IEP: 26 metres is too long

So the actual answer is that contrary to what has been suggested by some, that massive gauging clearling works would be needed, in fact guaging clearance makes up oneof the smallest portions of the spending? Further that the largest spending item is not only for benefit of IEP but also the rotue as a whole as it provides extra power for the route?

Sounds pretty good to me.

NSEFAN said:

Fair enough. So most of the work would simply be about providing more power where it's needed?

Click to expand...

Indeed, apparently the system between Newcastle and Edinburgh can only just cope at peak times so there can be no further increase in electric services north of Newcastle in the peaks otherwise.

Ditto the supply has always been slightly dodgy between Newcastle and York, as well as the conversion to auto transformer feed south of Peterborough that is going to be required as part of the Thameslink programme

RAGNARØKR;1350341 said:

"Network Rail estimated in October 2012 that it would be spending £461 million on upgrades to the Great Western and East Coast Main Lines as part of the Inter City Express Programme. Much of this cost refers to power supply upgrades to the East Coast Main Line, with a smaller amount needed for platform extensions to accommodate the longer trains and an even smaller amount required for gauging work."

I am surprised at the low cost...

Click to expand...

Can't think why. The figures you've wasted your MP's time over are basically already in the public domain via the enhancement plans, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1308554&postcount=189

Where it is also clear that the ECML power supply upgrade is a significant part of the cost. You've been pushing 'expensive gauge clearance' for months now without much evidence whatsoever...

swt_passenger said:

Can't think why. The figures you've wasted your MP's time over are basically already in the public domain via the enhancement plans, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1308554&postcount=189

Where it is also clear that the ECML power supply upgrade is a significant part of the cost. You've been pushing 'expensive gauge clearance' for months now without much evidence whatsoever...

Click to expand...

.. and even when they do provide "evidence" it is what we'd all be saying anyway.

RAGNARØKR;1347157 said:

So an extra bay, effectively? 8 more seats - 10% extra capacity. And someone is going to tell me I am being wildly inaccurate!

Click to expand...

The following provides the draft layouts of the IEP's. This is from the DfT website within the last 6 months so is the most up-to-date information on the layout and formation of IEP units.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3469/iep-train-layouts.pdf

Paulinbelper said:

The following provides the draft layouts of the IEP's. This is from the DfT website within the last 6 months so is the most up-to-date information on the layout and formation of IEP units.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3469/iep-train-layouts.pdf

Click to expand...

Seems to be distinctly lacking a buffet counter. Not many places to park your bike either. :roll:

Thanks for the information, though.

LE Greys said:

Seems to be distinctly lacking a buffet counter. Not many places to park your bike either. :roll:

Thanks for the information, though.

Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time, they are DRAFT layouts, like it says at the top of the document.

The final layouts (and formations) were going to be a matter for discussion between DfT, Hitachi and the GW franchise winner (as stated in the GW franchise invitation to tender last year) and whoever was running East Coast. Remains to be seen how they are now going to handle this aspect after last week's events but probably not top of the list of priorities just now.

jimm said:

For the umpteenth time, they are DRAFT layouts, like it says at the top of the document.

The final layouts (and formations) were going to be a matter for discussion between DfT, Hitachi and the GW franchise winner (as stated in the GW franchise invitation to tender last year) and whoever was running East Coast. Remains to be seen how they are now going to handle this aspect after last week's events but probably not top of the list of priorities just now.

Click to expand...

True, but have you noticed how the default position is no on-board catering or additional luggage space. All HST draft layouts included catering and a small van in the power cars at the default position. It's more a comment on the times than anything.

LE Greys said:

True, but have you noticed how the default position is no on-board catering or additional luggage space

Click to expand...

What? Apart from the trolley stores, kitchen area and 'bike and bulk' storage areas.

