Was the InterCity Express Programme (IEP) a success or not?

[Midnight Sun]

I thought you preferred level boarding vehicles, like the FLIRTs? Make your mind up!

But with a FLIRT, you have a choice of high or low seating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But with a FLIRT, you have a choice of high or low seating.

You do, but the point of low-floor is level boarding. The height of the floor (provided it's not silly-high like UIC stock against a low platform) doesn't overly matter once it's high enough that there's a step. Indeed, I'd say the width and "awkwardness" of the step is a larger factor than whether it's 5" or 8", which is about the difference between the two IET floor heights.

No IET vehicle has a low enough floor for level boarding, so the point is moot.

 

[CBlue]

I can't help notice that some of the arguments stating the IEP wasn't a success seem to be emotive points.

Please don't tell me that a modern and clean MU carriage isn't preferable to a worn out MK3 with squeaky couplings and uncomfortable IC70 seats like GEML passengers had to ensure until recently.

 

[HSTEd]

The IEP programme appears to have produced an acceptable multiple unit.

However the financing side is a disaster for the taxpayer, its an overgrown PFI.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The IEP programme appears to have produced an acceptable multiple unit.

However the financing side is a disaster for the taxpayer, its an overgrown PFI.

I think that is fair. The unit is fundamentally decent - it has faults, but what doesn't - and I will welcome them on the WCML. But the procurement programme that led to it was unnecessarily and massively expensive, as the same thing could have been achieved by going to Hitachi and saying "could you do us a 26m version of the Javelin unit with end doors and diesel capability?", letting them design it and leasing it conventionally from a ROSCO. Because, essentially, that's all it is.

 

[urpert]

If I remember correctly the intercity 225 (Mk4s) were designed for 140mph.

The seats, the seats. Well it may well be subjective. I have not experienced an 80x but if the new seats in the last 377s (which are not really 377s) and 700s are anything like them then I won't dare do a long journey on an 80x.



Does seem counter productive having two short trains doing the job of one longer train. In the UK manpower is expensive so the operational flexibility is unlikely to be worth it. But don't worry - if Cross Country is anything to go by then there will be more shorter trains soon .

The standard seats are the same as the 700 first class seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The standard seats are the same as the 700 first class seats.

Slightly different - the 700 ones are still Fainsa Sophias but have a slightly higher back and a thicker base cushion (so you can't feel the support through it).

 

[Nym]

I’ve only seen one example but the driver’s seat was already showing wear. Are Grammer renowned for making good seats?

View attachment 79146

The mis-match of buttons provided, ick.

No constancy at all.

 

[Ianno87]

I can't help notice that some of the arguments stating the IEP wasn't a success seem to be emotive points.

Please don't tell me that a modern and clean MU carriage isn't preferable to a worn out MK3 with squeaky couplings and uncomfortable IC70 seats like GEML passengers had to ensure until recently.

My last few GEML rides on them really did expose how dated they are. They were good trains, they've had their day, time to move on to the future.

I almost think it's just standard enthusiast bias towards "proper trains" (i.e. loco and coaches) rather than any objectivity.

 

[ashkeba]

It is a bit awkward, but I don't agree that the FLIRT solution is better - tip-up seats in cycle spaces do not make sense, as people sit there and refuse to move.

Fortunately there is a better standard of standard class passenger in the Anglia area because travelling most days in the month before lockdown this was never a problem that I saw!

 

[Devonian]

How revolutionary were the HSTs as a train and not the improved service. At the end of the day they are just push pull loco hauled diesel sets although they do have a high speed.

Wind-tunnel optimised streamlining, monocoque carriage construction and secondary air suspension were significant technical innovations. They were also more revolutionary than the IETS from many passengers' perspectives: as well as faster journey times, for many travellers they were the first truly 'modern' train on their routes, with double glazing, air conditioning, automatic vestibule doors, armchair seating and modern-looking lavatories all being significant upgrades over earlier loco-hauled stock. And there was draught beer in the buffet. By contrast, for most passengers now used to such erstwhile luxuries as standard (apart from the beer), the IET has added the revolution of... push-button external doors.

A bit of wood under the seat cushion would do me, I don't like the fact that I can feel the supporting frameworth through the cushion. Other than that they're very similar to Grammer E3000s.

The Fainsa Sophia seats are also shorter than the E3000s, so the shaped headrests dig in to more people's shoulders. They are, like the E3000, far too upright for long journeys.

