Who to write to (in First Great Western) regarding IEP?

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

NSE^▸ (Network South East) - please read the thread :-)

This is what I said, about 6 posts above the one I referred to!

I think Oxford fasts will be cascaded EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) too, probably from 'Thameslink' stock (319s?), apart from those that go on to Cotwolds or Banbury, which will be 5car bi-modes (2x5 possibly to OXF^» (Oxford - next trains), splitting there)

[swrural]

I would have thought that the Westons would be better a 10 car combination of a 5 car electric with a 5 car bimode.  Pull into the present platform 3 at TM^‡(resolve) (more convenient for the planned new interchange, especially with the terminators being in the old trainshed).  Then uncouple with the Weston bimode half being at the front to go on to it.  I thought only a couple of trains were to go through to Weston anyway.  I suppose they could be the rear portion, arrive in the old trainshed and go out via the SPM^▸ (St Philip's Marsh (Bristol depot)) Avoiding line and Pylle Hill, although perhaps that will not be electrified !.

Something else I've thought of.  Will the taxi rank be outside the old trainshed or remain at the top of the incline or will there be two taxi ranks? 

Surely the performance drag of the bimode is best halved?  (Perhaps better not to build them at all and just string the wires down to Weston?  Or, just couple up a class 67 to the Westons?  They could then run on down to Taunton.).

Another point is, if the electrics were 2 x 5, one could then run half trains in the off peak possibly?   Or one could do what was suggested above and split at Swindon, one half to Bristol and the other to Cheltenham or Swansea?

Are there to be two train managers on the 10 car bimodes?

[Network SouthEast]

NSE^▸ (Network South East) - please read the thread :-)

This is what I said, about 6 posts above the one I referred to!

I think Oxford fasts will be cascaded EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) too, probably from 'Thameslink' stock (319s?), apart from those that go on to Cotwolds or Banbury, which will be 5car bi-modes (2x5 possibly to OXF^» (Oxford - next trains), splitting there)

Yes I have read your posts. Have you bothered reading my replies though? They won't be 319s! The EMUs will be new ones capable of 110mph which is the point I am making.

[ChrisB]

Thanks - Have these been specced yet, a la IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) sets? Where did you get that info from?

[ellendune]

Looking ahead as to capacity overkill on the Bristol routes along with not enough paths on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), I wonder if we might see trains splitting/joining in service as is a regular occurrence elsewhere on the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railway.

Services could run as 10 car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to Swindon for example and then split in to two seperate services, one perhaps to Bristol TM^‡(resolve) via Bath and another to Cardiff. It's just an idea that seems to work well elsewhere.

I thought the whole justification for the massive additional expense of the IEP bi-mode was to avoid coupling and uncoupling if they started splitting (and joining) trains that would demolish that argument.

[Network SouthEast]

My information is from the Great Western ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender). New EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) should be capable of at least 110mph running. They must have provision for ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) and SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) amongst other things which are suggested such as regenerative braking.

Now on a similar subject, whilst nothing has been explicitly said, Southern are currently procuring new EMUs and it has been stated that are not going to be used for their own services. These EMUs will be capable of AC and 110mph. Order size is for 29 to 54 four car units. The current GW^▸ (Great Western) Turbo fleet size is 57 units of 2 and 3 car. Some Turbos will need to be kept to service the North Downs line, Bedwyn and Greenford lines. I reckon that 54 EMUs operating on Oxford to Newbury along with the Basingstoke/Henly/Marlow/Windsor branches would provide a nice consistent 4 car off peak service along with 8 car, even 12 car peak trains from Oxford/Newbury to Paddington. I think there's a strong chance now that we have a GW management contract on our hands, that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) might be sending those EMUs to GW.

Separately, Porterbrook, the owners of the 319s have started looking at future options for the fleet. One of which is to have them re-geared and even shorted to three car length. With suburban stock replacement on the horizon on the lines out of Morgate and Victoria, I think there's more chance of the 319s appearing there than out of Paddington.

