I E P why do we need it?

[whole diary]

[Btline]

What we will probably get is some variety of complicated diesel/electric hybrid multiple unit, shorter than existing trains and with high density bus seats and no catering or luggage space.

[onthecushions]

1. As I remember in 1976, when HST^▸ (High Speed Train) descended to the Western Region of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), it was to have a service life of 15 years (to 1991). Fortunately it was an engineer-designed train, and public service, nationalised industry engineers at that, so it had a galaxy of in-built virtues. It had advanced, long (23m) monocoque coach bodies made of Corten steel, (stronger and corrosion resistant). It had engineered BT10 bogies without cheap cart springs. It was production engineered so that it was cheap to manufacture but had flexibility in length and style so as to allow trailer and loco hauled cars (mk 3a), sleepers, rough and ready class 455/7/8/9's, slightly better class 317/9/21's and even SR^‡(resolve) class 442's, not to mention the 150's. The power cars were a generation step forward with high speed, lighter and (for then) reliable  engines, brushless alternators and motor bogies that rode rather than bounced and were kind to the track. The electric equivalent, the Class 87, disappointed in that although it had 4 times the power of a Class 253/4 (our power car) it was low geared and therefore slow, smashed the track and slipped on the grades, giving electrification a bad name for 30 years.

2. While the Mark 3's could probably well exceed the 50 year lives of Mark 1 emu's, we will need both replacements and additions in time. The above listed virtues of technology, flexiblity, performance and cost are good starting points but in addition I suggest the following:

(a) Capacity. HST's 5 2nd class and 2.5 1st class cars provide a microscopic consist for a modern train. For any popular route, such short train lengths would require tube-train frequencies, soaking up paths and clogging up the line. Eurostar manages a maximum of 18 trailers compared to HST's 8, although TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) has the flexiblity to have shorter units in multiple. Hence we need long trains.

(b) TENS. The Europeans understand high speed lines and have devised a template towards which national railway administrations must work for designated lines, such as common signalling, 400m platforms, power supplies etc. In the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) the designated routes are ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) (Bristol/S Wales) as well as CTRL^▸ (Channel Tunnel Rail Link). Hence we need a compatible design.

(c) Power. Only 25kV from an AT feeder station (80MVA) could match the size and speed needed. Putting in tiny diesels, whether 300 kW or 2.7MW, adds complexity where don't want it - on the move - and might still leave us slipping on Dainton etc. Better surely to put in decent catenary and enough masts to avoid breakdowns in the first place and bring Exeter and Plymouth under the wires. West of Plymouth, we probably can't go fast enough (because of curvature) to need more than a hitch-up diesel locomotive.   Lets KISS^▸ (keep it simple, stupid!) and have a practical power solution.

IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) - Innovative Engineering Prevented.

OTC

[Electric train]

1. As I remember in 1976, when HST^▸ (High Speed Train) descended to the Western Region of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), it was to have a service life of 15 years (to 1991). Fortunately it was an engineer-designed train, and public service, nationalised industry engineers at that, so it had a galaxy of in-built virtues. It had advanced, long (23m) monocoque coach bodies made of Corten steel, (stronger and corrosion resistant). It had engineered BT10 bogies without cheap cart springs. It was production engineered so that it was cheap to manufacture but had flexibility in length and style so as to allow trailer and loco hauled cars (mk 3a), sleepers, rough and ready class 457/8/9's, slightly better class 317/9/21's and even SR^‡(resolve) class 442's, not to mention the 150's. The power cars were a generation step forward with high speed, lighter and (for then) reliable  engines, brushless alternators and motor bogies that rode rather than bounced and were kind to the track. The electric equivalent, the Class 87, disappointed in that although it had 4 times the power of a Class 253/4 (our power car) it was low geared and therefore slow, smashed the track and slipped on the grades, giving electrification a bad name for 30 years.

2. While the Mark 3's could probably well exceed the 50 year lives of Mark 1 emu's, we will need both replacements and additions in time. The above listed virtues of technology, flexiblity, performance and cost are good starting points but in addition I suggest the following:

(a) Capacity. HST's 5 2nd class and 2.5 1st class cars provide a microscopic consist for a modern train. For any popular route, such short train lengths would require tube-train frequencies, soaking up paths and clogging up the line. Eurostar manages a maximum of 18 trailers compared to HST's 8, although TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) has the flexiblity to have shorter units in multiple. Hence we need long trains.

(b) TENS. The Europeans understand high speed lines and have devised a template towards which national railway administrations must work for designated lines, such as common signalling, 400m platforms, power supplies etc. In the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) the designated routes are ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) (Bristol/S Wales) as well as CTRL^▸ (Channel Tunnel Rail Link). Hence we need a compatible design.

(c) Power. Only 25kV from an AT feeder station (80MVA) could match the size and speed needed. Putting in tiny diesels, whether 300 kW or 2.7MW, adds complexity where don't want it - on the move - and might still leave us slipping on Dainton etc. Better surely to put in decent catenary and enough masts to avoid breakdowns in the first place and bring Exeter and Plymouth under the wires. West of Plymouth, we probably can't go fast enough (because of curvature) to need more than a hitch-up diesel locomotive.   Lets KISS^▸ (keep it simple, stupid!) and have a practical power solution.

IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) - Innovative Engineering Prevented.

OTC

Spot on

[willc]

But to be fair to Class 87s - and their 1960s forebears - they were all something of a compromise, built to mixed-traffic spec, rather than an out-and-out express passenger design. And the 86s with their original suspensions were the true track-killers.

