SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Express Rail Alliance IEP Design Unveiled

73K views 279 replies 55 participants last post by  Vulcan's Finest 
#1 ·
#6 ·
Of the two designs, I think the Hitachi "looks" better, but the proof will be in the pudding. I would expect Japanese technology to be super reliable and they are using their hybrid technology. I've not really seen anything "special" from the Bombardier, Siemans bid. I get the impression that they don't seem too bothered by a potential 2,000 carriage contract!

But the IEP is a bit messy, a dual electric/diesel type is in my opinion the worst of both worlds. The end product will mean it would be extremely heavy and require a lot more electricity to power and a diesel engine that is loud and rough. Should have gone in for full electrification and reaped the benefits of a fully electric network.
 
#10 ·
A diesel loco for an electric train would make sense (the loco doing the not under the wires stuff). Full electrification of the cross country routes that the IEP would run on is light years away - or rather the massive distance between Bristol/Bedwyn and Plymouth (via Okehampton, one would guess, due to the sea at Dawlish) which would have to be done in one go to justify the cost (unless the whole system changes).
 
#11 ·
FT Report - Railway Industry 23 September 2008

The Financial Times will be publishing a report on the Railway
Industry on 23 September 2008. This will include an examination of the
Intercity Express Programme:

FT summary:


"Case Study: The UK’s InterCity Express Programme: Few UK rolling
stock programmes have encountered as much controversy as the UK
government’s efforts to replace the country’s ageing fleet of 200kph
high-speed trains. The proposed trains will have to be available in
diesel-only versions, electric versions and versions that can use
either power source. The programme is so complex that France’s Alstom
has dropped out of bidding. The government insists it will work. This
piece assesses if it will – or not"
 
#19 ·
There is another thread about the "IEP project Unravelling", but this one seems the more optimistic one to use again.

Can anyone kindly give an update about IEP, please?

It is for the GWML and ECML? It is restarted as a project, and will provide the trains for the GWML electrification? It would update the ECML before a High-Speed-X line down the east coast in the 2040s??
 
#20 ·
From Railway Eye

InterCity Express Programme (IEP) update

On 23 September 2011 I updated you on progress about the InterCity Express Programme (IEP) and undertook to keep you informed of further developments.

Agility Trains recently let us know that Planning Permission has now been granted for their three IEP traincare depots on the Great Western network – North Pole, London; Stoke Gifford, Bristol; and Swansea.

I can also confirm, contrary to recent media reports stating a contract has been agreed, that negotiations continue between the Department for Transport and Agility Trains to finalise the IEP contract details. I understand this will now be agreed by May 2012 at the earliest.

It is anticipated that the first IEP train will enter service in early 2017, with the full IEP timetable implementation not until May 2018, more than six years from now.

We await further developments and will continue to keep you informed as we learn more about this important Department for Transport project.



Delaying it to May would appear to give the DfT time to look at what the bidders for the GW franchise propose - presumably the outcome of that will decide whether this foolish and misguided project ever sees the light of day.

Chris
 
#22 · (Edited)
Where do i start?

- the new enthusiasm for electrification has removed most of the long-term need for bi-modes; at the current rate of electrification there wont be enough important lines without wires to justify having such a fleet, which leads to the madness of Swansea-London trains carrying all the extra weight pointlessly between the capital and Cardiff.

- mostly 5-carriage trains, doubling the number of train crew and catering staff compared to existing HST's.

- HST's which will still be needed for services to the South West for the forseeable future as the IEP isnt suitable.

- 26m carriages when the standard is 23m - requiring expensive infrastructure mods wherever they are used, restricting operations, flexibility and any possible cascades.

- Current plans include bi-mode's to Hull (and Middlesborough?) - again, very wasteful and both look likely to be electrified in the coming years as part of TPE-North.

- the north-east 'factory' which is just an assembly plant for screwing together japanese flatpacks, which realistically has no long term future as EU trains cant be delivered to the continent by rail due to loading gauge and there isnt enough UK demand for both Hitachi and Bombardier at Derby.

- the diesel engine in the 'all-electric' sets, in case of emergency to allow slow-speed running; extra cost, weight and maintenance burden for one-off occurences which i believe no other train in the world needs.

...but the worst aspect is the huge, crippling cost of the PFI to deliver it and maintain it, making the whole thing very difficult to finance.

Quite simply, there is very little if any support for it from the rail industry, everyone thought it was dead at the time of the last election due to a very critical report into it, but one civil servant apparently was determined to push it through. The momentum its gained since has been impossible to stop, especially with the whole Derby/Bombardier/Thameslink fiasco...

Chris
 
#23 ·
- mostly 5-carriage trains, doubling the number of train crew and catering staff compared to existing HST's.
Theyve shifted the order round slightly so now it will be 8 car electrics for the intercity services, rarely will there be a couple pair of 5 car, mostly in peaks.

- 26m carriages when the standard is 23m - requiring expensive infrastructure mods wherever they are used, restricting operations, flexibility and any possible cascades.
These arent going to be used off the main lines, Great Western was build to broad gauge and ECML is also quite accessible.

- the north-east 'factory' which is just an assembly plant for screwing together japanese flatpacks, which realistically has no long term future as EU trains cant be delivered to the continent by rail due to loading gauge and there isnt enough UK demand for both Hitachi and Bombardier at Derby.
They are UIC gauge clearing a line from the factory to the port to allow for export.

- the diesel engine in the 'all-electric' sets, in case of emergency to allow slow-speed running; extra cost, weight and maintenance burden for one-off occurences which i believe no other train in the world needs.
Surprisingly becoming more common, most electric locomotives now have a diesel backup engine too.

