Talk:Intercity Express Programme

Questions that need answers asap:

Will the new trains tilt?

Will the new trains have engines under floor, or be loco hauled (or in other words: be comfortable, or not!)?

Dewarw (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tilting doesn’t seem to be planned at the moment. It isn’t specified whether they have under-floor engines or separate locomotives, so theoretically it’s up to the manufacturers to propose whatever arrangement they think most appropriate. Reading between the lines, however, the various demands for being able to re-arrange the carriages at will seem to favour having a locomotive at each end just as with the InterCity 125. David Arthur (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if they want to be able to split and join units/hybrid units, then having MU might be preferable for them (hope not).

As for tilting- typical Britain if they do not! Dewarw (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The specification seems to consider re-arranging trains more important than splitting and joining. David Arthur (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image of Super Express train

Now that the preferred bidder for the IEP has been announced as Agility / Hitachi, can we upload an image of the train? There is a computer generated image of the train in the press pack that accompanied today's announcement, but as a novice Wikipedian I'm not sure whether this would be acceptable for upload (public domain, press release image etc?). The image is located here [1]. Suggestions? Jamesbrownontheroad (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Crown Copyright, and a goggle search found [2] as the first hit. Unfortuntely it's not 'free use' as this only allows reproduction for research and private study. We could use it under 'fair use' if it would 'significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic' - Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria (#8) which I don't think it does Edgepedia (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear and concise explanation. Guess I'll wait until they've been built and I'll don my trainspotter cap & camera :) Jamesbrownontheroad (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

High resolution downloadable pictures available on Agility Trains website:

http://www.agilitytrains.co.uk/agilitytrains_news.htm --92.19.93.84 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Car length

I'll leave it to the wordsmith's to rehash my point into more sense; a) according to all today's press release IEP stock will be 26m long b) currently HSTs (43+mk3), 390s and IC225 (91+mk4) are all 23m stock, while old school stuff like mk2s and most urban stuff (all EMUs bar 323s, plus some sprinters and i think pacers are 20m) - (source assorted sites showing stock length). c) thus; i) the IEP can cram more people on board due to increase length, so a 250m platform is 12 cars of 20m stock, 11 of 23m and 9/10 of 26m (source NR rules of the route of quail). also since (like 390s) aren't having empty space with a loco+dvt, you can cram more punters in there - hence the claims about numbers carried (ok we're not to sure about the magic diesel power car bit yet, or even end corridors) ii) car the UK network that this stock is envisaged for accommodate 26m stock, a question no one knows an answer to, real issues at some tight platforms so 26m stock is one of the big point's about today's story, obviously there are also stories/angles/analysis re the production location, electrification, will bi mode work, choosing 125mph not 135/140mph, funding, etc, etc. 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.201.157 (talk)

The basic idea is that you can go longer if you go narrower. It's the overhang (known as 'throw') between the bogies on a curve and whether it strikes a train going the other way in the process [known as an 'infringement' in the rail industry] (IIRC, Eurostars were to have been restricted at Newcastle, with their 18.7 metre wheelbase between bogie centres).

I found the Train Infrastructure Interface Specification which states for IEP vehicles: "3.1 Gauge ... based upon a vehicle having up to 17 metres between bogie centre pivots ... overall length up to 26 metres (over coupling faces)." —Sladen (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Note: This message as been modified by other IP editors from Sladen's original version.

New page?

Is it time to start a new page, e.g. Super Express (train)? Biscuittin (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, although, in my opinion, at the moment it would just be a redirect to this page. I put at hat note on Super Express yesterday. However, the orginal Super Express were the trains that run on the Shinkansen, so perhaps that name would not be the best. What about Super Express (British Rail) or Super Express (British Train)? Edgepedia (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be using British Rail for trains that never ran on British Rail (e.g. British Rail Class 390. Is this a Wikipedia convention? Perhaps we should wait till they are allocated a class number. Biscuittin (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest Hitachi Super Express might be a good choice which is what Agility Trains are calling them [3]. Adambro (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You could stick a redirect on the last one coming to here; but for the moment there isn't enough content to justify a separate article. Long-term it would be British Rail Class XYZ or with respective Class numbers for OHLE-Electric and Diesel/Battery-Electric with perhaps a family article similar to Desiro. —Sladen (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For now I think Adambro's suggestion is the best. We tend to have separate family pages (e.g. Turbostar, Electrostar) as well as class pages British Rail Class 170. As the trains look to be both electrc and diesel, it's likely that they will have multiple class numbers, presumably in the 1xx/2xx series for the DMUs and 3xx series for the EMUs - assuming that they are multiple units at all. Therefore multiple class pages will be needed anyway. -- NRTurner (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Longer term, assuming that the multiple variants have difference class numbers, it might be appropriately simply to redirect them to somewhere like Hitachi Super Express since they will all be very similar with only the traction power being different. Probably not worth having three pages for electric, diesel and dual. We seem to have got into a convention of having a separate page for each class despite this perhaps not really being justified in some cases although redirects from every class is certainly useful for a degree of consistency. Adambro (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the practice of having a separate page for each class is often counterproductive – the 375 and 377, for example, are operationally distinct because of their couplers, but otherwise identical, and the few differences between them would be explained much more easily by a single Electrostar article.

For the moment I think it's probably best to keep this page where it is, since names can change multiple times in the early stages of development; once the name seems stable, we can move this page to Hitachi SuperExpress, InterCityPlusExtreme, or whatever, and re-organise the historical material into a ‘History’ section. For that matter, do Agility Trains really have any notability independent of this project? Until such a time as they're at least in the running for some other contract, I'd suggest merging them back in as well.

(Biscuttin: Everyone agrees that calling them ‘British Rail’ is bad, but every other possibility that's been proposed has been worse. If it makes you feel any better, try thinking of ‘British Rail’ as just referring to the British railway network, with the fact that it's also the name of the former state railway being a mere coincidence.) David Arthur (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, I don't have a problem with British Rail. I think it is sensible to have a separate article for Agility Trains because it makes the categories tidier. Biscuittin (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think my feeling is similar to that of DavidArthur. This article should be moved to Hitachi Super Express or similar rather than a new article being created. This one can be reformatted into a "History" section. I would agree with Biscuittin though that it is appropriate to have a separate article for Agility Trains but then again that is obvious since I wouldn't have created it otherwise. Adambro (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we now likely to hear anything (except that the contract's been signed in April) until 2012 when perhaps there will be one or two of the pre-series trains out on test? Perhaps the article can be moved then. Edgepedia (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucidity

It may be worth trying to maintain the lucidity of the article.

"In January 2009, in a statement to Parliament, Secretary of State for Transport Geoff Hoon outlined the advantages of electrification and said that "the case for electrification appears strongest on the most heavily used parts of the Great Western mainline from Paddington, and the Midland mainline north of Bedford". He said the government would be considering proposals for electrification from Network Rail and that he will make a further statement later in the year.[10]"

How is this 'Criticism' of the IEP?

Fair comment. I have moved it to a more appropriate section. Biscuittin (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hitachi's intention is to build the first 70 carriages in Japan and then construct the body shells in Japan to be shipped to the UK to be fitted out.[11]"

"m (8,259 bytes) (→Criticism: 'construct' twice in the same sentence)" [User: Edgepedia]

So it's not okay to have two uses of 'construct', but two uses of 'in Japan' is fine?

