someone else mentioned. I haven't tried the food but assuming it does become possible at some point to order hot food from the trolley operator to be made and delivered to one's seat, that will be good too (though I do miss the absence of a buffet-bar car to wander to on a longer trip to stretch the legs). If/when we get wires to Bristol, Oxford, Swansea, etc., it will be possible (maybe at mid-life I guess) to “de-engine” some of the units, which is a great gain for the future. More outlandish refits involving fewer diesels and the addition of batteries might well also be possible technically in less than a decade … the flexibility of the design is excellent from this perspective. The ability to operate as 5+5, and to break the train to allow a 5 to go forward to more remote/less popular destinations allows “Inter-City” comfort to be retained without breaking the bank (as much). Etc. … loads of positives as well as the negatives.

 

[class26]

… in which the IETs seem to be a massive backwards step from HSTs (and mk3s in general) — the jumble of equipment boxes on the roof in particular looks a mess (compare with any other high speed train built in the last 40 years! I can think of none that doesn't have a nice smooth flat roof, including those with distributed traction!) and there's an enormous amount of wind noise from them when at speed. In fact the overall noise levels in the IETs seem substantially higher than in mk3s in general, to me. The air-con is very noisy, and motor and engine noise are both intrusive too. I'd love to hear some mesaurements made over the same sections of route including sections from a stand, under full acceleration and deceleration, and at 125mph, to compare the two types (unfortunately wasn't able to do this myself on GWR before all the HSTs had gone, and even then I had a perception that the original fit-out in the HST mk3s was quieter than the later GWR interior, with the vestibule door grilles changed, amongst other changes!) A real backward step in acoustic comfort, and to me the “jiggly” ride is really noticeable too, being far more jittery and unsettled than the HSTs. Speaking of comfort aspects, …



… to the extent that I tend to sit forward with none of my back touching the backrest, instead just using the seat base as a perch, in an effort to increase the length of time before …



… ditto. I'm 1.85m tall, so above average, but not by a huge amount.

The seats can be sorted out at some point in the future, but as for the rest, hey ho. In the end, all of the above doesn't measure the “success” of the project, since its goals were surely very different to those of the HST project in the 60s/70s (I have a recollection of a target for that, which was achieved, of <=69dB in the saloon at 125mph cruise, though I can't find the reference … and an app on my phone at least puts the IETs well above that, even exceeding it at a stand if the diesel engine is running and/or ventilation/air-con is running) … anyway, enough rambling. A much more pithy answer simply follows from:



Exactly!

Additionally, they accelerate and decelerate well, and thus facilitate the new accelerated GWR timetable, which is a massive improvement over the old, in my experience, as well as improving recovery from disruption. There are way more seats, way more tables, way more legroom, … many other postitive aspects, despite my negativity above! They're easy trains to work on with a notebook computer, particularly in the airline seats (though the electrical environment seems to make my phone's touch screen become unusable if I have it plugged into power on these trains!), and if one wears decent noise-cancelling headphones then the acoustic problems go away. The electronic reservations, when working, are far easier to assess than the old paper ones. The window blinds are good, as someone else mentioned. I haven't tried the food but assuming it does become possible at some point to order hot food from the trolley operator to be made and delivered to one's seat, that will be good too (though I do miss the absence of a buffet-bar car to wander to on a longer trip to stretch the legs). If/when we get wires to Bristol, Oxford, Swansea, etc., it will be possible (maybe at mid-life I guess) to “de-engine” some of the units, which is a great gain for the future. More outlandish refits involving fewer diesels and the addition of batteries might well also be possible technically in less than a decade … the flexibility of the design is excellent from this perspective. The ability to operate as 5+5, and to break the train to allow a 5 to go forward to more remote/less popular destinations allows “Inter-City” comfort to be retained without breaking the bank (as much). Etc. … loads of positives as well as the negatives.

I think window blinds are disastrous. Personally I like to look out of the window. Blinds only work when all 4 people want the blind down. When one selfish person unilaterally decides he (or she) wants thwe blind down frequently they never bother to ask their fellow passengers. It`s actually highly annoying.