Theyve also dropped ordering suburban units for the London-Oxford services, so now mainly consists of Diesel for South West, Electric and Bi-mode for Bristol/South Wales and a small order of Bi-mode for the off wires ECML North East/Scotland beyond Central Belt services.
 
#26 ·
Theyve shifted the order round slightly so now it will be 8 car electrics for the intercity services, rarely will there be a couple pair of 5 car, mostly in peaks.
•11 8 car electric sets
•12 8 car bi-mode sets
26 5 car bi-mode sets

That is indeed better, but there are still too many bi-modes, too many 5-cars, and too few all-electric units.

These arent going to be used off the main lines, Great Western was build to broad gauge and ECML is also quite accessible.
The GW's broad gauge legacy wont remove the need for modifications to a large number of platforms. Your correct that IEP will be restricted to the modified lines - thats the problem; it was meant to replace HST's, but will now leave many of them operating for the forseeable future.

They are UIC gauge clearing a line from the factory to the port to allow for export.
Given the huge cost i very much doubt it, where did you hear that?

Surprisingly becoming more common, most electric locomotives now have a diesel backup engine too.
Its not a loco though - the all-electric IEP is an EMU, which will be operating under wires 100% of the time.

Diesel for South West, Electric and Bi-mode for Bristol/South Wales and a small order of Bi-mode for the off wires ECML North East/Scotland beyond Central Belt services.
...which doesnt justify Bi-modes with a lifespan of 30-40 years when there is the beginning of a rolling programme of electrification and the conversion of existing Voyagers/Meridians to bi-modes in the coming years.

Even if the all singing, all dancing technical spec could be justified, the cost cant - the PFI has pushed it up way too high at a time when the railway is being told to reduce its costs.

Chris
 
#24 ·
I agree that the criticism of the auxilliary diesel unit is unfair and that actually it is quite useful. Thats about all the IEP (v3.0) has got going for it though, that and the electric finally has enough transformer power to be a faster train than some of the 125mph trains we currently have in operation. Versions 1 and 2, the electric was slower than every 125mph train we have. Great.

The IEP is a situation being made to fit the plan and is absolutely f"@cking stupid in almost every possible way.

It is more expensive, it is less flexible, it has a lower performance and it is more complex than absolutely every possible alternative that has ever been put forward. The bi-modes are so expensive that even the extra spent on them to provide services onwards from Cardiff to Swansea, if cancelled and swapped for Pendolinos, could pay for the electrification from Cardiff to Swansea.

An example of the stupidity, is that part of the reason electrification to Swansea was rejected is because there is no point electrifying a line for one train per hour each way. Completely overlooking the fact that far more than 1 train uses that route per hour. Its a f"*cking farce.
 
#25 ·
Is there no-one who will criticise it politically, because it was originally a cunning plan from the Labour government?

And although the flat-pack assembly in the north-east is being criticised, is it the only viable route to a second railway builder in Britain? Do we really have no long-term need for two sites?
 
#27 ·
And although the flat-pack assembly in the north-east is being criticised, is it the only viable route to a second railway builder in Britain? Do we really have no long-term need for two sites?
Apparently a rolling programme of investment in carriages only provides enough UK work for one factory - which we dont have due to foreign competition and (thanks to privitisation) feast-to-famine ordering. This is how Derby went from an almost full order book to fears of closure in a couple of years.

Chris
 
#28 · (Edited)
If the number of new and replacement rolling stock was annualised theres a requirement for 200 carriages a year, that is enough to keep two plants going, remember under BR there were over five factories producing rolling stock and very little went abroad apart from the ex Mk3's for Ireland and Sprinters for Asia.

Given the huge cost i very much doubt it, where did you hear that?
Its part of the business plan for the plant, NR also has a policy of expanding freight clearance, all structures constructed or renewed today must be W10 cleared even if the line they are on is far below that and theres a couple of hundred million a year spent expanding freight clearance for hi-cube containers without low loader trailers.
 
#30 ·
If the number of new and replacement rolling stock was annualised...
...which isnt being suggested by anyone, certainly not the DfT who've decided they want to play less of a role in procurement.

Its part of the business plan for the plant, NR also has a policy of expanding freight clearance, all structures constructed or renewed today must be W10 cleared even if the line they are on is far below that and theres a couple of hundred million a year spent expanding freight clearance for hi-cube containers without low loader trailers.
Can you point me to said business plan? While W10 gives enough height for most continental stock, it doesnt give the required width - platforms for example are a big issue. Besides, shipping is hardly ideal especially for articulated/walk-through stock thats becoming more commonplace. Its far more likely they'd set up a mainland Europe plant if they had any success at winning orders.

Chris
 
#34 ·
You think thats weird? their clearing a route all the way from the chunnel to the midlands to expand cross border rail freight.
When was that agreed and funded?

The current gauge clearance going on is purely for UK container traffic from ports like Felixstowe and Southampton - continental freight traffic will remain restricted to HS1 and the adjoining freight terminal at Ripple Lane.

Chris
 
#36 · (Edited)
"Continental gauge freight trains could run beyond High Speed 1"

"the Midlands is a likely destination for the trains, although work is needed to establish if this is possible"

"Robinson said NR needs to investigate “the extent of onward forwarding” this traffic, including “up to the Midlands”, for example"

Thats not quite the same as "their clearing a route all the way from the chunnel to the midlands to expand cross border rail freight". This is hardly a new proposal, and as the above quotes show that despite renewed enthusiasm for it the case is far from made.

Chris
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top