IEP - Express Rail Alliance Design unveiled:

[Chafford1]

I was under the impression that the ICE trains would displace all of the Intercity 225s, giving NXEC a fleet with only one type of train? :?

I think that's the plan.

 

[rail-britain]

No, sadly not at this stage, there are no plans to replace the InterCity 225 trains on the ECML franchise
The main advantage to the IEP will be that can utilise electric between London and Edinburgh, then switch to diesel between Edinburgh and Inverness / Aberdeen

The IEP project is for 200 vehicles, which is enough for 25 sets

edited : 500 to 2000 vehicles (incorrect source on DfT website)

 

[Chafford1]

No, sadly not at this stage, there are no plans to replace the InterCity 225 trains on the ECML franchise
The main advantage to the IEP will be that can utilise electric between London and Edinburgh, then switch to diesel between Edinburgh and Inverness / Aberdeen

The IEP project is for 200 vehicles, which is enough for 25 sets

National Express will be responsible for bringing the pre-series IEP into service on the ECML in 2014 - the original plan was for three 5 coach electric sets, three 9 coach + diesel power unit 'bi-mode' sets, and four 4 coach + diesel 'bi-mode' sets.

The original plan for the first phase of ECML series production includes twenty-four 10 coach electric sets, twenty-six 5 coach electric sets, ten 9 + 1 'bi-mode' sets and twelve 4 + 1 'bi-mode' sets. Phase two for the ECML will provide another eleven 5 coach electric sets.

Of course these plans are likely to change, but if the full length IEPs aren't replacing the 225s, what are they replacing?

The base requirement for the IEP is 1000 vehicles and could be up to 1500 vehicles.

Source 'Informed Sources' Modern Railways January 2008

 

[williamn]

It was rumoured that the diesel versions could be axed in further of electrification...

 

[djw1981]

The initial order replaces HST's. It can be extended to replace 225 / cl90+mk3 if desirable.
The main issue is the trains 'under the wires' carrying teh diesel 'generator, which maeks theses DEMU/Diesel-Electric loco's. This is deemed by some industry technical people (Roger Ford & Nigel Harris especially) to be crazy, when a compatible diesel and electric loco would be easiest, most economical, and help meet the crazy and conflicting requirement - low weight, and high MPG with air con, hotel services, more toilets, and these additional generators. There could be loco change at Edinburgh, and the limits of electrificiation of GWML in the future.

DfT also want fast acceleration and a high top speed, which cannot be used on our ifnrastructure, thus teh gearing will not be suited to doing 70-1000mph (unlesss 2 gearboxes) which is what much of XC runs at. It is truly a camel project.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . crazy and conflicting requirement

For what its worth, that's been my opinion too.

What's the point in an electrified main line if the services running thru it are carrng several tons of piston engines, gallons of fuel and coolants and all the other weighty and bulky ancilliaries all day every day? Might as well just turn off the OHLE and use the engines. Makes as much sense as towing a petrol car behind an electric one.

Despite that, I can see the point in a very small fuel-powered generator in electric locos (with small fuel tank) to cover very low speed movements and emergencies. Could greatly reduce the costs of installing OHLE in every road of some depots and stations for example.

 

[djw1981]

I see you point, but surely having rapid couple loco's would be better than having to drag the weight around. If the coaches remained in same formation from depot to depot (i.e. no splitting) then the braking compressors etc could be in the TGS, would the loco would need fewer tests after a change?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

surely having rapid couple loco's would be better than having to drag the weight around

Yes! I think we're in agreement!
I'm criticising the concept of dual-powered locos/sets. And I agree that a switch at Edin and Leeds would be more sensible (tho as there's currently ony one NXEC train a day to Inverness then I guess using a fuel/engine loco for that solitary service is not such an outrage. Same for the sleepers which already have a switch).

There's scope for improvement in the ease with which locos can be coupled while a train is in service too, and that would make the all-electric-when-under-the-wires concept even more effective.

 

[Nick W]

I was under the impression that the ICE trains would displace all of the Intercity 225s, giving NXEC a fleet with only one type of train? :? Hopefully the 225s will be kept in the mean time, though. It would have seemed short sighted to remove the 225s which certainly still have life in them. I would hope, however, that there are more ICE trains on the East Coast than there are HSTs. More trains means more capacity/greater frequency of services and I think we all know that the East Coast is becoming a very busy rail line.

