Another nail in IEP's coffin

[Recliner]

Remember all those theories that Hitachi's IEP was being favoured
because Japan might buy some Typhoons in an exchange deal? Well, as
expected, Japan has (as usual) chosen the US option, the F-35 (which
we're also buying).

"Japan picks Lockheed's F-35 in $7bn fighter deal

Japan has picked Lockheed Martin's F-35 to be its next front-line
fighter plane, overlooking the Eurofighter Typhoon built by BAE Systems
and EADS in Europe.

By Graham Ruddick, and agencies 9:55AM GMT 20 Dec 2011

The decision was announced earlier today, as Japan and the US stressed
that their security alliance was tight in the face of worry about an
unstable North Korea after the death of its leader, Kim Jong-il.

Japan's defence minister, Yasuo Ichikawa, said the decision to buy 42 of
the stealth aircraft, valued by analysts at more than $7bn (£4.5bn),
would help Japan adjust to a changing security environment after
yesterday's announcement of the death of the 69-year-old North Korean
leader.

"The security environment surrounding future fighter jets is
transforming. The F-35 has capabilities that can firmly respond to the
changes," Mr Ichikawa told reporters.

Japan had been identified as a potential export market for the
Eurofighter Typhoon, which was competing against two planes from US
defence companies - Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Boeing's F/A-18 Super
Hornet.

However, the European group was always thought to have considered itself
an outsider for the Japanese contract because of the US military's close
ties to Japan. Washington is Tokyo's main ally.

The Japanese government is also thought to have been impressed with the
F-35's advanced stealth technology. However, the aircraft is relatively
unproven and the manufacturing programme has been controversial in the
US because of delays and overrunning costs.

The deal is not a total washout for BAE because it is making part of the
F-35 for Lockheed. However the work will be less lucrative than winning
an order for Typhoon, for which the UK defence company is one of the
prime contractors."
<snip>

Continues in
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8967552/Japan-picks-Lockheeds-F-35-in-7bn-fighter-deal.html>

[allantracy]

Post by Recliner
Remember all those theories that Hitachi's IEP was being favoured
because Japan might buy some Typhoons in an exchange deal?  Well, as
expected, Japan has (as usual) chosen the US option, the F-35 (which
we're also buying).

I thought the IEP concept was born in the DfT and that the only
contribution Hitachi made, towards making IEP a reality, was
persuading the Japanese government to subsidise the highly expensive
project that had resulted.

Despite, contracts and promises of new factories in the NE it seems to
me that the wholly hare brained IEP concept is still as far away from
reality as when it was first bounced.

All too painfully slowly, the penny does seem to be dropping that the
harder you look at the IEP project the less it stands up and that all
we're really waiting on now is an exit strategy.

[Robert Cox]

Post by allantracy

Post by Recliner
Remember all those theories that Hitachi's IEP was being favoured
because Japan might buy some Typhoons in an exchange deal?  Well, as
expected, Japan has (as usual) chosen the US option, the F-35 (which
we're also buying).

I thought the IEP concept was born in the DfT and that the only
contribution Hitachi made, towards making IEP a reality, was
persuading the Japanese government to subsidise the highly expensive
project that had resulted.

It was /conceived/ in the DfT - 'born' is probably a bit premature!

There were rumours circulating several months ago to the effect that
the Japanese government might buy some Typhoons if the UK government
gave the go-ahead for Agility Trains/Hitachi to supply the IEP. It was
never the Japanese taxpayer who was going to subsidise the IEP but, as
one would expect, the UK taxpayer.

In any event the reason that the project is so eye-wateringly expensive
is not the technology or the design but that the DfT wanted to push all
the construction, operating and maintenance risk onto the supplier in a
PFI/PPP arrangement. The customer, the DfT[1], would as a result pay
heavily for not having to worry about /anything/ and so be able to
sleep well at night over a period of 27 1/2 years.

Post by allantracy
Despite, contracts and promises of new factories in the NE it seems to
me that the wholly hare brained IEP concept is still as far away from
reality as when it was first bounced.
All too painfully slowly, the penny does seem to be dropping that the
harder you look at the IEP project the less it stands up and that all
we're really waiting on now is an exit strategy.

I hope that that is the case.

[1] Actually not the DfT, but you and me and all the other members of
this ng. And then some...

[Jeremy Double]

Post by Robert Cox

Post by allantracy

Post by Recliner

Post by allantracy

Post by Recliner
Remember all those theories that Hitachi's IEP was being favoured

because Japan might buy some Typhoons in an exchange deal? Well, as
expected, Japan has (as usual) chosen the US option, the F-35 (which
we're also buying).

Post by allantracy
I thought the IEP concept was born in the DfT and that the only

contribution Hitachi made, towards making IEP a reality, was
persuading the Japanese government to subsidise the highly expensive
project that had resulted.

It was /conceived/ in the DfT - 'born' is probably a bit premature!

"Ill-conceived", surely? ;-)

[Robert Cox]

Post by Jeremy Double

Post by Robert Cox

Post by allantracy

Post by Recliner

Post by allantracy

Post by Recliner
Remember all those theories that Hitachi's IEP was being favoured

because Japan might buy some Typhoons in an exchange deal? Well, as
expected, Japan has (as usual) chosen the US option, the F-35 (which
we're also buying).

Post by allantracy
I thought the IEP concept was born in the DfT and that the only

contribution Hitachi made, towards making IEP a reality, was
persuading the Japanese government to subsidise the highly expensive
project that had resulted.

It was /conceived/ in the DfT - 'born' is probably a bit premature!

"Ill-conceived", surely? ;-)

<g>

[t***@aol.com]

Post by Jeremy Double

Post by Robert Cox
It was /conceived/ in the DfT - 'born' is probably a bit premature!

"Ill-conceived", surely? ;-)

I've heard it referred to as an abortion.

--
gordon

[Michael Bell]

In message <f2668df1-48b4-47e4-89d2-***@o14g2000vbo.googlegro
ups.com>

Post by allantracy

Post by Recliner
Remember all those theories that Hitachi's IEP was being favoured
because Japan might buy some Typhoons in an exchange deal?  Well, as
expected, Japan has (as usual) chosen the US option, the F-35 (which
we're also buying).

I thought the IEP concept was born in the DfT and that the only
contribution Hitachi made, towards making IEP a reality, was
persuading the Japanese government to subsidise the highly expensive
project that had resulted.
Despite, contracts and promises of new factories in the NE it seems to
me that the wholly hare brained IEP concept is still as far away from
reality as when it was first bounced.
All too painfully slowly, the penny does seem to be dropping that the
harder you look at the IEP project the less it stands up and that all
we're really waiting on now is an exit strategy.

But the problem remains. What are we going to about the HSTs, now 30
years old, and about the situation we have now London - Edinburgh ->
Inverness and will soon have with London - Bristol -> Penzance and
suchlike.

Michael Bell



--

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:01:51 GMT, Michael Bell

Post by Michael Bell
But the problem remains. What are we going to about the HSTs, now 30
years old, and about the situation we have now London - Edinburgh ->
Inverness and will soon have with London - Bristol -> Penzance and
suchlike.

A simpler, cheaper EMU, and either haul it with locos or just do
connections.

Neil

[allantracy]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Michael Bell
But the problem remains. What are we going to about the HSTs, now

30

Post by Michael Bell
years old, and about the situation we have now London - Edinburgh

->

Post by Michael Bell
Inverness and will soon have with London - Bristol -> Penzance and
suchlike.

A simpler, cheaper EMU, and either haul it with locos or just do
connections.

Not very practical for GW though.

It would mean locos being attached and detached at Oxford, Swindon,
Bristol and Cardiff.

Gradual fill in electrification, starting with Swansea, would be a
much better solution and, in the meantime, stick with the HSTs on
routes like those through the Cotswolds until the wires eventually
spread further.