"(→Criticism: remove comparison with DB4 which looks like project management problems, not a problem buying high speed desiel trains)" [User: Edgepedia]

Needless to say, the DB4 sports car has nothing to do with the DSB IC4 trains, and there was no justification for removing a reference to the DSB's problems with this rolling stock.

"looks like project management problems, not a problem buying high speed desiel trains" [User: Edgepedia]

Meaningless. DSB did not have a problem buying "high speed desiel trains". They had a problem buying "high speed desiel trains" that worked.

"As part of their franchise commitments, National Express East Coast are to introduce the first ‘pre-series’ trains from the Intercity Express Programme on the East Coast Main Line in 2012.[5]"

Where in the cited article does it say that introducing such trains in 2012 is part of NXEC's franchise commitments?

"The DfT specified that it was ‘essential’ that the IEP be capable of speeds of 125 miles per hour, and ‘desirable’ that it be capable of 140/155 mph under electric power.[3] It was also supposed to have 'the flexibility to operate on inter-urban and commuter routes as well as long-distance journeys'.[4]"

was changed to

"The DfT specified that it is ‘essential’ that the IEP be capable of speeds of 125 miles per hour, and ‘desirable’ that it be capable of 140/155 mph under electric power.[3] It is also required to have 'the flexibility to operate on inter-urban and commuter routes as well as long-distance journeys'.[4]"

This change of tense is inappropriate, given that compliance with the IEP 'requirements' appears **not** to have been achieved, hence the use of the term "substantially compliant", not "compliant" in the Central Office of Information document: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=392467&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

Haskanik (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your recent extensive set of changes because on the whole I feel it introduced more opinions in violation of WP:NPOV along with other unsourced content. In particular, I'm concerned by descriptions such as "screwdriver factory" which seem to have been made up by a Wikipedia editor rather than from a comment someone within the industry has made. The stance of the article seemed to be more anti-Hitachi/IEP than simply reporting the facts in a neutral manner as we are required to do. I'm also concerned by the statement that "IEP fleet maintenance would not 'create' jobs, because all trains, including the pre-IEP fleet, require maintenance", again, where are the reliable sources to back this up? We can't just come to conclusions like this. To clarify, I'm not saying there aren't problems with the current revision, merely that it is better than this later one. Adambro (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with the IC4 is a synthesis of external material, and therefore original research. I also doubt its relevance. DSB's problems are less the result of any intrinsic problem with high-speed diesel trains than of the fact that they purchased from AnsaldoBreda, who have experienced similar issues on multiple occasions and with many types of product. Göteborg, for example, keeps having to withdraw its Sirio trams (I believe they're still out of service as I post this), the electric units for the Dutch high-speed line are late, and I believe they've produced some problematic equipment for the United States as well. David Arthur (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any NPOV issues in my edit. For example: it's not unreasonable to write that trying to implement 'high speed' rail transport using power sources other than electricity, carries a risk premium. There aren't too many high speed diesel trains running in Germany, France, or Spain, for that reason. SNCF abandoned its non-electric TGV in the 1970s, it rejected diesel or electro-diesel for 'high-speed' service to Brest/Quimper/St-Malo, and DB's "ICE TD units were plagued by technical problems from the start" (to quote its Wikipedia article). The description of the proposed IEP plant in the UK as a 'screwdriver' factory was an attempt to communicate to a general audience. With a factory employing 'up to 200 people' in its first stage, it's possible than 10% of the entire workforce could be security dog wardens. There needs to be a degree of common sense regarding unsourced statements, otherwise this article is likely to become minimalist, uninformative, and overly dependent on DfT and Hitachi press releases. Haskanik (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I appreciate your contributions have been done in good faith, we cannot make statements without reliable sources to back them up. You say it's "possible" that 10% of the workforce could be canines but without a source to back that up there's no way it can be verified and therefore doesn't belong here. Remember that IEP is very much in its infancy and more information will become available over time - when such details are confirmed, then we can add them. I know this will make the article seem hollow for now but I would personally prefer to see a short factual article than a lengthy one full of speculation and commentary. Encyclopaedias state the facts; newspapers and magazines do the predictions and commentary. NRTurner (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The ICE-TD has been problematic, but most of the problems are unrelated to diesel power, and the electric ICE-T has had its difficulties as well. Electric is superior is diesel, and the advantages increase along with speed, but diesel is still quite workable, especially given that these trains will be operating at the same speeds as the diesel 125s they replace. David Arthur (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agility has stated its diesel IEP would be capable of 140mph, which is obviously not the case with the 125s they would replace. Haskanik (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"The programme has been critised for its plans to build new high speed diesel trains, rather than electrify the routes and build high speed electric trains,[2][3] and that the preferred bidder is not British.[4]"

This isn't an accurate summary of the criticism of the IEP. It suggests the diesel variant has been subject to criticism, but the other variants have not. Furthermore, there is no British manufacturer of passenger rolling stock, so I'm not sure who has criticised the preferred bidder for not being "British". The proposed manufacture of the trains in Japan has attracted attention on account of the Japanese domestic rolling stock market being largely closed to foreign entrants (Bob Crow's comment), and balance of payments issues (hence Agility's emphasis on 'maintenance' in the value of the contract, to draw attention away).

It is accurate as far as I can tell - before the preferred bidder was announced the only criticism was of building diesel variants and not electrifying instead - read back issues of the rail press for more details.. Is this not accrate?

After the preffered bidder was announced - another criticism arouse - ie that foreigners would be building it - technically this isn't a criticisn of the IEP program - (which I interpret as being the goverment procurement process) - but of the "Hitachi Super Express"...

I haven't seen any criticism of the electric versions in the absence of the specific order details..??FengRail (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The British manufacturer of rolling stock is Bombardier Transportation - a multinational corporation with a factory in the UK - if they had got the contract it would be expected that much of the construction work would be carried out at bombardier's uk plant..FengRail (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier is a Canadian, not British multinational. Siemens is a German, not British, multinational. Nationality of the bidder or manufacturer hasn't been relevant. Haskanik (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Again read the references - one person says "if france and japan can ensure that their high speed trains are built in their countries - why can't the uk" - which is clear criticism of the contract not been given to a country with a current uk manufacturing base.FengRail (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read the reference, and it didn't match the statement in the article. Haskanik (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite "the preferred bidder is not British", in more technically correct and less blunt terms please do so.

If you can supply any details of criticism of the non-diesel part of the DfT specifications please do so - because I'm not aware of them.213.249.232.187 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"A new factory employing 200-500 workers would be established in the UK to complete the trains."

"Up to 200" (i.e., 200 as the upper bound) in the first stage is clearly not the same thing as "200-500 workers" (200 as the lower bound). The intention to manufacture the trains "complete" in Japan was mentioned in an article written by (or perhaps, ghost written for) Stephen Gomersall, and apparently no longer online.

No idea what you're on about - the references clearly say 200-500FengRail (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"with at least 50% of the bogies powered in typical operating formation."

There doesn't appear to be an atypical operating formation where the percentage of powered bogies would be less than 50%, so what does the statement mean?