 

[Horizon22]

For me the seats are fine. They're not stunning, but they're not 'rock-hard' either nor would make a ridiculous claim that they are bad enough to put me off travelling by train. I'm fairly tall and haven't had a major issue. I find them brighter and have travelled plenty of times with "non-rail" friends who are pleasantly surprised and notice that it's new - one was particularly impressed by the traffic light reservation system which I didn't think was too fancy, but there you are.

I can't remember who spoke about maintenance issues and extra bureaucracy with Hitachi, but that is veyr much true. Hopefully in time there will be closed collaboration between fleet and TOCs (much like has happened with the 395 Southeastern fleet) because I'm aware its far from perfect currently.

A decent train, but some room for improvement. Almost like a compromise solution taking off the big needs (seat capacity & tech improvements) and a continuation of some factors that could have been better (longer distance comforts)

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I think window blinds are disastrous. Personally I like to look out of the window. Blinds only work when all 4 people want the blind down. When one selfish person unilaterally decides he (or she) wants thwe blind down frequently they never bother to ask their fellow passengers. It`s actually highly annoying.

Maybe disastrous isn't the word? The problem you're describing can be solved with a short conversation.

What about people who prefer lowering the blind? or need it to reduce sun glare so they can be productive on the train.

 

[class26]

Maybe disastrous isn't the word? The problem you're describing can be solved with a short conversation.

What about people who prefer lowering the blind? or need it to reduce sun glare so they can be productive on the train.

But my point isn`t about MY wish to have the blind open, it is simply that not all persons affected will necessarily share the same opinion. Whatever, it is never going to suit everyone I suppose

 

[Bletchleyite]

But my point isn`t about MY wish to have the blind open, it is simply that not all persons affected will necessarily share the same opinion. Whatever, it is never going to suit everyone I suppose

The problem is that it creates conflict. Much of modern public transport design looks to avoid conflict, quite rightly, e.g. aircon instead of opening windows and no passenger control of light or heat. This is a rather silly exception.

 

[hexagon789]

Successful - yes
Could've been better - yes

 

[fgwrich]

Maybe disastrous isn't the word? The problem you're describing can be solved with a short conversation.

What about people who prefer lowering the blind? or need it to reduce sun glare so they can be productive on the train.

My issue isn't so much whether a passenger may want them up or down, it's that, like all blinds fitted to DEMUs so far, they often rattle and vibrate and cause another rather irritating noise that shouldn't be there. For some reason, it's something that no-one seems to have made right - and I've already experienced this on several IETs already.

 

[43096]

Successful - yes
Could've been better - yes

Should, not could, have been better.

 

[hexagon789]

Should, not could, have been better.

I put "could" because that was only my opinion, not everyone seems that unimpressed

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

The problem is that it creates conflict. Much of modern public transport design looks to avoid conflict, quite rightly, e.g. aircon instead of opening windows and no passenger control of light or heat. This is a rather silly exception.

I suppose, while there is potential for conflict over it, it's not difficult to avoid. With people increasingly being expected to be productive on train journeys, being able to block out sun glare so you can see your phone or laptop screen properly is actually quite important.

 

[Gaz55]

From a productivity point of view, I have found working on them easier than something like Voyager. The enviroment seems nicer somehow.

 

[Thunderer]

IEP - The short answer is no. It has been confirmed through its complex procurement and running agreement (Agility) to be the most expensive train in the WORLD. Now, lets look at what we have for that large price tag from a Passenger point of view >> Poor quality seating (1st class is anything but premium), no buffet (GWR), inadequate luggage space, a poor quality ride (especially at speeds over 100 Mph - there is a lot of lateral movement), often dirty windows (GWR), underfloor vibration & noise in some coaches when running on diesel generators. I think that synopsis is fair having been a passenger on GWR many times. Now, lets look at what we have created with the IEP from an operational point of view >> GWR IEP, inflexable operating, as the 800 is restricted how far it can travel in 1 day and where it ends up at night. Fleet mismatch, a fleet of the same train, which is anything but - your 800's and 802's with very different operating abilities (802's are not restricted by movement and contract like the 800's) non standard fleet sizes (a mixture of 5 and 9 car) which as we know sometimes ends up with one 5 car deputising for a 9 or 10 car service with overcrowding (I've had that dubious experience) and coupling issues that still occasionally occur trying to add/split 10 car trains. Its a shambles really and an expensive one at that too. I understand the HST was life expired, but it was a fantastic train. The success by design template was there. All that was needed was to use that template to design a HST2 train, a diesel and electric train and bring it into the 21st century, it didn't need a completely brand new design, just a re-design. Since IEP was the brains of the DFT, are we really surprised at what the end product was?

