East Coast IEP Electric Option

[tbtc]

May I point out something regarding the layout of modern trains. At Liverpool St when the platform is announced for the intercity trains to Norwich there is a mass rush of passengers to be first on to get a table seat. I have noticed that Chiltern, on their new "Silver sets", are all table seats. For interior layout it would seem passengers certainly prefer a table seat to an airline seat. As far as the interior of IEP is concerned (if it goes ahead which I doubt it will do as the economics simply don't add up!) it should be about passenger comfort due to the long distances and hence the large amount of time passengers will spend on them. For commuter trains it should be get as many seats in as possible but long distance should be designed for comfort.

Is there a link between a table seat and "comfort" though?

Or is "comfort" just about the quality of the seats?

Does "comfort" depend on a clear view out of the window?

 

[Dave1987]

Is there a link between a table seat and "comfort" though?

Or is "comfort" just about the quality of the seats?

Does "comfort" depend on a clear view out of the window?

I never mentioned anything about windows! I was merely pointing out that passengers tend to like table seats and that for long distance journeys comfort should come above capacity.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I never mentioned anything about windows! I was merely pointing out that passengers tend to like table seats and that for long distance journeys comfort should come above capacity.

One of the reason I like table seats is that I often get the whole set of 4 seats to myself, especially on Virgin services

 

[Brunel]

I do hope sense prevails on the East Coast. IEP is way too expensive. The poor souls on GW will be lumbered with ticket prices rising just to pay for the rental on the train imposed on them by civil servents and no one wants. Class 390 are awful trains to travel in. No need for tilt on the east coast. Having seen the mark 4 revamp it looks great. Plus Traxx. Cost effective and a nice journey.

 

[broadgage]

It is sometimes said that one reason for overcrowding is that TOCs can not justify the cost of hiring or leasing additional rolling stock.
If they cant afford the presumably RELATIVELY modest costs for fairly old existing stock, how will they pay the presumably much higher leasing costs of the very expensive proposed new trains ?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have noticed that Chiltern, on their new "Silver sets", are all table seats. For interior layout it would seem passengers certainly prefer a table seat to an airline seat.

They do have some airline seat rows at the ends of each carriage, and these do get some occupants even when the carriage is near empty.

 

[HSTEd]

I do hope sense prevails on the East Coast. IEP is way too expensive. The poor souls on GW will be lumbered with ticket prices rising just to pay for the rental on the train imposed on them by civil servents and no one wants. Class 390 are awful trains to travel in. No need for tilt on the east coast. Having seen the mark 4 revamp it looks great. Plus Traxx. Cost effective and a nice journey.

But its not cost effective.
In ten years you will have to buy a horde of new vehicles that will cost an awful lot of money.

There is a reason pretty-much everyone is abandoning loco hauled trains as fast as possible.

 

[tbtc]

I never mentioned anything about windows! I was merely pointing out that passengers tend to like table seats and that for long distance journeys comfort should come above capacity.

I'm just trying to establish what this "comfort" that everyone wants actually is. Is it just a comfortable seat (i.e. better padding) or does it go beyond that?

If its just a comfortable seat then the table isn't an issue. But then if a table is an issue then what's the trade off between a table, a plug and a good window view ? And what's the trade off between improved legroom and forcing people to stand? Different people have different priorities.

 

[The Ham]

I do hope sense prevails on the East Coast. IEP is way too expensive. The poor souls on GW will be lumbered with ticket prices rising just to pay for the rental on the train imposed on them by civil servents and no one wants. Class 390 are awful trains to travel in. No need for tilt on the east coast. Having seen the mark 4 revamp it looks great. Plus Traxx. Cost effective and a nice journey.

But East Coast are getting 38% of the IEP fleet, so it's not just GW that are getting them.

Also the electric IEP's are likely to cost less per coach than the first load as there will be less engines required.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I prefer the noise of the engine on a voyager to the constant creaking and squeaking of carriages on a HST because the vestibule doors are stuck open again.... If someone did a proper refurb on a voyager they would be good trains, not as good as a properly maintained HST but good trains. Seats on the voyager arnt great but then again i don't like the ones on East Coast both make my arse fall to sleep...