It means 50% or more of the bogies powered in standard formationFengRail (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"The IEP would be available in electric, ‘self-powered’ and 'bi-mode' versions.[5] The bi-mode version would take some of its power from overhead lines where available, but would have its own power for use elsewhere. The self-powered and bi-mode versions would use a hybrid power system, similar to that trialled on a Class 43 locomotive and trailer combination.[6]"

Hitachi's submission for the IEP mentioned use of a system which might be similar to that trialled on a Class 43 locomotive and trailer combination. This is not the same thing as saying the IEP specification required self-powered and bi-mode versions to use a hybrid power system, similar to that trialled on a Class 43 locomotive and trailer combination. Haskanik (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not rewrite it so that it's clearer then - something like "The Hitachi's self-powered and bi-mode versions would use a hybrid power system, similar to that trialled on a Class 43 locomotive and trailer combination.[6]"

FengRail (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see - it's in the wrong section - moved it for you..FengRail (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also could you put new stuff at the bottom of the page in a new section. Thanks213.249.232.187 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid

The "self powered" version is apparently going to be a hybrid [4]. Does this mean diesel/battery? Biscuittin (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty safe assumption. Hitachi was involved in trials of a hybrid Class 43 which utilised a lithium ion battery to store energy regenerated under braking. Adambro (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See slides 14 - 19 of the attached presentation which discuss Hitachi's hybrid technology which will be in the diesel powercars for the diesel and bi-mode versions of IEP: [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.93.84 (talk) 13:57 21 February 2009

Thanks for that. I have added it as a ref to the British Rail Class 43 (HST) article and linked it from here. Biscuittin (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion about classification of Hybrid locomotives at Talk:Electro-diesel locomotive. Biscuittin (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Hybrid locomotive. Biscuittin (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points

Removal

In January 2009, in a statement to Parliament, Secretary of State for Transport Geoff Hoon outlined the advantages of electrification and said that "the case for electrification appears strongest on the most heavily used parts of the Great Western mainline from Paddington, and the Midland mainline north of Bedford". He said the government would be considering proposals for electrification from Network Rail and that he will make a further statement later in the year.

I'm not sure what this really has to do with the article, except as a follow on from criticism of the project as being less good than electrifying (eg objections to the diesel version)

Even so it doesn't seem relevent as such

Criticism section sub-headings

The titles Electrification as better value for money and Protectionist objections were added by me, but I think they are not the best descriptions.. However I can't think exactly what the better title would be. Please alter accordingly.FengRail (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added back the comments from Geoff Hoon because I think it provides a good balance by giving the DfT's opinion of electrification as a response to Network Rail's suggestions. It says that the DfT aren't opposed to electrification in principle and are considering the possibility of electrifying parts of the network that Network Rail have said would be beneficial. I think this gives the reader a broader view of the issue. Adambro (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that its important that the potential electrification is included because it will effect the eventual mix of the final order of these trains --128.255.74.236 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bi-mode

Quote:

"Type 2 - The Type 2 Super Express will be a 10-car bi-mode unit, intended for intercity services, with an electric power car at one end and a diesel power car at the other, allowing use on both electrified and non electrified routes using the same train."

I assume the train will need around 6,000 hp. How will they cram 6,000 hp (which probably means two diesel engines) into a single power car? Biscuittin (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't. They cram a 2MW (2,700 hp) generator into one end, and a 4MW (5,400 hp) pantograph + transformer into the other. This is the variant that I guess is designed to cover London-Aberdeen/Inverness (full-power under the wires to Haymarket and then spin up the gen-set at the back for the continuation north). Not a problem as the speed limits are lower and the diesel is almost twice that of a single Class 43 power car. —Sladen (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your arithmetic, 2 x 2,250 = 2,700? Biscuittin (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing - HST has 2x ~1.678MW = 3.75MW (or 2x1.3MW at rail =2.6MW) - I assume the 2MW figure is for engine power not at rail?

How fast do the trains actually go to Aberdeen -since it looks a bipower train will be much lower powered than a HST (in self power mode), unless they swap engines (In which case why drag the diesel all the way to endinborough etc in the first place?)

(Given that the trains are expected to be used on non primary lines later on they should be fairly light - how light are the diesel power cars - anyone know?)FengRail (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The 2MW is at the rail [6], and this compares to 2.6MW at the rail for 2x British Rail Class 43 (HST). There will be better acceleration at low speeds as more power can be put onto the rails as there will be more traction motors. A 10-Bi-IC is expected to be 15.7 Tonnes heavier than a 10-Elec-IC. I did see someone that under wires a 10-Bi-IC will be faster than a HST, but slower after the wires end.

A 5-Elec-? + 5-Bi-?, dividing when the wires end would give better timings, but there would be problems with duplication of services such as the resturant car. Edgepedia (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(Thanks for your quick response - I did look at the pdf - but must have developed a blind spot where it clearly says "power at rail"..)

The DFT specifications make a lot of the ease of ability of splitting and reforming the 'E/DMUS' (new name?) - but I could stay awake long enough to actually work out the specifics of what would and wouldn't be done in operation (ie quickly when in service), and what splitting would take place in a depot (ie overnight etc)

Still can't find anything specifically about this >2MW engine (on the web). (One possibilty would be a gas turbine, with the electric batteries providing power smoothing to reduce or eliminate the rapidly changing torque changes that drastically have reduced the lifespan of gas turbines in rail service - Still I would take a brave Hitachi to have another crack at selling gas turbines to the rail industry)FengRail (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Two MW (2,700 hp) at the rail means about 3,300 hp at the crankshaft. A pair of Deltic engines? (joke). Biscuittin (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to [7], the 1 tonne battery setup used for the Hayabusa prototype could kick out ~1MW for 2–3 minutes. It's entirely possible that 1 MW is coming from a Diesel-powered prime mover and 1 MW boost is coming from nicely topped up batteries when required (station/signal departure, Lickey Incline). —Sladen (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It would take more than 1 MW to run the train continuously at 125 mph. They could use something like a British Rail Class 67 with one cab removed. I notice that the vehicle containing the prime mover has no traction motors [8] so this would save a bit of weight. Biscuittin (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I keep thinking about - the 67 approximately has the power, and no traction motors/only 1 cab would save a few tonnes - but it's still ~10 tonnes too heavy for 125mph running (on four axles) (Hitachi haven't explicitly said they will use 4 axle power cars) - and the Class 67 is a modern light design. (Maybe we will get a japanese style "BoBoBo" power car?)

Is there any scope for improving the power/weight ratio of diesel engines? I suppose we couldn't return to Deltics because they wouldn't comply with modern emission regulations. Biscuittin (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would the bi-mode need to reach 200 km/h on diesel? That's what the pantograph is for! —Sladen (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would. It's not like a British Rail Class 73 where the diesel engine is just for shunting. Biscuittin (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

People going to Aberdeen probably aren't in any hurry...

Another thing is the classification - the ends will have diesel power units - but no powered wheels - will they be classed as generator vans?FengRail (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how old ideas come round again. It's not exactly the same but the Blue Pullmans had two traction motors on the power car and two more on the adjoining car. Biscuittin (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't know that - will go and read the article...