If the West of England is to be electrified, then let's go via
Reading, Basingstoke, Salisbury and Yeovil and even maybe Oakhampton,
passing through places where all the people are and to get some speed.

Failing that, Pendolinos are a must for WoE if we're ever going to go
any faster than the current walking pace over those Devon banks.

Or, of course and probably far more likely, we just go via Bristol
taking routes that are pretty straight and fast already.

As for North of Scotland, just give up on London trains, air is always
going to be faster to London.

Much better if places like Aberdeen, Dundee and Inverness became part
of XC serving the provinces where air links are nowhere near as good
or non existent.

How about a limited stop (in England at least) day train from
Inverness via Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester to Birmingham, Oxford and
eventually a leisurely arrival at Paddington (for those poor soles too
scared to fly and in all probability not much keener on high speed
rail either).

[Ross]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:22:49 -0800 (PST) [UTC], allantracy wrote:

[...]

Post by allantracy
How about a limited stop (in England at least) day train from
Inverness via Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester to Birmingham, Oxford and
eventually a leisurely arrival at Paddington (for those poor soles too
scared to fly and in all probability not much keener on high speed
rail either).

Surely you're not going to let it miss out the Metropolis of
Middlesbrough?

[ian batten]

Post by Michael Bell
But the problem remains. What are we going to about the HSTs, now 30
years old,

What's the problem with their being 30 years old? Most of them have
been completely re-engined at least once. And for the areas that are
electrified, for everyone other than trainspotters the Pendolinos have
been a raging success, so just buy more of those as the balance of
track that is electrified alters. Every penny spent on developing
the IEP is a penny that could be spent on more route-miles of
electrification. IEP is the Duke of Gloucester of our times: a vanity
project by people keen to show they can do what their predecessors
did, without concern for economic viability.

Post by Michael Bell
and about the situation we have now London - Edinburgh ->
Inverness and will soon have with London - Bristol -> Penzance and
suchlike.

Whatever the question is, a bi-mode multiple-unit isn't the answer.
Coupling a class 57 onto the front of a Pendolino does precisely the
same job.

ian

[Mike D]

Post by ian batten
Whatever the question is, a bi-mode multiple-unit isn't the answer.
Coupling a class 57 onto the front of a Pendolino does precisely the
same job.
ian

Not sure about 'precisely', I suspect performance would be pretty
dismal, no where near that of an HST, let alone later 22x units.

I agree though the HST will probably carry on for a good few years,
after all it does the job well, its comfortable, and well liked by the
travelling public (but since when did that bother TOC's)

Mike

[Bevan Price]

Post by Mike D

Post by ian batten
Whatever the question is, a bi-mode multiple-unit isn't the answer.
Coupling a class 57 onto the front of a Pendolino does precisely the
same job.
ian

Not sure about 'precisely', I suspect performance would be pretty
dismal, no where near that of an HST, let alone later 22x units.
Mike

The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays, with station
layouts no longer designed for speedy loco changing, and then waiting
for the loco & train computers to communicate with each other. A Class
67 would give much better performance than a 57, and since the
non-electrified sections mostly have line speeds limits well under 100
mph, the additional running time for loco haulage should be only a few
minutes - except on the steep gradients between Perth & Inverness if
they wanted to "drag" 390's to / from Inverness.

Bevan

[Michael Bell]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Mike D

Post by ian batten
Whatever the question is, a bi-mode multiple-unit isn't the answer.
Coupling a class 57 onto the front of a Pendolino does precisely the
same job.
ian

Not sure about 'precisely', I suspect performance would be pretty
dismal, no where near that of an HST, let alone later 22x units.
Mike

The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays, with station
layouts no longer designed for speedy loco changing, and then waiting
for the loco & train computers to communicate with each other. A Class
67 would give much better performance than a 57, and since the
non-electrified sections mostly have line speeds limits well under 100
mph, the additional running time for loco haulage should be only a few
minutes - except on the steep gradients between Perth & Inverness if
they wanted to "drag" 390's to / from Inverness.
Bevan

I'm not going to the stake for it, but my solution is a rake of
tilting unpowered coaches, with a driving cab at each end, coupling to
an electric loco at the London end and a diesel at the country end. So
not actually a "change-over" but a coupling at one end and an
uncoupling at the other.

Michael Bell







--

[Mike D]

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays, with station
layouts no longer designed for speedy loco changing, and then waiting
for the loco & train computers to communicate with each other. A Class
67 would give much better performance than a 57, and since the
non-electrified sections mostly have line speeds limits well under 100
mph, the additional running time for loco haulage should be only a few
minutes - except on the steep gradients between Perth & Inverness if
they wanted to "drag" 390's to / from Inverness.
Bevan

I would have thought the issue would be acceleration not speed.
Current units recover speed very quickly, I can remember 47's on the
Manchester - Leeds trains stuggling to recover speed after each stop
or speed limit. The journeys where dragging an electric unit would be
required, such as Edinburgh - Aberdeen have lots of stops and speed
limits with faster sections in between, I would imagine they would
also get in the way of more modern stock.

What about a generator on wheels, to generate current which is then
used by the trains traction motors which could be attached where the
wires run out.

[Recliner]

Post by Mike D

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the
loco to a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays, with
station layouts no longer designed for speedy loco changing, and
then waiting for the loco & train computers to communicate with each
other. A Class 67 would give much better performance than a 57, and
since the non-electrified sections mostly have line speeds limits
well under 100 mph, the additional running time for loco haulage
should be only a few minutes - except on the steep gradients between
Perth & Inverness if they wanted to "drag" 390's to / from Inverness.
Bevan

I would have thought the issue would be acceleration not speed.
Current units recover speed very quickly, I can remember 47's on the
Manchester - Leeds trains stuggling to recover speed after each stop
or speed limit. The journeys where dragging an electric unit would be
required, such as Edinburgh - Aberdeen have lots of stops and speed
limits with faster sections in between, I would imagine they would
also get in the way of more modern stock.
What about a generator on wheels, to generate current which is then
used by the trains traction motors which could be attached where the
wires run out.

This was the concept in the Mk 1 version of IEP, subsequently superseded
by the current DEMU version.

[ian batten]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Mike D

Post by ian batten
Whatever the question is, a bi-mode multiple-unit isn't the answer.
Coupling a class 57 onto the front of a Pendolino does precisely the
same job.
ian

Not sure about 'precisely', I suspect performance would be pretty
dismal, no where near that of an HST, let alone later 22x units.
Mike

The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino.

You can do a lot of work on designing, building and installing a
faster coupling for the price of procuring complete new rakes of stock
to a new design.

ian

[Matthew Geier]

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco. With automatic couplers it shouldn't any more trouble than coupling/uncoupling a pair of EMUs which happens every day at junction stations.
If 'the computers take 10 minutes to synchronise' is an issue, some one should fix the computer systems on the train so that they can cope with reconfiguration of the train with out having a total heart attack and then reboot/reinitialise cycle.

The Germans are coupling locomotives on with hook and link couplers in under 5 minutes at junction stations.

The only reason I can see for this fear of loco hauling what is otherwise an EMU is that the locomotives would have to be 'customised' for compatibility with the EMU sets and no one wants to fund customised locomotives that would get relatively low utilisation compared to the EMU coaches them selves and the locomotives general traffic cousins.

And probably every one knows that even if they did implement hook and pull of EMU coaches past the wires, the 'powers' would only purchase EXACTLY the number of locomotives required and every time a loco failed or a service ran late and missed it's 'connection' a service past the wires would get cancelled.

[Pat O'Neill]

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco. With automatic
couplers it shouldn't any more trouble than coupling/uncoupling a pair of
EMUs which happens every day at junction stations.
If 'the computers take 10 minutes to synchronise' is an issue, some one
should fix the computer systems on the train so that they can cope with
reconfiguration of the train with out having a total heart attack and then
reboot/reinitialise cycle.