People dont want to sit opposite people anymore they want to be left in peace with a seat. Hence the lack of tables. Does this show that trains have got worse. No. I think it shows that we as a nation have become worse people through lack of communication.

 

[Brunel]

But its not cost effective.
In ten years you will have to buy a horde of new vehicles that will cost an awful lot of money.

There is a reason pretty-much everyone is abandoning loco hauled trains as fast as possible.

Personally not convinced. Remember that IEP was a purely Government led design and procurement with minimal involved from TOCs. They wanted a do it all train which is working out very expensive. It currently costs Virgin around £37000 per month per diagrammed unit. The IEP is around the £70000 mark per month per unit on the GW. And that is for the next 20 years. That's an awful lot of money. None of this is Hitachi's fault as they are dictated to by our DfT. immature their product will be great if the Javelin is anything to go by. And also DB have ordered 450 new TRAXX locos for their network. They like it because it brings flexibility. You can run shorter formations during off peak times, thereby saving on wear and tear on carriages that would be carrying just air. Much like Virgin do during the day. At peak times more carriages can be added.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But East Coast are getting 38% of the IEP fleet, so it's not just GW that are getting them.

Also the electric IEP's are likely to cost less per coach than the first load as there will be less engines required.

Might be wrong, but financial close on the East Coast IEP hasn't been achieved yet. Electric will be cheaper, but overall the IEP cost an extra £30000 per diagrammed set per month to lease compared to a Pendolino on the West Coast.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm just trying to establish what this "comfort" that everyone wants actually is. Is it just a comfortable seat (i.e. better padding) or does it go beyond that?

If its just a comfortable seat then the table isn't an issue. But then if a table is an issue then what's the trade off between a table, a plug and a good window view ? And what's the trade off between improved legroom and forcing people to stand? Different people have different priorities.

I know what you answer will be but here goes

I want a decent, well padded, supportive seat. I would like the carriage to be set out in a similar fashion to the current EC mkiii or iv layout with a mixture of table and single seats. I want no underfloor engines to ruin the ride.

 

[HSTEd]

Personally not convinced. Remember that IEP was a purely Government led design and procurement with minimal involved from TOCs. They wanted a do it all train which is working out very expensive. It currently costs Virgin around £37000 per month per diagrammed unit. The IEP is around the £70000 mark per month per unit on the GW.

You aren't comparing like with like, the contract for the IEP is far more extensive than any contract for significant amounts of rolling stock has been before now.
According to Freedom of Information requests to the DfT, the projected cost for one diagrammed 5-car Bi-mode set is approximately £36,000/month (£180,000 for the set).

What is actually happening is that Hitachi sees it can take the government to the cleaners with a PFI and is doing precisely what all businesses want to do. (Make as much money as possible).

And also DB have ordered 450 new TRAXX locos for their network.

Almost all of the TRAXX locomotives held by DB are used on freight runs, and the remainder were purchased because they have had continuous procurement of new loco hauled stock up until the present day.
They have a large fleet of hauled stock which will be around for 30 years or more before it needs replacing.... Britain does not.

Additionally they have now begun the ICx programme, which will replace essentially all daytime intercity hauled stock with a new fleet of multiple units.

They like it because it brings flexibility. You can run shorter formations during off peak times, thereby saving on wear and tear on carriages that would be carrying just air. Much like Virgin do during the day. At peak times more carriages can be added.

So now you have absurd amounts of rolling stock just sitting around doing absolutely nothing for most of the day.... what are the marginal costs of putting it in use? (You have to have the same amount of rolling stock available for peak times)
Remember that you can just dump very cheap tickets on advanced purchase if you want to now.

What are the marginal costs of having to have hordes of shunters around to perform all the shunt moves required to add extra carriages to the middle of a formation?
What are the marginal costs of having to book lots of additional paths in and out of termini because you have to take the train to some yard to get additional carriages spliced in?

