Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Btline]

Another thing that bugs me is that Cotswold line trains will not get faster if splitting occurs.

I think* Network Rail demand that there is a 7 minute dwell for splitting. As such, even when the Oxf - Pad time goes down to 50 minutes, only 3 will be passed onto the Cotswold line. Not good enough.

*Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[JayMac]

You could also run 2x5 cars.  I expect that the limiting factor is more likely to be platform length rather than train length. 

Another limiting factor, unless and until signalling improvements, is paths.

[anthony215]

Just seen this on the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) website concerning the provisional layout of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/draft-iep-train-layouts/

I think Mr Roger Ford is going to be busy over the next few days having a look through this if he hasnt already.

Somthing spotted so far is that there is no buffet although more tables in standard class

[paul7575]

More tables than an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train) or XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Voyager?  That cannot be serious.  What will broadgage possibly make of it?

Paul

[paul7575]

I think Mr Roger Ford is going to be busy over the next few days having a look through this if he hasnt already.

They aren't really significantly different to the layouts he'd already published last year, at a first look the 5 and 8 car drawings seem almost identical to what's in the June 11 issue of MR^▸ (Midland Railway) - seat number variations are in single figures.

Paul

[Btline]

Well, seeing as table seats do not align with each other across the aisle, I assume that at least half of tables will not align with windows. 

Actually if you look hard enough, you can see where the pillars are, and sure enough pretty much all tables are at a pillar

Just like FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

Nice one - well done!

 

[Btline]

*Why do you need 2 disabled toilets (or "easy access" as the new PC word) on a 5 car train...
*Why more than 1 uneasy access toilets per coach...
*... when there is room for just 2 bikes and NO guard's van for luggage (4 bikes on a 8/9 car train)

We're making the same mistakes again! Surely it is now widely agreed that there needs to be a decent sized van for luggage and bikes!

[JayMac]

Luggage and bikes don't buy tickets.

[FlyingDutchman]

I can't See any point of a 5 car set, I would of thought they learnt the lessons when they bought the Adelante.

Guy

[broadgage]

More tables than an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train) or XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Voyager?  That cannot be serious.  What will broadgage possibly make of it?

Paul

Broadgage would observe that firstly the seats without tables still outnumber those with tables, and more importantly that the layout is only provisional.
Still plenty of time for improvements.
If passenger numbers continue to grow, then by the time that these trains enter service they will be more overcrowded than HSTs are now. The same arguments will therefore be applied, that tables and catering should be removed and more seats crammed in in order to provide "thousands of extra seats"

[broadgage]

*Why do you need 2 disabled toilets (or "easy access" as the new PC word) on a 5 car train...
*Why more than 1 uneasy access toilets per coach...
*... when there is room for just 2 bikes and NO guard's van for luggage (4 bikes on a 8/9 car train)

We're making the same mistakes again! Surely it is now widely agreed that there needs to be a decent sized van for luggage and bikes!

You need 2 disabled toilets per train because at least one will probably be out of order.
Normal toilets ditto, 1 per coach available and one out of order.

[Southern Stag]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) currently have two toilets per coach, having any less would seem a bad thing to me.

[grahame]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) currently have two toilets per coach, having any less would seem a bad thing to me.

The 5 car sets have 5 toilets (of which two are easy access) - 1 loo per 54 travellers
The 10 car sets have 11 toilets (of which two are easy access) - 1 loo per 48 travellers
Both set types have carriages with 0, 1 and 2 loos in them.

Before I jump to any conclusions (other that the fact that people who need easy access can hold themselves far better on a longer train  ), what are the figures for current trains - HST, Adelante and 3 car 158s  - the unit used for comparable longer journeys - it may be 2 in some coaches, but I think As in an HST only have one, the other being a locker room?

[Southern Stag]

HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) have 11 or 12 toilets for an 8 carriage train, of which 8 or 9 are in the 4 or 5 Standard Class carriages.

[paul7575]

*... when there is room for just 2 bikes and NO guard's van for luggage (4 bikes on a 8/9 car train)

Why are you assuming each bike space only takes 1 bike?  On a XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) voyager they get four in two spaces even with their tilt profile - IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) should have more space than that surely?

I'm sorry but 'guard's vans' are ancient history - no way you're going to get a guard's compartment at the expense of seating capacity.  But without the tilt profile, the overhead racks throughout the train should be useable - they certainly are on the 395s (Javelins).

Paul