I also hope Crosscountry will get quite a few; certainly more than 10 for them IMO.

I reckon the IEP trains will eventually replace the 90 + Mk3 sets on Anglia Intercity services to satisfy the 12 coach EMUs promised in the route utilisation strategy. While it will be a sad day when this occurs, it's innevitable and I just hope we don't get a commuter, 360-like EMU.

Of course you may be right - we might get Mk4 hand-me-downs

And HSTs for Lowestoft and Peterborough to reduce overcrowding!

 

[djw1981]

Yes! I think we're in agreement!
I'm criticising the concept of dual-powered locos/sets. And I agree that a switch at Edin and Leeds would be more sensible (tho as there's currently ony one NXEC train a day to Inverness then I guess using a fuel/engine loco for that solitary service is not such an outrage. Same for the sleepers which already have a switch).

But there are also 4 Aberdeen services - so thats 5 in total... would allow to have all the diesel units based in EC. Could also go back to carriage depots and loco depots though..... If run with a standard DVT on the other end, this could make changes quite easy - say all loco's on Northfacing end at Kings Cross.

Lincoln and Bradford/Skipton services could be interesting to diagram though.


GWML may need to start all diesel, but if electrification spread, then additional carriage orders can come online and the diesels be cascaded to other routes - replacing / adding capacity to XC routes (incl Stansted!) and EMT - as teh electric cars are introduced on GWML.

 

[yorkie]

This "bi mode" concept is a non-starter. Roger Ford wrote an article that went into a lot of detail a while back, I can't remember when it was. I tried looking in the archives but I can't find it; I think it was more recent than Nov 07 which is how far the achives go. It really is essential reading to understand why bi-mode is not going to be feasible. Not that the DfT will listen to experts, of course...

 

[djw1981]

Added to which the DfT technical person for rail used to be the head of Alsthom's Pendelino facility in Longsight, so his experience will be mostly on distributed traction, which most passengers seem to dislike.

The best plan would be for both conssotia to say that bi-mode is either a) not possible, r to price it so high that DfT won't choose it. To do this would require eitehr huge courage (if the opposition don't do it, and you do then you lose a huge contract) or collusion between the bidders which DfT could use to rule out both bids.

 

[Metroland]

I would suggest, except maybe with EMUs, locos and coaches are probably cheaper anyway. (weren't the voyagers 4 times more expensive than the 47s + MK2s they replaced to run - more parts etc?)

If they do insist on going for something with the D word, perhaps something push-pull where the electric loco can be replaced by diesel for parts yet electrified. You could still have some distributed traction by motorising some of the trailers, with power supplied from the loco. Then at least you aren't committing to one form of traction, which may/may not become obsolete in the future - I would suggest that diesel as a from traction is now passed its sell by date without a massive breakthrough in biofuels.

 

[Mintona]

Why not a similar system to what National Express East Anglia use with the summer Great Yarmouth trains? Use the electric to norwich, then drag the set with a diesel loco the rest of the way. Surely the best way to do it. Though they would need to have locos on the whole time on the GW which wouldn't necessarily work.

 

[djw1981]

Because you are then using 2 "loco's" and dragging one DIT. This means an extra 50 tonnes or so dragged from Edinburgh-Inverness / Aberdeen. If detached at Edinburgh, that Electric loco can be back down the ECML near York, or in EC for attention before a diesel one has dragged the carriages to Inverness, thus you need fewer loco's and also you get better work rate out of the loco's. Also look at the problems Virgin have with a diesel loco pulling an EMU - jerky braking etc because the loco cannot control all the features of the Pendlino.

 

[Techniquest]

I don't know what you mean about jerkiness when braking with the 57 and 390 drags. I did 4 drags yesterday (57315 Crewe to Chester, 57304 Chester to Crewe, 57307 Crewe to Liverpool via Styal and Warrington Central and 57303 Liverpool to Crewe via Warrington Central and Styal), not once did I notice any jerking with the brakes.

Maybe in your experience your 390 was poorly connected up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The IEP project is a direct replacement for all current HSTs, with the East Coast Mainline and Greater Western franchises
There are no plans to replace the InterCity 225 trains on the East Coast Mainline franchise, at this time

If all goes to plan, these HSTs will be replaced by IEP units by the end of 2014
The contract is likely to be awarded early in 2009 with units being delivered for testing at the end of 2011 and training during 2012

If all goes to plan? No change of that then!