Changing formation lengths is a false economy, especially when we have electric traction.

 

[tbtc]

Personally not convinced. Remember that IEP was a purely Government led design and procurement with minimal involved from TOCs. They wanted a do it all train which is working out very expensive. It currently costs Virgin around £37000 per month per diagrammed unit. The IEP is around the £70000 mark per month per unit on the GW. And that is for the next 20 years. That's an awful lot of money

IEP is costed differently (so that all costs are included - Hitatchi looking after the units), and is partly funded by PPI.

You could easily cost IEP differently, or buy more 390s through expensive PPI - the funding is unrelated to the capabilities of the trains though

DB have ordered 450 new TRAXX locos for their network. They like it because it brings flexibility. You can run shorter formations during off peak times, thereby saving on wear and tear on carriages that would be carrying just air. Much like Virgin do during the day. At peak times more carriages can be added

In theory you could use loco hauled services to add/remove coaches to suit demand...

...but how many daytime loco-hauled trains in the UK join/split? EMUs and DMUs do it all the time, but the only joining/splitting loco-hauled trains I can think of in recent years have been the (overnight) sleepers.

Of course, the five coach bi-mode IEPs will be joining/ splitting regularly.

 

[The Ham]

Basicly there are 3 options all with risks

referb the 91's and Mark 4's then eak them out until HS2 phase 2 and then just use the IEP's when the numbers of passengers fall to about to about early 2000 levels, maybe a few more EMU's purchased at that time - risk of passenger numbers growing higher than 2.5% per year and a new order of IC trains needed anyway or that passenger numbers overwelm them (as HS2 is not built or is started late or passenger numbers grow more than 2.5% per year) and they can not be lengthened as basicly 2 coach lengths of each train can not be used to carry passengers

new loco with referbed Mark 4's which then need replacing at about the same time as HS2 phase 2 is built, passenger numbers fall (as above), some new coachs ordered - risk of some Loco's sitting idle until growth finds a use for them or that passenger numbers overwelm them (as HS2 is not built or is started late or passenger numbers grow more than 2.5% per year) and they can not be lengthened as basicly 2 coach lengths of each train can not be used to carry passengers

new electric IEP's ordered, once HS2 phase 2 dimishes passenger numbers the spare bi-modal IEP's used to replace the 22x's as they start to reach life expendancy - risk that electrification stops in CP6 so little chance of re using them elsewhere or that a new order of IC trains is required before the opening of HS2, then there is insufficant work for them post opening or that (as HS2 is not built or is started late or passenger numbers grow more than 2.5% per year) that more of them are required and there is no way to build a follow on order.

A lot boils down to what passenger numbers are likely to do and if HS2 will be built or (if it is built) when HS2 will be opening. Given passenger numbers seam to be growing a lot faster than NR's model (which is 2.5% growth per year), then it could well be that there will be a need for the IEP follow on order as well as EC keeping their IC225's and maybe even XC getting some extra IC EMU's as well. Conversly (as it is unlikely that rail passenger numbers will fall dramicly) we could do with what we've got and just replace as it reaches its life expendancy.

 

[edwin_m]

Part of the reason people want table seats is that they are often the only ones with enough room to use a laptop, and on some TOCs also the only ones with power sockets.

Provide sockets at all seats (and I mean every seat not shared between two!) and increase the seat pitch and the face-to-backs will be more popular. Certainly when trying to work on a crowded train I'd rather sit in a face-to-back than eyeballing a stranger across a table, especially if they are trying to use a laptop too!

 

[WatcherZero]

Possible on future classes but most existing trains dont have the spare transformer capacity to support more than a handful of sockets.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Four options the mag advise are; IEP, Traxx and Mark 4 overhaul, Pendolino, Status Quo.

I'd take mrk4 overhaul, but without Traxx and with a seated DVT using the bogies from the current ones (as I think Portorbrook propose for mrk3s) instead of moving the buffet away from standard class passengers. If you could make Traxx look like a 91 I'd be tempted to take that option, but the Traxx looks like a freight/100/110mph loco, not an INTERCITY loco like the 91.

surely Mk 4s are only just over 20 years old?