That said, whomever designed the sinks in the small toilets should find another profession as a matter of urgency

A problem on almost all modern UK trains, and yet not elsewhere in Europe: hiding the tap spout and dryer nozzle behind a mirror at an awkward height over a badly-shaped basin is not something I have seen on the continent, but becoming universal over here. It's bad design that seems have gone unchallenged. I would cheerfully change my profession to 'designer of tiny train basins' if I could.

I can't help notice that some of the arguments stating the IEP wasn't a success seem to be emotive points.
Please don't tell me that a modern and clean MU carriage isn't preferable to a worn out MK3 with squeaky couplings and uncomfortable IC70 seats like GEML passengers had to ensure until recently.

As well as emotive, it's all highly subjective: until I read these forums I had never noticed MK3s squeaking - for me it's just one of the many sounds that trains make - and I find well-maintained IC70s comfortable. By contrast, no matter how sparkling the interior of an IET, I am in physical discomfort after 30 minutes in the current seats. Worn out and comfortable for me vs shiny and painful for me means a win for tatty comfort in my book. But I totally understand that, if you find the IET seats comfortable, they must seem like much better trains all round.

But to answer the original question: I'd say that it has been a success in delivering a largely uniform and interchangeable fleet of high-speed trains that can be used by mutiple operators across the country, in a relatively short time. The financing is eyebrow-raising; the seats are disappointing; the set formation is debatable. But it's a good starting base for the next twenty years; or at least as good as we were ever likely to get.

 

[fgwrich]

Hi all, first post on here.

As a semi regular passenger on the ECML, mainly from Doncaster to Leeds, I have found journeys on the IET's/Azuma's to be favourable, if not amazing.

Pros
. They are a step up in capacity, it is easier to find a seat than on HSTs/IC225s.
. The increase in tables is definitely welcome, there seems to more legroom when sat down.
. The carriages feel bright and modern.
. The quality of the seats seems to be hotly debated. Personally, I don't think they are that bad, perhaps a little too hard but not a torture rack, but I haven't been sat in one for more than 30-35 mins. A trip to London might change my opinion.

Cons
. The interior, particularly walking between carriages, does feel quite narrow and confined.
. Toilet floors that seem to be regularly flooded.
. The ride quality feels jerky at times.
. Overall build quality feels cheap in some areas.
. While I understand the reasoning behind the 5 car units, I believe that too many were ordered.

The toilets in these, while a step up from the HST (which isn't difficult give the age difference) are another area of poor design. The door is heavy and clunky, and the location of the lock can be confusing to some passengers. I don't like the fact it is the same level as the sink, as it does catch water. The design of the sink / tap unit regularly allows water to end up on the floor (hence the floor often finding itself being flooded), and the hand drier is often temperamental. The disabled toilet also has it's own issues too - and I still keep seeing issues with the door jamming (particularly on canted track).

 

[43096]

I can't help notice that some of the arguments stating the IEP wasn't a success seem to be emotive points.

Please don't tell me that a modern and clean MU carriage isn't preferable to a worn out MK3 with squeaky couplings and uncomfortable IC70 seats like GEML passengers had to ensure until recently.

You start by make a comment about emotive points. Then add nothing except emotive points.

Oh, and for me give me an Anglia Mark 3 over an IEP any day. IC70s are orders of magnitude more comfortable.

 

[broadgage]

Who actually even notices that? I bet hardly anyone does.

I personally prefer the high floor coaches because the window height is better aligned for putting your arm on the sill and the overhead rack is easier to access. I'd have done them all like that.

The steep slope is fairly often given as a reason for the trolley service being static. When it was reluctantly admitted that buffets were not being provided on the GWR units, all sorts of grand promises were made about the trolley service.
The actuality was often a static trolley, if that. Hot drinks, sometimes. Hot food from the trolley was promised but only achieved a couple of times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn't steep. As an excuse not to do a trolley service, it's just that - an excuse.

 

[nlogax]

From a practical perspective they've proven to be reliable and practical and TOCs keep ordering more of them presumably for those reasons. In DfT's eyes that would surely make them successful. Re. financing, what would have been an alternative option?

As for the seats.. judging by the multiple arguments I've seen on this forum over the years it's difficult to know how anyone could arrive at an agreed opinion about them

 

[northernbelle]

The first challenge is to define 'success' I suppose, which is difficult when people's opinions differ.

Although they're not a 'wow' train in my view, I find they are certainly more usable that what they've replaced. I actually get a seat now and have room to work when travelling which was often the let down of the HSTs before them.

For the luggage I tend to bring they are better too - I generally put my bag next to me on the floor. When I carry a suitcase it always fits in the overhead rack whereas it used to be a struggle. Granted the end-of-coach racks are a bit on the small side, but as I prefer to have my bag close to me I never really used these anyway.

