Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

There's no way I can get to Swindon tommorrow. I hope somebody asks some of the awkward questions, eg.:

Why are you trying to order a large number of 5-car trains to replace trains the current operator has just lengthened from 7 coaches to 8?

Is the reliability of the Great Western electrification really expected to be so bad that the weight of a diesel engine and fuel in EVERY new 'electric' train, and the assoicated increased maintenance costs, to allow self-rescue is justified? (I'm not sure it's even justified on the East Coast Main Line).

Wouldn't it make more sense to only have 26 metre coaches on the electric routes (since they generally have less clearance issues than the off-wire extensions, and clearance work is needed for the wires anyway)?

[stuving]

...but he's the boss of the supplier of these trains, and those are questions for the customer. If you even asked him to comment on whether the requirement was the right one it would put him in a very tricky position, and he'd probably decline to answer.

[TonyK]

I don't think it would put him in an awkward position at all. He could simply say he is providing what the customer has ordered, that the electrifcation is being  done  by another company who will no doubt comment on reliability if asked, and that the 5-car trains can be coupled, or lengthened  if the customer asks . He will then go on to explain the brand New technology involved in the brand new wonders of modern transport that his company is proud to be making, to the specification demanded by his valued customer. To whom further questions should be put.

On the matter of the diesel engines, as I understand it, there will be one or two, depending on train length. They will be enough to get it to the next station without having to wait for help, not do Penance to Aberdeen at 125 mph. I think it's a good idea, and that the weight will not impact on performance.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

I agree with Rhydgaled regarding the adequacy of 5 car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains. On the Cotswold Line peak hour services are run by 8 car HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and are very full to standing before Oxford. I do not see how a 5 car IEP even with each carriages higher seating capacity could take all the present people let alone the ever increasing numbers using the CL. A double 5-car IEO would be so slow, having to make 2 stops to load and unload at the short CL platforms so that travel time could easily take 20 minutes longer.

[Network SouthEast]

I agree with Rhydgaled regarding the adequacy of 5 car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains. On the Cotswold Line peak hour services are run by 8 car HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and are very full to standing before Oxford. I do not see how a 5 car IEP even with each carriages higher seating capacity could take all the present people let alone the ever increasing numbers using the CL. A double 5-car IEO would be so slow, having to make 2 stops to load and unload at the short CL platforms so that travel time could easily take 20 minutes longer.

Andrew, a 10 car IEP wouldn't make two stops at each station, the rear part if completely inaccessible simply wouldn't be available at all.

However, it would mean plenty of space for passengers travelling from Worcester Foregate Street and Shrub Hill to Oxford and beyond!

[broadgage]

I would agree with those who doubt the adequacy of 5 car trains to replace crowded 8 car ones, the inevitable high density/new train seating layout and slightly longer vehicles will cram a few more in, but I still fear gross overcrowding.
2 units can of course be coupled together, but if regular multiple operation is contemplated it would seem sensible to build them as 10 car trains.
I would expect a 10 car train to be cheaper than 2 units each of 5 cars.
A full length train might even have a Pullman restaurant I cant see that being viable on a half size train.
A proper full length train would also have first class at one end as on an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), whereas 2 units each of 5 cars would presumably have First at random locations.

I think that the auxillary diesel engines are an excellent idea, saves wires in yards, depots and sidings, permits of reduced performance running on non electrified diversionery routes, gets you home or least to the next station when the wires come down.
Also if the train cant proceed, for example because the one in front has brought down the wires and become entangled, then AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) the diesels can provide power for lighting and ventilation.

[grahame]

I would agree with those who doubt the adequacy of 5 car trains to replace crowded 8 car ones, the inevitable high density/new train seating layout and slightly longer vehicles will cram a few more in, but I still fear gross overcrowding.

As an outsider to this conversation (heck, I would love a one carriage train every 2 hours - different league), I do wonder about more but shorter trains.  Did wonders for Portsmouth Harbour to South Wales - so much so that they had to be made longer again at the new frequency.   So - 2 x 5 car per hour from Paddington carrying on past Oxford to Moreton-in-Marsh, with one beyond there to Hereford?

[ellendune]

I would agree with those who doubt the adequacy of 5 car trains to replace crowded 8 car ones, the inevitable high density/new train seating layout and slightly longer vehicles will cram a few more in, but I still fear gross overcrowding.

As an outsider to this conversation (heck, I would love a one carriage train every 2 hours - different league), I do wonder about more but shorter trains.  Did wonders for Portsmouth Harbour to South Wales - so much so that they had to be made longer again at the new frequency.   So - 2 x 5 car per hour from Paddington carrying on past Oxford to Moreton-in-Marsh, with one beyond there to Hereford?