The Germans are coupling locomotives on with hook and link couplers in
under 5 minutes at junction stations.

The only reason I can see for this fear of loco hauling what is otherwise
an EMU is that the locomotives would have to be 'customised' for
compatibility with the EMU sets and no one wants to fund customised
locomotives that would get relatively low utilisation compared to the EMU
coaches them selves and the locomotives general traffic cousins.

And probably every one knows that even if they did implement hook and pull
of EMU coaches past the wires, the 'powers' would only purchase EXACTLY the
number of locomotives required and every time a loco failed or a service ran
late and missed it's 'connection' a service past the wires would get
cancelled.
2 minutes for a 4SUB attachment in my day as a shunter. Arrival of rear
portion, to the departure on complete train.

[Bevan Price]

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco. With automatic
couplers it shouldn't any more trouble than coupling/uncoupling a pair
of EMUs which happens every day at junction stations.
If 'the computers take 10 minutes to synchronise' is an issue, some one
should fix the computer systems on the train so that they can cope with
reconfiguration of the train with out having a total heart attack and
then reboot/reinitialise cycle.
The Germans are coupling locomotives on with hook and link couplers in
under 5 minutes at junction stations.
The only reason I can see for this fear of loco hauling what is
otherwise an EMU is that the locomotives would have to be 'customised'
for compatibility with the EMU sets and no one wants to fund customised
locomotives that would get relatively low utilisation compared to the
EMU coaches them selves and the locomotives general traffic cousins.
And probably every one knows that even if they did implement hook and
pull of EMU coaches past the wires, the 'powers' would only purchase
EXACTLY the number of locomotives required and every time a loco failed
or a service ran late and missed it's 'connection' a service past the
wires would get cancelled.
2 minutes for a 4SUB attachment in my day as a shunter. Arrival of rear
portion, to the departure on complete train.

These things used to be quicker. Once saw a Holyhead - Euston service
arrive and depart from Crewe in 4 minutes, including replacing a Class
47 by a Class 86 or 87. But that was before they "improved" the layout
at Crewe in the 1980's, and before they had on-board computers.

Bevan

[Pat O'Neill]

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco. With automatic
couplers it shouldn't any more trouble than coupling/uncoupling a pair of
EMUs which happens every day at junction stations.
If 'the computers take 10 minutes to synchronise' is an issue, some one
should fix the computer systems on the train so that they can cope with
reconfiguration of the train with out having a total heart attack and then
reboot/reinitialise cycle.

The Germans are coupling locomotives on with hook and link couplers in
under 5 minutes at junction stations.

The only reason I can see for this fear of loco hauling what is otherwise
an EMU is that the locomotives would have to be 'customised' for
compatibility with the EMU sets and no one wants to fund customised
locomotives that would get relatively low utilisation compared to the EMU
coaches them selves and the locomotives general traffic cousins.

And probably every one knows that even if they did implement hook and pull
of EMU coaches past the wires, the 'powers' would only purchase EXACTLY the
number of locomotives required and every time a loco failed or a service ran
late and missed it's 'connection' a service past the wires would get
cancelled.
2 minutes for a 4SUB attachment in my day as a shunter. Arrival of rear
portion, to the departure on complete train.

[sigbusyff]

Post by Pat O'Neill
2 minutes for a 4SUB attachment in my day as a shunter. Arrival of rear
portion, to the departure on complete train.

Pretty sure it was 7 minutes to uncouple the 47, run it round, and
recouple it at the other end at Reading when I used to commute on XC
services in the mid-90s.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Pat O'Neill
2 minutes for a 4SUB attachment in my day as a shunter. Arrival of rear
portion, to the departure on complete train.

How long did it take to come off the juice at Rickmansworth? (can you
see where I'm going with this...)

[Peter Masson]

Post by Pat O'Neill
2 minutes for a 4SUB attachment in my day as a shunter. Arrival of rear
portion, to the departure on complete train.

How long did it take to come off the juice at Rickmansworth? (can you see
where I'm going with this...)

Booked 2 minutes AIUI, for Sarah Siddons (or one of her mates) to come off,
and the steam loco to come on - all the time the shunter having to take care
of the 4th juice rail. The H&S people would have kittens.

Peter

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:27:05 -0000, "Peter Masson"

Post by Peter Masson

Post by Pat O'Neill
2 minutes for a 4SUB attachment in my day as a shunter. Arrival of rear
portion, to the departure on complete train.

How long did it take to come off the juice at Rickmansworth? (can you see
where I'm going with this...)

Booked 2 minutes AIUI, for Sarah Siddons (or one of her mates) to come off,
and the steam loco to come on - all the time the shunter having to take care
of the 4th juice rail. The H&S people would have kittens.

Was the 4th (or the 3rd) rail present and/or unguarded at the
customary changeover point ?

[Peter Masson]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Peter Masson
Booked 2 minutes AIUI, for Sarah Siddons (or one of her mates) to come off,
and the steam loco to come on - all the time the shunter having to take care
of the 4th juice rail. The H&S people would have kittens.

Was the 4th (or the 3rd) rail present and/or unguarded at the
customary changeover point ?

Must have been, otherwise Sarah wouldn't have worked. AIUI the shunter had a
rubber sheet to put over the juice rail. But still seems decidedly dodgy.

Peter

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:48:47 -0000, "Peter Masson"

Post by Peter Masson

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Peter Masson
Booked 2 minutes AIUI, for Sarah Siddons (or one of her mates) to come off,
and the steam loco to come on - all the time the shunter having to take care
of the 4th juice rail. The H&S people would have kittens.

Was the 4th (or the 3rd) rail present and/or unguarded at the
customary changeover point ?

Must have been, otherwise Sarah wouldn't have worked.

Only if actually "gapped". Drivers were able to stop trains fairly
accurately long before electronic assistance was available.

Post by Peter Masson
AIUI the shunter had a
rubber sheet to put over the juice rail. But still seems decidedly dodgy.

Rather more precaution than might have been common in the past for a
couple of hundred workplace volts.

[Jon Porter]

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

 There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco. With automatic couplers it shouldn't any more trouble than coupling/uncoupling a pair of EMUs which happens every day at junction stations.
 If 'the computers take 10 minutes to synchronise' is an issue, some one should fix the computer systems on the train so that they can cope with reconfiguration of the train with out having a total heart attack and then reboot/reinitialise cycle.
 The Germans are coupling locomotives on with hook and link couplers in under 5 minutes at junction stations.
 The only reason I can see for this fear of loco hauling what is otherwise an EMU is that the locomotives would have to be 'customised' for compatibility with the EMU sets and no one wants to fund customised locomotives that would get relatively low utilisation compared to the EMU coaches them selves and the locomotives general traffic cousins.
 And probably every one knows that even if they did implement hook and pull of EMU coaches past the wires, the 'powers' would only purchase EXACTLY the number of locomotives required and every time a loco failed or a service ran late and missed it's 'connection' a service past the wires would get cancelled.

Hamm station, timed two ICE 1s . One ran in behind the other, coupled,
passengers get on and off, on it's way as a twin unit 3 mins 20 secs.
With a similar coupler arrangement using a loco and unit it would be
less as the loco has no door systems to align with the other unit. The
ETS fitted auto coupler for this system is working in the factory, now
to make it work in practice.

[Ross]

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco.

It's not the physical couple which takes 10-15 minutes.
It's the entire thing including the associated movements, which as
Bevan pointed out (but you snipped) now take much longer simply
because track layouts at stations are no longer designed with loco
changes in mind. If the shunt move to get the loco onto (or off) the
front now takes the best part of 10 minutes to get the loco into the
yard instead of the 2 minutes onto a shunt neck which was the norm in
the old days, it's easy to understand why attach/detach takes so much
longer than it used to.

The physical couple/uncouple is only part of it...

[ian batten]

Post by Ross

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco.