A train family

Is the "super express" actually part of the A-train family (I know it uses some similar technology)

Looking at hitachi's publicity material I haven't found anything that says it is (yet).FengRail (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Another thing the UIC class is said to be Bo'Bo' for the powered 'coaches' - is there any evidence that this is true - the alternative I can see is B'B') ??? FengRail (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The 'Super Express' is a stretched version of the Hitachi 395 according to 'Modern Railways' Industry and Technology Editor, Roger Ford (Modern Railways, March 2009)--92.18.188.128 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It might have similarities with the Class 395 but it is much more than simply a stretched version of it. I was onboard one of the new 395's a year ago now and it is obvious from what I've read about the IEP that they will differ significantly from what I saw last March. The Super Express probably will be defined as part of the A-train family but we don't seem to have anything to confirm that yet. Adambro (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with (either of) the points above - but what Roger Ford says is not the same as the manufacturers own statement - which is what I think is needed here. If you see what I mean.FengRail (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems to have been fixed. It seems to me to be clear that if Hitachi wanted us to think of these as "A-train" types it would be clear in their publicity material..

Later on perhaps, we will see how similar the two designs are..FengRail (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Manufacture

The article currently (?) (how long?) makes no mention of manufacture in Britain - I thought that the first ~100 carriages where to be made in Japan, following by other in the UK. Was this just wishful thinking on the part of the railway press? (Perhaps I dreamt the whole thing?)FengRail (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This follows a reasonably substantial edit by Haskanik (talk · contribs) and perhaps confirms what I've previously suggested as a slight slant against Hitachi in Haskanik's edits. My understanding of the current plans are that the first 90 will be constructed in their entirely in Japan with the others being constructed in the UK with the body shells being shipped over from Japan. It would seem they don't plan on building the capacity to do friction stir welding in the UK to the scale that is required which I understand to be a more specialised technique. Haskanik has previously invented terms like "screw driver factory" to describe Hitachi's planned facility in the UK. Perhaps Haskanik is just cynical of some of the probable marketing hype that surrounds any product but we have to base articles on reliable sources not our own interpretation of the situation. Adambro (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit missing http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/090212c.html

Agility Trains is delighted to announce that these trains will be substantially manufactured in the UK. Hitachi, Agility Trains' principal supplier, is today announcing that as part of its long-term commitment to the UK, and in anticipation of further demand in the UK and other European rail markets, it will establish a world class rolling stock manufacturing facility in the UK. From feasibility studies to date, a shortlist of three suitable sites, located in Ashby de la Zouch in Leicestershire, Sheffield and Gateshead in the North East, has been drawn up, with all locations under active consideration. Hitachi is currently conducting more detailed analysis to identify the optimum site location based on a range of assessment criteria.

also from the same release "...and Agility Trains is committed to spending 70% of the contract value in the UK..."

The idea of the first 100 carriages being made in japan, and the rest being shipped out as body shells to be fitted is ascribed to a Derby MP according to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090302a3.html I have no idea if he is right, and there is no indication if Hitachi will ship out the spin welding machines needed for the shell manufacture.FengRail (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the changes due to point of view and Orginal research issues. We all need to be careful when reading newspapers and articles that they generally take a POV - it's this that sells papers and magazines. However, we need to maintain a neutral point of view in an encyclopedia. Edgepedia (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The only bit I would disagree with is the removal of the "The IEP program is controversial" - at least in the sense that it has been hotly opposed in some sections of the railway press for having diesel power at all. - Most commentators wanted electrification. Plus it is 'controversial' in the sense of the award being made to a foreign firm - ie see responses to the preffered bidder announcement - that all amounts to a criticism section...

Not that I particularily support a criticism section for a product that as yet does not exist.FengRail (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the 'most commentators wanted electrification', other than the network rail report? Edgepedia (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Obviously 'most' is a difficult term - 'many commentators' would be true though)

Yes (but I can't supply the details) - the UK railmagazines and newpapers (eg "RAIL" "(UK) Railways today" etc have been 'full' of editorial comment about this issue - many reflecting the view that the diesel version will be a waste/silly idea and that the money should be spent on electrification.

Last months issue of "Railways today" (maybe the previous month) contained a particularily venomous two page attack straight after the contents page.

(I don't keep copys of these things)

Maybe someone else will be able to supply issue numbers.

Found this http://www.railnews.co.uk/opinions/comment/2008/01/25-electrification.html -

With commitment to an electrification programme, the electric version of the new Intercity Express should take priority. Indeed, with today’s concerns about carbon emissions and availability of oil – not to mention its price – one wonders why there are serious plans to develop a diesel-only version at all.

This person (Alan Marshall) is much more reasonable - I don't exaggerate when I say that most of the printed rail press articles were much more an exercise in carpet biting.FengRail (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sentence of critism to the lead paragraph. Edgepedia (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Carriages

I've marked this section as WP:OR because it has no reference, and I think there would need to be more than four types of carriage. For example are both driving ends of a 5-EMU going to be the same? What about a generator to move the EMU at 30mph when the power fails? Edgepedia (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that its derived from http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf

It does seem to amount to 'or' in a vague sense.FengRail (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps 'incorrect synthesis' would be better. I have problems with the first sentence as I think that there will need to be more than four types of carriage, and trying to come up with something a bit more vague. Edgepedia (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's wrong - though it definately is synthesis of information (more likely correct than incorrect) - I'd leave it as "or", if no one fixes the problem it could be removed.FengRail (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I removed and replaced that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intercity_Express_Programme&diff=277646594&oldid=277643583

I don't think admitting it is synthesis of facts excuses that the 'carriages table' was borderline original research.

Hopefully what I've replaced it with is not debateable.FengRail (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the same problem exists with the UIC classification which isn't stated explicitly (perhaps the diagrams in the press release should not to be taken as accurate representations?) FengRail (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Diesel cars

According to http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/business/2009/03/03-hitachi-expansion.html Hitachi is (considering) subcontracting the production of the diesel cars:

"Bi-mode power system manufacture — 120 - 150 approx. (Hitachi is considering two contractors for this part of the deal — Brush Traction in Loughborough, Leics., and Vossloh España, in Valencia, Spain, a former Alstom subsidiary that was bought out by its managers"

Should this be included?

Also I would propose splitting the article into a "procurement process page" (ie current page) and "Hitachi Super Express" page - with the details of the actual machine?FengRail (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I read it slightly differently. I don't see anything to really suggest that Hitachi are considering subcontracting the production of the diesel cars, rather I suspect they are referring to the powerpacks that they will use. Ideally I suppose it would be preferable to find another reference to support the understanding of Railnews. On the issue or splitting the article, I don't consider it to be necessary. I consider a better option would be to move this page to "Hitachi Super Express" or similar and move information about the IEP into a "History" section. Adambro (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: diesels - didn't think of that - comment - Vossloh Espania uses GM engines/electrics almost exclusively - so subcontracting to them for just the powerpack would seem (to me) to not make sense (ie why not buy direct from GM). Similar with Brush - they only really make the alternators - but do/did manufacture whole power cars with engines from other manufacturers. Subcontracting to Brush just to stick an alternator on an (externally manufactured) engine doesn't seem likely - though anything is possible. Kawasaki heavy engineering has produced (as far as I'm aware) all the diesel locomotives currently in Japan - Hitachi doesn't appear to have any experience in manufacturing whole diesel loco's anyway - (DMUs yes).

As there's only one source at the moment I suppose it will be best to wait and see before adding anything more.FengRail (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your page move is sensible. Eventually that will almost certainly happen, with a small possibility of a separate page for the procurrement process.FengRail (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Blockquoting

"The case for electrification appears strongest on the most heavily used parts of the Great Western main line from Paddington, and the Midland main line north of Bedford"

No sh*t.