The other real win for me, bizarrely in a way, is the window blinds in standard class. As a morning traveller it's an improvement to be able to ease the sun out of my eyes!

The seats aren't 'wow' either, but they don't bother me enough to get excited - they're certainly no worse than the Grammer tombstones that went before!

 

[Dave1987]

Was the Intercity Program a failure? Yes very much so. Extortionately expensive for what it is. It could have been done for far far cheaper. The contracts were ludicrously complicated. And the high floor design is just stupid with coaches that have to be very very long in order to fit the diesel engines underneath. Now there is a situation where the optimal use of them is to not fully electrify and use the diesels at some point as otherwise, you have a high floor train with all the problems that causes, with a load of fresh air underneath if they are removed. So yup a total and complete failure and a lesson from history.

 

[Energy]

coaches that have to be very very long in order to fit the diesel engines underneath.

They don't, the MML is getting a shorter 24m version. 26m is just more popular with operators, longer carriages have been more popular at the moment with 24m EMUs being ordered by Greater Anglia and LNWR where before you would go for 20m.

 

[Dave1987]

They don't, the MML is getting a shorter 24m version. 26m is just more popular with operators, longer carriages have been more popular at the moment with 24m EMUs being ordered by Greater Anglia and LNWR where before you would go for 20m.

Not from what I have read. The engines that are fitted on the IET for GW are very tightly packaged underneath the carriage. I will always maintain the stance that IEP was and still is an extortionately expensive project and a massive flop.

 

[squizzler]

So yup a total and complete failure and a lesson from history.

Wouldn't a "total and complete failure" be one that did not manage even to produce a serviceable train?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other real win for me, bizarrely in a way, is the window blinds in standard class. As a morning traveller it's an improvement to be able to ease the sun out of my eyes!

That's a feature I really dislike, because my eyes handle the sun well, I'm tall (so probably sitting up higher than you) and I like to see out! I would remove them from all stock, replacing with proper curtains in 1st only. Or at a push put a sticker on them stating that if there is a dispute over their state the default is for them to be open.

 

[Purple Orange]

What is a successful train? One that is a success with passengers? One that is a crowd pleaser for enthusiasts? One that pleases the nostalgia junkies? One that pleases the train driver or the on-board chef? One that runs for 25 years?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is a successful train? One that is a success with passengers? One that is a crowd pleaser for enthusiasts? One that pleases the nostalgia junkies? One that pleases the train driver or the on-board chef? One that runs for 25 years?

One that balances all those things, so there are as few dislikers as possible!

I think, barring the seats, it by and large does.

 

[fgwrich]

Ok, so on that basis, Which is the better success? A GW or LNER 800, or a CAF 397?

 

[Energy]

CAF 395?

CAF make 397s, Hitachi make 395s. The 395s are also too different in my opinion, the IEP required bimodes be an option while the 395s didn't and the 395s have doors at 3rds not at the ends and they operate quite different services, the longest the 395s operate is only 1.5 hours.

 

[fgwrich]

CAF make 397s, Hitachi make 395s.

Then CAF 397 Even.

 

[Purple Orange]

One that balances all those things, so there are as few dislikers as possible!

I think, barring the seats, it by and large does.

Personally I think just the first and last items are relevant. If it is a success with passengers and lasts a couple of decades, then yeah it’s a success. If the people who work the train like it then it’s a bonus, but if not then it’s not the end of the world. If enthusiasts dislike it because they prefer LHCS, have a fetish for slam doors and smoking carriages, or think standard class should be called “3rd class”, then tough. They should go to York railway museum.

 

[Energy]

Then CAF 397 Even.

That was a small order of only 12 units and didn't require bimode, only electric.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

First Group's order of 23 AT300s (13 bi-mode, 10 electric) for the WCML to me confirmed the IEP design as successful.
They were not compelled to buy from Hitachi, and there were good reasons to go with Alstom for a tilting design.
That AT300s were ordered demonstrates its flexibility as a design and that its long-term reliability and maintenance is deemed acceptable.
FG has the longest operational experience of the design with GWR/TPE/HT and has obviously not been turned off by it.
Possibly the timescale and cost equation with Hitachi was more favourable than with Alstom, who would have had development to do for a bi-mode UK product.
No doubt the volume of previous production also meant that a run-on order was of high efficiency for Hitachi.
We will have to see how well the AT300 design works operationally on the tilting WCML, where 110mph is still the maximum speed for non-tilting stock.