It's not the physical couple which takes 10-15 minutes.
It's the entire thing including the associated movements, which as
Bevan pointed out (but you snipped) now take much longer simply
because track layouts at stations are no longer designed with loco
changes in mind.

Again, something that could be fixed far more cheaply than procuring a
complete new range of stock.

ian

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ross

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco.

It's not the physical couple which takes 10-15 minutes.
It's the entire thing including the associated movements, which as
Bevan pointed out (but you snipped) now take much longer simply
because track layouts at stations are no longer designed with loco
changes in mind. If the shunt move to get the loco onto (or off) the
front now takes the best part of 10 minutes to get the loco into the
yard instead of the 2 minutes onto a shunt neck which was the norm in
the old days, it's easy to understand why attach/detach takes so much
longer than it used to.
The physical couple/uncouple is only part of it...

The idea was floated a few months back that places like Cardiff could
perhaps be operated by having a loco at the country end of the trains as
a push-pull. When a London-bound train arrives, decouple the loco and
leave it there, to be coupled up to the next Swansea-bound train which
would arrive into the same platform.

If this sounds like it might work, some more detailed modelling could be
done to see if you needed two platforms used alternately, and what the
effect would be on other services.

[Bevan Price]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ross

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco.

It's not the physical couple which takes 10-15 minutes.
It's the entire thing including the associated movements, which as
Bevan pointed out (but you snipped) now take much longer simply
because track layouts at stations are no longer designed with loco
changes in mind. If the shunt move to get the loco onto (or off) the
front now takes the best part of 10 minutes to get the loco into the
yard instead of the 2 minutes onto a shunt neck which was the norm in
the old days, it's easy to understand why attach/detach takes so much
longer than it used to.
The physical couple/uncouple is only part of it...

The idea was floated a few months back that places like Cardiff could
perhaps be operated by having a loco at the country end of the trains as
a push-pull. When a London-bound train arrives, decouple the loco and
leave it there, to be coupled up to the next Swansea-bound train which
would arrive into the same platform.
If this sounds like it might work, some more detailed modelling could be
done to see if you needed two platforms used alternately, and what the
effect would be on other services.

Which is basically what they used to do at Bournemouth before thence to
Weymouth was electrified. Class 33 propelled a 4TC push-pull set
(usually 4 coaches) from Weymouth. 4TC coupled to a REP emu in
Bournemouth Central, and Class 33 detached. Loco moved to opposite
platform to take next service onwards from Bournemouth to Weymouth.

Current track layout at Cardiff is probably unsuitable for eastbound &
westbound services to use the same platform, so loco would have to cross
to a westbound platform to wait for next service to Swansea.

Bevan

[John C]

Post by Bevan Price
Which is basically what they used to do at Bournemouth before thence to
Weymouth was electrified. Class 33 propelled a 4TC push-pull set (usually
4 coaches) from Weymouth. 4TC coupled to a REP emu in Bournemouth Central,
and Class 33 detached. Loco moved to opposite platform to take next
service onwards from Bournemouth to Weymouth.
Current track layout at Cardiff is probably unsuitable for eastbound &
westbound services to use the same platform, so loco would have to cross
to a westbound platform to wait for next service to Swansea.
Bevan

Cardiff is being re-signaled over the next few years so all platforms will
be bi-directional. I don't think attaching locos at Cardiff will be
difficult. There are plenty of loops and sidings and of course Canton depot
is right next to the station. Once the platforms are bi-directional there
will be far fewer units shunting via Cardiff West. Other locations on the
GWML might be more difficult.

John

[v***@i.do.not.believe.it]

Post by John C

Post by Bevan Price
Which is basically what they used to do at Bournemouth before thence to
Weymouth was electrified. Class 33 propelled a 4TC push-pull set (usually
4 coaches) from Weymouth. 4TC coupled to a REP emu in Bournemouth Central,
and Class 33 detached. Loco moved to opposite platform to take next
service onwards from Bournemouth to Weymouth.
Current track layout at Cardiff is probably unsuitable for eastbound &
westbound services to use the same platform, so loco would have to cross
to a westbound platform to wait for next service to Swansea.
Bevan

Cardiff is being re-signaled over the next few years so all platforms will
be bi-directional. I don't think attaching locos at Cardiff will be
difficult. There are plenty of loops and sidings and of course Canton depot
is right next to the station. Once the platforms are bi-directional there
will be far fewer units shunting via Cardiff West. Other locations on the
GWML might be more difficult.
John

Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why should it be any slower on the Great Western?

[Roland Perry]

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why should it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.

[Pat O'Neill]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why should
it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.
--
Roland Perry

That shouldn't make it slower.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by Roland Perry

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why
should it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.

That shouldn't make it slower.

I think it could, because (eg) the couplings need to be beefy enough to
transfer hotel power from the to loco to the train.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by Roland Perry

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why
should it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.

That shouldn't make it slower.

I think it could, because (eg) the couplings need to be beefy enough
to transfer hotel power from the to loco to the train.

And to pull the train itself. When coupling two self-powered units, the
coupling doesn't have to actually pull the other unit.

[v***@i.do.not.believe.it]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by Roland Perry

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why
should it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.

That shouldn't make it slower.

I think it could, because (eg) the couplings need to be beefy enough
to transfer hotel power from the to loco to the train.

And to pull the train itself. When coupling two self-powered units, the
coupling doesn't have to actually pull the other unit.

But why should those factors make the process slower?

[Recliner]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:52:47 -0000, "Recliner"

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by Roland Perry

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern,
why should it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.

That shouldn't make it slower.

I think it could, because (eg) the couplings need to be beefy enough
to transfer hotel power from the to loco to the train.

And to pull the train itself. When coupling two self-powered units,
the coupling doesn't have to actually pull the other unit.

But why should those factors make the process slower?

Well, the coupling is going to be a lot sturdier, and may need some sort
of secondary locking. Similarly, the heavy hotel current power will need
much thicker wires, and may therefore need a separate connector. Both
may need some level of human supervision, though hopefully not routine
manual intervention. But of course if the whole system is designed for
this role from scratch, it should work better than the cobbled together
Pendo/57 coupling.

[Neil Williams]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:52:47 -0000, "Recliner"

Post by Recliner
And to pull the train itself. When coupling two self-powered units, the
coupling doesn't have to actually pull the other unit.

Though they are designed so they can, for rescue purposes. And the
57s couple to the Pendos using normal Scharfenberg couplers.

Hotel power is more difficult, but shouldn't be insurmountable,
particularly if they put the jumpers above platform level.

Neil

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by Roland Perry

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why
should it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.

That shouldn't make it slower.

I think it could, because (eg) the couplings need to be beefy enough
to transfer hotel power from the to loco to the train.

And to pull the train itself. When coupling two self-powered units, the
coupling doesn't have to actually pull the other unit.

It has to be able to, and to do so as a matter of course, for the
situations when the trailing unit is not providing power, for one of any
number of reasons.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Pat O'Neill]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by Roland Perry

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why
should it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.

That shouldn't make it slower.

I think it could, because (eg) the couplings need to be beefy enough to
transfer hotel power from the to loco to the train.
--
Roland Perry

In my day it would have been throw coupling over, open loco brake pipe cock,
main res pipe, brake pipe and a 2 ETH jumpers. I beleive they are called ETS
jumpers now.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:54:35 -0000, "Pat O'Neill"

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by Roland Perry

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why
should it be any slower on the Great Western?

Intercity loco hauled, rather than suburban EMU stock.

That shouldn't make it slower.

I think it could, because (eg) the couplings need to be beefy enough to
transfer hotel power from the to loco to the train.
--
Roland Perry

In my day it would have been throw coupling over, open loco brake pipe cock,
main res pipe, brake pipe and a 2 ETH jumpers. I beleive they are called ETS
jumpers now.

Nowadays on EMUs, 30 seconds to press uncoupling button or bang
vehicles together then verify units are properly coupled/uncoupled ?
(Then the rest of the day to hit Ctl-Alt-Del several times before
moving off.)