From the key at the below each carriage plan it states for a 5 coach version that there is the following on the current draft layout (locations assuming first is the leading end of the train):
- 2 wheel chair spaces
- 2 accessible WC's
- 3 standard WC's
- 2 bike & bulk rooms
- 1 catering facility (in the leading vehicle with first class)
- 1 trolley storage (in standard in the penultimate vehicle)
- 8 luggage rakes

with the 9 coach proposed to have:
- 4 wheel chair spaces
- 2 accessible WC's
- 9 standard WC's
- 4 bike & bulk rooms
- 1 catering facility (in the leading vehicle with first class)
- 1 trolley storage (in standard in the penultimate vehicle)
- 16 luggage rakes

You don't have to be a porker to be squeezed. I went up to London yesterday on a train with three seats on one side and two on the other. The man sitting next to me was of normal size, I'm certainly not carrying any excess poundage and yet I couldn't quite get properly sat on the seat as well as having so little legroom I almost had cramp. Are trains nowadays built for midgets? Going to Salisbury a few weeks ago I couldn't actually get my legs in the seating space - I'm 6' 1" - not exactly gigantic.

The Ham said:

From the key at the below each carriage plan it states for a 5 coach version that there is the following on the current draft layout (locations assuming first is the leading end of the train):
- 2 wheel chair spaces
- 2 accessible WC's
- 3 standard WC's
- 2 bike & bulk rooms
- 1 catering facility (in the leading vehicle with first class)
- 1 trolley storage (in standard in the penultimate vehicle)
- 8 luggage rakes

with the 9 coach proposed to have:
- 4 wheel chair spaces
- 2 accessible WC's
- 9 standard WC's
- 4 bike & bulk rooms
- 1 catering facility (in the leading vehicle with first class)
- 1 trolley storage (in standard in the penultimate vehicle)
- 16 luggage rakes

Click to expand...

That means that I couldn't find them. Having had another look, I think I've found them. The trolley storage is a small space opposite a lavatory. Presumably, the luggage racks are at the other end of the coach, and they don't look very big or easy to observe from a seat. The catering facility is right up against a cab at the first end (not a buffet and hard to access from second). So, having taken another look, it seems as though we have a Super-Duper Voyager. Essentially, they've carried all the defects in recent designs and perpetuated them. I'm sure that we'll hear a lot more about this in the future.

LE Greys said:

Seems to be distinctly lacking a buffet counter. Not many places to park your bike either. :roll:

Click to expand...

There's a Billy Connoly joke in there somewhere...

LE Greys said:

The catering facility is right up against a cab at the first end (not a buffet and hard to access from second).

Click to expand...

No access from standard will almost certainly not be an issue as I'm sure that the catering provision will be similar to that found on East Coast and Virgin. Namely that there will be a meal service for first class and not in standard. I would be surprised, however, if a micro-buffet wasn't fitted in the final design and that's all that will be needed.

We can argue about whether or not standard class should have access to full meals like first does but that's not really a discussion about IEP that's a discussion about the way the industry is moving as a whole.

ainsworth74 said:

No access from standard will almost certainly not be an issue as I'm sure that the catering provision will be similar to that found on East Coast and Virgin. Namely that there will be a meal service for first class and not in standard. I would be surprised, however, if a micro-buffet wasn't fitted in the final design and that's all that will be needed.

We can argue about whether or not standard class should have access to full meals like first does but that's not really a discussion about IEP that's a discussion about the way the industry is moving as a whole.

Click to expand...

Fair enough (and that was my point anyway).

Yes while we can argue over the default layout, its the individual toc's which will ultimately decide the final layout for themselves, they may decide that a shop is worth the loss of seats or they may not.

LE Greys said:

True, but have you noticed how the default position is no on-board catering or additional luggage space. All HST draft layouts included catering and a small van in the power cars at the default position. It's more a comment on the times than anything.

Click to expand...

Look, these are what the civil servants came up with, the same people who have been making a pig's ear of this entire exercise over IEP since 2007.

