Indeed, while the vast majority of normal passengers wouldn't care enough to consider it.
Why not? From my (limited) understanding it would be easier to install 25kv over LU 4 rail DC as the return currents are kept separate.
The discussion of Voyagers is interesting, as I feel that as a post-privatisation DEMU they are a better comparison with IEP and its derivative products. I feel it worth looking at what technical advances fifteen short years has brought by looking at what people complained about with Voyagers:
IMO, the scorecard shows a vast technical improvement has been made in the decade and a half that separates their service entry (2016 vis 2001), although many will disagree or feel my analysis misses various things.
- Inadequate accommodation - Great improvement :
- longer coaches
- Minimum length 5 cars vis 4 car for voyagers
- less 'dead space' (crumple zones, etc)
- No 'tilt profile'
- Intrusive engine noises - Great improvement
- Better soundproofing
- Smoother V12 engine vis inline 6 of Voyager.
- No engines in some cars
- Toilet Smells - Fixed
- Energy and Environment - Great improvement:
- Factory fitted 'Project Thor' ('Thor' was a proposed bi-mode upgrade to voyager fleet)
- Efficient modern diesel meeting current emissions controls.
- Lighter car design
Back to the OP's question, it depends for whom.
If you ask Hitachi, they must be overjoyed at how many orders they have received (over 320 AT300s will exist within the next 2 years)
I find they look and feel like a hospital clinic - cold ambiance, over lit and uncomfortable. I speak for most people (enthusiasts, insiders, normal passengers) However they are achieving very decent MTIN figures and will continue to, and they are cheap.
ToCs clearly feel they are a success because they are cheap and reliable and the only viable intercity option. That said, I'm not sure why no one has ordered that 125mph bi-mode Aventra, or more class 397s, 745s or class 68 LHCS which are all far superior IC offerings. These are also competitive options.
In my view, the program is a failure for the UK rail industry because the point of privatization is to encourage a competition for the best rolling stock at the best price. The AT300s are, to the top brass that are placing these orders, unrivaled in competition on all fronts (price, regulatory approval), so what we have is a sub-par train dominating the IC segment.
Another thing that stuns me is that a selling point of Hitachi was that they promised to have a factory in the UK to build these things. Bad reason to choose a train in my book (ignoring all other potentials). But to then order so many of the things that they have to be built in Europe is a tragedy. It just brings forward the time when the UK factory will have no orders. This is especially true as the Hitachi UK factory will never export to Europe as we are no longer in Europe - so no point for Hitachi to keep it open. Boom and bust - here we go again.
Is that an official definition or your preference?
If it was me, I’d attempt to do the journey the other way around and get on an IET over a Voyager.
We probably disagree about what looks like an InterCity service.Is Alnmouth or Morpeth an Intercity stop?
If it acts like an Intercity service( I.e it connects two or more cities)
And it looks like an Intercity service
Then the chances are it is an Intercity service.
That rather falls down when I am arguing that XC should be upgraded to InterCity and given access to the IEP bi-modes or equivalent, instead of the likely second and third hand DMU cast-offs and still forced to wait long in every regional city.Also the perpetual moaning about voyages , Pendos, IEP is getting rather stale.
It's really just people hankering for what went before, and specifically loco hauled trains.
We probably disagree about what looks like an InterCity service.
That rather falls down when I am arguing that XC should be upgraded to InterCity and given access to the IEP bi-modes or equivalent, instead of the likely second and third hand DMU cast-offs and still forced to wait long in every regional city.
What I am liking about Talgo's factory is that they have planned it so it can export to other countries so it has a long term future, something lots of the others don't have. Talgo have said they will build the factory once they get a big order but because they plan to export from this factory along with the domestic UK market, this large order they have said doesn't even have to be from the UK.Another thing that stuns me is that a selling point of Hitachi was that they promised to have a factory in the UK to build these things. Bad reason to choose a train in my book (ignoring all other potentials). But to then order so many of the things that they have to be built in Europe is a tragedy. It just brings forward the time when the UK factory will have no orders. This is especially true as the Hitachi UK factory will never export to Europe as we are no longer in Europe - so no point for Hitachi to keep it open. Boom and bust - here we go again.