 

[Pumbaa]

The Dft website was quite an eyeopener. I didn't realise how close we were to the contract being awarded!

The IEP project is for 200 vehicles, which is enough for 25 sets

Not according to DfT proposal specification etc - they are adamant they want between 500 and 2000 vehicles.

They want to completely replace the HS fleets on the GWML and the ECML.

This is what I don't get though - throughout all the documents I've read through, the DfT is constantly badgering on about how they want flexibility by having a uniform fleet for the entire High Speed network across the UK.

I can already spot three potential problems: a) they've already said as much they're not interested in a renewed electrification scheme, as they underline their interest in bi-energy power, b) if that is the case, then the WCML and GEML aren't part of the HS network then and c) they envisage these lasting for thirty years. Good sodding luck

 

[Techniquest]

I doubt they'll last thirty years, especially considering that most of the country doesn't have wires up yet. By the time it does, if it ever happens, these will be scrapped!

 

[laseandre]

Page 15 of the ITT says that the DfT are looking for at least 90 full sets to start with, and then about 50 more if all routes are included.

 

[Chafford1]

This "bi mode" concept is a non-starter. Roger Ford wrote an article that went into a lot of detail a while back, I can't remember when it was. I tried looking in the archives but I can't find it; I think it was more recent than Nov 07 which is how far the achives go. It really is essential reading to understand why bi-mode is not going to be feasible. Not that the DfT will listen to experts, of course...

Captain Deltic's 'Bi-Mode' article is in April 2008's Modern Railways pages 23 -25.

Essentially, Roger Ford argues that the power to weight ratio of a 10 coach 'Bi-Mode' IEP running with the diesel power unit will be insufficient to meet DfT's specified journey times.


http://www.modern-railways.com/news/issues/april08.php

 

[rail-britain]

The IEP project is for 200 vehicles, which is enough for 25 sets

Misread a different page on the DfT website, that should read 500 to 2000 vehicles
The details I had read should have been read in conjuction with the current ECML franchise

Having now read the tender document, there are the options already knew about, plus the WCML south
This third option will presumably release older Pendelinos back to RoSCo
The final option is for additional units for Cross Country, Greater Western (phase 2), and Transport Scotland

 

[djw1981]

AIUI, option 3 releases pendo's to increase the frequency of services on WCML north and the cascading of WC Voyagers from the Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh routes to another franchise (e.g. XC, or ATW, or GC, or NXEC, etc etc).

[speculation] It could also (with appropriate electrification) replace the 185 on Manchester-Scotland routes. All these would allow maintenance to still be centred on Longsight. [/speculation]

 

[paul1609]

AIUI, Death, they will be replacements for HSTs. Basically, they'll replace the NXEC sets with the dual powered sets (allowing Electric operation to Edinburgh then diesel to Aberdeen/Inverness etc). Initially, therefore, they will be 125mph trains. But they wioll be able to go at least to 140mph. Perhaps even 155mph although I cannot remember what the design specs quoted.

Sadly, no where near your 200mph, but a step in the right direction nonetheless. Hopefully they'll equip it for the higher speeds to let us at least push rail travel one notch further up in this country.

In response to at least some of your other questions; I don't think there'll be "top-up fee" to travel on these trains, as they'll supplement then replace the fleet of HSTs and Intercity 225s. And I think they'll start running on the East Coast by 2014.

I think that through trains from london to Inverness and Aberdeen will end with the HSTs.
Folowing Scottish independence there is no way that English Taxpayers will continue to pay the huge subsidies these services need.

 

[djw1981]

I think that through trains from london to Inverness and Aberdeen will end with the HSTs.
Folowing Scottish independence there is no way that English Taxpayers will continue to pay the huge subsidies these services need.

That does not mean that the Scottish government post independence (which IMO is unlikely to happen at the 2010 referendum, and is more likely in 2030 timeframe) could not fund them, but I agree they are more likely to fund ScotRail, and any successor (most likely not for profit)franchise holder instead of a holder of an E&W Franchise.