Don't articles read better when blockquoting is restricted to significant statements?

Yes ok , see sarcasm (I've been banned before for using it...)

Weak introduction

"The programme has been criticised for its plans to build new high speed diesel trains, rather than electrify the routes and build high speed electric trains, [2][3] and that the preferred bidder does not currently have a UK manufacturing facility.[4]"

All three variants of the IEP have been criticised, for a range of reasons, so I'm not sure why someone keeps removing references to the project being controversial. The statement that criticism has focused on the preferred bidder "not currently" having "a UK manufacturing facility" is quite odd. In the case of the Voyager trains, Bombardier wasn't criticised for not having a current UK manufacturing facility. It was criticised for not using it enough.

An earlier version stated that there had been criticism that the preferred bidder was "not British". So far as I know, Agility Trains is registered in Britain. The DfT claimed the Agility bid was "British led". Obviously spin, but even reference to spin has been removed from the article:

("A government department being acused of 'spin' and a company withdrawing from the bidding process saying that it's not practial is not notable. Fails WP:POV").

Of course it's notable, in the accepted meaning of the word. And in the Wikipedia sense of the word, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Even individual Doctor Who serials have passed that criterion.

I'm not sure why the comments made by Theresa Villiers, shadow transport secretary, should be considered any more or less POV than those of a member of the government.

Haskanik (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good - Don't think there was any conspiracy to remove the word "controversial" - I guess it became removed by "editing by commitee".

I agree that the program has been controversial. Good on you.

However Alstom describing the targets as impractible is not the same as engineers in general - they didn't bid and gave their reason - it may have been impractible for them - but not for two other bidders (?) - also 'rolling stock engineers'

How about "some rolling stock engineers" - extra alternative references - otherwise "rolling stock engineers"="altsom" doesn't it..

However you have missed the point that many journalists made - which was that electrification seemed to be a better option in the long term and the diesel versions were considered to be the wrong way to spend the cash. You are aware of these journalists I hope. (see discussion above about this) eg http://www.railnews.co.uk/opinions/comment/2008/01/25-electrification.html ie to clarify I am not aware of any criticisms or problems with the part of the program that intended to procure electric trains, prior to the announcement of the bidder.

By the way your last edit changed and removed other editors comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIntercity_Express_Programme&diff=281565508&oldid=279665401 I assume gremlins ?

Apologies, that was gremlins, I hope I've restored the earlier editors' comments. Haskanik (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would like to tag the page with:

{{future}}

and accept that the article will continue to have problems with perspective etc until it is all done and dusted/eggs hatched..

Does anyone agree or object to adding the future tag ?

Yes, I'd say it'd be a good idea to tag the futurity aspect. And the introduction is now much improved. Haskanik (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Added template - it does apply, can't see anyone objecting. High profile current event articles have always been problematic - if only because no-one has the benefit of hindsight. For that reason I usually prefer the more obscure pages.

To all: Keep up the good work.FengRail (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting and (possible) expansion of Super Express

I was pondering the idea of splitting off the Hitachi Super Express section into an article of its own.

I would like to know if that would be suitable. I have tagged the section.

-calvinps- (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - they are seperate things now although they werent originally. When more details are released the name may have to change again but for the time being sounds like the best idea lordmwa (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally agree - in the long run the two may end up merged or separate - in the short term I think this will help with the two topics contained within the article , which in my opinion are currently struggling against each other for space.. Split them and give them room to grow!FengRail (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do! :D -calvinps- (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Any news?

There hasn't been anything substantial added to this article for some time. Has the Department for Transport forgotten about the project? Biscuittin (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. These things have a habit of taking quite a while. Adambro (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added this ref to the article. Biscuittin (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TRAXX

Can someone check this for reliability [9]

I couldn't find anything else, except opinion pieces by journalists, and this [10] (and similar). My thoughts are that non-expert journalists are confusing the opininos of rail journalists such as Christian Wolmar and Ian Walmsley (of Modern Railways with facts.

The Andrew Foster report [11] mentions high powered electric locomotives as one possible alternative on some routes, but doesn't go any further. ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also this blog [12] alt - if, as I suspect, the news reports a basing their statements on chinese whispers info from Roger Ford's blog then the whole thing is unreliable.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the reference is speculative, but left it as I'm expecting an official statement in the next week or two. Edgepedia (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it for know as I can't call it reliable - however I have added a brief list of the alternative options suggested by the Foster report diff - which I'm guessing is the basis of all this. (that part could be expanded)

In 2010 the [[Department for Transport]] also looked into other more cost effective ways of repacing the Intercity 125, in particular using new electric locomotives with [[British Rail Mark 3]] carriages; one possible option is a version of the [[TRAXX]] locomotive built to UK loading gauge.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/government-explores-traxx-loco-hauled-option-to-replace-iep|title=Government explores Traxx loco- hauled option to replace IEP|date= 23 september 2010|work=www.railexpress.co.uk}}{{Verify credibility}}</ref>

So there's still a mention of electric loco powered trains. Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just coming back to say I thought something had been said in the report :) Edgepedia (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No News

The articles says news will come in October and its November and there's no update, so I went and had a look. The only thing I found was this debate in Westminster Hall on the programme, in which the (Minister of State (Rail and Aviation), Transport says "Importantly, the Foster report also highlighted that although the project has always exceeded the Department for Transport's economic thresholds, its value for money has seen a decline over time, while its costs have increased.", but nothing substantive. So no anouncement yet but ... [lots of original research and speculation in the absence of facts]. Edgepedia (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was supposed to come with the spending review (Spending Review) in Oct [13] - as I remember they decided to pospone the decision again - at least they said neither yes or no. I'll see if I can find more.Sf5xeplus (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There was definately no definate news from the spending review [14]

[15] A DfT Spokesman said: “We are currently considering revised proposals from Agility Trains for the Intercity Express Programme. Announcements on the Thameslink, electrification and HLOS rolling stock programmes will be made in light of the Government's final decision on IEP.” - that was the last I heard about it (20th October 2010) . Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh found it dft - the department of transports press printout after the spending review : "The Government is currently considering revised proposals from Agility trains for the Intercity Express Programme. An announcement will be made in due course. Because aspects of Thameslink and HLOS rolling stock programmes, as well as projects to electrify the Great Western Mainline, and the rail routes around Manchester and Liverpool, are interdependent with the IEP decision, a full announcement on all these programmes will be made at the same time." (also 20th Oct 2010) from the "Transport Spending Review Press Notice"

That's the last official news I saw.Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(personally I'm going to wait for the next announcement, but if someone else wants to update the article please go ahead)Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

1984 bi mode hst

removed this: diff

The idea of a bi-mode development of the InterCity 125 train was considered by [[British Rail]] as early as 1984. The book ''Intercity 125'' contains a line-drawing of a "potential inter-city electro-diesel". It shows a [[Pantograph (rail)|pantograph]] added to the power car and one of the power bogies transferred to the adjacent car, as on the [[British Rail Classes 251 and 261|Blue Pullman]].<ref>Tufnell, R.M., ''Intercity 125 Super Profile'', page 49, Haynes Publishing Group, 1984, ISBN 0854294287</ref>

Not comfortable with this as an "encyclopedic addition" - comparison with Blue Pullman doesn't seem that helpful to many. And it's not clear (without access to the book) - which doesn't appear to be an official BR publication that what it says is reliable. Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge in Hitachi Super Express

The archived discussion is at Talk:Hitachi_Super_Express#Merge. My suggestion is that the article is recreated (with this as the main history section) once the order is placed. Up to now the specification and cost has varied too much for a train article. Edgepedia (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you edgepedia et al for doing the merge - I added the interwiki ja:日立スーパーエクスプレス from the redirect to this article - it seems a close enough match.