Pretty much bang-on 20 years I think, the first 4/5 91s are just over 20 years but the mrk4s were delivered slightly later.

I realise that the window configuration on the Pendo is defined by the need to tilt, it doesn’t explain the interior being so uncomfortable.

Mrk4s were designed to tilit, Voyagers were designed to tilt, both have bigger windows than 390s.

a loco (or two in the case of the IC125's) takes up valuable platform space and given how busy train services have got of late then it is cheaper to build IC MU with more capacity than trying to increase platform lengths

An IC MU still has crumple zones in the end vehicles though, taking up valuable platform space. If you go DaFT and order short IC MUs you get double crumple zones if you run them in multiple, which probably takes up as much platform space as a loco. Also, depending on signal placement, the platforms at intermediate stations don't necessarily need to accomadate the loco.

Likewise, as journey times have fallen there has been less demand from passengers for complex meals on trains and so micro buffets have become more acceptable to the travelling public.

My argument is, if you are making a long journey, for example taking a short holiday, if you drive you are likely to stop at a service station for your evening meal. On a train (admittedly a short one you couldn't put a buffet in) I reached my destination late in the evening when all eating places had probably shut, and I all I had for dinner of a peice of flapjack or two. I wasn't at all happy. If Intercity trains served evening meals, prefrably to slightly higher standard than motorways services but a similar selection, you could market it as passengers wouldn't have to stop en-route for food and you could avoid having passengers suffer on just flapjack.

My oposition to downgrading West of England services to DMUs is not in fact the location of the power source, but the fact that DMUs will be short, nasty and cramped.

If the train had 10 coaches, a full restaurant, luggage racks, facing seats at tables, and with a proper intercity layout, then I dont mind underfloor engines if properly silenced and mounted so as to minimise vibration.

I'd agree, except the DMU would drink more fuel than an IC125, not good for the environment, and be newer (delaying any prospect of electrification) also not good for the environment.

what is this "keeping luggage with them " mantra that seems to be parroted at every opportunity? :roll:

It might help if the overhead rack was bigger than a letter box but all that happens these days is that passengers simply leave their house sized case on the seat next to them therefore reducing the capacity of the train. Stick it in a rack at the end of the carriage and put your hand luggage in the rack over your head.

I often take a fairly heavily packed rucksack with me when I travel. It'll fit in a Pendo's overhead racks, it will just about fit in the racks of ATW 158s but a 175's are just a tad too small.

Central doors on a 444?

There is one central door I think, look at photos of a whole set and you'll see it.

Anyway, this thread started off about 91/Mk4 replacement on the ECML so there obviously won't be underfloor engines - it'll be an EMU.

Unless it's IEP, in which case it won't be an EMU, it'll have underfloor engines (but it will have a pantograph as well). Very silly if you ask me, running diesels all the way to London and back means you need many more diesels than if you only run them over the off-wire section by using locos to drag EMUs.

bringing more 'proper' food on trains would be a good call, something like EMT's first all day offer, maybe in some sort of packaging so those in standard can take it from the buffet to their seat more easily?

What is EMT's offer? What is your definition of 'proper food'?

 

[jopsuk]

Possible on future classes but most existing trains dont have the spare transformer capacity to support more than a handful of sockets.

HSTs and mark 4s have cheerfully been refitted with one socket per 2 seats throughout Standard.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Unless it's IEP, in which case it won't be an EMU, it'll have underfloor engines

Nope. That's not correct.
Part of the IEP order is for EMU versions.
The only diesel engines present on those will be the limp home, last mile generators, present on one (or is it now two?) vehicles in the set.

 

[WatcherZero]

HSTs and mark 4s have cheerfully been refitted with one socket per 2 seats throughout Standard.

Which had a lot of spare capacity as they never achieved their design potential.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Part of the IEP order is for EMU versions.
The only diesel engines present on those will be the limp home, last mile generators, present on one (or is it now two?) vehicles in the set.

