IEP and GWML clarification on ETCS....

[RichW1]

Hi all, I'm wondering (after being unsuccessful) about what we're actually getting with IEP? Is it 5 car sets that'll be coupled to make 10 cars or is it one train length of hybrid and electric versions of 10 cars? Or is it 8 cars and 5 car sets (5 being coupled) and 8 car sets for lesser routes...I've been so overloaded with conflicting views and information I don't know what the trains are going to be anymore!

Secondly (maybe I should've kept this separate) but is GWML going to have ETCS when electrification is done or won't it? Does ETCS2 mean in-cab signalling or does that have to wait for full ERTMS2 for that? If you can't achieve more than 125mph with electrification, money spent on a new signalling system and new trains for a new railway...it's not really an upgrade is it, just a renewal of the existing speeds with everything looking newer!

 

[Bridge189]

At the moment the GW will get electrics while the EC will get bi modes to replace HSTs and supplement the 225s, AFAIK anyways.

 

[ainsworth74]

At the moment the GW will get electrics while the EC will get bi modes to replace HSTs and supplement the 225s, AFAIK anyways.

The GWML will get a mixture of Bi-mode and pure electric IEPs (in 5 and 8 car formations respectively) unfortunately I can't remember the exact numbers of each but there are far more Bi-mode sets than electric. The ECML will also get a mixture of Bi-mode and electrics (both types in 5 car formations). With the Bi-mode going to replace the HSTs whilst the electric units will be used on commuter services between Kings Cross and I believe Kings Lynn though it may only be as far as Cambridge I can't remember exactly.

The IEP will no longer be replacing any IC225s.

 

[RichW1]

@ainsworth74 so Cambridge is going to have an 'Intercity' service? Or will this IEP version look different more like a commuter version as far as you know? If it's an Intercity, it'll be the shortest IC route in the world won't it!!

What's the point in 5 car electric units? They should just be 11 cars and fixed formation for the all electric versions surely?!!! Seems they're not going to be long enough to me or have the capacity required but that's just me thinking allowed not having seen the finished product. I suppose they'll look like the renders unless that's just a random image to convey a concept.

 

[mallard]

What's the point in 5 car electric units? They should just be 11 cars and fixed formation for the all electric versions surely?!!! Seems they're not going to be long enough to me or have the capacity required but that's just me thinking allowed not having seen the finished product. I suppose they'll look like the renders unless that's just a random image to convey a concept.

Well, the carriages will be longer, so a 5-car set could have as many seats as maybe a 7-car HST. I wouldn't put money on it looking much like the renders, look at the early renders for the Pendolinos!

 

[sprinterguy]

Well, the carriages will be longer, so a 5-car set could have as many seats as maybe a 7-car HST. I wouldn't put money on it looking much like the renders, look at the early renders for the Pendolinos!

Under the current specification, which looks like it might be re-assessed again, a 5-car IEP train will have 59 first class seats and 250 standard class seats, which off the top of my head is a reasonable amount less than FGWs' 2+7 HST formations.

For what it's worth, the currently proposed IEP train order is as follows:
East Coast:
10 x 5-car electric sets
35 x 5-car bi-mode sets

Great Western:
11 x 8-car electric sets
9 x 5-car electric sets
35 x 5-car bi-mode sets

 

[mallard]

Under the current specification, which looks like it might be re-assessed again, a 5-car IEP train will have 59 first class seats and 250 standard class seats, which off the top of my head is a reasonable amount less than FGWs' 2+7 HST formations.

That's odd, because that means that (assuming 3.5 or 4 standard class carriages), these newer, longer IEP carriages will have less seats than a Mk3! I assume that means fully accessible toilets in every carriage and a massive overprovision of wheelchair parking spaces (as specified by new regulations) are to blame?

If they managed 80 or even 90 seats per standard-class carriage ("normal" Mk3s have 74, FGW have up to 84) then they certainly would have about the same capacity as a 7-car HST.

 

[Nym]

And the carrages are longer for some stupid reason, whats wrong with C3 Clearences?

 

[starrymarkb]

I beleive the RVAR is now replaced by the less stringent UIC TSI

 

[SwindonPkwy]

Just out of interest, where does the wheelchair accessibility legislation come from? Brussels and then incorporated into UK law?

 

[RichW1]

Probably....sadly. Accessibility legislation does make life easier for all of us in terms of making more space all round etc but why it has to come from Brussels I'll never know! We spent centuries creating a democracy and institutions that in the and we could be rightfully proud of, fought two world wars and had a painful change to our economy at the latter half of the 20th century and Europe (only politically) has just been a constant noose round out neck and nuisance. All that history and creating many of the things in the world today as well as its institutions (and I accept, problems too) and yet still we find ourselves at the foot of such a useless continent!!! (Screams!)

 

[ainsworth74]

And the carrages are longer for some stupid reason, whats wrong with C3 Clearences?

