Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

Why not just keep the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and 180s?

I bet that in the 1960s there were people, probably btline's forebears, asking what was wrong with the steam engines. You got to move with the times, my friend.

[JayMac]

HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are good. Very good.

But they are getting long in the tooth. Come the introduction of IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) the oldest HST power cars and Mk3 carriages will be passing 40+ years of sterling service, much beyond their designed life span.

Yes, they've been re-engineered (MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engines) and patched up (new interiors) to continue providing that sterling service, but that cannot go on indefinitely. The fixtures and fittings of both the Class 43 power cars and the Mk3 carriages are currently, just, fit for purpose, but the chassis, bodywork and much of the mechanical and electrical equipment is now seriously old technology. Good technology, but nonetheless old.

[broadgage]

Why not just keep the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and 180s?

I bet that in the 1960s there were people, probably btline's forebears, asking what was wrong with the steam engines. You got to move with the times, my friend.

Those who asked "what was wrong with steam engines" might well have been right !
Electrification was and still is the way forward for busy routes, but steam certainly had a part to play for secondary routes.

Many relatively new steam locomotives were scrapped and replaced with first generation generation DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) and diesel locomotives, these had a very poor record of reliability initialy.


I would certainly prefer an old HST to a new train, unless the new train was better than an HST.

If the new trains are longer, and have a more spacious internal layout, and are more reliable, and cheaper to run with this reflected in lower fares, then I would welcome them.

[Btline]

Umm, I'm actually very supportive of progress thank you.
I am one of those people who actually favours the knocking down of old and unsuitable buildings/bridges etc. to replace them with one for the times.
However, the replacement needs to be BETTER.

From what I can see, the proposed IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will offer little improvement, as such I would support keeping the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).
They have:
-more seats
-more luggage space, including a vital guard's van (I really can't believe this has been missed off after the last 10 years of FAILED train design)
-only come in full length mode, so no splitting adding time to Cotswold line journeys
-have 23m carriages, so less gap between the train and the platform edge

If there were a worthy replacement, I would favour scrapping all HSTs today! So please do not paint me in such a way.

[JayMac]

Seats, luggage space and carriage length don't make them go though. Or keep them going. Or keep them going in a cost effective and fuel efficient way.

All we've seen on IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) interiors is a base design. What actually rolls out of Paddington for the inaugural passenger service in a few years is unknown.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) have done very well but they are not up to current standards. If they were kept they would have to be made to comply with the disability standards and whilst this could be done, at a high cost no doubt, there would still be many issues. Doors would have to be replaced. Toilet retenion chambers would have to be fitted and heaven knows what else. It might be justified to invest in some of the present fleet to serve, the far west of England with many of the remaining fleet being retained for spares etc. but to keep a 40 year old fleet goingdoes not seem to be a wise option.

[Btline]

Indeed, we need a decent replacement, with more seats, more luggage space, higher top speed, faster acceleration and improved comfort.

[broadgage]

Indeed, we need a decent replacement, with more seats, more luggage space, higher top speed, faster acceleration and improved comfort.

More seats, possibly, just move them closer together "thousands of extra seats"
More lugage space ? no way, luggage space is VERY last century.
Higher top speed, most unlikely as 125 is the present maximum line speed, and no one will pay for higher speed capability that might never be used.
Faster acceleration, probably for the electric version, less likely for diesel or bi-mode.
Improved comfort ? as compared to a proper HST^▸ (High Speed Train) no way. Voyager mark 2 more likely, at best.

[Btline]

Indeed, it seems as seats have to be uncomfortable these days! Never mind about DVT^‡(resolve), as long as they are safe in the event of a crash.

[broadgage]

Indeed, it seems as seats have to be uncomfortable these days! Never mind about DVT^‡(resolve), as long as they are safe in the event of a crash.

Nothing wrong with Driving Van Trailers, all sorts of bulky items may be conveyed therein !
All new trains should have them ! 

[The SprinterMeister]

Indeed, it seems as seats have to be uncomfortable these days! Never mind about DVT^‡(resolve), as long as they are safe in the event of a crash.

Nothing wrong with Driving Van Trailers, all sorts of bulky items may be conveyed therein !
All new trains should have them ! 

Or not as the case may be.

Problem being of course that you have platforms of a suitable length in order to ensure that the DVT is platformed so that people can get the luggage into and out of what is in effect a non passenger carrying vehicle.


Speaking of platform lengths has it been determined if 2 x 5 car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) (260 metres) will fit into the platforms at Paddington yet, bearing in mind a 2+8 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is only 218 metres long and a 2+9 is only 231 metres long....

[The SprinterMeister]

Why not just keep the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and 180s?

I bet that in the 1960s there were people, probably btline's forebears, asking what was wrong with the steam engines. You got to move with the times, my friend.

Probably just as well we didn't have the interweb when the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) narrowed the track gauge from 7' 0 & 1/4" to 4' 8 &1/2"...
 

[IndustryInsider]

Speaking of platform lengths has it been determined if 2 x 5 car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) (260 metres) will fit into the platforms at Paddington yet, bearing in mind a 2+8 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is only 218 metres long and a 2+9 is only 231 metres long....

They definitely won't fit in some of the platforms without modifications, though I think they'll be little or no modifications required for platforms 1, 2 and 3.  Other platforms are currently less than 260m in length, the 'main line' ones ranging from 237m to 253m according to the Sectional Appendix.  Shrinking the concourse won't be easy or popular and there's not much room to play with at the far end, so the solution will be interesting!

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

When BTLine mentioned "DVT^‡(resolve)" my mind immediately thought he was referring to "Deep Vein Thrombosis", one of the medical conditions you can get from sitting in squeezed up seats on public transport, usually thought of as applying to aircraft but also to trains. I did not evben think that "DVT" meant Driving Van Trailers".
Perhaps we could be clearer when using abreviations that could have different meanings such as David Cameron's use of "LOL^▸ (laughing out loud)".

[Andy W]

When BTLine mentioned "DVT^‡(resolve)" my mind immediately thought he was referring to "Deep Vein Thrombosis", one of the medical conditions you can get from sitting in squeezed up seats on public transport, usually thought of as applying to aircraft but also to trains. I did not evben think that "DVT" meant Driving Van Trailers".
Perhaps we could be clearer when using abreviations that could have different meanings such as David Cameron's use of "LOL^▸ (laughing out loud)".

I think Broadgage was taking the Michael but sadly a little too subtle I think!!!
Your right TLAs^▸ (three letter acronym) are the bain of our lives.

I don't see the problem with extending (even further) the life of the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) They are fully fit for purpose, provide good comfort (well did until First messed them up), are fast enough etc. If only they were fitted out like the 180s!!

Regarding doors I'm pretty sure they could claim grandfather rights but if you take a look at what Chiltern have achieved then upgrading the doors is feasible.

Now question II - there is a significant amount of space in the Class 43 power cars - could they upgrade them with a pantograph and the relevant transformers & rectifiers etc to make them bi-modal at a fraction of the cost of new rolling stock?

Furthermore you could run a 5 coach setup and stick a DVT (the other type Andrew1939) at the other end creating a bimodal 'Cotswold Line' setup. Or even engineer a DBSO^▸ (Driving Brake Standard Open (carriage)) type configuration to increase seating capacity - and allow top and tail 10 coach configurations.

Give me a propertly fitted out Mk3 any day. Chiltern demonstrate what can be done - I know it's old but if it gets you there safely, reliably and comfortably what's the problem?

By all means get new long distance rolling stock for under the wires only operation but the HST could have a great role to play in the backwaters of the Cotswolds, Hereford and Worcester.