[John C]

Post by v***@i.do.not.believe.it
Coupling and uncoupling is done fairly briskly on the Southern, why should
it be any slower on the Great Western?

I think staff motivation is an issue. In the days of loco hauled trains one
could be waiting at Preston (for example) for several minutes before any
attempt was made to detach the loco.

On the Southern, the person overseeing the move would normally be in
position when the train stopped. It's the same in Belgium. In the days of
diesel locos the loco would be off the stock within a minute of stopping. It
still happens to an extent today with electric locos. Even places like De
Panne that only have two loco hauled trains a day, there will be someone
waiting to detach the loco as soon as it stops.

John

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ross

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco.

It's not the physical couple which takes 10-15 minutes.
It's the entire thing including the associated movements, which as
Bevan pointed out (but you snipped) now take much longer simply
because track layouts at stations are no longer designed with loco
changes in mind. If the shunt move to get the loco onto (or off) the
front now takes the best part of 10 minutes to get the loco into the
yard instead of the 2 minutes onto a shunt neck which was the norm in
the old days, it's easy to understand why attach/detach takes so much
longer than it used to.
The physical couple/uncouple is only part of it...

The idea was floated a few months back that places like Cardiff could
perhaps be operated by having a loco at the country end of the trains as
a push-pull. When a London-bound train arrives, decouple the loco and
leave it there, to be coupled up to the next Swansea-bound train which
would arrive into the same platform.
If this sounds like it might work, some more detailed modelling could be
done to see if you needed two platforms used alternately, and what the
effect would be on other services.

Which is basically what they used to do at Bournemouth before thence to
Weymouth was electrified. Class 33 propelled a 4TC push-pull set (usually
4 coaches) from Weymouth. 4TC coupled to a REP emu in Bournemouth
Central, and Class 33 detached. Loco moved to opposite platform to take
next service onwards from Bournemouth to Weymouth.
Current track layout at Cardiff is probably unsuitable for eastbound &
westbound services to use the same platform, so loco would have to cross
to a westbound platform to wait for next service to Swansea.

Cardiff is to be resignalled fairly soon, I'm not immediately sure what
track layout alterations are involved, or whether all platforms become
fully bi-directional.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[anthony]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ross

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco.

It's not the physical couple which takes 10-15 minutes.
It's the entire thing including the associated movements, which as
Bevan pointed out (but you snipped) now take much longer simply
because track layouts at stations are no longer designed with loco
changes in mind. If the shunt move to get the loco onto (or off) the
front now takes the best part of 10 minutes to get the loco into the
yard instead of the 2 minutes onto a shunt neck which was the norm in
the old days, it's easy to understand why attach/detach takes so much
longer than it used to.
The physical couple/uncouple is only part of it...

The idea was floated a few months back that places like Cardiff could
perhaps be operated by having a loco at the country end of the trains as
a push-pull. When a London-bound train arrives, decouple the loco and
leave it there, to be coupled up to the next Swansea-bound train which
would arrive into the same platform.
If this sounds like it might work, some more detailed modelling could be
done to see if you needed two platforms used alternately, and what the
effect would be on other services.

Which is basically what they used to do at Bournemouth before thence to
Weymouth was electrified. Class 33 propelled a 4TC push-pull set (usually
4 coaches) from Weymouth. 4TC coupled to a REP emu in Bournemouth
Central, and Class 33 detached. Loco moved to opposite platform to take
next service onwards from Bournemouth to Weymouth.
Current track layout at Cardiff is probably unsuitable for eastbound &
westbound services to use the same platform, so loco would have to cross
to a westbound platform to wait for next service to Swansea.

Cardiff is to be resignalled fairly soon, I'm not immediately sure what
track layout alterations are involved, or whether all platforms become
fully bi-directional.
Anna Noyd-Dryver- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

platforms 1 & 2 are to be bi directional as in the evenings they could
free up platforms 3 & 4 for enginnering work etc

The bottleneck at the east end of the station is also being sorted out
as well.

[Jamie Thompson]

Post by Ross

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco.

It's not the physical couple which takes 10-15 minutes.
It's the entire thing including the associated movements, which as
Bevan pointed out (but you snipped) now take much longer simply
because track layouts at stations are no longer designed with loco
changes in mind. If the shunt move to get the loco onto (or off) the
front now takes the best part of 10 minutes to get the loco into the
yard instead of the 2 minutes onto a shunt neck which was the norm in
the old days, it's easy to understand why attach/detach takes so much
longer than it used to.
The physical couple/uncouple is only part of it...

...so am I missing something here...why couldn't the track layouts be
changed again to suit the new loco changing use-cases as part of the
IEP+ project?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Jamie Thompson

Post by Ross

Post by Matthew Geier

Post by Bevan Price
The major delay would be the time taken to couple / uncouple the loco to
a Pendolino. 10 to 15 minutes seems typical nowadays,

There is no excuse for 10-15 minutes to couple a loco.

It's not the physical couple which takes 10-15 minutes.
It's the entire thing including the associated movements, which as
Bevan pointed out (but you snipped) now take much longer simply
because track layouts at stations are no longer designed with loco
changes in mind. If the shunt move to get the loco onto (or off) the
front now takes the best part of 10 minutes to get the loco into the
yard instead of the 2 minutes onto a shunt neck which was the norm in
the old days, it's easy to understand why attach/detach takes so much
longer than it used to.
The physical couple/uncouple is only part of it...

...so am I missing something here...why couldn't the track layouts be
changed again to suit the new loco changing use-cases as part of the
IEP+ project?

Possibly because the land the headshunts were on has been sold off in
the mean time?

[David Haggas]

Post by Michael Bell
But the problem remains. What are we going to about the HSTs, now 30
years old,

What's the problem with their being 30 years old? Most of them have
been completely re-engined at least once. And for the areas that are
electrified, for everyone other than trainspotters the Pendolinos have
been a raging success, so just buy more of those as the balance of
track that is electrified alters. Every penny spent on developing
the IEP is a penny that could be spent on more route-miles of
electrification. IEP is the Duke of Gloucester of our times: a vanity
project by people keen to show they can do what their predecessors
did, without concern for economic viability.

Post by Michael Bell
and about the situation we have now London - Edinburgh ->
Inverness and will soon have with London - Bristol -> Penzance and
suchlike.

Whatever the question is, a bi-mode multiple-unit isn't the answer.
Coupling a class 57 onto the front of a Pendolino does precisely the
same job.

ian

---------------------

Or a type 5 locomotive onto a 225 set at Edinburgh which the operators won't
(not can't) do more than 20 years after electrification. Hardly likely to
catch on is it? Operators are trying to avoid traction changes - H&S,
backside covering etc. It's about as probable as Sir Andrew Foster's "better
connections and porterage" at stations or returning to LHCS.

The DfT and Hitachi should stick to their guns with the IEP and prove
everyone wrong. But for crying out loud stop delaying and get on with it.
Also stop dithering and deliver the eVoyager.

[Robert Cox]

Post by ian batten

Post by Michael Bell
But the problem remains. What are we going to about the HSTs, now 30
years old,

What's the problem with their being 30 years old? Most of them have
been completely re-engined at least once. And for the areas that are
electrified, for everyone other than trainspotters the Pendolinos have
been a raging success, so just buy more of those as the balance of
track that is electrified alters. Every penny spent on developing
the IEP is a penny that could be spent on more route-miles of
electrification. IEP is the Duke of Gloucester of our times: a vanity
project by people keen to show they can do what their predecessors
did, without concern for economic viability.

Post by Michael Bell
and about the situation we have now London - Edinburgh ->
Inverness and will soon have with London - Bristol -> Penzance and
suchlike.