But unless you can use the other 5 cars for something else there is no point in splitting it at Moreton.

[Electric train]

It was an interesting event, joint IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) IMechE, all the new trains will have at least one diesel engine even the electric only ones with these its there to provide emergency power instead of batteries and allows a 30mph emergency move.

The deployment of the trains was not discussed as that is a matter for the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) and this presentation was about the trains and depots.  There were a lot of stats given on how reliable the 395's have been and how they maintain those and plan to maintain the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s

Oh and North Pole Depot gets its connection onto the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) this Christmas"!  and they are bidding for the Crossrail  trains contract

[John R]

Yes, very interesting. Here are my notes (in order of what was said, so apologies if they are a bit random):-

Bank loans will be repaid over 27.5 years.

For GW^▸ (Great Western), fleet is 36 x 5 car bi mode and 21 x 9 car electric with 315 and 627 seats respectively. I was signing the attendance sheet at this point so missed what the EC fleet will be.

The contract requires additional vehicles to be slotted in easily up to 12 coaches long.

Deployment is:
May 17 5 car bi modes GW
2018 5 car electric for EC
2018 9 car electric for GW
2019 9 car bi mode for EC.

Bi modes are easily converted to electric by removing engines!!

There is little weight gain by having engines, as the electric only stock needs batteries to provide hotel power in the event of OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) failure and these are about the same weight as the engines (I found this quite difficult to comprehend.)

Bi mode in that form are slightly less powerful than electric with a blancing speed of 117mph, against 125mph for electric.

Acceleration of both bi mode and electric will be 0.7 m/s/s against around 0.33 for either 91+9+DVT^‡(resolve) or HST^▸ (High Speed Train)+8.

Energy efficiency is 0.0276KwH against 0.347KwH for 91+9+DVT (I wasn't sure if this was per seat.)

Fly by wire to reduce cabling and thus weight.

Track costs per seat mile 9 car electric 0.21p, 9 car bi mode 0.25p, HST+8 0.40p.

Luggage racks 365mm high against 295mm on HST.

Toilets now moved to between door and end of coach to enable positioning to be exactly the same as HST and not on the slopey bit at the end of the coach.  Designers have spent 10,000 hours on the toilet (design that is), to give something that is easy to clean and looks like a hotel toilet. Hmmm, we'll see.

Internal configuration shown had 88 standard seats of which 32 were tabled.

A lot made of local suppliers, and claim that bodyshells will be made locally by 2019 (er, but isn't that when the production run ceases?). Not true the factory will be like an iKEA plant (flat pack assembly).

First delivery for testing in 2015, and in service in 2017, with full deployment on GW by 2018 and on EC by 2019.

The MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engine design will be much quieter than the Cummings used under Voyagers and Adelantes. Currently on test in service in Japan and proved to be very quiet.

Depots will have virtually no light pollution to be neighbourly!

Sorry for note format, but hope this has been of interest.

[Kernow Otter]

Very interesting, thank you

[stuving]

A lot of this is traceable to the requirement, of course. It's worth saying that the current version on the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) site (at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercity-express-programme-technical-specification-and-contracts) is version 5 (19/07/12 "Formal Issue for Contract"), and is a complete re-write from the version 1 that was linked to earlier in this thread. I think the content is similar, but it is hard to tell. One change is in terminology - they now use "train" for two (rarely more) units coupled together, where a "unit" is a set (of vehicles permanently coupled).

The contract requires additional vehicles to be slotted in easily up to 12 coaches long.
...
Bi modes are easily converted to electric by removing engines!!

There is little weight gain by having engines, as the electric only stock needs batteries to provide hotel power in the event of OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) failure and these are about the same weight as the engines (I found this quite difficult to comprehend.)

Bi mode in that form are slightly less powerful than electric with a blancing speed of 117mph, against 125mph for electric.

On the points I have picked out -
The auxiliary Diesel would allow the chillers to run when OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") power fails. However, this is not a requirement. It may however be needed for everything including the chillers, for six hours, when locomotive-hauled in service (not clear to me in).

Converting to electric units by removing power packs was a requirement.

On the power and speed when Diesel-powered, the requirement is a bit ambiguous:

3.8 Performance
TS261 The IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) Trains must have a maximum service speed of at least 125mph and shall be able to achieve that speed on the whole of the IEP Network. The requirement to be able to operate at 125mph applies during operation in Standard Mode and Locomotive Hauled Mode.
It is accepted that 125mph may not be achieved under the following circumstances:
^ on adverse gradients;
^
in excessive headwinds;
^
in the case of an IEP Train containing Bi-mode IEP Units operating in Self Power Mode;
^
in the case where more than 312m of the IEP Train length comprises of Electric IEP Units;
[...etc.]