[Network SouthEast]

I thought the whole justification for the massive additional expense of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) bi-mode was to avoid coupling and uncoupling if they started splitting (and joining) trains that would demolish that argument.

The IEP spec (TS1696) allows for trains to couple and uncouple in service within two minutes. The original argument in favour of bi-modes was that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) believed it would take nine minutes to couple a locomotive.

[IndustryInsider]

My information is from the Great Western ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender). New EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) should be capable of at least 110mph running. They must have provision for ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) and SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) amongst other things which are suggested such as regenerative braking.

Now on a similar subject, whilst nothing has been explicitly said, Southern are currently procuring new EMUs and it has been stated that are not going to be used for their own services. These EMUs will be capable of AC and 110mph. Order size is for 29 to 54 four car units. The current GW^▸ (Great Western) Turbo fleet size is 57 units of 2 and 3 car. Some Turbos will need to be kept to service the North Downs line, Bedwyn and Greenford lines. I reckon that 54 EMUs operating on Oxford to Newbury along with the Basingstoke/Henly/Marlow/Windsor branches would provide a nice consistent 4 car off peak service along with 8 car, even 12 car peak trains from Oxford/Newbury to Paddington. I think there's a strong chance now that we have a GW management contract on our hands, that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) might be sending those EMUs to GW.

Agree with you that a 110mph 'new' EMU is likely to be used, but unless I've missed something, the ITT only stated that it was Network Rail's opinion that 110mph capable EMUs should be provided and that bidders should come to their own assessment of that view?  That is quite different from the 'definitely will' that you're confidently saying, even if the contents of the ITT can be regarded as relevant now anyway!

With regard to the Southern order, I agree that could very well be part of the longer term cascade plan (certainly more likely that the 319s originally pencilled in), but are they to be 110mph capable?  Again, I haven't seen the specific details confirming that, and the recent 110mph capable EMUs have all been provided by Siemens and not Bombadier who I think have yet to provide a 110mph capable suburban EMU.  Aren't Bombadier the shoe-in for this Southern order?

[John R]

Separately, Porterbrook, the owners of the 319s have started looking at future options for the fleet. One of which is to have them re-geared and even shorted to three car length. With suburban stock replacement on the horizon on the lines out of Morgate and Victoria, I think there's more chance of the 319s appearing there than out of Paddington.

Not sure about Moorgate. I seemed to recall from when they were built (and a quick check on Wikipedia confirms it) that the 313s are slightly smaller than normal stock so they can squeeze into the tunnels. There are also some technical differences in the DC^▸ (Direct Current) traction to comply with single tunnel underground regulations. Thus I would expect a new build would be more cost effective than attempting to convert existing stock, albeit more still more expensive than an off the shelf design.

[Network SouthEast]

With regard to the Southern order, I agree that could very well be part of the longer term cascade plan (certainly more likely that the 319s originally pencilled in), but are they to be 110mph capable?  Again, I haven't seen the specific details confirming that, and the recent 110mph capable EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) have all been provided by Siemens and not Bombadier who I think have yet to provide a 110mph capable suburban EMU.  Aren't Bombadier the shoe-in for this Southern order?

The Southern press release says about the trains being 110mph capable (my bold):

The potential competition for 116 electric (dual voltage) new rolling stock vehicles, with an option for a further 100 vehicles, would be openly tendered via the rail Link-Up system. The new rolling stock will be of dual voltage configuration and is required to operate up to 110 mph. Any rolling stock manufacturer registered on the rail Link-Up system would be able to compete for this opportunity.

I agree about what you say about Bombardier and 110mph running, however the Desiro wasn't 110mph off the shelf, and maybe it wouldn't take much more effort on Bombardier's part to produce a 110mph EMU?

My other thought was that as we know these units won't end up on Southern, whether it might be worth placing a bet on Hitachi. They are flavour of the month, and they'll be looking for more orders for Newton Heath and will been responsible for IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line). Could be some good synergies for them too perhaps?

