I E P why do we need it?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

(That's units 5001 to 5053 for the 4 EPB calculation, except 5005 (or was it 5008) that was 12 less because it was built with wide singles

It was 5005 ... just found a photo, following up reading another thread about the "singles" coaches

http://www.railphotoarchive.org/rpc_zoom.php?img=0140020311000

[Oxonhutch]

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

How about the reintroduction of broad guage?

But Brunel's broad gauge whilst much wider track (7ft 1/4inch) the carriages were much the same width as Standard gauge stock, hence with far less bodywork overhanging the rails, far greater speed around curves was allowed, and a far smoother ride on straight track

Don't know about that.  I remember the end of a broad gauge coach that is preserved in the Didcot Railway Centre's carriage shed.  It is only one fixed bench seat in length (it was re-used as a cricket pavilion IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly)) but its width would seat at least eight persons comfortably, i.e. considerably wider than standard stock.  I would hazard a guess that the overhang was the same (both broad and standard gauge stock accessed the same platforms on dual gauge track) so I would guess that Brunel's carriages were about 3'3 3/4" wider than Mr Stephenson's - or there abouts!

That's nearly a metric yard! But then Brunel's father was French. 

[broadgage]

We need the ICEP because the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) wont last forever, and also have inadeqaute capacity on many services.
As others suggest what we need is a long train of proper loco hauled coachs,with facing seats, tables, luggage space, and a restaurant/buffet, with diesel or electric locomotives/power cars being used as required.

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.

I wrote that five years ago!
And what are we getting ? complicated hybrid diesel/electric multiple units, mainly shorter than existing trains, with most seats being bus style, and no catering beyond a trolley for steerage, luggage space remains to be seen, but is hardly likely to be improved is it ?

[grahame]

I wrote that five years ago!

Yes ... I was trawling through and re-opened a very old thread to answer a open question ... admittedly one that's unlikely to make a huge difference in the future, though it was the first experiment with more standing space for more passengers at the expense of reduced seating.

It is very interesting to look back at these old threads sometimes and see how things have come to pass.

[BBM]

Yes ... I was trawling through and re-opened a very old thread to answer a open question ... admittedly one that's unlikely to make a huge difference in the future, though it was the first experiment with more standing space for more passengers at the expense of reduced seating.

No, the reason why those coaches had wider compartments was because they were former 4-SUB Trailer Composites with 6 wider 1st class compartments and 3 narrower 2nd class. At some time in the 1950s they were declassified and transferred into 4-EPB units. One such coach did however have its 1st class reinstated when it was part of an experimental TC^‡(resolve) (Trailer Control) unit used on the Oxted line in the 1960s.

For a while in the early 1980s I commuted daily from Earley to St Margarets which involved changing onto 4-EPB Windsor services at Staines. On a few occasions I remember enjoying the relative additional comfort of these wider compartments although they did have standard 2nd class 6-a-side seating.

OK, back to IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)!

[stebbo]

Aren't we going over old ground here? Although I seem vaguely to recall that opinion was in favour of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), I know that I and a number of others expressed a view in favour of locomotive haulage enabling switches between diesel and electric power.

Seems to have come full circle in favour of locomotives - personally why a train has to lug "dead" power units around is beyond me.

[IndustryInsider]

Aren't we going over old ground here?

You could say that... 

[Rhydgaled]

why a train has to lug "dead" power units around is beyond me.

I think the main reason (on the so-called 'electric' IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) sets) is to keep the heating/air-con working if the OHLE falls down, so passengers don't overheat/freese. Completely overlooking the possibility that the air-con itself has failed (which is something class 158s in particular have been quite widely critisized for). Too late to do anything about that now, but letters to our MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) are in order to try and persuade the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) that the new fleet needs to allow for growth and not cut back quite so much on off-peak capacity. There are more diagramed seats (11,286) in the 18 'electric' diagrams planned than the 32 bi-mode diagrams (10,080 diagramed seats) and potentially reduced seats per day on certain routes (with the diagraming used to determine the size of the fleet, south Wales sees a reduction in seats per day). Passenger Focus agree that:

"Based on current information regarding the timetable and the seating capacity of the trains, there does appear to be little room for growth."

Surely nobody believes the visible investment in electrification, new trains and doubled frequency to Bristol will have no effect on growth?