 

[43096]

GWR IEP, inflexable operating, as the 800 is restricted how far it can travel in 1 day and where it ends up at night.

Ah yes, had forgotten about that, and presumably the same applies to the LNER 800 and 801 fleets.

I suspect Hitachi would go into meltdown if LNER suggested the last resort move that GNER used to do occasionally if they were short of a set in London. The HST set arriving on the up "Highland Chieftain" would be turned straight round and work the 1600 to Aberdeen. No such flexibility now.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Its a shambles really and an expensive one at that too. I understand the HST was life expired, but it was a fantastic train. The success by design template was there. All that was needed was to use that template to design a HST2 train, a diesel and electric train and bring it into the 21st century, it didn't need a completely brand new design, just a re-design. Since IEP was the brains of the DFT, are we really surprised at what the end product was?

Are you being serious here? The HST and MK3 are 50 year old designs with dozens of well known shortcomings. It would be absolute madness to try to design an improved variant of them rather than designing a modern train from scratch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you being serious here? The HST and MK3 are 50 year old designs with dozens of well known shortcomings. It would be absolute madness to try to design an improved variant of them rather than designing a modern train from scratch.

In the sense of the Mk3 being a box with windows spaced at First Class seat spacing, how *isn't* the IET that? Though I think the Class 180 looks closest.

 

[fgwrich]

Are you being serious here? The HST and MK3 are 50 year old designs with dozens of well known shortcomings. It would be absolute madness to try to design an improved variant of them rather than designing a modern train from scratch.

I don't see why not, in the same way that the 444 is a modern version of the 442, which only had around 14 years between them. I don't particularly see any failing of the 444 (other than there isn't enough of them) and they are rather well regarded on here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see why not, in the same way that the 444 is a modern version of the 442, which only had around 14 years between them. I don't particularly see any failing of the 444 (other than there isn't enough of them) and they are rather well regarded on here.

But then the 444 is only a newer 442 in the sense that the Mk5a is a newer Mk3?

And I still think (and I know others disagree) that an 80x is very similar to a 444.

 

[northernbelle]

I don't see why not, in the same way that the 444 is a modern version of the 442, which only had around 14 years between them. I don't particularly see any failing of the 444 (other than there isn't enough of them) and they are rather well regarded on here.

The 444 couldn't be more different to a 442 - it's made of aluminium not steel, fitted with AC traction motors rather than DC, the luggage provision is significantly worse (no end of coach stacks at all), there's no snug or buffet area - trolley only. Other than being 5 coaches and with doors at the end of the vehicles, I don't really see how they can be compared.

I travelled for years on the 444s - they are 'ok' but certainly not the best train out there when you consider folk are making 3 hours journeys on them. I find the ride quality is fidgety (as with most modern stock) and the seats fall well short of what's needed for the longer distance market.

But then the 444 is only a newer 442 in the sense that the Mk5a is a newer Mk3?

And I still think (and I know others disagree) that an 80x is very similar to a 444.

I think that's a reasonable assessment, although I prefer the ergonomics of an 80x. One can balance a laptop on a seatback table of 80x and I find the seats are marginally better too.

 

[fgwrich]

The 444 couldn't be more different to a 442 - it's made of aluminium not steel, fitted with AC traction motors rather than DC, the luggage provision is significantly worse (no end of coach stacks at all), there's no snug or buffet area - trolley only. Other than being 5 coaches and with doors at the end of the vehicles, I don't really see how they can be compared.

I was actually referring to the comment below, in that the 444 is virtually an improved version of the 442.

“It would be absolute madness to try to design an improved variant of them rather than designing a modern train from scratch”

Obviously, the body construction is different. However, the 444 is a 23M long unit, with an end door layout designed to a similar intercity type layout. If you have been travelling on them for years, you would remember the small buffet counter that the 444s were delivered with (it was never going to be the case that, despite how well liked it was, a Snug or FC compartments would be built into the 444). And the luggage provision is virtually the same - the 442s didn’t have end luggage racks either, the only luggage spaces being the above seat racks and the guards van. So in effect, a 444 is a modern version of a 442. So, as shown with other units such as the Alstom Coradia fleet & Irish Rail 22000, it is possible to take the basic design fundamentals which make the Mk3 design a success, and translate it into a new a coach or Unit.

