Great Western Coffee Shop

Can be found in the link below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/

Here is a DfT press release on this (link below.)
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=331309&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

Quote :

"Bidders will decide how many carriages they need to supply to provide the service the Government is asking for. Indications are that this may be around 850 in the first phase, possibly rising to approximately 1,500 if options to extend IEP to other routes are taken up."

Further article from This Is Somerset (link below.)
http://thisissomerset.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=147472&command=displayContent&sourceNode=242195&contentPK=18992308&folderPk=113662&pNodeId=251478

"The purpose of the Train Infrastructure Interface Specification (TIIS) provides information concerning the Network Rail infrastructure on which the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) trains will operate from the date of their introduction. The TIIS also supports the development of a train design compatible with this infrastructure and facilitate discussion and optimisation of infrastructure ^ train system interfaces to achieve the best whole life whole system solutions." (link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/infrastructureinterface.pdf

More bidder information documents (links below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/tara.pdf

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/mara.pdf

I am amused by the fact that they now call diesels  'Self Powered Trains'  Obviously not good for the government to promote reliance on fossil fuels, not when you can hide it behind another title.  Quite appropriate to be posting this in smoke and mirrors!

Alstom has notified the Department for Transport that it is withdrawing from the Intercity Express Programme bidding process. Experienced rolling stock engineers have criticised the mass and energy consumption targets in DfT's technical specifications for the 200 km/h IEP as impractical (link below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/02/alstom_withdraws_from_iep.html#more

I think the spec has been unrealistic all along as readers of Roger Ford (Modern Railways) would be familiar with. Typical government optimism (or naivety) which will gradually be pared back to reality.

Oh I wish the gov will see sense and put tilting back into the equation!

Now, only Virgin West Coast operate tilting. Although the Cherwell Valley Line (between Banbury and Reading, I think) is cleared for the Super Voyagers to tilt, it is not worth CrossCountry drivers putting the tilting on, as they all go towards York now (not Glasgow).

As well as this, most Voyagers on the Cherwell Valley Line, are not of the tilting type (the Super 5 car ones on the Penzance to York route).

What a waste of technology the British invented! What a waste of the Cherwell Valley Line!

What a waste of a technology that could see 140 mi/hour running on Brunel's Great Western Railway (and other routes) (and other routes at lower speeds, but faster than their current ones)!

For heavens sake, half the non tilting fleet in the UK is "ready" for tilting- a perfect eg being MK 4 carriages!

How difficult can it be to take a Mk 4 carriage, and develop a MK 5 carriage. Change nothing apart from adding tilting! Stick a tilting enabled loco (preferably electric) at the front (and a DVT at the back) and run a high speed service, where the customers are not squashed into a tin can where half the seats have no window, and where the air con spreads vile aromas throughout the passenger saloon!

Come on Ruth Kelly, forget Labour's "vision," get a grip, and deliver something that will go down in UK rail history!

"THE DAY THE UK GOT "BACK ON TRACK!!!!!!!!"

Pant.....

Sorry for the rant- needed one!

Pretty much all of the Bournemouth line services are formed of 221 - certainly the busy ones where potential for delay is high...

The reason for no tilting on the Cherwell Valley, is, well, it's pretty straight and IIRC there isn't much in increased speeds as they're all timed for 220 anyway.

FWIW, tilt is turned on and off automatically using trackside balises which the trains detect.

One of the other strange things I believe that is in the IEP spec is that traction power should be distributed along the train. Like the Pendelinos. Hence it took a week each set to introduce the 9th coach.

Hence the dual mode varient. The problem with this is that the dual mode will have to lug a deadweight deisel engine about under the wires.

The only solution to avoid this would be to develop an auto coupler capable of carrying sufficient Amps at a voltage suitable to power the traction motors so you couple the deisel engine at say Crewe to haul the set off the wires to Holyhead. Much as they did  but without needing such a powerful loco (57?) because the loco would power the trains distributed motors and would only need a small traction motor itself for shunt moves. Further for the loco hauling a Pendelino set its motors are an additional  deadweight for it to haul because it cannot power them.

You know there's  lot to be said for simple locos and coaches. Given reliable auto couples and a proper track layout it should be possible to switch locos in 3 minutes. They used to do it at Cambridge in NSE days with the Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn service, 86 off 47 on.

I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute. This points towards loco hauled stock.