When the train is built, and has a proper name I would favour moving this article to the proper name (assuming there are no more big changes). In such a way as to make the current article part of the history and background of the article on the train. I don't forsee a need for having two separate articles - most articles I'm aware of have the procurement program as part of the locomotive/train article - the Korean HSR-350x is a good example of this which has a section, but no article on the "G7 project". However WP:CRYSTAL BALL so what I've said can be ignored until the event (which may or may not ever happen....)Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the WP:CRYSTAL. The train now proposed is a completely different animal from that first moted and therefore there's no reason to expect we have the final beast now. Edgepedia (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are the engines?

I haven't looked at this page for a while. Am I right that the specification has changed from a diesel generator vehicle at one end to lots of underfloor engines? Biscuittin (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

One of two possibilities at present, according to the article (scan for "underfloor"), but it will probably change again when they realise that the best model for that, the Bombardier Voyager family, are noisy and vibrate. Having said that, if they only use the underfloor diesels away from the wires, it may not be too bad (and note Bombardier Voyager family#Proposed conversion to electrical operation). Tim PF (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My impression is that underfloor engines are now the only diesel option being considered. I will search for references. Biscuittin (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've found this at Hansard 25 Nov 2010 : Column 1222 "The remaining options are, on the one hand, a revised lower-cost Agility Trains proposal that envisages a mixed fleet of some all-electric trains and some electric trains equipped with underfloor diesel engines, and on the other hand, a fleet of new all-electric trains that could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. Both of these options would allow us to preserve through-journeys between London and those parts of the rail network which are not electrified. Both of them would deliver faster journey times. For example, we expect to see time savings of at least 15 minutes for the journey between Cardiff and London, bringing it to below two hours".[16]. Note the reference to "new" diesel locomotives. Aren't there lots of under-used Class 67s around at the moment? Biscuittin (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also a claim that it takes 9 minutes to couple a diesel locomotive to a train: Hansard 5 Apr 2011:Column WA366 [17]. Biscuittin (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That pretty much accords with my observations at Crewe a few years ago watching the rigmarole involved in coupling up a Class 57 to a Pendolino heading for Glasgow via Manchester (due to engineering works and Manchester - Bolton - Preston not yet electrified). The only thing worse was when I was heading into North Wales, and was stuck on the train unable to see what the delay was.

Contrast this to the stops I don't remember (because they were routine and quick) at Bournemouth in the 1980s when the Weymouth train had its 4-REP detached as well, and it then worked as a push-pull train with only one driver.

I also don't really see why a "new" diesel loco is required, as a Class 57 or Class 67 should be quite adequate to the job, and even a "new" loco might not last out the electric trainsets (or until the electrification is completed). A problem with Class 67 is their high axle-load, which means that they may not be allowed to go as fast as an HST, although they can work as push-pull (as per Chiltern / Wrexham & Shropshire).

So, I can understand the rationale for a "new" diesel locomotive, which is to do the job properly by being designed (or at least adapted) to properly work in conjunction with the trainsets (in the same way that Class 33s worked with the 4-TC trailer units), have a good route availability, power (acceleration) and top-speed appropriate to the routes and train weights. That probably means something like a Class 43 (HST), but with a lot more power (~50% more).

If part of the rationale for using a diesel locomotive is to save the weight of the engines in electric mode, the converse is that these locomotives could save weight by connecting a power-bus to the existing traction motors in the electric trainset (I'd probably retain a couple of smaller motors so it can move on its own and reduce the bus rating). That way, I think you might be able to squeeze at least 3,000 horsepower (2,200 kW) (eg 4 Voyager type engines) into a 70 ton package, that might just do the job.

One problem about these proposed locomotives, is that it would be a fairly small fleet scattered around the extremities of the country. With current schedules, Cardiff and Edinburgh would only need about 2 each (plus 1 spare each), East Coast would need a couple of others in the Newark / Doncaster / Leeds area, and Great Western around Oxford / Swindon (assuming West of England continues with IC125s). (East Coast currently has 13 HSTs, so assuming they spend >50% of their time under the wires, 6 plus spares should suffice). That's about half the fleet size of Class 57 or 67, and not much bigger than the ill-fated Class 23. To get a bigger fleet, the IEP would have to be rolled out elsewhere (eg Midland Main Line) and / or set up to work longer routes (such as to Penzance) in pairs like HSTs. Tim PF (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how easy it would be to convert some Class 67s to A1A-A1A wheel arrangement to reduce the axle load. The existing traction motors could be retained, if not the original bogies. Biscuittin (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not very easy. There are six-axle versions of the Alstom Prima diesel locomotives, but I cannot find a side-on image to compare with File:67020 at Kings Cross.jpg, which doesn't look like it would be easy to either fit a longer three-axle bogie, or an additional axle in the same space (which may get in the way of the traction motors).

Don't forget that adding more axles will also likely add more weight, and overall weight may also affect route availability, so a six-axle version with the same power-plant, etc., may well add another 10 tons, and so not match an HST's RA.

In any case, I can't really see the point either. The 67s work, so if it ain't bust, don't fix it. They still do a job, but just rarely at full speed. This includes the Caledonian Sleeper over the same Scottish routes, although they probably run somewhat slower than the East Coast IC125s. Tim PF (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference for formation/capacity

For the record, I think I got the formation information from a copy of RAIL magazine, but can't remember which issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Class 365

diff

I don't remember this, and it's not anywhere else in the article. If it is true please reference.Imgaril (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The DFT are talking] about IEP to Cambridge/King's Lynn. AFAIK it's to improve utilisation of the fast tracks as everything would be 125mph capable. Edgepedia (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I updated the article with the information from that source. Edgepedia (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another thing I just spotted is the "533 carriages, 60% hybrid and 40% electric" claim via http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8547.msg86468#msg86468 .. If any one can find a better source (it seems to be a forum) .. I suppose it's ok in the absense of anything else.Imgaril (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I found http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/review-of-the-intercity-express-programme-by-sir-andrew-foster/annex.pdf see page 27 , it also seems to suggest IEP to replace Class 165/166 to Reading /Newbury /Didcot /Oxford on page 22, and class 180 to Lincolnon page 23

I don't know the subject well enough to add this - I keep thinking I may be misreading, mainly because I didn't find anything about this on the DfT site. I'm not sure if the info is "slightly hypothetical".Imgaril (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The London and South East RUS [18], page 114, section 7.5.4 says that the current strategy is for IEP to replace the class 365 on this route. I agree that with the train still in design things are still uncertain, especially as these trains will be run under new franchise agreements with potentially different TOCs. Edgepedia (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I added that it will replace other train types, in addition to HSTs. [diff The link gives a few more places - Harrogate, Skipton, Lincoln etc. I left out that it would be replacing the 365s simply because I couldn't think of a way to say it concisely in the lead section.Imgaril (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Lacking sourcs - possibly incorrect?