 

[paul1609]

Thats fine from a Scots point of view but the fact is that from an english tax payers point of view independence cant come soon enough. I'd like to see Scotish subsidy cut by 33% in 2009 with a view to phasing out by 2012. As far as rail was concerned this would include removal of virgin, nxec network rail subsidies north of carlisle and newcastle.
Berwick u tweed to Newcastle would receive a new EMU service but Inter City Sevices would be a market priced afair of for the Scottish government to fund

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Going back to yesterdays' posts - avoiding the use of heavy diesel AND electric dual-powered units by using electric under the wires and changing locos for a "compatible" diesel unit at e.g. Edin for the rest of the journey.

If run with a standard DVT on the other end, this could make changes quite easy - say all loco's on Northfacing end at Kings Cross.

I think this "compatibility" may be a can of worms!
There's lots of "incompatibilities" - can we just consider the DVT?
Suppose you have a DVT designed to be the remote control surface for an electric loco (which is what we currently have on the ECML with Time Division Multiplexed remote signals running thru the train between the Cl91 and the controls in the DVT). Now suppose that it also has the ability to interface with the alternative diesel locomotive, using the same controls, same protocols and same cabling all to make it as seamless a change over as possible.
First, where is the Train Management while the locos are being swapped? (control of breaks, auxilliary electric power, radio comms, door control etc).
Second, how can the one interface (in the DVT) control both a diesel engined power unit and a current drawing electric loco? (Has this ever been done anywhere before?)
And as a high degree of customer facilities are expected, can we keep power to the kitchen and data to the seat reservation system and use of the intercom running while there is no loco during the changeover?
New challenges for the designers I reckon!

 

[djw1981]

I did ask IF it was possible - the answer appears to be yes but not easily!

The easy solution would be a generator on the TGS which dealt with hotel power and braking compressor etc with loco disconnected, but nothing else. This could be connected by wire to teh loco to simplify the braking?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Yeah - an intermediate generator might be part of the solution.
I'm enuinely interested to know if a DVT has ever been designed which can control both an electric and diesel loco. The option of maintining train services from another power source is interesting too (it could be located in the DVT of course), but even that solution is a move towards an electric train which carries a diesel engine!

It seems that every attempt to solve the problem takes us back to the solution we're trying to avoid - a diesel-engined train under the wires.
We can't win!

 

[rail-britain]

I think that through trains from london to Inverness and Aberdeen will end with the HSTs.
Folowing Scottish independence there is no way that English Taxpayers will continue to pay the huge subsidies these services need.

Many people thought that the InterCity 225 project would see the end of services to Glasgow (Queen Street), Aberdeen, and Inverness
However, there were some options, these included either ordering an additional 8 sets and 10 diesel locos or retaining a smaller fleet of HSTs

Even with IEP services to Inverness and Aberdeen will be retained, they form part of the franchise, and as I understand it if Transport Scotland can agree terms for 5 IEP units then the frequency of such services may increase from those currently available (almost reinstating the Aberdeen frequency to what it was pre-sectorisation)
The downside is that the sets will be smaller than the current HSTs, but once they have served Scotland they will then run limited stop to London

Also, payments for rail travel within Scotland are paid directly to the franchise holder from Transport Scotland, rather than the DfT
Direct services such as these benefit both markets; those traveling from Scotland to England, and those travelling from England to Scotland, and in many cases it reduces the number of changes of train en-route

 

[Metroland]

I'd like to see full electrification and less money spent on pointless oil wars. Plug-in hybrid cars, 40% of freight on rail, more renewable and nuclear energy, phasing out of all flights under 400 miles and high speed rail. Lets make our transport, food and fuel system sustainable and stop writing blank cheques to the military.

Let me make it clear, I'm not knocking our brave people in the forces, but if we are talking about spending tax payers money to solve the biggest crisis's of the 21st century: Energy security, climate change and world stability/terrorsim we should be spending more on rail not less which is one part of the answer.

Instead of rowing about leadership challenges politicians should be concentrating on solving what's important to people: An alternative to their oil powered vehicles and coherent and joined up food, transport and energy policies - not leaving it to market forces and writing blank cheques to other departments.

I'd like to remind people that transport and energy gets the least amount of tax payers money. If we are worried about value for money, lets look at the structure. Lets look an innovative ticketing: 10 million people paying £550 (£46 quid a month, less than some people's mobile phone bills) per year for an off-peak all lines ticket, would equal all the passenger revenue the railway get, and would help a lot of people on a budget to get about which right now is one of people's biggest concerns.