I've also heard that they want it to be a proper replacement of the HST/IC225, so I would imagine it would be loco hauled.

That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service.

On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU's which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required...

But this would mean using loco hauled stock. Otherwise, there will have to be 2 buffets etc.

Here is a quote from the DfT South West Regional Planning Assessment For The Railway :


By the way, here is the RPA's one and only mention of Melksham :

Looks good. Have 3 problems:

*Redouble the Cotswold line before the Stroud line!

*Why have hourly services to Penzance. Surely 2 hourly (like at the moment) is enough, with a local DMU filling the gaps, and calling at the other stops?

*The off peak trains I've seen at Cardiff have looked busy!

I don't support splitting trains, it will only be like a voyager with not enough coaches (chaos when the other half booked for the working is broken etc) and meaning two buffets, and generally more staff. I'd recommend (if it had to be a DMU :-\) a 9 car train.

DMS + MS + MS + MS + MS + MS + TRFB + MF + DMF

DMS = Driving Motor Standard
MS = Motor Standard
TRFB = Trailer Rest First Buffet
MF = Motor First
DMF = Driving motor first

;Allowing quick acceleration so could race around Cornwall and faster journey times, also I don't think tilt is worth the effort!!

I have to say that splitting trains sounds like bad news to me!

I don't want an engine under my seat (on a long distance trip). Your proposal would be great for former Adelante routes, but not for the "proper" HST services.

The problem with Virgin Voyagers is not just "not enough seats," but the fact that they are cramped, noisy and are bad travelling environment (not to mention the uncomfortable seats, and the evil doors that close on you).

Tilting will allow journey time reductions on parts of the network where there are a lot of bends (i.e. the whole UK network West of the ECML). It must be looked into. Look at the WCML- London to B'ham could be down to 1hr 10 mins soon!

Agree that splitting two units without through corridor connections is bad news. howerer I see no reason why they're can't be cab end corridor connections. The Wessex units had them as do the Desiros. So instead of 9 car units you could have a 5 with Buffet and 4 without. splitting on route. E.g 9 to Cardiff then 5 to Swansea with 4 left at Cardiff to come back with next Swansea Padd.

This was the way the Weymouth service used to work before electrification even. Trains like the royal Wessex split at Bournemouth Central front 4/5 going on to Weymouth and reamaining coaches with dining car going round to Bournemouth West with any loco Bournemouth shed could lay it's hands on. The same in the Up. Except that the Bournemouth West portion got pulled back into a siding right by the loco shed ideal in my trainspotting days.

This carried on with the REPs pushing a couple of TC sets to Bournemouth and a 33 picking up 1 or 2 TC sets onto Weymouth. The same in the reverse the 33 pushing the Weymouth onto the REP in Bourmouth Central station.

Question, at how many stations did SR regualarly split/join EMUS? I can think of at least 5. In some cases it was 4 tph 2 split 2 join.

Why are "THEY" so opposed to it. Have you ever watched DB ICE 2s joining at Hamm or Hanover? The first unit waits in the platform passenger doors open, coupler box open the second unit rolls down the platform opening it's coupler cover and gently couples up. You only feel a hardly disernable movement if you are in the last/first coach of joining units.

Are DB drivers more skilful?

A few points on IEP

Lets hope we end up with a engine and coaches operation, No under floor engines, with all the noise and viabrations, also cheaper as when engine is out for maintenance the carriages are still out earning there keep.

There's no reason not to have a split option, plans were drawn up to make the HST splitable with Driving trailers in the middle, there were Inter-City DMU's that were 6 car sets with normal full width driving cabs at the outer ends but gangway cabs in the middle so the unit could be split.

I don't like the idea of auto couplers that can handle traction power thats asking for trouble big time.
Whilst auto couplers can handle control air and electrics (low current low power) to ask couplers to handle a 1000amps at a 1000 volts or even more thats just not an option it's more like a fire hazard as with high power transfer the contacts MUST remain clean or localised hot spots occur.

Detachable power cars are also a must, so that a Diesel one can be exchanged for an Electric one quickly and vice versa.

Tilting well it's an option but with all the extra weight is it worth it?

But the drawn up plans you refer to never came to anything as it was deemed operationally impractical. 

I like smokey's splitting idea.

Have 2 power cars and 8 carriages, but the middle 2 are DVTs (with passenger seating and corridor connexions). At Swindon (for example) split the train in the middle, and then run 2 services.

