IEP - signed

[Zoe]

If I have to spend £1 a year for the next 30 years or something, it is effectively equivalent to me borrowing a certain sum and having to pay back those £30 as if they were repayments on the loan.

The extra cost will be passed onto the taxpayer with extra added on, that is how PFIs work.

The railways are not entirely funded by the taxpayer and the government want to shift the burden even further away from the taxpayer so it's not as simple as the government paying the full cost of the trains.

 

[LE Greys]

We don't know if 23m vehicles are significantly cheaper than 26m ones though, and since we would need more vehicles for each train to have the same capacity, thanks to extra vestibules and the like, it is not clear what the saving overall would be.

Sine 26m vehicles have certain operational benefits that are hard to derive cash values for I chose to exclude them from the analysis.
But either way the saving seems sufficiently large to cause me to question its accuracy.

It's possible to make a comparison there. People were sceptical about the 75ft HST trailers replacing 64ft MkIIs, but the design team turned round and said that they had designed the longest practical coach. The reasons they gave were exactly the same, more capacity because of fewer vestibules and doors as well as lighter weight and fewer wheels for the same passenger capacity, so less track wear. Operating costs were indeed lowered, and history says they were right. I'm assuming that 85ft coaches are practical, there's no way they would be built if they were not. Therefore, it's probably a safe assumption that they are doing the right thing by building them, although I'd like to see something that long tested on all cleared routes before any new coaches are constructed.

 

[David]

There's just 1 minor problem with 26m carriages on the GWML ....

Over on WNXX, people are saying the gap from the door on 23m long stock to the platform is already excessive (not just Joe public either, these are drivers and guards with FGW). Currentl, there is only 2 platforms available where 26m carriages will be able to fit and the average person will be able to step into them, and not make a leap of faith ....

 

[tbtc]

There's just 1 minor problem with 26m carriages on the GWML ....

Over on WNXX, people are saying the gap from the door on 23m long stock to the platform is already excessive (not just Joe public either, these are drivers and guards with FGW). Currentl, there is only 2 platforms available where 26m carriages will be able to fit and the average person will be able to step into them, and not make a leap of faith ....

Maybe we should go back to those short four wheel GWR coaches that seemed to be on every model railway in the '70s?

 

[IanXC]

There's just 1 minor problem with 26m carriages on the GWML ....

Over on WNXX, people are saying the gap from the door on 23m long stock to the platform is already excessive (not just Joe public either, these are drivers and guards with FGW). Currentl, there is only 2 platforms available where 26m carriages will be able to fit and the average person will be able to step into them, and not make a leap of faith ....

Does the design of IEP not have the doors positioned further away from the end of the coach than existing designs? Thus meaning the doors are in about the same position as on Mark 3s?

Although on second thoughts I'm not sure this would entirely solve the problem.

 

[WatcherZero]

Your right, last I saw the doors wernt on the tapering with the tapering section to be used for toilet/baggage racks/standing instead.

 

[swt_passenger]

Your right, last I saw the doors wernt on the tapering with the tapering section to be used for toilet/baggage racks/standing instead.

There's little reason why the opinion of a couple of vocal individuals on wnxx who happen to work for FGW should be given much credence.

Until they see the final designs they know nothing more than anyone else.

Roger Ford has described the solution as being exactly what you just mentioned, with the toilets being in a tapered section between the vestibules and the gangways, IIRC (without looking it up).

 

[Yew]

Does the design of IEP not have the doors positioned further away from the end of the coach than existing designs? Thus meaning the doors are in about the same position as on Mark 3s?

Although on second thoughts I'm not sure this would entirely solve the problem.

It would make it worse. If you look at this picture of a bow, that shows a reasonable explaination of the overhead view

If the doors are close to the ends of the string (the carriage) are reasonably close to the bow (the curved platform) However if the doors are moved further inwards then they will be further away from the end of the platform. For a platform cuvred the oppsosite way, then doors near the middle would be better.

The problem is compounded by the width of the carriage, a 26m carriage will have to be thinner than a 23m coach

 

[swt_passenger]

The problem is compounded by the width of the carriage, a 26m carriage will have to be thinner than a 23m coach

Hitachi's data sheet quoted 2.7m width.

Wider than a 444 then...

 

[starrymarkb]

It would make it worse. If you look at this picture of a bow, that shows a reasonable explaination of the overhead view

If the doors are close to the ends of the string (the carriage) are reasonably close to the bow (the curved platform) However if the doors are moved further inwards then they will be further away from the end of the platform. For a platform cuvred the oppsosite way, then doors near the middle would be better.

The problem is compounded by the width of the carriage, a 26m carriage will have to be thinner than a 23m coach

I thought 158s had the doors mounted over the bogies to keep the gap fairly constant?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Looks like it has been confirmed

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/4...in-line-express-trains-announced-7975976.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...-gX0pm6E3E1fMPMuQ?docId=N0001741343197580073A

 

[LexyBoy]

I thought 158s had the doors mounted over the bogies to keep the gap fairly constant?

As does most IC stock, more or less. The platform follows the curve of the track, so placing the doors as close as possible to the bogie centres (and thus as close to centred on the track as possible) will place the doors as close as they can be to the platform.

I've experienced much worse gaps between train and platform with commuter stock than IC stock.

 

[34Short]

Everything would be a lot simpler if it wasn't for ROSCO's and banks...