Whatever the question is, a bi-mode multiple-unit isn't the answer.
Coupling a class 57 onto the front of a Pendolino does precisely the
same job.
ian
---------------------
Or a type 5 locomotive onto a 225 set at Edinburgh which the operators
won't (not can't) do more than 20 years after electrification. Hardly
likely to catch on is it? Operators are trying to avoid traction
changes - H&S, backside covering etc. It's about as probable as Sir
Andrew Foster's "better connections and porterage" at stations or
returning to LHCS.
The DfT and Hitachi should stick to their guns with the IEP and prove
everyone wrong. But for crying out loud stop delaying and get on with
it. Also stop dithering and deliver the eVoyager.

I will write it again as not everyone seems yet to have understood.

Firstly - there is no rush. The Great Western's electrification is
still so far away that there is plenty of time to procure and test an
alternative.

Secondly - the problem with the IEP/SET is not the technology or the
design, but the PFI/PPP arrangement through which they are being
procured. Pushing all the technical, operating and maintenance risks
onto the supplier for a period of 27 1/2 years makes the project so
obscenely expensive that it beggars belief that the first class brains
in the Civil Service came up with it. In February it will be three
years since Agility Trains was named as preferred bidder. Since then
the train has been redesigned at least twice so the DfT is taking a
huge gamble that the Agility Trains offer is still the best one as it
has not had anything to compare it with.

Thirdly - at least on the GWML the IEP will not make any significant
difference to peak hour capacity into London. This is confirmed in
Network Rail's RUS for London and the South East published in July 2011
which states:

"The RUS anticipates significant crowding problems with Reading area to
London Paddington commuters, in particular, unless further capacity is
provided. Note that this conclusion has only marginally been affected
by the recent funding announcement regarding electrification and the
Intercity Express Programme (IEP), since additional trains into London
Paddington in the high-peak hour over the fast lines are not
operationally achievable regardless of train type".

I can see no reason to believe that similar conditions do not exist on
other routes for which the IEP/SET has been proposed.

Why am I so concerned? Because it's foolish actions like this one by
the DfT that make using the railways more expensive than they should
be. And it's your taxes that will pay for it.

[David Haggas]

Post by Robert Cox

Post by ian batten

Post by Michael Bell
But the problem remains. What are we going to about the HSTs, now 30
years old,

What's the problem with their being 30 years old? Most of them have
been completely re-engined at least once. And for the areas that are
electrified, for everyone other than trainspotters the Pendolinos have
been a raging success, so just buy more of those as the balance of
track that is electrified alters. Every penny spent on developing
the IEP is a penny that could be spent on more route-miles of
electrification. IEP is the Duke of Gloucester of our times: a vanity
project by people keen to show they can do what their predecessors
did, without concern for economic viability.

Post by Michael Bell
and about the situation we have now London - Edinburgh ->
Inverness and will soon have with London - Bristol -> Penzance and
suchlike.

Whatever the question is, a bi-mode multiple-unit isn't the answer.
Coupling a class 57 onto the front of a Pendolino does precisely the
same job.
ian
---------------------
Or a type 5 locomotive onto a 225 set at Edinburgh which the operators
won't (not can't) do more than 20 years after electrification. Hardly
likely to catch on is it? Operators are trying to avoid traction
changes - H&S, backside covering etc. It's about as probable as Sir
Andrew Foster's "better connections and porterage" at stations or
returning to LHCS.
The DfT and Hitachi should stick to their guns with the IEP and prove
everyone wrong. But for crying out loud stop delaying and get on with it.
Also stop dithering and deliver the eVoyager.

I will write it again as not everyone seems yet to have understood.
Firstly - there is no rush. The Great Western's electrification is still
so far away that there is plenty of time to procure and test an
alternative.
Secondly - the problem with the IEP/SET is not the technology or the
design, but the PFI/PPP arrangement through which they are being procured.
Pushing all the technical, operating and maintenance risks onto the
supplier for a period of 27 1/2 years makes the project so obscenely
expensive that it beggars belief that the first class brains in the Civil
Service came up with it. In February it will be three years since Agility
Trains was named as preferred bidder. Since then the train has been
redesigned at least twice so the DfT is taking a huge gamble that the
Agility Trains offer is still the best one as it has not had anything to
compare it with.
Thirdly - at least on the GWML the IEP will not make any significant
difference to peak hour capacity into London. This is confirmed in Network
Rail's RUS for London and the South East published in July 2011 which
"The RUS anticipates significant crowding problems with Reading area to
London Paddington commuters, in particular, unless further capacity is
provided. Note that this conclusion has only marginally been affected by
the recent funding announcement regarding electrification and the
Intercity Express Programme (IEP), since additional trains into London
Paddington in the high-peak hour over the fast lines are not operationally
achievable regardless of train type".
I can see no reason to believe that similar conditions do not exist on
other routes for which the IEP/SET has been proposed.
Why am I so concerned? Because it's foolish actions like this one by the
DfT that make using the railways more expensive than they should be. And
it's your taxes that will pay for it.
--
Robert

------------------

Standardisation (McNulty favourite) and economies of scale are factors in
this (although they scaled down the IEP requirement!). Lord Adonis' idea of
a standard IC train a la Mk3, made (or at least assembled) in the UK to
replace the ex-BR IC fleet (not just the HST) was always a better
proposition than 'imports' unique to each route. From this point of view I
hope it happens and becomes a success. It should be achievable, not despised
by everyone in the industry. The way it is financed is a different story,
add it to the list. Defence, schools, prisons, NHS computers etc

[Neil Williams]

Post by David Haggas
Standardisation (McNulty favourite) and economies of scale are factors in
this (although they scaled down the IEP requirement!). Lord Adonis' idea of
a standard IC train a la Mk3, made (or at least assembled) in the UK to
replace the ex-BR IC fleet (not just the HST) was always a better
proposition than 'imports' unique to each route.

Indeed - but it needs to be like the Mk3, a basic, solid design of
rolling stock, either LHCS or EMU, not an overspecced train designed
by a committee.

The hybrid is a nonsense for the use it is to be put to.

Neil

[ian batten]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by David Haggas
Standardisation (McNulty favourite) and economies of scale are factors in
this (although they scaled down the IEP requirement!). Lord Adonis' idea of
a standard IC train a la Mk3, made (or at least assembled) in the UK to
replace the ex-BR IC fleet (not just the HST) was always a better
proposition than 'imports' unique to each route.

Indeed - but it needs to be like the Mk3, a basic, solid design of
rolling stock, either LHCS or EMU, not an overspecced train designed
by a committee.

But unfortunately, because railway procurement people are very free
with other people's money, that's not the choice we'll get. They'll
either buy tiny quantities of one-off specials, keeping alive the
ghost of the Western Region and its diesel-hydraulics, or they'll
start a committee to design something that has all the special
requirements union-ed together, keeping alive the ghost of the BR
Standards. In either case, the idea that they could buy trains off
the shelf will be completely ignored, because The Railways Are
Different.

ian

[Neil Williams]

 In either case, the idea that they could buy trains off
the shelf will be completely ignored, because The Railways Are
Different.

More likely because the Government involvement in railways is
different.

The vast majority of TOC-led procurement has been pretty
standardised. Of what's been bought over the past few years there
aren't that many variants other than interiors and easy to change bits
of bodywork etc.

DMU: Turbostar, Desiro
EMU: Electrostar, Desiro, ally Desiro
High speed DMU: Voyager/Meridian
High speed EMU: Pendolino

That's about the lot. Once the first of each was delivered, more were
available "off the shelf".

Neil

[Roland Perry]

In message

Post by Neil Williams
DMU: Turbostar, Desiro
EMU: Electrostar, Desiro, ally Desiro
High speed DMU: Voyager/Meridian
High speed EMU: Pendolino

You need to add the 175/180 family.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
You need to add the 175/180 family.

Possibly best forgotten, but yes :)

Neil

[Robert Cox]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
You need to add the 175/180 family.

