Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Electric train]

As for the Class 91s and IC225s, I'm sure they'll be redeployed elsewhere and won't be scrapped.  Given the stalling of the eVoyager project, XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) and/or the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) might end up with them.  Or the GEML^▸ (Great Eastern Main Line) are is a potential candidates to take some of them.

Once again, don't forget that class 91s have 140mph capability. If they are removed from the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) the mrk4s could well find a new home but there is nowhere else (except maybe the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), but that'll have it's own IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)) where that top speed could be used and, since they are geared for that speed, acceleration to 110mph will probably not be as good as a 90. 91s are best suited for routes with a high top speed and long distances between stops. MML XC and GEML don't cut it on top speed and XC has the additional problem of lack of wires. In terms of suitablity, IC225s on the ECML and IEPs on the MML probably makes alot more sense than the other way arround.

The 140 mph capability they have never used in revenue earning service.  They and the Mk 4's will be redeployed as II said GE to Norwich which has just commenced or is about in CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) route upgrade, the MML is also a likely candidate where speed upgrade works is already under way to get 125 working to cover more of the route than currently.

The IEP's capacity are based more on what DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) can fund, I know a lot of the funding is coming from the private sector but the DfT are part funding and  underwriting them. 
The diesel on the all electric units is actually lighter, probably requires less maintenance and more environmentally friendly than a Tonne of batteries on each carriage, there is a requirement (I believe in the TSI's) for 3 hour emergency power supply for HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) electric traction units

[trainer]

there is a requirement (I believe in the TSI's) for 3 hour emergency power supply for HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) electric traction units

Wouldn't have been much good in yesterday's debacle at Pewsey then. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12752.0) They will have to get emergency cover in place much more quickly to avoid potentially dangerous situations with 'life support' (sorry, Star Trek influence!) systems out after 3 hours.

[Electric train]

there is a requirement (I believe in the TSI's) for 3 hour emergency power supply for HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) electric traction units

Wouldn't have been much good in yesterday's debacle at Pewsey then. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12752.0) They will have to get emergency cover in place much more quickly to avoid potentially dangerous situations with 'life support' (sorry, Star Trek influence!) systems out after 3 hours.

Yes and that is an extreme occurrence that happens very rarely, the engine in the electric only units is also able to move the train all be it at slow speed, don't help much when you get a break failure but again yesterdays incident is not an every day one

[IndustryInsider]

Once again, don't forget that class 91s have 140mph capability.

As have Pendolino's.  And despite my hopes for their 140mph capability being used on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), I fear it will be many years (if at all) before it is.  ETRMS makes it possible, as it will with the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s, but that doesn't mean it will happen as soon as that is installed given potential issues with platforms en-route as well as track geometry.

[Rhydgaled]

Once again, don't forget that class 91s have 140mph capability.

As have Pendolino's.  And despite my hopes for their 140mph capability being used on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), I fear it will be many years (if at all) before it is.  ETRMS makes it possible, as it will with the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s, but that doesn't mean it will happen as soon as that is installed given potential issues with platforms en-route as well as track geometry.

The 140 mph capability they have never used in revenue earning service.  They and the Mk 4's will be redeployed as II said GE to Norwich which has just commenced or is about in CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) route upgrade, the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) is also a likely candidate where speed upgrade works is already under way to get 125 working to cover more of the route than currently.

While they haven't been able to make use of their 140mph capability for a long time the fact that they have this capability probably does impeed their acceleration somewhat. Therefore, my main point still stands, they are better suited for long-distance services at high speed with few stops.

Isn't London - Norwich is unlikely to see anything more than 110mph running? If so, wouldn't it be faster with class 90s rather than class 91s? 90s plus mrk4s seems more likely than 91s if London - Norwich gets mrk4s.

The IEP's capacity are based more on what DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) can fund, I know a lot of the funding is coming from the private sector but the DfT are part funding and  underwriting them. 
The diesel on the all electric units is actually lighter, probably requires less maintenance and more environmentally friendly than a Tonne of batteries on each carriage, there is a requirement (I believe in the TSI's) for 3 hour emergency power supply for HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) electric traction units

Maintainance costs of diesel engine? The real problem there is DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about)'s insane spec. No other train has a requirement for 3-hour hotel power and the ability to limp to the next station does it? The reduced costs from dropping that requirement could allow the extra carriages needed to make the sets decent lengths. Better yet, instead of replacing IC225s on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) they could use those vehicles to lengthen the short sets.

[IndustryInsider]

While they haven't been able to make use of their 140mph capability for a long time the fact that they have this capability probably does impeed their acceleration somewhat. Therefore, my main point still stands, they are better suited for long-distance services at high speed with few stops.