It appears than a single bi-mode unit when self-powered can do 125 mph, but two coupled together maybe cannot. (Note the mistaken use of "maximum" here - a word that is best avoided in specifications.)

[broadgage]

I would presume that the requirement for the auxillary engine(s) to run for 6 hours when loco hauled is because either an ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) loco is not compatible with the electrics of the new trains, or to permit use of a freight loco not equiped with ETS.
As the new trains are intended to be self contained, they probably dont even have ETS jumper cables to obtain current from a loco.

As regards batteries versus diesel engines for back up power (whether for limited traction or for on board power) batteries are usually the best option for limited power or short run times with a diesel engine being prefered for longer durations.
A battery to supply on board services for 6 hours will be about twice the weight and cost of one for 3 hours. An engine will be the same but need only a larger fuel tank.

A battery even if not much used will still need replacing every few years, a diesel engine given only limited use should last the life of the train.

[stuving]

I would presume that the requirement for the auxillary engine(s) to run for 6 hours when loco hauled is because either an ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) loco is not compatible with the electrics of the new trains, or to permit use of a freight loco not equiped with ETS.
As the new trains are intended to be self contained, they probably dont even have ETS jumper cables to obtain current from a loco.

As regards batteries versus diesel engines for back up power (whether for limited traction or for on board power) batteries are usually the best option for limited power or short run times with a diesel engine being prefered for longer durations.
A battery to supply on board services for 6 hours will be about twice the weight and cost of one for 3 hours. An engine will be the same but need only a larger fuel tank.

A battery even if not much used will still need replacing every few years, a diesel engine given only limited use should last the life of the train.

Careful - the requirement is for the full passenger environment to be provided, how you do it is a design choice.  However, it is hard to see how else to do it, given this key clause:

3.18.3 Locomotive Hauled Mode
TS1746 For Locomotive Hauled Mode, the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) Trains must meet all mandatory standards, the passenger environment must meet all parts of this Appendix A and where reasonably practicable the IEP train must meet all other requirements in this Appendix A, taking into account that there will be no communication between the IEP Train and the Locomotive other than that inherent in the definition of a Locomotive.

and this is the definition of "locomotive"

N004 Locomotive:
Means one or more vehicles, other than IEP Vehicles, capable of independent movement, which presents the following interfaces to an IEP Train:
Coupling: Screw coupling (refer to RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) web document SD001 ^System Data for Mechanical and Electrical Coupling of Rail Vehicles^) with the possibility of a drop head or swing head Buckeye attachment, and buffers.
Brakes: Twin pipe air brake interface (in accordance with UK^▸ (United Kingdom) national practice, refer to Railway Group Standard GM/RT2045, Issue 2, April 2000 ^Braking Principles for Rail Vehicles^)
Electric Train Supply: None.
Through Electrical Controls: None.

By the way, I'm using "requirement" and "specification" as almost synonymous, which is usual these days. I tend to use "requirement" at higher levels an "specification" for more detailed technical points.

[TonyK]

Electric Train and John R, Many thanks for your notes. As with many such events, they answer many questions, and raise a few more. I like what I read about the diesel motors, especially when thinking that these will not be used as a matter of course in regular passenger service on electrified lines. The 30mph capability is more than adequate. The longest gap between stations is Didcot to Swindon, at around 24 miles, a distance which could be covered at 30 mph in 48 minutes. From experience of having to wait 3 hours for rescue on a train with no air-con, I find the idea of self-rescue, albeit at a quarter of the proper speed, very acceptable.

So there will be 3 extra units compared to the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) fleet - 57 against 54, although there will be only 21 9-car units. But there will still be many of the HSTs in use on routes currently operated by HSTs, so one assumes this means the overall fleet will grow substantially, with the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) being used most on the heaviest routes - ie London to wherever. Of course, between Bristol and London, if there are two tph along each route to London - 2 via Bath, 2 via Parkway - and if each was a 5-car, then there would actually be space for more passengers per hour than at present. My thinking is that the bulk of services on those routes will be 9-cars. All of which, of course, is pure speculation. There will be flexibility for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to experiment until it finds the ideal ways of operating the routes, although doubtless the make-up of the ordered fleet is with a particular plan in mind.

I do like the figures for efficiency, acceleration, and operating costs. If true, they show that one of the main objectives of the project has been achieved, in that the energy use will have been cut markedly. The HSTs were, and still are, an absolute marvel compared to what went before, but were designed before the oil crises of the 1970s made fuel economy a major consideration. I am sure we will be treated to film of testing runs in 2015, and we will get a better idea of what we are in for then.