Possibly best forgotten, but yes :)
Neil

But really this only emphasises the point you were trying to make with
your list. The 175/180 shared bogies and bodyshells (i.e., design rules
and components even if the door arrangments and sound isolating
floating floor were different in the Class 180s) with the Class 458 and
460 third rail stock. So these Alst(h)om products could be included in
your DMU, EMU and High Speed EMU headings. The odd one out is the
Pendolino for all the known reasons.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robert Cox

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
You need to add the 175/180 family.

Possibly best forgotten, but yes :)
Neil

But really this only emphasises the point you were trying to make with
your list. The 175/180 shared bogies and bodyshells (i.e., design rules
and components even if the door arrangments and sound isolating
floating floor were different in the Class 180s) with the Class 458 and
460 third rail stock. So these Alst(h)om products could be included in
your DMU, EMU and High Speed EMU headings. The odd one out is the
Pendolino for all the known reasons.

I intended for them to be woven into the appropriate lines in the table
(probably all four as "Coradia", but it's not a word I hear very often)

[Neil Williams]

Post by Robert Cox
But really this only emphasises the point you were trying to make with
your list. The 175/180 shared bogies and bodyshells (i.e., design rules
and components even if the door arrangments and sound isolating
floating floor were different in the Class 180s) with the Class 458 and
460 third rail stock. So these Alst(h)om products could be included in
your DMU, EMU and High Speed EMU headings.

High speed DMU, you mean. But yes your point stands. That's still a
very small number of standard designs, of which operators just choose
a variant.

Post by Robert Cox
The odd one out is the
Pendolino for all the known reasons.

If only because the WCML was the only line that has had a requirement
for new high-speed EMUs after privatisation. Yes, VT had a big input
into it, but that's by the by - any franchisee would have ordered

Post by Robert Cox
100mph replacement electric-powered stock of some description, and no

other franchise had a need for it.

Neil

[Bruce]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Robert Cox
The odd one out is the
Pendolino for all the known reasons.

If only because the WCML was the only line that has had a

requirement

Post by Neil Williams
for new high-speed EMUs after privatisation. Yes, VT had a big input
into it, but that's by the by - any franchisee would have ordered

Post by Robert Cox
100mph replacement electric-powered stock of some description, and no

other franchise had a need for it.

It is interesting to speculate about what stock might have been
ordered for the WCML franchise had the crackpot 140 mph/tilt/cab
signalling ideas of the incompetents at Railtrack plc and the idiots
at Virgin Trains been rejected. (Today, Virgin Trains has matured
into a competent operator but many people either don't realise, or
have forgotten, just how bad they were at first. At least part of
this was due to the idiot Branding insisting on hiring senior
management without rail experience.)

Would a TOC that was led by experienced, competent people have chosen
140 mph tilting EMUs? I think seasoned professionals would have
seen125 mph as the upper bound, and tilt would have been rejected
because the small time savings offered could not possibly justify the
huge extra cost.

The $64,000 question is, would experienced, competent railwaymen have
chosen EMUs over the operationally far more flexible locomotives and
coaches?

[Peter Masson]

It is interesting to speculate about what stock might have been ordered
for the WCML franchise had the crackpot 140 mph/tilt/cab signalling ideas
of the incompetents at Railtrack plc and the idiots at Virgin Trains been
rejected.

I suspect we'd have something akin to an AC version of the 444. Permitted
speed would have been 110 mph (the only section of the WCML with a non-tilt
permitted speed over 110 mph is between Wolverhampton and Stafford).

Peter

[Neil Williams]

Post by Peter Masson
I suspect we'd have something akin to an AC version of the 444.

Slower, but how nice would that have been.

Actually, that's exactly what the IEP should be. A 125mph, 23m, end-
doored, large-windowed EMU or hauled set.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

Post by Bruce
The $64,000 question is, would experienced, competent railwaymen have
chosen EMUs over the operationally far more flexible locomotives and
coaches?

It's true that if proper LHCS (not some sort of fixed formation
fudge[1] like Mk4s) had been chosen, adding the extra Pendolino
coaches would have simply been a matter of coupling them on at Wembley
yard as they arrived, none of this "commissioning as 11 car sets"
bollocks...

[1] I see no benefit to the "end coach with no gangway" nonsense on
those and on a lot of SBB stock. You can keep the number of coach
types down to just four if you're sensible - driving standard open,
standard open, buffet kitchen first open, first open. Put the
wheelchair spaces and large bogs in the driving standard open and the
buffet kitchen first open, then all the others are identical. The
other formation that'd work with the train the other way round is
driving first kitchen open (wheelchair space, big bog), first open,
buffet standard open (wheelchair space, big bog), standard open.

Neil

[Charlie Hulme]

Post by Neil Williams
It's true that if proper LHCS (not some sort of fixed formation
fudge[1] like Mk4s) had been chosen, adding the extra Pendolino
coaches would have simply been a matter of coupling them on at Wembley
yard as they arrived, none of this "commissioning as 11 car sets"
bollocks...

And, of course, the locos and coaches could have different
lifetimes, and different uses towards the end of their careers.
But who looks that far ahead?

Charlie

[ian batten]

Post by Bruce
The $64,000 question is, would experienced, competent railwaymen have
chosen EMUs over the operationally far more flexible locomotives and
coaches?

Although ATP-P wasn't strictly an EMU, it was a fixed formation
articulated design with essentially the same operational limitations
as an EMU. It tilted, and had a design speed of 140+. Were the
people who produced it not experienced, competent railwaymen?

ian

[Bruce]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:36:39 -0800 (PST), ian batten

Post by ian batten

Post by Bruce
The $64,000 question is, would experienced, competent railwaymen have
chosen EMUs over the operationally far more flexible locomotives and
coaches?

Although ATP-P wasn't strictly an EMU, it was a fixed formation
articulated design with essentially the same operational limitations
as an EMU. It tilted, and had a design speed of 140+. Were the
people who produced it not experienced, competent railwaymen?

Not for the first time, I find your lack of knowledge surprising.
Perhaps you enjoy making up stories so you can respond to them with a
pithy comment or twenty two?

At least part of the reason for the failure of the APT project was
that so few experienced railwaymen were involved. Many of the team
were recruited from curtailed aerospace projects. Perhaps you are too
young to remember the cancellation of Blue Streak and TSR-2?

The APT had a lot in common with IEP. Both were developed in
something of a vacuum and conspicuously failed to gain the support of
operators.

Indeed, it was the operators' realisation that APT was not the answer
to their problema that led to the development of the outstanding HSDT,
later the HST and marketed with great success as InterCity 125.

Glad I could help. ;-)

[ian batten]

Post by Bruce
At least part of the reason for the failure of the APT project was
that so few experienced railwaymen were involved.  Many of the team
were recruited from curtailed aerospace projects.  Perhaps you are too
young to remember the cancellation of Blue Streak and TSR-2?

They presumably didn't fund APT from their redundancy money, so BR as
an institution were prepared to throw a lot of money at it. Projects
don't consist of the the engineers that do the work, they consist of
the people that provide the money. Nationalised BR spent an awful lot
of money on it. If BR aren't "the operators" then it's not at all
clear who were.

I wasn't, by the way, asking the question rhetorically. It's always
struck me as bizarre that so much money got spent on APT when HST was
obviously the right way to go. My point was that a centrally-planned
BR wasn't immune to making the mistakes you ascribe to Virgin and
Railtrack. Had it been as easy as you imply to spot that it was
obviously wrong, they wouldn't have been able to get the money.

ian

[Michael Bell]

In message <a194f83e-cb32-4cd6-b37c-***@cs7g2000vbb.googlegro
ups.com>

Post by ian batten

Post by Bruce
At least part of the reason for the failure of the APT project was
that so few experienced railwaymen were involved.  Many of the team
were recruited from curtailed aerospace projects.  Perhaps you are too
young to remember the cancellation of Blue Streak and TSR-2?