The HST was designed in a different age, to meet a very different idea of what InterCity rail travel was, so yes, it is a comment on the times. What were you expecting, a silver service restaurant car?

The operators will likely have different views among themselves about what interiors and catering provision they want to. Arriva would probably happily go for DafT's idea on catering, since it looks like a Voyager-type offer. Nat Express likely the same, given what they did to Liverpool St-Norwich catering. I suspect FGW, who binned the idea of trolley-only HSTs and came up with inserting mini-buffets instead, would probably be more likely to go for a Class 180 type set-up. Stagecoach could go either way, looking at SWT and Virgin Rail's different approaches.

Mark Hopwood of FGW has already questioned whether a five-car formation is the right way to go, looking at growth forecasts and current loadings on some Class 180-worked services, so what you call a default position may prove to be nothing of the sort by the time the pre-production versions emerge and if he's prepared to take them on over that point, which, looking at what the invitation to tender said about formations, FGW and perhaps other bidders did, then I'd expect them to be equally clear about any other things they want to see changed.

jimm said:

Look, these are what the civil servants came up with, the same people who have been making a pig's ear of this entire exercise over IEP since 2007.

The HST was designed in a different age, to meet a very different idea of what InterCity rail travel was, so yes, it is a comment on the times. What were you expecting, a silver service restaurant car?

Click to expand...

While that would have been nice, I was expecting exactly what I saw (and I hope there wasn't any confirmation bias in that).

The operators will likely have different views among themselves about what interiors and catering provision they want to. Arriva would probably happily go for DafT's idea on catering, since it looks like a Voyager-type offer. Nat Express likely the same, given what they did to Liverpool St-Norwich catering. I suspect FGW, who binned the idea of trolley-only HSTs and came up with inserting mini-buffets instead, would probably be more likely to go for a Class 180 type set-up. Stagecoach could go either way, looking at SWT and Virgin Rail's different approaches.

Mark Hopwood of FGW has already questioned whether a five-car formation is the right way to go, looking at growth forecasts and current loadings on some Class 180-worked services, so what you call a default position may prove to be nothing of the sort by the time the pre-production versions emerge and if he's prepared to take them on over that point, which, looking at what the invitation to tender said about formations, FGW and perhaps other bidders did, then I'd expect them to be equally clear about any other things they want to see changed.

Click to expand...

That's possible, I suppose.

LE Greys said:

That's possible, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Yes it is, it's in black and white in the GW invitation to tender https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3596/invitation-to-tender.pdf on page 77. Note the last bit in brackets.

However, under Schedule 8 of the MARA [Master Availability and Reliability Agreement] the Secretary of State can vary the MARA (and TARA) [Train Availability and Reliability Agreement] in certain circumstances and to the extent that a Bidder wishes to develop proposals that may involve:
alteration of the Rules of the Fleet and/or Rules of the Depot; changes to the maintenance or any facility where the maintenance provider carries out stabling of the IEP Fleet or minor or routine maintenance of the IEP Fleet; re-marshalling of the sets comprised in the IEP Fleet as long as this is still compliant with the Train Technical Description and the Train Technical Specification (as both terms are defined under the MARA); minor changes to the performance capabilities of a set or any vehicle comprised in a set; and changes to the passenger environment of a set (including in respect of the catering areas).

Click to expand...

The Ham said:

.. and even when they do provide "evidence" it is what we'd all be saying anyway.

Click to expand...

The most likely explanation for the low cost is a reduction in tolerances. This was part of the means by which gauge clearance was achieved for the larger containers. It was explained in a talk at IMechE by the individual responsible for carrying through the programme on the freight side.

There was double-counting of tolerances, once to take account of vehicle movements and the second time to take account of inaccuracies in the location of the actual track. With improved methods of surveying using laser measurements, it became possible to reduce the second of these.