I've often wondered that myself. It's stupid really to replace the HST with its 'go anywhere' C3 clearence with something that's going to need to be specially cleared to go anywhere at all!

Just out of interest, where does the wheelchair accessibility legislation come from? Brussels and then incorporated into UK law?

Fairly sure it was a UK piece of legislation (as in nothing to do with Europe) introduced in 1998 which was then updated in 2010 to reflect European standards.

 

[RichW1]

Oh well at least that's one piece of legislation we came up with (a great piece in imho too). I know it causes a lot of upheavel but I think trains and station environments are actually better for it for everyone not just those with disabilities. But as for timing and dealines for disability compliance I have no idea whether those deadlines are right or not, anyway I digress....thanks for the info thus far everyone. To be honest I don't see why C3 should be extended too much anyway for the reasons sighted above. C3 is already long enough and can go anywhere. Least I have a little more clarity on the project now. Dreading the bi-mode performance though!!!!

 

[sprinterguy]

That's odd, because that means that (assuming 3.5 or 4 standard class carriages), these newer, longer IEP carriages will have less seats than a Mk3! I assume that means fully accessible toilets in every carriage and a massive overprovision of wheelchair parking spaces (as specified by new regulations) are to blame?

If they managed 80 or even 90 seats per standard-class carriage ("normal" Mk3s have 74, FGW have up to 84) then they certainly would have about the same capacity as a 7-car HST.

The five car formation, and the seating capacity of each carriage, is provisionally (Operators are meant to get a say in the interior layout for their sets in terms of catering provision, luggage space, toilets, seating layout, etc) intended to be:
DPTF: 29 first class seats & disabled toilet
MC: 30 first class seats, 38 standard class seats
MSRB: 64 standard class seats and a mini-buffet/VT style shop arrangement
MS: 88 standard class seats
DPTS: 60 standard class seats

There would also presumably be a second disabled toilet somewhere in the standard class section of the train, but I can't find any reference to it. So a carriage completely given over to standard class seating, unhindered by the requirement for disabled toilets or catering facilities, etc, should have 88 seats (Of which there is the opportunity for only one in the 5-car sets), which IIRC actually matches up quite neatly against BRs' proposed seating total for the 26 metre mark 5 carriages that were proposed as part of the Intercity 250 project in the early nineties.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the carrages are longer for some stupid reason, whats wrong with C3 Clearences?

There are those in the UK rail industry that have been pushing for 26 metre carriages for nearly 20 years now, ever since the Intercity 250 was mooted for the WCML in the early nineties. For a route-specific Intercity train that will be pretty much guaranteed to be tied to one single main line for its' entire working life then its' not such a bad idea, but for what is meant to be a "go anywhere" replacement for the HSTs then it's a pretty daft thing to be specifying.

 

[WatcherZero]

Originally introduced into UK law 1998 with amendments in 2003 (tweaks) and 2008 (separated Light Rail and Heavy Rail standards, started making compatible with EU standards) and then superceded in 2010 by EU standards which cover Heavy Rail, light rail or 'non-interoperable' still uses the earlier UK standards.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

re Sprinterguy's comments : that sounds more like it. So I guess, for GWML, the 11 car electric sets will provide additional capacity over the busiest sections to Bristol and Cardiff. With the 5 car bi-modes offering similar to HST capacity to Cheltenham, Worcester and routes to the west of Bristol and Cardiff.

 

[Zoe]

re Sprinterguy's comments : that sounds more like it. So I guess, for GWML, the 11 car electric sets will provide additional capacity over the busiest sections to Bristol and Cardiff. With the 5 car bi-modes offering similar to HST capacity to Cheltenham, Worcester and routes to the west of Bristol and Cardiff.

As far as I know, the electric sets will be 8 car not 11.

 

[sprinterguy]

As far as I know, the electric sets will be 8 car not 11.

Indeed; 8-car sets, with the option for them to be extended up to a maximum of 12 carriages, although I'm not sure how many stations would be able to accommodate 12x26 metre coaches...

 

[TheWalrus]

Sorry to go on about this but where does the exeter semi-fast fit in here?

 

[swt_passenger]

@ainsworth74 so Cambridge is going to have an 'Intercity' service? Or will this IEP version look different more like a commuter version as far as you know? If it's an Intercity, it'll be the shortest IC route in the world won't it!!

What's the point in 5 car electric units? They should just be 11 cars and fixed formation for the all electric versions surely?!!! Seems they're not going to be long enough to me or have the capacity required but that's just me thinking allowed not having seen the finished product. I suppose they'll look like the renders unless that's just a random image to convey a concept.

IEP was originally ordered in three internal layouts, inter city, inter urban, and commuter. I think the 5 car electrics for the ECML are definitely commuter layout, and they aren't actually for the 'East Coast franchise', they are for the Cambridge fast ECML services. So the reason they are 5 car is to allow for splitting and joining at Cambridge.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry to go on about this but where does the exeter semi-fast fit in here?