They presumably didn't fund APT from their redundancy money, so BR as
an institution were prepared to throw a lot of money at it. Projects
don't consist of the the engineers that do the work, they consist of
the people that provide the money. Nationalised BR spent an awful lot
of money on it. If BR aren't "the operators" then it's not at all
clear who were.

I went to a talk by Wickens, the man who developed the APT. As he told
it, the government was so impressed with by the possibilities that
they offered to fund 10 trains. But the BR board were so unsure that
they ordered only 3 trains, and the manufacturers saw this and built
as simply as they could, not seeing this as a goer with a future worth
investing in. And indeed the APTs had all sorts of failures and the
project was scrapped for that reason. But the design problems had all
been solved. The problem was sorting out the little problems you get
in any new machine.

It would have made a huge difference if APT had succeeded.

As an interesting little aside, part of the design calculation was
that a train at speed on a corner would become uncomfortable long
before it tipped over. But, what was the tipping speed? So he ran a
scrap coach down a slope with curve at the bottom, from higher and
higher up the slope, until it did tip. Sober engineer though he was,
it was plain he took the same pleasure in it that little boy might.

Michael Bell

--

[Bruce]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:35:58 -0800 (PST), ian batten

Post by ian batten

Post by Bruce
At least part of the reason for the failure of the APT project was
that so few experienced railwaymen were involved.  Many of the team
were recruited from curtailed aerospace projects.  Perhaps you are too
young to remember the cancellation of Blue Streak and TSR-2?

They presumably didn't fund APT from their redundancy money, so BR as
an institution were prepared to throw a lot of money at it. Projects
don't consist of the the engineers that do the work, they consist of
the people that provide the money. Nationalised BR spent an awful lot
of money on it. If BR aren't "the operators" then it's not at all
clear who were.
I wasn't, by the way, asking the question rhetorically. It's always
struck me as bizarre that so much money got spent on APT when HST was
obviously the right way to go. My point was that a centrally-planned
BR wasn't immune to making the mistakes you ascribe to Virgin and
Railtrack. Had it been as easy as you imply to spot that it was
obviously wrong, they wouldn't have been able to get the money.

Once again you show your ignorance, then use it to draw all the wrong
conclusions. It would be funny if it wasn't quite so repetitive.
After a few times it becomes tiresome and you become a bore.

The APT project was devised to give employment to some very bright
people who had lost employment as a result if the cancellation of
aerospace defence projects. It resulted in the establishment of a
special division of BR at Derby and funding for the work was given to
BR as a separate addition to their existing budget.

The project made slow progress. After several years, it became clear
that it was unlikely to produce a fleet of operable trains in anything
like the timescale BR needed.

So BR's operators decided a stopgap was needed, a simple, reliable and
mostly conventional train that would allow InterCity to improve and
accelerate some services before APT production could start. That's
how the HST was born.

Meanwhile, the APT project stuttered on slowly and never delivered, so
the HST took over as BR's InterCity flagship. By the mid 1980s, the
APT was being funded from BR's own budget and it was with some relief
that it was cancelled.

HST was designed by railwaymen for railwaymen. It worked well out of
the box and is so good that, almost forty years on, finding a suitable
replacement is proving both problematic and politically controversial.
APT was designed with very little input from railwaymen, and while it
wasn't exactly imposed on BR, the organisation had very little money
to invest in blue sky projects such as APT so soon after the Beeching
cuts. APT would never have gone ahead if BR had had to fund it all.

All this information is easily available if you choose to make the
small effort to look for it. Bluster and bullshit is no substitute
for research and knowledge.

[Neil Williams]

I wasn't, by the way, asking the question rhetorically.  It's always
struck me as bizarre that so much money got spent on APT when HST was
obviously the right way to go.

'Angonnamo, HST was for non-electrified lines, APT was for electrified
lines (the gas-turbine thing being a bit of an experiment and not
really going forward).

I suppose, though, the Mk3 stock and DVTs came from the same stable,
and were what was needed for the electrified lines.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

Post by ian batten
Although ATP-P wasn't strictly an EMU, it was a fixed formation
articulated design with essentially the same operational limitations
as an EMU.

It depends what you mean by "EMU". As you couldn't uncouple the power
cars and pull something else with them, I would say it was not LHCS,
which to me makes it indeed an EMU, albeit one without distributed
power. Though to be fair there are plenty of EMUs without fully
distributed power - TGVs, Eurostar and Class 321 and that generation
(the latter having only one powered vehicle per set).

Neil

[Bevan Price]

Post by David Haggas

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Robert Cox
The odd one out is the
Pendolino for all the known reasons.

If only because the WCML was the only line that has had a

requirement

Post by Neil Williams
for new high-speed EMUs after privatisation. Yes, VT had a big

input

Post by Neil Williams
into it, but that's by the by - any franchisee would have ordered

Post by Robert Cox
100mph replacement electric-powered stock of some description, and

no

Post by Neil Williams
other franchise had a need for it.

It is interesting to speculate about what stock might have been ordered
for the WCML franchise had the crackpot 140 mph/tilt/cab signalling
ideas of the incompetents at Railtrack plc and the idiots at Virgin
Trains been rejected. (Today, Virgin Trains has matured into a competent
operator but many people either don't realise, or have forgotten, just
how bad they were at first. At least part of this was due to the idiot
Branding insisting on hiring senior management without rail experience.)
Would a TOC that was led by experienced, competent people have chosen
140 mph tilting EMUs? I think seasoned professionals would have seen125
mph as the upper bound, and tilt would have been rejected because the
small time savings offered could not possibly justify the huge extra cost.
The $64,000 question is, would experienced, competent railwaymen have
chosen EMUs over the operationally far more flexible locomotives and
coaches?

I think that Class 90's and Mark 3 stock would still be on the WCML,
with orders now being considered for a UK guage equivalent of DB ICE
multiple units to take over in about 2015 to 2020. Maximum speed to be
around 125 mph

Bevan

[Roger Lynn]

Post by David Haggas
Or a type 5 locomotive onto a 225 set at Edinburgh which the operators won't
(not can't) do more than 20 years after electrification. Hardly likely to
catch on is it? Operators are trying to avoid traction changes - H&S,
backside covering etc. It's about as probable as Sir Andrew Foster's "better
connections and porterage" at stations or returning to LHCS.

Why would East Coast want several 225s to spend most of a day being
dragged around Scotland when they don't have enough 225s to cover
diagrams that are entirely under the wires? If they started dragging
225s to Aberdeen and Inverness the result would just be more 125s
shuttling back and forth between London and Leeds.

Roger

[David Haggas]

Post by Roger Lynn

Post by David Haggas
Or a type 5 locomotive onto a 225 set at Edinburgh which the operators won't
(not can't) do more than 20 years after electrification. Hardly likely to
catch on is it? Operators are trying to avoid traction changes - H&S,
backside covering etc. It's about as probable as Sir Andrew Foster's "better
connections and porterage" at stations or returning to LHCS.

Why would East Coast want several 225s to spend most of a day being
dragged around Scotland when they don't have enough 225s to cover
diagrams that are entirely under the wires? If they started dragging
225s to Aberdeen and Inverness the result would just be more 125s
shuttling back and forth between London and Leeds.
Roger

------------

Not now you wouldn't because successive ECML operators have 'gone back' to
the 80's and the HST is still their pet traction. As you say there are many
diagrams under the wires. I was merely suggesting that loco changes "could"
have happened over the last 20 years had the will been there to do it. The
idea of maximising the ECML electrification investment by procuring more
125mph electric locomotives completely bypassed operators, as it does to
this day. Only Hull and Harrogate were not wired so why persist with HST's?
If loco swaps had happened at Edinburgh the case for using the bi-mode IEP,
on this route at least, could not be made.

David

[Graham Nye]

Post by Michael Bell
But the problem remains. What are we going to about the HSTs, now 30
years old, ...

Ooh, use them to replace the Voyagers ... please.