Yes, they'll only have one engine each, but they'll have about half the weight, so it should not matter.

But here's the good bit!

Between Padd and Swindon- full length platforms at InterCity stops. After Swidon- lots of shorter platform.

But these split trains will only be 5 vehicles in length (1 power car, 4 carriages, including passenger DVT).

So no more problems at Kemble and Cornwall stations, etc.

And bikes can go into the relevant power car- it should be platformed at all stations!

No underfloor engines.

No loco turn around.

Swindon - Worcester trains can call at Foregate Street with no problems!

And with tilting, journey times can be cut.

I would imagine:

*Hourly to Exeter. SPLIT. Hourly to Plymouth (with 2 hourly extension to Penzance or Newquay), and hourly to Torbay.
*Hourly to Swindon. SPLIT. Hourly to Cheltnam (with 2 hourly to Worcester) and hourly to Swansea.
*Half Hourly to Oxford. SPLIT. hourly to Worcester (with 2 hourly to Hereford) and either other half terminates, or goes to Banbury, hourly.

*Bristol/Cardiff trains remain full length and half hourly.

What do people think?

Can't see the Swansea service working as a split. Also maybe the West Country split should be at Plymouth, with one half going on to Penzance and the other forming a return working. Now if you did that and introduced tilting units (just for the B&H line) you could get some meaningful time savings to Plymouth, and improve the number of through services to Penzance.

 

But splitting the West Country unit at Exeter would mean more direct London trains for Torbay (and Dawlish etc where the Torbay trains would also call), and less SDO at Totness and Ivybridge.

What's wrong with splitting the Swansea service? It would save SDO at Neath etc.

 I would have thought that 5 cars would be inadequate for a westbound service still to call at Bristol Parkway, Newport and Cardiff. Though I'll admit it's a service I rarely have cause to use.

But remember that the Cardiff Central service would take some of these passengers, and this service would remain half hourly/hourly, as a full length train.

I don't think splitting is good, not only does it take time, but it means anybody going to Swansea must cram into the front portion and what if half a set is waiting for a delayed half set at Swindon?

It will all fall apart and you can't anticipate the loadings so therefore its always best to provide as many carriages as possible.

Tilting DVTs are unlikely to suffice too due to their generally light weight and structural weakness.

I still think SDO is the best thing and with common sence it can be used efficiently.

2 problems killed the Split HST Idea,

First spending vast amounts on what was considered "LIFE EXPIRED" stock.
The operational problem when Both halves of a unit were the same way round when being put together, thus a Power car would be in the Middle.

Both units the wrong way round wasn't such an Issue as at Bristol TM, Cardiff Central, Exeter SD or Plymouth One half could be run round, after detraining passengers.

Hmmmm.......


When/how would this ever happen?

Scenario:

Bristol Portion joins with Swansea Portion atb Swindon.

Swansea arrives first (powercar on rear) Then the Bristol portion arrives (power car front) this meaning both PCs are in the middle.

Yes I know this Life expired stock is having big bucks spent on it and it's still going....

Both halves the same way round, Operational problems would cause this is happen on odd occasions.

Not likely to happen as Spliting is only likely at Cardiff shorter train to Swansea and further West,
Exeter, Portions for Torbay and Plymouth.
Plymouth, Short portion on into Cornwall or Portions for Penzance and Newquay.

March Modern Railways page 6.

"Alstrom pulls IEP Bid"

Also in this issue Captain Deltic tries to analyse what new trains, additional carriages, might be coming to a line near you sometime (don't hold your breath) in the future.

As far as I can see apart from 52 or 54 IEP Diesel varient. FGW is down for a cascade from the West Midlands of an unknown number of 150s for the Bristol area.

Also a new DMU for London, Number and date unknown.

A couple of relevant links.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1583.msg10354#msg10354

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/02/alstom_withdraws_from_iep.html#more

Whats been one of the most successful trains of all time, is still going strong and in huge demand?

The HST of course.

So why not build a Mk5 coach that conforms to all design requirements that are in place with an electric loco/DVT for electrified lines and diesel locos at both ends for non-electrified lines. MTU have come up with an engine thats now operating in most HSTs. It may not meet all the specifications that DFT have put down but could be worked on to meet them.

Why try and re-invent the wheel when the success of HSTs have shown what can be done? Just bring the concept and design into modern day standards.