How much growth did the new trains and increased frequencies on CrossCountry (probably far less headline-grabbing than electrification) create?

[IndustryInsider]

why a train has to lug "dead" power units around is beyond me.

I think the main reason (on the so-called 'electric' IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) sets) is to keep the heating/air-con working if the OHLE falls down, so passengers don't overheat/freese.

Not forgetting the ability to self-propel over short distances which will be incredibly useful if the juice has been switched off or damaged for some reason, or the train itself has pantograph issues.  I'm sure the air-con will be reliable, certainly I can't remember many air-con problems with recently built traction, especially the Javelin trains on which the IEP trains are fairly closely related to.

The installed emergency engine(s) will prove a fantastic asset in my opinion.

[stuving]

why a train has to lug "dead" power units around is beyond me.

I think the main reason (on the so-called 'electric' IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) sets) is to keep the heating/air-con working if the OHLE falls down, so passengers don't overheat/freese.

Since we're going over old ground ... not so. Electric trains are required to have limited movement without overhead power, but only "basic services". That's more than just emergency lighting, and so might need a lot of batteries, but does not include heating or cooling. However, the other key requirement is for the full interior environment when hauled by a locomotive that supplies no electricity. That requirement (and probably limited movement too) mean that in effect the solution has to have diesel generators.

[Rhydgaled]

stebbo asked and I answered. I hadn't forgotten about the ability to 'limp home' but unlike IndustryInsider I don't expect it to be particularly useful in practice due to other stock not having the facility and the likelyhood that if the OHLE is down it will be tangled in the pantograph of a train. That presumably prevents that unit moving anyway. That left basic 'hotel' services as the main justification for the diesel engine in my opinion.

[Network SouthEast]

Obviously if a train has brought down the wires it's not going anywhere soon. However the current will be switched off, and that will affect trains either side that are otherwise stranded. Clearly it is much better for them to limp to a station and wait out the problems rather than be stranded as well.

[eightf48544]

Just received Today's Railways Europe which has an article on Inno Irans the big rail show in Berlin.

It seems most manufactures are offering Powerful Electric locos with Last Mile diesel engine. Bombardier with the TRAXX and Siemens with the Vectron plus our own Vossloch EURO Dual Class 88. These  would seem to be the answer to the problem with breakdowns of the O/H and allow loco haulage.

There is also a hint that EDs with more powerful Diesel Engines are being looked at like the upgrades to the 73 where the diesel and Electric power are nearly equal. These could be usueful in places like cornwall where the mainline might be elctrified but the branches won't and you don't rquire a 160 kmh loco under the wires.

So why put diesel engines under EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)

[stebbo]

I wonder how on earth we've managed up until the second decade of the 21st century.

Could not the driving trailer have a small diesel for emergency purposes?

[grahame]

I wonder how on earth we've managed up until the second decade of the 21st century.

Could not the driving trailer have a small diesel for emergency purposes?

Perhaps there's a difference between "managing" and "optimising"?   

Multipower units used to be very complex, and extremely limited in some of their modes - but as technology moves forward there are other balances that can be struck with better equipment. The talk in this thread, on IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), is electric stock with infill diesel engines, but you could equally look at electric stock with infill batteries - the unit being tested at the moment (a 379?) being able to run for around 75 miles.   I'm noting too reports of tram systems with catenary only for a part of the route or use alternative power such as http://www.caf.es/en/ecocaf/nuevas-soluciones/tranvia-acr.php and http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/battery-trams-running-in-nanjing.html and http://www.douglashorsetramway.net .

This is really exciting stuff - so many railway services start from a big city (let's call it "London") with a lotta services each hour, and electric is obvious.  But the along the way, the lines branch, some services terminate and the remaining services reduce in frequency.  And there's the nightmare question "where do we end electrification"?  Go all the way until you run out of railway and it's not cost effective; stop at an intermediate point and without the second power type in the same train, you have diesels doing long electric runs, or a change of trains for people going beyond the electrified zone - creating a most awkward area just beyond where people feel cheated - that everyone else's gain on electrification to the boundary may be their loss.

I can see now - and into the future - some places where alternative power could get extended use either prior to being included in a more-future electric program, or indeed in the longer term, over and above where IEP use is envisaged.