And this is where the 80X design fails upon in various elements - door pockets, window design & luggage provision.

 

[route:oxford]

IEP - The short answer is no. It has been confirmed through its complex procurement and running agreement (Agility) to be the most expensive train in the WORLD. Now, lets look at what we have for that large price tag from a Passenger point of view >> Poor quality seating (1st class is anything but premium), no buffet (GWR), inadequate luggage space, a poor quality ride (especially at speeds over 100 Mph - there is a lot of lateral movement), often dirty windows (GWR), underfloor vibration & noise in some coaches when running on diesel generators. I think that synopsis is fair having been a passenger on GWR many times. Now, lets look at what we have created with the IEP from an operational point of view >> GWR IEP, inflexable operating, as the 800 is restricted how far it can travel in 1 day and where it ends up at night. Fleet mismatch, a fleet of the same train, which is anything but - your 800's and 802's with very different operating abilities (802's are not restricted by movement and contract like the 800's) non standard fleet sizes (a mixture of 5 and 9 car) which as we know sometimes ends up with one 5 car deputising for a 9 or 10 car service with overcrowding (I've had that dubious experience) and coupling issues that still occasionally occur trying to add/split 10 car trains. Its a shambles really and an expensive one at that too. I understand the HST was life expired, but it was a fantastic train. The success by design template was there. All that was needed was to use that template to design a HST2 train, a diesel and electric train and bring it into the 21st century, it didn't need a completely brand new design, just a re-design. Since IEP was the brains of the DFT, are we really surprised at what the end product was?

Dirty windows do not make a bad train! For the first 30 years of their lives people were allowed to smoke on the Mk3 and the windows were yellow.
The HST was designed with terrible seating too.
The MK3 coaches were absolutely stinking during breaking
For nearly 50 years HSTs have been dumping raw sewage onto the tracks and sending aerosol faeces into the faces of passengers waiting at stations. With Covid-19 found in faecal matter, goodness knows how many people a single flush of a non-retention Mk3 could kill as it passed thorugh a busy station.

As to:- "It has been confirmed through its complex procurement and running agreement (Agility) to be the most expensive train in the WORLD"

Which academic organisation undertook the study and was it peer reviewed? It must have taken a vast amount of effort to go through every single train procurement order since The Rocket and analyse the data.

 

[Domh245]

The 444 couldn't be more different to a 442 - it's made of aluminium not steel, fitted with AC traction motors rather than DC, the luggage provision is significantly worse (no end of coach stacks at all), there's no snug or buffet area - trolley only. Other than being 5 coaches and with doors at the end of the vehicles, I don't really see how they can be compared.

Note the comparison is that 444s are a "modern version" of a 442, not a 442 that was built 20 years later. Of course it's going to be fitted with updated traction motors and be built using the latest construction techniques and materials, and it goes without saying that there won't be a snug (or the originally fitted compartment first class) - there's simply no place on a modern railway for those things anymore.

They're directly comparable as 23m "intercity" third rail EMUs fulfilling the exact same roles. By that logic, we can't compare the IEP units to HSTs as they're 26m long, aluminium construction, distributed traction MUs rather than 23m long steel push/pull fixed formation sets..

 

[Thunderer]

Are you being serious here? The HST and MK3 are 50 year old designs with dozens of well known shortcomings. It would be absolute madness to try to design an improved variant of them rather than designing a modern train from scratch.

Hence the improved design as mentioned. Things have moved on from 1976, but the blueprint of success was in the overall design and concept. A car is constantly improved by design over time e.g. VW Golf, so why not a train?

 

[Thunderer]

Ah yes, had forgotten about that, and presumably the same applies to the LNER 800 and 801 fleets.

I suspect Hitachi would go into meltdown if LNER suggested the last resort move that GNER used to do occasionally if they were short of a set in London. The HST set arriving on the up "Highland Chieftain" would be turned straight round and work the 1600 to Aberdeen. No such flexibility now.

Correct, the same applies to LNER IEP. So "stepping up a diagram" as suggested would cause all sorts of contractual complications as sets would end up out of place at the end of their shift.