Probably 5 +5 trains splitting and joining at Newbury - bimode forward to Exeter. But that's really just a guess based on the latest RUSs...

I'd also expect splitting and joining of 5+5 trains at Oxford for the Cotswolds.

 

[TheWalrus]

Do you think 5+5 will be necessary? im guessing a single bi mode

 

[swt_passenger]

Do you think 5+5 will be necessary? im guessing a single bi mode

I think it's likely they'll do something like the Waterloo - Bournemouth - Weymouth system, where it varies over the course of the day. So in the middle of the day, yes a 5 car might run right through from Paddington.

However 5+5 gives all sorts of options that aren't currently possible, and that people won't have thought of yet.

What about a 5+5 splitting at Reading - front half runs fast to Oxford and on to the Cotswolds, back half picks up the stops to Oxford and terminates. I'm sure there are loads of possibilities...

 

[Bridge189]

Apparently a rumour doing the rounds now is that the 222s from EMT will be the ECMLs HST replacement with a pantograph added and reformed back to 9coach(some) and others remaining 5 coach. Whether theres any truth in it is another matter.....

I presume that would mean a new type for the MML? probably inter urban electrics (444 type)?

 

[Nym]

Would that be one of the roumours I started about the sensible plan for not needing the Bi Mode IEP/SET?

 

[anthony263]

Would that be one of the roumours I started about the sensible plan for not needing the Bi Mode IEP/SET?

Maybe someone at the DFT listened to your idea.

I personally think It is a good think though.

I did have a suggestion which was wire to:

Swansea
Cheltenham
Bassingstoke
Coventry
Plymouth/Penzance and have full electric IEP's (If they are full length is really any need for the carriages to be 26m longs would 23m be better?)


FGW could have brand new emu's perhaps an add on to the crossrail order to allow more class 319's to be cascaded to Northern.

The idea with wiring to Bassingstoke is that it may be possible to run a direct Bassingstoke - London Paddington train during the peaks with trains running as 12 coaches between Reading & London Paddington, this idea is that with crossrail at Paddington it might encourage some users who normally commute into London Waterloo to switch to using Paddington instead which should take off some of the overcrowding on some trains between Bassingstoke & London Waterloo.

The electrification to Bassingstoke & Coventry would allow the Manchester - Bournemouth service to got over to full electric traction rather than the voyagers which can boost capacity elsewhere.



As for the services to Worcester/Hereford, my idea was to order some 5 carriage electric Polaris trains together with a few diesel locomotives from CSRE which will haul the trains between Oxford/Moreton In Marsh to Worcester/Hereford. The locomotives will be wired to work push-pull with the Polaris units.

 

[Zoe]

Plymouth/Penzance and have full electric IEP's (If they are full length is really any need for the carriages to be 26m longs would 23m be better?)

The wires will never go beyond Plymouth, the business case just isn't there.

 

[IanXC]

The wires will never go beyond Plymouth, the business case just isn't there.

Or at least until there are so few unelectrified routes that the unit cost of diesel traction for those routes is so high that electrification becomes an attractive option. Theres also the question of whether it is operationally efficient to have a micro fleet of DMUs for "beyond Plymouth".

 

[swt_passenger]

The idea with wiring to Bassingstoke is that it may be possible to run a direct Bassingstoke - London Paddington train during the peaks with trains running as 12 coaches between Reading & London Paddington, this idea is that with crossrail at Paddington it might encourage some users who normally commute into London Waterloo to switch to using Paddington instead which should take off some of the overcrowding on some trains between Bassingstoke & London Waterloo.

Option F6 in the London and SE RUS, in other words. NR don't think it will help much though:

This option would enable Option A5 to provide some capacity relief to the SWML as well as the GWML.
However given the slightly increased journey times (when compared to using the SWML direct route from Basingstoke to London Waterloo) such trains may only be used by a relatively small proportion of passengers.
The option has potential to reduce SWML loadings to a small degree, but would not resolve the 2031 capacity gap.

BTW it's still Basingstoke with one S - how many times are you going to repeat this error?

 

[RYS]

Hi, sorry to resurrect a month old thread, but I can't work it out; With ERTMS on the GWML, will the IEP trains be running faster than 125 mph or not?

 

[Nym]

The in cab signalling will allow speeds up to the limit of that class of ERTMS (220mph+) but the track quality and paths may not be there, it also depends on if the new LDPE EMUs (I'm not saying Hitachi SET or IEP for reasons I'm sure many of you know, I'm not a fan of it) are specified for 140mph running.

ERTMS Spec came out after the IEP spec, so wasn't included in the provision.

It could be the case that if the IEP and track improvments could be specified (as well as a haulable EMU set) that the GW alignment in some places could be good for 140mph or possibly even 175mph running. All depends on what happens with the IEP Programe though