Isn't London - Norwich is unlikely to see anything more than 110mph running? If so, wouldn't it be faster with class 90s rather than class 91s? 90s plus mrk4s seems more likely than 91s if London - Norwich gets mrk4s.

Does it impeed their acceleration that much (if at all) though?  If it did, surely they'd have been re-geared to a 125mph maximum many years ago.  If you provide facts to back this lack of acceleration up then I am happy to concede they might not be suitable for use on the GEML^▸ (Great Eastern Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about).  Until then, use on those routes, primarily replacing MkIII coaches and older traction would seem sensible enough to me.

Maintainance costs of diesel engine? The real problem there is DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about)'s insane spec. No other train has a requirement for 3-hour hotel power and the ability to limp to the next station does it?

As I've said before the number of times that huge delays have occurred and the service has completely melted down on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and especially the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) due to a short section of OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") being damaged means that I think this 'insane spec' is, in reality, a sensible precaution, and well overdue.

[John R]

I believe it's true. A few years ago there was a regular 90 diagram on the Leeds London run and the comment was that on a stopping service it kept time, as its better acceleration more or less offset the lower maximum speed.

[TonyK]

As I've said before the number of times that huge delays have occurred and the service has completely melted down on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and especially the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) due to a short section of OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") being damaged means that I think this 'insane spec' is, in reality, a sensible precaution, and well overdue.

And I agree, II. Nothing impedes the smooth running of a railway more than a stalled train in the way. OLE problems are by no means uncommon, especially in extreme weather, and even though the train will only be able to make 30 mph with the diesel engine, it is still going to get to the next station more quickly than it would waiting for a rescue loco. A colleague some years back was travelling from Taunton to Bridgewater after work had the misfortune to be on a train that broke down just before the turn-off for Castle Cary. Eventually, they saw a loco run past on the other line, and thought their troubles would be soon over. But that broke down too, and couldn't turn back at Taunton. All in all, it took over 3 hours, during which time nothing could go north through Taunton. This had nothing to do with electric trains, but demonstrates what can happen. Self-rescue can only be a good thing.

Who says you can't run with your pants down?

[Rhydgaled]

As I've said before the number of times that huge delays have occurred and the service has completely melted down on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and especially the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) due to a short section of OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") being damaged means that I think this 'insane spec' is, in reality, a sensible precaution, and well overdue.

And I agree, II. Nothing impedes the smooth running of a railway more than a stalled train in the way. OLE problems are by no means uncommon, especially in extreme weather, and even though the train will only be able to make 30 mph with the diesel engine, it is still going to get to the next station more quickly than it would waiting for a rescue loco. A colleague some years back was travelling from Taunton to Bridgewater after work had the misfortune to be on a train that broke down just before the turn-off for Castle Cary. Eventually, they saw a loco run past on the other line, and thought their troubles would be soon over. But that broke down too, and couldn't turn back at Taunton. All in all, it took over 3 hours, during which time nothing could go north through Taunton. This had nothing to do with electric trains, but demonstrates what can happen. Self-rescue can only be a good thing.

My bold. The proportion of incidents where self-rescue would actually work is probably quite low. If the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is the train that pulled the wires down it my be unable to proceed due to wires tangled in the pantograph anyway. There are also other potential failures (like brakes perhaps?) which would not be helped by having emergeny power. And to have an emergency diesel engine means lumbering the 'electric' train with most of the disbenifits of diesel traction, primarily maintainance costs. Why bother with the capital cost of electrification if you aren't going to gain full benifit from it?

Has any other country got electric trains which have diesel engines purely 'just in case' something fails? Even Chiltern's generator DVTs^‡(resolve) running with their 67s are more for noise reduction while stabled but requiring power than 'just in case' aren't they? While I've been lucky enough not to be on a failed/stuck train for any length of time, I think I'd rather have the money spent on decent-length trains and have to wait for a thunderbird once than suffer many trips in trains of inadequate length.

[Electric train]

And to have an emergency diesel engine means lumbering the 'electric' train with most of the disbenifits of diesel traction, primarily maintainance costs. Why bother with the capital cost of electrification if you aren't going to gain full benifit from it?

Has any other country got electric trains which have diesel engines purely 'just in case' something fails?

The diesel engine will more than likely be a lower maintenance cost than a large battery on each coach, the engine I am guessing will be "plug n play palletised" unit, the traction package is being configured so the diesel gen set can power it for emergency moves.

Personally I think its an inspired option by Hitachi something that may well have been the bid winner over the other tenderer's who may well have gone along the lines of rescue locomotives, the tender was for a supply and maintain contract unit failures will be costly to Hitachi

[TonyK]

The diesel engine will more than likely be a lower maintenance cost than a large battery on each coach, the engine I am guessing will be "plug n play palletised" unit, the traction package is being configured so the diesel gen set can power it for emergency moves.

