Great Western Coffee Shop

Read today that the vast amount of money required to be spent on infrastructure works associated with IEP may well mean a contraction of the present intercity network.
So this may well mean the likes of Nailsea, Stonehouse, and Bedwyn losing direct services to London

No, it'll mean places like Cornwall, (due to Albert Bridge not taking the longer coaches) and Pembroke Dock. (not worth spending ^ re-doing the route for 1 train)

And any station with curved platforms which can't take longer coaches.

Very bad news. This IEP needs to be STOPPED NOW, and re-thought through (i.e. 23m carriages, tilt ability, 155 mph top speed, electric only, etc.) before any damage is done to our railway.

I am inclined to agree that the IEP is a flawed concept, as pointed out above it will only be able to run on restricted routes.
One of the great advantages of the HST was that it was a go (almost) anywhere train, to be replaced with one only able to work on very limited routes.
This will not only deprive some areas or routes of intercity or through services, but will also prevent diversions from the principle routes in case of engineering works etc. More buses at weekends !

And remember that despite the vast expense of the project, the diesel version will only have 8 passenger vehicles, the same as many of the present HSTs.
The longer vehicles will of course carry more passengers, but the gain will be very modest for the great expense, any real gains in capacity will be by removing catering facilities,toilets, tables/facing seats, and luggage spaces.

In my view what is needed is a new train consisting of at least 12 coaches based closely on the excellent mk3 design, a diesel locomotive or power car should be at each end in order to provide sufficient power, and "get you home redundancey" in case of failure, as with an HST.

I see no need for any more short diesel trains. Voyagers, adelantes, and refurbished HSTs are going to be around for many years yet, and would be used on secondary or less busy inter city services.
What we need is a relativly small number of full length, proper intercity trains with facing seats/tables, luggage space, and proper catering.

What I fear we will get, is a few very expensive, very complicated, unreliable, trains with high density bus seats, and only able to work on limited routes.
The intention is probably to scrap perhaps 12 HSTs for every 10 new trains, whereas what is needed is additional trains, not replacements.

I agree broad gauge!

The order needs to be very big. Too many recent train orders are concentrated on less vehicles/seats than before. (VT's order, LM's 172s....)

What we need are more and longer trains! (and that means extra coaches, not mile long coaches!)

Well if the IEP cannot run on Curved Platforms... Then I wonder what will be done at Bath Spa and Castle Cary in some platforms, Bristol Temple Meads... :o

Thats pretty much 2 major routes that could be incompatible with the IEP... That includes, London Padd - Bristol, London Padd - The West (Westbury Taunton, Exeter and Plymouth)

The new trains are going to be "narrower than existing long distance stock." (Wikipedia)

Great - cramped seating! If the coaches were 23 metres long, there would be no need for this sacrifice - esp in the ex- broad gauge region.

I thought the tender for the project included the adjustemnts to the stations as required?

If your right Btline, then I would say that narrower carriages could result in the effects that a 3+2 Seating layout has...! In which, that could mean narrower gang ways... That could be interesting... :P

It may do on core routes (although how certain stations could be adjusted I don't know). However, other routes will be axed from the InterCity network if it is not "value for money".

Now, when you consider that Uckfield - Lewes - a potential major commuter, regional and diversionary line was rejected as not worth the money, it does not bode well for the South West, Gloucestershire or West Wales.

Width?

The Hitachi data sheet for IEP gives 2.7m width for all variants, which is the same as usually given for 170s, 158s etc. I doubt it'll be very noticeable compared to Mk3 stock (C3) at 2.74m, as modern stock seems to have much thinner lining to the bulkheads.

Paul

Hitachi are saying they will be slightly narrower on the outside but vitually the same as HST on the insid due to improved modern insulation.

The project does include station adjustments (hence the inclusion of a civil engineering firm in the consortium) but I get the impression that the adjustments they are thinking about are along the lines of shaving a few cm off platform edges not rebuliding bridges and tunnels.

BTW, DO were actually know for vertain that the Saltash bridge is a problem?  Have NR adknowledged thsi yet?