See this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intercity_Express_Programme&oldid=499828391

• with costings for higher maximum speeds up to 155 mph (250 km/h).  ::can't find

*The original call for tenders (2007) assumed pre-series introduction on the East Coast Main Line in 2012 with series production from 2014 to 2020, and a quantity of between 500 and 2000 vehicles.

can't find the 2020 date or 2000 vehicle figure

Not in the linked documents - are there a sources for these?

Also Bids would be accepted from organisations or consortia able to design, produce, finance and maintain the trains for 30 years the source for this has been lost- I think it comes from the Invitation to Tender documents on DfT - but not the TTS one. Can anyone find the archive of this?.Oranjblud (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Found it .. still need a source for the 155mph figure..Oranjblud (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Order numbers

[19] ("Agility Trains signs Intercity Express Programme contract, railway gazette) vs [20] (google "Hitachi secures largest UK train order, Mark Odell and Jim Pickard" if link won't work)

ie see this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intercity_Express_Programme&diff=504097093&oldid=504095180

The sources contradict, needs checking later on..178.78.100.172 (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Railway Gazette numbers (369/227) that you have added match the Hitachi Rail Europe press release (see page 3), so are likely correct. Jheald (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The FT numbers are probably a typo, I don't know if a note should be left in the article mentioning that, or not.178.78.100.172 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the 35 units from the second phase are going to go. East Coast have 13 HST carriage sets and enough engines for 16 sets. Their Intercity 225 units are the 30 unit "option" in the third phase. East midlands trains also have 12 HSTs. Are they meant to also replace Grand Central's 6 units? 82.46.109.233 (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Are these for the ECML semi-fasts to Cambridge and King's Lynn? (For speeding up these services to free up the southern end of the ECML). —Sladen (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

According to http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20120725a/ trains for Kings Lynn/Cambridge are a 'phase 3' option - though I think this refers to extra trains relpacing class 365s as mentioned in the foster review annex, page 27

The order breakdown given at .. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/agility-trains-signs-intercity-express-programme-contract.html gives ~ 3/4 of the trains as bi-mode:

• 13 x 9 car sets bimode - matches the HST
• 12 x 5 car full electric - probably class 90 replacements eg Greater Anglia (or for additional trains on the ECML ??)
• 10 x 5 car bimode - possible class 180 replacement + ECML branches (eg skipton, hull, harrogate )

There seems to be a few 5 car bimodes left over - if they replace the GC HST's and class 180s then the figures start to add up - though I haven't found and clear detail.Oranjblud (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

There seems to be quite a lot of controversy about this order. Some points I've seen mentioned:

• Claims that the IEPs are going to cost £20,000 a carriage more per month to lease than Pendolino sets of similar capacity
• Questions about ordering carriages that are 26m long rather than 23m -- these will be limited as to what tracks they are cleared for, particularly raising issues for some of the services to Scotland and the South West furthest from London; also less route flexibility will make diversions more difficult; also concerns that they will be hard to cascade to other lines, and work against fleet standardisation. Being longer also requires the carriages to be narrower, so seating may feel more cramped and less generous than in the Mk 3 HST carriages they replace.
• Questions about the bimodal requirement -- said to make the trains more complex and more expensive; and questions about whether a long-term commitment to these (weighty, thirsty, unenvironmental) diesel engines makes sense at a time of rapid electrification, compared to what is presented as a more flexible option of loco haulage for the non-electrified sections.
• Questions about the sustainability of the new assembly factory in the North-East, which may only have work for a couple of years (or a little longer, if the ECML second tranche is taken up). After that, what? Compared to a factory in mainland Europe it won't be competitive to deliver trains to the continent, because they won't fit through the UK loading gauge to get there.

Against that, the point that GWML electrification was so far advanced, that there was simply no time left for any other spec to be put up for a whole new bidding contest.

Should we cover more of this in the article? We do of course discuss the procurement review that was carried out. But there seems to be rather little to explain what were the nuts-and-bolts issues that made the programme unpopular or controversial to prompt review; nor why the review nevertheless over-ruled those fears. Perhaps discussion of these issues should be expanded and put into sharper focus in the article? Jheald (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't this covered in the Foster Review? I seems to remember questions about bi-mode and the 26m length. Perhaps an slight expansion here? Edgepedia (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Cost - http://www.rail.co/2012/07/26/ieps-better-value-for-money-than-pendolinos-says-dft/ - the dft is contracditing this claim.. note they give cost to buy, not lease cost..
• 26m - there have been suggestions that the longer carriages will be narrower - however it can also be found (online) that hitachi intends to work with network rail on gauging the trains - possibly including gauge enhancments - it's possible that the trains will not be narrower. - I don't have any of these sources to hand, but could find the bit about network rail (probably) if needed. As far as I know the width of carriages in unconfirmed as yet ... I don't think the facts are available yet.

It's mentioned in passing in the Foster report annex [21] p.16 "In order to accommodate the proposed IEP train design, a business case has been developed which includes the cost of certain changes to the infrastructure to provide the best overall solution to increase capacity. The changes involve such things as power supply and structure gauge improvements and platform lengthening." (my underlining) - there is more better information on this, but I can't find it right now.

• Bi-mode - this has been extensively criticised in many places by many people - this should be mentioned - but needs to be from reliable authoritative sources - ie respected rail writers/journalists etc.. .. It can be referenced from Fosters report http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/review-of-the-intercity-express-programme-by-sir-andrew-foster/report.pdf eg
  • p.5 quote There are widespread concerns, which we share, about the bi-mode element of the new IEP trains
  • p.19

    There are however widespread concerns, shared by the review team, about the bi-mode element of the new IEP trains. Any form of diesel propulsion is likely to be heavier (with implications for track maintenance) and cost more to maintain than electric alternatives; there is also a potential vulnerability to increasing oil costs. In relation to IEP specifically, the concern centres on the capability of a single diesel generator carriage to power long-distance through-trains (i.e. trains which will also have pantograph/transformer carriages), especially in the often hilly regions in Scotland and the South West peninsula where they would be most called upon in the absence of electrification. Although Agility Trains have committed to contracting to deliver the required journey times, our analysis of IEP bi-mode performance (distance speed graphs) causes concern around the technical capability of the train to deliver these journey times.

  • p.32 A number of experts have doubts about the bi-mode’s likely performance etc etc

This could be easily added.178.78.100.172 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• • On the first point the investment includes Hatachi's new factory. It also includes some diesal power. The investment is not directly compariable.
  • The carriage RUS discusses 26m vs 23m vs 20m. Can't rememeber fully what it said except they could be cheaper. Edgepedia (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We could expand the bi-mode critism; the Foster Report covers most of this. Wasn't this the reason West of England is still to be using HST 125s? However its best to include this in the text. Edgepedia (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Design

It should be noted here (for future reference) that the design has changed from the original specification:

• The original spec had diesel engine/generators in 23m steel bodied end cars
• The current spec has underfloor diesel engines
• (also no diesel only versions).