Another thing that stuns me is that a selling point of Hitachi was that they promised to have a factory in the UK to build these things. Bad reason to choose a train in my book (ignoring all other potentials). But to then order so many of the things that they have to be built in Europe is a tragedy. It just brings forward the time when the UK factory will have no orders. This is especially true as the Hitachi UK factory will never export to Europe as we are no longer in Europe - so no point for Hitachi to keep it open. Boom and bust - here we go again.
There are enough loos, in most IETs virtually every carriage has a loo, much different to other classes such as 12 car Class 745 which I think has only 5 loos or Class 195 (2 or 3 car) or Class 331 (3 or 4 car) which only have ONE loo!!Usual stuff from me...
Decent trains but ****e seats, lighting too harsh, not enough loos.
We probably disagree about what looks like an InterCity service.
The boom and bust nature of train manufacturing has been going on for a while, but that's a matter for another thread!
I was using what used to be the common definition across Germany and almost all its neighbours. I think it's a sensible definition. If a train is sitting for about 10 minutes at cities B, D and N, then it's not going to be as fast as it could from A to Z - which is fine and may be still a desirable service but it is not really express and even in the UK, InterCity was an express brand. The UK InterCity Express Program should improve both material and operation to be a success.Well, you appear to be using the Deutsche Bahn AG definition arbitrarily in the UK, [...]
I was using what used to be the common definition across Germany and almost all its neighbours. I think it's a sensible definition. If a train is sitting for about 10 minutes at cities B, D and N, then it's not going to be as fast as it could from A to Z - which is fine and may be still a desirable service but it is not really express and even in the UK, InterCity was an express brand. The UK InterCity Express Program should improve both material and operation to be a success.
I don't buy this definition. Plenty of commuter or regional rail services connect two or more cities but are definitely not 'Intercity'. Nobody would call a 150 on a Northern stopper from Liverpool to Manchester an intercity train!I.e it connects two or more cities
It seems to me that you are still labouring under a misapprehension.I was using what used to be the common definition across Germany and almost all its neighbours. I think it's a sensible definition. If a train is sitting for about 10 minutes at cities B, D and N, then it's not going to be as fast as it could from A to Z - which is fine and may be still a desirable service but it is not really express and even in the UK, InterCity was an express brand. The UK InterCity Express Program should improve both material and operation to be a success.
When BR was re-organised into business sectors 'InterCity' became the name of the sector operating the long distance, high speed passenger services. As the Government of the day said it would not subsidise BR's commercial activities - and the long distance train services were classified as 'commercial' BR lopped off all those bits of the 'InterCity' operation that were not profitable.
So the only correct definition of 'InterCity' in the later BR period covers those long distance, high speed services that were profitable according to the accounting standards of the time.
It had nothing to do with average speeds, length of station stops or whether or not refreshments were offered or type of rolling stock.
The European built trains weren't intended to be built at Newton Aycliffe, only the IEP units were guaranteed to be and that's what was done. Perhaps most importantly is the fact that if those units hadn't been built overseas they wouldn't all be in service yet.
The boom and bust nature of train manufacturing has been going on for a while, but that's a matter for another thread!
APT's don't exist and never did in full service - prototype only. That comparison justifies nothing. In the present time i.e. Now, the IEP is the worlds most expensive train to procure and run - just accept a fact.Well, that's just silly.
*Nowhere else* in the world are trains procured or run via Agility. It's exclusively a British Rosco and they only lease 80X series trains.
When people choose to use capitals to repeat content, instead of delivering some clear numerical evidence, it just makes me more suspicious that the claims are false.
So let's look at real numbers.
In today's money, the APTs worked out at £60M each.