At this rate I can see the HSTs going way past their 40th birthday and still be in front line service. Who knows maybe even 50 years on some lines and I would still be more than happy to use them!

Exactly what I think. Take the smoothness and ride of the Mk3 and the plug doors and tilting compatibility of the Mk4, add tilting, add compatibility with diesel and electric locos, and you're there! Mk5!!

BTline has got it right I quote (sorry can't seem to work quote)  "Take the smoothness and ride of the Mk3 and the plug doors and tilting compatibility of the Mk4, add tilting, add compatibility with diesel and electric locos, and you're there! Mk5!!"

I would just add within what ever the current loading gauge is, with disable facilities and as strong as possible.  There you have the specification. I sure the rolling stock manufactures could come up with some cracking coaches.

However it's too simple everything has to specified down to the last mm. Look at the fuss on the Junipers about the visual displays being a couple mm too small.

Don't get me started!! Pathetic bureaucracy!! Just rip out the displays from the 180s and pritt-stick them in!!!

Sorry new verb: "to Pritt stick" to slap something in on the cheap, quickly.

Hmmm ... to "slap something in on the cheap, quickly," eh?

For the benefit of those who haven't seen it, Economy Klaus offered a definition of another new verb: 'to Adelante', as in: "to drastically reduce in size and cram full of things"!  See http://firstlatewestern.blogspot.com/2008/02/youve-been-adelanted.html

 ;D

smokey, when the 458s were built the Disability Discrimination Act (Railways) wasn't even finalised and the "preparatory" spec wasn't required to be followed. This year, DDA(R) is no longer used and we will follow RVAR instead (Rail Vehicle Accessability Regulations).

If one also reads:

Poll: Which stock is the best for local/stopping/commuter travel?  ^ 1 2 ^ in Across the West

Then there appears to be a some slight concensus forming about what type of train is best for these different services. Loco and coaches (DVT) for Express services and for local stopping and commuter travel some form of 2/3/4 car unit capable of running coupled together to forma longer trin to meet peak demand.  Most people don't seem to like underfloor engines as per Adelantes and Voyagers for longer journeys.

However, the problem seems to be that becuse of the relativly small size of the British Ilses and the dense nature of settlement leading to short distances between station particulalry  in teh FGW area we probsly need at least 5 types of train. Rather than 2.

1. Express stops at least 30 -60 minutes apart for most of journey.
2. Interurban stops say under 30 to 15 minutes apart.
3. Local stoppping stops say under 15 minutes apart maximum seats.
4. Outer Commuter services heavy demand in peak stops less than 10 minutes apart for outer part of run, may run fast for up to 30 minutes to allow standing. e.g Reading London non stop.
5 Inner Commuter stops 5 minutes apart, <40 minute overall run less seats maximum standing room.

This breakdown is arbitary but illustrates the conflicting uses a particlar type of train my need to work during the day. Hence 153s runnign on the main line and HSTs on the Padd Oxfords which are really an Outer Commuter service.

The problem is that FGW runs all these types of services on the same route. Also trains may perform 2 or more functions in a single jourmey e.g an afternoon Padd Penzance HST will be providing an Intercity service to Plymouth arriving in afternoon peak, then it will then provide an Outer Commuter service West from Plymouth and a local stopping service in Cornwall. Which just goes to show how versitle the HSTs really are.

Perhaps you can get way with just 3 types an Express intercity preferably loco and coaches (splittable).

2 Interurban, Outer Commuter, maybe fixed formation (unit) with powercar and DVT with seats a bit like the Thumpers and the DE units (201s) that ran London to Reading in the 80s.

3 Local stopping and Inner Commuter.Underfloor engine. Same unit with different seating patterns. Although whether any TOC would be able to keep them on the right routes would be open to question. You wouldn't want a London Commuter unit turning up on a Penzance Plymouth stopper and vice versa.

Interesting.

It can be definitely said though, that the Mk3 refurbs are trying to be InterCity AND Commuter inside, while they also provide local services elsewhere. Maybe FGW should not be mixing the two types of services together?

See link below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ittappendixc.pdf

DfT update on the IEP short listed bidders (link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/changetoiep

The tender return date for the Intercity Express Programme is midday, Monday 30 June 2008.

The InterCity Express Programme has spent ^9.4m on consultancy fees since 2005 (link below.)
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2008/07/worth-wait.html

Yes, that just about sums it up.  ::)