Personally I think its an inspired option by Hitachi something that may well have been the bid winner over the other tenderer's who may well have gone along the lines of rescue locomotives, the tender was for a supply and maintain contract unit failures will be costly to Hitachi

You can see it here. Technical details are here.

[stuving]

Some of the requirements on power supply for electric IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) are clear in the requirement, some are not:

• If a unit splits, every carriage must maintain lighting for 3 hours. That drives the battery requirement. Other services don't have this explicitly defined, and of course for some (PIS^▸ (Passenger Information System)) it would be impractical.
  
• When a unit is hauled by a loco supplying no electric power, outside OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") areas, it must meet the full spec. including HVAC for 6 hours. That is what drives the motor-generator solution.
• In "unable to proceed under main power source" mode it must maintain "basic services" for 3 hours. Basic services include "saloon ventilation", but that is not defined that I can see. Only a full HVAC is defined.
• In "train requires assistance from another train" mode it only has to try to meet the spec. for "unable to proceed under main power source" mode.

There a other mode similar to loco-hauled where it's hauled by a bi-mode IEP.
Note: only 3 hours - and then not always after it's been hauled with no 25kV.
All of this is subject to the caveat that the published requirement is still valid.

[John R]

My bold. The proportion of incidents where self-rescue would actually work is probably quite low. If the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is the train that pulled the wires down it my be unable to proceed due to wires tangled in the pantograph anyway. There are also other potential failures (like brakes perhaps?) which would not be helped by having emergeny power. And to have an emergency diesel engine means lumbering the 'electric' train with most of the disbenifits of diesel traction, primarily maintainance costs. Why bother with the capital cost of electrification if you aren't going to gain full benifit from it?

Has any other country got electric trains which have diesel engines purely 'just in case' something fails? Even Chiltern's generator DVTs^‡(resolve) running with their 67s are more for noise reduction while stabled but requiring power than 'just in case' aren't they? While I've been lucky enough not to be on a failed/stuck train for any length of time, I think I'd rather have the money spent on decent-length trains and have to wait for a thunderbird once than suffer many trips in trains of inadequate length.

I don't think anything is going to persuade you that IEP is a good idea until Pembroke Dock is cleared for 26m working. Having been to the Hitachi presentation in Swindon, and after allowing for a healthy degree of sceptism, I am more encouraged. (Although I think the jury is still out on relative costs against other options.)

[Rhydgaled]

I don't think anything is going to persuade you that IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is a good idea until Pembroke Dock is cleared for 26m working. Having been to the Hitachi presentation in Swindon, and after allowing for a healthy degree of sceptism, I am more encouraged. (Although I think the jury is still out on relative costs against other options.)

On the contary, I would strongly oppose any suggestion that Pembroke Dock should be cleared for 26m coaches. Personally, I'd rather Pembroke Dock and Carmarthen both lose through London trains than have IEPs in its current form. The only reason for keeping those trains in my view is capacity, the Welsh franchise would probably be unable to provide long enough trains. The Pacers on the Pembrokes can be packed on Summer Saturdays and the Carmarthen to Paddington service on weekdays looks to be at an ideal commuter time at Swansea (I haven't actually used that one though, so can only guess at how well used it is).

I have been pursuaded that IEP's 26m vehicles could well turn out to be a good idea on the electrified parts of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and as a replacement for IC125s on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), provided the emergency power requirements are dropped (as I see it, they would add a lot of cost and a bit of GHG^▸ (Greenhouse gas)* emmisions for very little benifit). I have also been pursauded that bi-mode IEP is probably the best of a bad bunch for the Cotswolds line, provided 5-car sets are abandoned and they come in at least 8-car formations instead.

I don't think anything will ever persuade me that East Coast should have bi-modes (unless they can share a fleet with another TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) or gain additional routes), or that the proposed 'electric'/bi-mode mix on the GWML is correct. Also, I will NEVER be happy with anything which sees 91s and/or their associated mrk4 carriages scrapped or exported before life expiry (which, given electrics last 5-10 years longer than diesels, should be after every single 158 has been retired, given that 158s were built arround the same time as 91s). New trains might turn out even nicer than the IC225s, but they would cost more.

*GreenHouse Gas

[IndustryInsider]

The proportion of incidents where self-rescue would actually work is probably quite low. If the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is the train that pulled the wires down it my be unable to proceed due to wires tangled in the pantograph anyway. There are also other potential failures (like brakes perhaps?) which would not be helped by having emergeny power.

That may well be the case.  It also might be the case that there's a Class 377 stopped at the signal ahead that can't move as it was that that ripped down the wires, so the IEP behind can go nowhere.  However, at least this engine will be able to provide lighting and air-conditioning whilst the problem is resolved - with a quick internet search you can find horror stories all round the world when trains are stuck with no power, no air-con for several hours.

Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.