Fourteen 21 metre coaches, of which two were power cars. So that's approximately same as Two x 5-car 80X series of 26 metre units. Passengers couldn't go between the front and back sets of the APT either.
As far as I can work out, a 10 Car 80X series works out at £40M - so the APT cost 50% more.
But it's worse. The APTs were so unreliable, it seemed to be policy to run a relief train behind them for when they broke down.
So as far as I can see, the APT was significantly more expensive to procure and operate than the 80X series.
I would have thought not because later 802's for the operators you have mentioned were not shackled to the IEP project, Agility Trains and operational restrictions like the GWR & LNER 800's. Hull, TPE, GWR 802's can choose how they fund,lease and operate their fleet with much more freedom than via the DFT Agility driven contracts.Does that claim still follow when you consider the number of follow-on orders for Class 80x variants beyond the original 800/801 GWML/ECML fleet. I.e.
Cornwall 802s
TPE 802s
Hull Trains
EMR
Etc...
I.e..for any new product you'd expect development costs to be sunk into production of the first series units?
a) the APT did run a couple services I believe.APT's don't exist and never did in full service - prototype only. That comparison justifies nothing. In the present time i.e. Now, the IEP is the worlds most expensive train to procure and run - just accept a fact.
I would have thought not because later 802's for the operators you have mentioned were not shackled to the IEP project, Agility Trains and operational restrictions like the GWR & LNER 800's. Hull, TPE, GWR 802's can choose how they fund,lease and operate their fleet with much more freedom than via the DFT Agility driven contracts.
And because it is a variant of a Government programme it’s a considerable way short of being acceptable. I’ll take the car going forward whenever possible rather than use these contraptions.There was not before an off the shelf universal UK gauge InterCity train. There now is.
And because it is a variant of a Government programme it’s a considerable way short of being acceptable. I’ll take the car going forward whenever possible rather than use these contraptions.
That’s one of my big objections to the whole thing. We’ve let Hitachi into the market here, yet there is no evidence of European manufacturers being given access to Japanese rolling stock markets. It should frankly never have been allowed to happen.I'm now finding myself using SWR a lot more to get down to the West Country as well, changing at Exeter either for another 158 or funnily enough, a shortened HST Set.
Something else not exactly covered here is, perhaps the reason for the AT300 being so successful is the Japanese attitude to business. They are known for being fairly ruthless at selling their products to other countries, but will not allow anyone else's product in their country. It is known that during the IEP Procurement, a certain Mr Hammond (the then transport minister) was invited to several Tea parties held by the Japanese government, add in to the already mentioned "Hitachi or nothing else" written into the program by the DfT and things do start to stack up. First Group in their current state has probably got a good deal from Hitachi for further AT300s across 4 of it's operations, purely because little else exists to rival it and because First Group can hardly afford to design / develop little else in their current financial state.
Newton Aycliffe is an assembly plant, its not a WORKS ..the shells are pre built, with all components fitted to the Body and Underframe...once the works have finished the assembly plant will close...unless it has the contract to complete all heavy overhauls, casualty repairs that is beyond a a Units home depot to complete...once the main contracts are completed no more than 100 employees will be needed to run the site.if it stays open... as for IEP being a success..well HST is only working out of St Pancras Now..the Squadrons are all run down to minimum requirements, Each vehicle will be operated until it becomes cheaper to scrap or flog than repair to main line standards...so has it been a success.....one can say YES..its working fine..
That’s one of my big objections to the whole thing. We’ve let Hitachi into the market here, yet there is no evidence of European manufacturers being given access to Japanese rolling stock markets. It should frankly never have been allowed to happen.
It can of course be kept open by ordering more of them. There are many candidates - perhaps more for the WCML and ECML, a full fleet replacement at XC, ScotRail to replace the woefully unreliable HSTs, perhaps TPE could extend theirs to 7-car as will likely be needed at some point...I'm sure more can be found.