Yeah, so it isn't an EMU, it has an underfloor engine. I think the 'limp-home' engine is likely to be the same type as the bi-modes have, just only one of them rather than several. How often do the wires actually fall down, is it enough to be worth scarificing the reduced weight and maintenance benifits of not having diesel engines? Maybe the ECML OHLE falls down often enough, but I hope the GWML wires are better constructed.

 

[broadgage]

Part of the reason people want table seats is that they are often the only ones with enough room to use a laptop, and on some TOCs also the only ones with power sockets.

Provide sockets at all seats (and I mean every seat not shared between two!) and increase the seat pitch and the face-to-backs will be more popular. Certainly when trying to work on a crowded train I'd rather sit in a face-to-back than eyeballing a stranger across a table, especially if they are trying to use a laptop too!

Possibly, but the whole point of removing tables when stock is modernised, or not providing them on new stock is to cram in a few more seats.
Legroom and/or tables are now very last century.
The future is considered to be short, high density multiple units.

 

[JamesRowden]

Yeah, so it isn't an EMU, it has an underfloor engine. I think the 'limp-home' engine is likely to be the same type as the bi-modes have, just only one of them rather than several. How often do the wires actually fall down, is it enough to be worth scarificing the reduced weight and maintenance benifits of not having diesel engines? Maybe the ECML OHLE falls down often enough, but I hope the GWML wires are better constructed.

I doubt that the diesel generator will require much maintenance considering how little work it will do. The maintenance/contruction saving it will allow is that the depots and sidings that it will use will not need to have wires.

 

[DarloRich]

So how will the IEP get to Inverness or aberdeen?

 

[JamesRowden]

So how will the IEP get to Inverness or aberdeen?

A bi-mode IEP would be used (not the electric IEP that I was refering to).

 

[Ships]

This whole mk3/4 vs modern emus/IEP is pretty hilarious. The main reason the penolino/voyagers are less roomy that mk 3s/4s are because they where designed within the mk3 envelop to save having to gauge clear them for the network. This isn't happening with the IEP so coupled with the fact it's going be a fair bit longer than the mk4 should make for better interiors than previously mentioned units.

As an aside the meridian has shown that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the voyager.

 

[Bridge189]

I'd take mrk4 overhaul, but without Traxx and with a seated DVT using the bogies from the current ones (as I think Portorbrook propose for mrk3s) instead of moving the buffet away from standard class passengers. If you could make Traxx look like a 91 I'd be tempted to take that option, but the Traxx looks like a freight/100/110mph loco, not an INTERCITY loco like the 91.

Pretty much bang-on 20 years I think, the first 4/5 91s are just over 20 years but the mrk4s were delivered slightly later.

I don't think a seated DVT is likely at all. The refurb plans showed the kitchen in the DVT with the buffet still in its same position meaning the current kitchen area could potentially be the relocated Guards office and luggage area. There was also the option for a totally re engineered cl91 instead of traxx locos.

 

[Dave1987]

May I point something out that I have read about IEP, when it was first conceived during the "good" times it was going to be all singing all dancing ultra ultra modern. From what I have read though they are stalling because it is simply too expensive for what it is at the moment. They are thinking of lowering the spec but by doing that you are bringing the economics back towards keeping the current rolling stock and refurbing it to a high standard. I think some people still think IEP will still be an all singing all dancing train when if it does go ahead (very unlikely IMO) it will be a much lower spec than what is being bounded around. Otherwise the order would be finalised by now.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'd take mrk4 overhaul, but without Traxx and with a seated DVT using the bogies from the current ones (as I think Portorbrook propose for mrk3s) instead of moving the buffet away from standard class passengers. If you could make Traxx look like a 91 I'd be tempted to take that option, but the Traxx looks like a freight/100/110mph loco, not an INTERCITY loco like the 91.

I don't think i'm going to base my opinion on what operates the ECML intercity services based on looks thanks...