As for longer trains, you would need to rebuild the entire throat at Paddington, King's Cross, etc, to allow their use. Instead, how about a series E4 double-decker Shinkansen train, eight cars (6x25m and 2x25.7m driving cars), distributed power so no problem up Dainton Bank, seating capacity 817 people! Seems like FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have got a way to go to achieve true high capacity.

Buried away in Modern Railways for February is an interesting nugget that seems to suggest 2016 could be the end of the road for FGW's HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), as Alstom, which makes the Automatic Train Protection system, has given notice it will not provide maintenance support beyond 2016. So short of equipping trains with a couple of years' life left in them with expensive new ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) kit, that's it for the 125s if use of ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) or something with a similar function is to remain compulsory.

Alstom also supplies the different ATP system used on the Chiltern Line, where it has said it will only make two more trains' worth of kit, beyond that already on order for the 172s and will end maintenance support by 2019.

[inspector_blakey]

As for longer trains, you would need to rebuild the entire throat at Paddington, King's Cross, etc, to allow their use. Instead, how about a series E4 double-decker Shinkansen train, eight cars (6x25m and 2x25.7m driving cars), distributed power so no problem up Dainton Bank, seating capacity 817 people! Seems like FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have got a way to go to achieve true high capacity.

I suspect because as soon as they encountered Box, Chipping Sodbury or the Severn Tunnels FGW would become the proud operators of National Rail's first open-topped train service!

[willc]

I wasn't being entirely serious. Just that writing 'longer trains are the answer' is no answer, as you need infrastructure able to handle them. Paddington as it stands is awkward for anything much longer than an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), and at King's Cross I just don't see how you could do anything to extend train lengths, as the space between the platform ends and the tunnels is full of pointwork, which you can't do without.

[Btline]

Double deckera as not the solution either as dwells are increased.

How about the reintroduction of broad guage?

[eightf48544]

Buried away in Modern Railways for February is an interesting nugget that seems to suggest 2016 could be the end of the road for FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), as Alstom, which makes the Automatic Train Protection system, has given notice it will not provide maintenance support beyond 2016. So short of equipping trains with a couple of years' life left in them with expensive new ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) kit, that's it for the 125s if use of ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) or something with a similar function is to remain compulsory.

Alstom also supplies the different ATP system used on the Chiltern Line, where it has said it will only make two more trains' worth of kit, beyond that already on order for the 172s and will end maintenance support by 2019.

Yep I read that bit. Hope DafT call Alstom's bluff and give the contract a British manufacturer.

[IndustryInsider]

As for longer trains, you would need to rebuild the entire throat at Paddington, King's Cross, etc, to allow their use. Instead, how about a series E4 double-decker Shinkansen train, eight cars (6x25m and 2x25.7m driving cars), distributed power so no problem up Dainton Bank, seating capacity 817 people! Seems like FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have got a way to go to achieve true high capacity.

Buried away in Modern Railways for February is an interesting nugget that seems to suggest 2016 could be the end of the road for FGW's HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), as Alstom, which makes the Automatic Train Protection system, has given notice it will not provide maintenance support beyond 2016. So short of equipping trains with a couple of years' life left in them with expensive new ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) kit, that's it for the 125s if use of ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) or something with a similar function is to remain compulsory.

A capacity of 817 small healthy Japansese people equates to about 300 average sized over-weight pasty chomping British people! 

The ATP issue is an interesting one, Voyagers are permitted to run at their full 125mph speed on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) between Didcot and Reading without any form of ATP (and I believe west of Swindon too), but are restricted to 100mph east of Reading (though not that many go that way any more!). Anyone know why?

[devon_metro]

Good Question although it is worth bearing in mind that Voyagers aren't booked to use the Main Lines between Didcot and Reading, most Voyagers use the reliefs AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know).

[Zoe]

Good Question although it is worth bearing in mind that Voyagers aren't booked to use the Main Lines between Didcot and Reading, most Voyagers use the reliefs AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know).

I believe they are not allowed on the main lines due to not having ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection).  This could have been one reason it was decided to withdraw Virgin Cross Country services to Paddington in 2003.

[IndustryInsider]

Good Question although it is worth bearing in mind that Voyagers aren't booked to use the Main Lines between Didcot and Reading, most Voyagers use the reliefs AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know).

I believe they are not allowed on the main lines due to not having ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection).  This could have been one reason it was decided to withdraw Virgin Cross Country services to Paddington in 2003.

Although they do indeed often get pathed on the Relief lines, they are allowed on the Main Lines as per my original post; Didcot-Reading 125mph and east of Reading at 100mph max.

[Zoe]

Although they do indeed often get pathed on the Relief lines, they are allowed on the Main Lines as per my original post; Didcot-Reading 125mph and east of Reading at 100mph max.

Is that why the service to Paddington was withdrawn?

[IndustryInsider]

Although they do indeed often get pathed on the Relief lines, they are allowed on the Main Lines as per my original post; Didcot-Reading 125mph and east of Reading at 100mph max.

Is that why the service to Paddington was withdrawn?

I don't think that was the specific reason. After all, Operation Princess, probably meant just as many if not more ran on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) between Reading and Acton on Brighton services via Kensington Olympia. Operation Princess' initial number of trains running through to Brighton and Portsmouth naturally replaced the Paddington trains as more sensible destinations to supplement the hourly Bournemouth service. Sadly, Portsmouth was very short lived as a destination and now Brighton has gone too.

[John R]

Though it would appear as though the publicity surrounding the "ghost bus" means that DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) are now saying they will reinstate some sort of service. But whether it is one local service a week or a meaningful service to Brighton remains to be seen.