That said, the figure given is before the fact. I would still maintain that lengthening the vehicles was not the best way of using the space, whatever it is, within the loading gauge, and that priority should have been given to maintaining a maximum width eg the same 2.82 metres permitted to 20 metre stock. Even at 2.82 metres wide BR has the narrowest standard gauge stock in Europe.

Arent some Swiss standard gauge trains only 2.3m wide?

RAGNARØKR;1366289 said:

The most likely explanation for the low cost is a reduction in tolerances. This was part of the means by which gauge clearance was achieved for the larger containers. It was explained in a talk at IMechE by the individual responsible for carrying through the programme on the freight side.

There was double-counting of tolerances, once to take account of vehicle movements and the second time to take account of inaccuracies in the location of the actual track. With improved methods of surveying using laser measurements, it became possible to reduce the second of these.

That said, the figure given is before the fact. I would still maintain that lengthening the vehicles was not the best way of using the space, whatever it is, within the loading gauge, and that priority should have been given to maintaining a maximum width eg the same 2.82 metres permitted to 20 metre stock. Even at 2.82 metres wide BR has the narrowest standard gauge stock in Europe.

Click to expand...

Given the rules on budgeting for new projects tend to include about 60% for contingencies, it is unlikely that the project will go over budget.

Given how busy the UK network is, unless by widening the trains enough to get a reasonable 3+2 seating layout, it is better to lengthen the trains (especially given the fairly low cost that you have provided for the gauge clearance works) and provide more seats per train than it is to have an extra 2cm on seats which are of adequate width for most people.

As with more seats there is less need to sit next to wide people than there is with less but wider seats, and anyway 2cm per seat is unlikely to make it much more comfortable. Especially as the seats are already comfortably within the range of seat widths for first class airline seats.

The Ham said:

Especially as the seats are already comfortably within the range of seat widths for first class airline seats.

Click to expand...

That's as may be but they do not compare favourably with the THIRD CLASS corridor coaches built by the LNER and LMS and BR sixty to eighty years ago. What kind of progress is that?

RAGNARØKR;1368616 said:

That's as may be but they do not compare favourably with the THIRD CLASS corridor coaches built by the LNER and LMS and BR sixty to eighty years ago. What kind of progress is that?

Click to expand...

The sort of progress where there are more passengers travelling on the network now than then and there were a lot more route miles then, so the network is busier and requires the trains to be able to carry people efficiently.

The Ham said:

The sort of progress where there are more passengers travelling on the network now than then and there were a lot more route miles then, so the network is busier and requires the trains to be able to carry people efficiently.

Click to expand...

I've done a few checks on ths, the number of journeys on the network was highest in the Edwardian period, although the number of passenger miles was far lower. So we have about the same number of passengers, but travelling twice as far over a much lesser route mileage, let alone track mileage. This makes the passenger density much higher.

Also, while we may concentrate on the GW Dreadnoughts, LNER TTOs or MkI TSOs as a comparison, much of the network was operated by pre-grouping compartment stock, which was seriously uncomfortable. People called them 'knee-knockers', 11 compartments on some with 10-12 seats in each, not counting standees down the middle. What's happened really is that the distinction between various types of stock has met in the middle. Some have lost out, other have gained. Compare a B-set with a 150, or a Quad-art with a 313, and it's different, but not necessarily better. No toilets on a B-set for instance (IIRC) although there is more luggage space.

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/publicationsdocuments/npsA67D_tmp.pdf

We have seen some mock-ups put up on the notice boards at work today of one of the Kitchen ends with 1st class. Exterior was shown too. It appears that these trains will be DOO only on current plans as they are currently being shown as having DOO cameras on the doors much like the 377's. Can't see Intercity stock having only a driver on board. Going down the South Eastern High Speed path of having OBM's perhaps?

Captain Chaos said:

We have seen some mock-ups put up on the notice boards at work today of one of the Kitchen ends with 1st class. Exterior was shown too. It appears that these trains will be DOO only on current plans as they are currently being shown as having DOO cameras on the doors much like the 377's. Can't see Intercity stock having only a driver on board. Going down the South Eastern High Speed path of having OBM's perhaps?