[IndustryInsider]

The Southern press release says about the trains being 110mph capable (my bold):

Ahh, that's interesting.  I'm sure I read that press release, but didn't spot the 110mph bit.  That would, I reckon, make that order very possible to make its way onto GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) metals then as it's just about perfect!

My other thought was that as we know these units won't end up on Southern, whether it might be worth placing a bet on Hitachi. They are flavour of the month, and they'll be looking for more orders for Newton Heath and will been responsible for IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) on the GWML. Could be some good synergies for them too perhaps?

That's another good point.  Compatible couplers would be a start synergy wise... 

[John R]

I wonder whether Hitachi would want to be ramping up a production line for a (relatively) small order in parallel with IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) production. Bombardier on the other hand would just run on from the existing emu order which I think finishes around the end of the year. Although that would imply availability prior to GW^▸ (Great Western) being sparked, units could be used on the Thameslink to enable a cascade to the NW as that project makes progress. And it could also enable 319s to be released for refurbishment for wherever they end up.

In terms of speed, I suspect making the units 110mph from the get-go will be simpler than the conversion work Siemens had to do to backfit the 350 fleet.

[Southern Stag]

I thought the whole justification for the massive additional expense of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) bi-mode was to avoid coupling and uncoupling if they started splitting (and joining) trains that would demolish that argument.

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have decided that although it apparently takes 9 minutes to couple a locomotive to a unit it only takes 2 to couple two IEPs. The 9 minute example of course came from coupling a Class 57 to a Class 390, a bit of a cumbersome process that was never really designed to take place in service. There is no reason why a new build locomotive designed to couple quickly to an IEP unit couldn't couple as quickly as another IEP could. The Foster Review of IEP's alternative credible solutions were defeated on this phantom 9 minute coupling time.

Are there to be two train managers on the 10 car bimodes?

Yes, and two sets of catering crew. So double the staffing costs. You also lose vast amounts of space because of need for the crumple zones in the two end vehicles formed in the middle of the set.

[swrural]

I thought the whole justification for the massive additional expense of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) bi-mode was to avoid coupling and uncoupling if they started splitting (and joining) trains that would demolish that argument.

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have decided that although it apparently takes 9 minutes to couple a locomotive to a unit it only takes 2 to couple two IEPs. The 9 minute example of course came from coupling a Class 57 to a Class 390, a bit of a cumbersome process that was never really designed to take place in service. There is no reason why a new build locomotive designed to couple quickly to an IEP unit couldn't couple as quickly as another IEP could. The Foster Review of IEP's alternative credible solutions were defeated on this phantom 9 minute coupling time.

Are there to be two train managers on the 10 car bimodes?

Yes, and two sets of catering crew. So double the staffing costs. You also lose vast amounts of space because of need for the crumple zones in the two end vehicles formed in the middle of the set.

On the first point, Roger Ford of MR^▸ (Midland Railway) has written that 'Stephen Hammond was 'duped'.  It was all a mandarin's way of not extending the wires to Swansea.

On the second, this gets worse on the face of it doesn't it?  Perhaps two catering crews could be needed at busy mealtime trips.  In fairness, GW^▸ (Great Western) trains stop every 15 - 20 minutes or so, so a trolley person could work forward, then  nip out into the next set every other stop!  On some runs where fare evasion is rife, perhaps a qualified guard / TTI would do good business in each set?

I suggested coupling a class 67 to the 5 cars to Weston and further SW (all electric in my scenario, not 9 car only).  Could there be any conceivable reason why that cannot be technically possible or undesirable?
 

 

[Southern Stag]

You'd require compatible couplers. The Class 57s which are used to rescue Class 390s, and were used to drag them in service had the same Dellner couplers as the Class 390s have. It's unlikely Class 67s will have the same couplers as IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) units. A new build of diesel locomotives designed for the job could have the same coupler and handle all brake and ETH connections through the coupler head, negating the need for further brake or ETH pipes to be connected between the IEP and the loco.