Click to expand...

I would guess that the DOO equiptment is there so that they won't have to use guards on the DOO 166/165 services that they will be used one. The Bedwyn services are DOO if I remember correctly.

222002 said:

I would guess that the DOO equiptment is there so that they won't have to use guards on the DOO 166/165 services that they will be used one. The Bedwyn services are DOO if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps we could be seeing Scotrail-style DOO?

Captain Chaos said:

We have seen some mock-ups put up on the notice boards at work today of one of the Kitchen ends with 1st class. Exterior was shown too. It appears that these trains will be DOO only on current plans as they are currently being shown as having DOO cameras on the doors much like the 377's. Can't see Intercity stock having only a driver on board. Going down the South Eastern High Speed path of having OBM's perhaps?

Click to expand...

I have it on good authority that they will be Driver Realease, Guard Close like most other UK recent stock (excepting voyagers) including the 395s which is what most were expecting. I am also told there are designs for both plug and pocket doors.

The required technical specifications and route availability and reliability contracts have been published.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ogramme-technical-specification-and-contracts

Im reading through the specs now, will fire off anything I notice.

* Units can be coupled automatically within 2 minutes, maximum length in service of 312m and out of service of 624m.
* Minimum length 130m where 2x 130m can be coupled to form a 260m train.
* The ability to add or remove carriages between formations (rather than fixed formations) is still in and formations can be shortformed so long as required function carriages sill present. Process must take under 8 hours.
* DOO using cameras (as already mentioned) but also must be capable of guard release and driver close and driver release and guard close as well. DGO-D, DGO-G.
* GPS based, Balise based and on board selectable SDO.
* Weight:
233.3 tonnes for a nominally 130m long Electric IEP Unit;
249.3 tonnes for a nominally 130m long Bi-mode IEP Unit;
352.5 tonnes for a nominally 208m long Electric IEP Unit;
376.5 tonnes for a nominally 208m long Bi-mode IEP Unit;
399.8 tonnes for a nominally 234m long Electric IEP Unit; and
431.8 tonnes for a nominally 234m long Bi-mode IEP Unit.

* Minimum top speed of 125mph when fully loaded, upgradable in future
* Theres energy efficency targets for certain routes and when stationary
* Repariability target, must be able to be repaired in a timely service after colliding with a family saloon at 50mph, colliding with a buffer at 15mph, derailing at 15mph, depot sideswipe at 15mph, After running over small objects on track such as a shopping cart at 125mph must be returnable to service within 8 hours.
* Required minimum acceleration graph, looks to be 0.75 m/s/s upto 50kph, 0.3 at 100kph, 0.2 at 150 and 0.1 at 200.
* Pid system must have a capacity of at least 2MB for text messages and 1GB for audio announcements, capable of being swapped from one franchise route to anothers overnight. Train crew should have ability to create own scrolling messages in service.
* Digital centralised seat booking and bicycle storage booking with displays above each seat. (not heard of bicycle storage booking before?)
* AWS, TPWS, BR-ATP, ETCS level 2 version 2.3.0d and capable of being upgraded to ETCS level 3 with only a software update.
* A whole host of track and train monitoring systems required to be fitted as standard or in a small proportion of units.
* Built in wi-fi provision though its operators decision whether to use or not.
* Minimum of one electrical socket for each pair of seats. Socket for wheelchair spaces, socket per seat in first class.
* Quite a large requirement for bins
* Catering provision can be selected by toc through swapping carriages in one of 8 carriage combinations across four levels of service.
Level 1, First class restaurant and kitchen
Level 2, Hot and cold snacks served at seat in first and from trolley/shop in standard
Level 3, Hot and cold snacks served from shop
Level 4, Trolley service
* Capable of having internal partition doors fitted
* 1 man Crew Office capable of being fitted to any intermediate coach location by of toc choice