It's not clear when this changed, and the firm details of the final design are not yet in the public domain. At some point the article will need to cover this - if anyone sees any sources that talk about the development of the design over time to the final order spec please note them. Thank you.178.78.100.172 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi IP 178.. As I see we've covered these changes to the design as they were announced... perhaps not as clear as we could be. I'm expecting some design details to be released soon and we can expand. Edgepedia (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(rewritten for clarity) It might have been deleted - there was some missing info about the underfloor engines which was only mentioned in passing- I still can't find when the design changed to underfloor engines ([22] by at least Nov 2010) see also http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=1036 which goes into detail

An oddity is http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-L25JN49WjgC&pg=PA43 which states that "..the DfT made clear the new train could not have underfloor engines..", which appears to be written evidence from Bombardier to Parliament. I can't find any other reference to this in the DfT's TTS (see link in article), I'm not sure if it is accurate, but if it is it needs much more exposition.77.86.43.169 (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Train layouts: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/iep-train-layouts/iep-train-layouts.pdf 82.46.109.233 (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice one. Got any more :) ? 02:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I see this is from http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/draft-iep-train-layouts - we can use this Oranjblud (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Was just browsing/searching Dft website and found it. No insider knowledge I'm afraid :) 82.46.109.233 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is good though: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-rail-travel-presentation/intercity-rail-travel-presentation.pdf The last slide gives a timetable saying full deployment on GW by 2017 and EC by 2018 82.46.109.233 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge Agility Trains

Agility Trains - propose merge - nothing new in this subpage: single purpose consortium formed for IEP.[23]77.86.43.169 (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

IEP engines

• http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/mtu-to-supply-diesel-powerpacks-for-intercity-express-programme.html
• http://www.hitachi.eu/about/press/pdfs/20120919%20HRE%20MTU%20supplier.pdf
• http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/hitachi-selects-mtu-for-iep-engine-contract.html?channel=529#.UFpGwLLDcso
• http://www.tognum.com/press/press-releases/presse-detail/news/tognum_is_preferred_supplier_for_hitachi_super_express_train/cHash/188f746cafa8d8a80a314659e520d898/

MTU 12V 83.100.211.252 (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hitachi Super Express design

I thought about starting a new section on the current design of the Hitachi Super Express, but considering the design changes we have had so far, I consider the risk of future changes is high and decided against it. If anyone else decides to do so, can I suggest a seperate sub-section, outside of the History sub-section, so we can split it off into an article later. Edgepedia (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes - what I had been doing previously in the "Agility Trains — Hitachi Super Express" section was a chronological account of the development of the Hitachi IEP offer(it has changed over time)

Thus the section is a separate chrononolgy to the main - eg the next section doesn't follow on in time, but from the section before (or more specifically the date) of the initial "preferred bidder" announcement. So it does make sense to split.

My preference would be to pull the current section out from the history, re-add the MTU info to the end. Label that all "Design" or something similar, and probably use a subsection "Development of the design", (or "background" or something else) for the 'old stuff'. When the finalised design is finalised that can be added as the next section in the Design section.

I don't think it would make sense to try to merge the history of the design with the overarching history as that would scatter info.

Not sure if it makes sense to split off yet.

Maybe the vehicle design and "Manufacture and introduction" section should be merged into a "Design and manufacture" subsection? (I don't see much need for rewriting - just shuffleing sections mostly).Oranjblud (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This would all be a lot easier once there is a final (physically real) design..Oranjblud (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well there's two things here; the Design development which is all the battery-based diesel-powered regenerative (diesel-only) Hybrid stuff, the generate vans + 3 motor coaches + driving van trailer. And there's the Finalised Design which are EMU coaches with 0.7–3.5 MW of generators hung under the floor depending on how much ummpf they need when going off-piste. It seems logically to me to separate these too; one reflecting the latest status-quo, and (chronologically) sorted with past history, and deadends. —Sladen (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried the first solution, and I think you're right Sladen; there's a lot that's not needed in the design section, so I reverted myself. We need a new section break just before the MTU para, followed by a new paragraph describing the current design.

I think the old and new designs are quite similar - apart from the engines little has changed - the diesel power cars no longer exist, and now ~50% of the carriages will have an underfloor diesel engine in bi-mode - but the old design was also going to have underfloor engines - just less -(ie only one) for auxilliary/emergency power - as specified in the original TTS. Other features of the design appear unchanged eg 26m coaches. It's not clear how much has changed though.

I can see it can make sense to leave the old design stuff were it is, with the end note that "the designs were changed c.2010", and write the "design" section from a blank sheet once the new specs are released and certain.. Either solution seems ok though.

In the case of leave as is I think the section might be renamed to "Hitachi Super Express - orginal specifications", or something..Oranjblud (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Table

Needed to visual this stuff; Numbers sources from [24]. 596 carriages; 250 engines. Usage is educated guess based on options in Foster's Review Annex[25]. please feel free to correct—perhaps you can even find cites. Engines/unit comes from Tognum [26] "The pure electric trains are also set to be fitted with one Powerpack … bi-mode vehicles will each have three (five-unit trains), four (eight-unit trains) or five (nine-unit trains)" So where are those eight-car trains? Options come from[27]. However the firm ordered don't quite appear to match up with the DfT press release.[28] (But do we ever believe anything the DfT says themselves these days?)

Phase	Target	Units	Cars/Unit	Mode	Engines/Unit	Diesel MW	Guessed usage
Phase 1	GWML	21	9	Electric	1	0.7MW	Bristol/Swansea HSTs
Phase 1	GWML	36	5	Bi-Mode	3	2.1MW	Cheltenham/Gloucester/ Worcester/Hereford/ Oxford/ Newbury
Phase 2	ECML	12	5	Electric	1	0.7MW	Cambridge/King's Lynn
Phase 2	ECML	10	5	Bi-Mode	3	2.1MW	Hull/Harrogate/Skipton/Lincoln
Phase 2	ECML	13	9	Bi-Mode	5	3.5MW	Aberdeen/Inverness HSTs
Options	ECML	30	9	Electric	1	0.7MW	Edinburgh/Leeds IC225s

—Sladen (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the 8 car trains are "hypothetical"..

5 engines gives a 9 car ~3.5MW max, a 5 car gets ~2.1MW max - those figures are roughly comparable with a HST (better than) or Class 220 (not as good)

Numbers check (using figures from railwaygazette) :::

• Phase 1 GWML
  • Electric 21 units = 21 engines
  • Bimode 5 car, 36 units = 108 engines
    • 129 diesel engines total
• Phase 2 "ECML" etc
  • Electric 12 units = 12 engines
  • Bimode 10 units 5 car = 30 engines
  • Bimode 13 units 9 car = 65 engines
    • 107 diesel engines
      • Total 236 engines.

Those figures are for (I think) in service sets, in practice I would expect Hitachi to make more - since the tender specifies sets available - not total sets. -that adds a few more carriages - it's near enough for me.Oranjblud (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent info

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/britain-orders-more-hitachi-trains-for-east-coast.html - the report states the total cost is now £5.8 billion

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/intercity-express-programme the Jul 2013 written statement should be linked if it isn't already

http://www.railtex.co.uk/_downloads/presentations/Railtex_hitachi.pdf the Railtex powerpoint contains some new technical information, and information on the depots.

http://www.dlapiper.com/files/Publication/5076c1e5-ddc8-42f4-9a6f-004a77baf321/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/519903eb-1cd3-4b10-90c6-46664110cff5/intercity-express-programme.pdf dla piper report give more info on the financing.83.100.174.82 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsec-harris-build-new-depots-great-western-main-line

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/-hitachi-super-express-trains-uk/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Doncaster depot

With the ECML contract 'signed' the Doncaster depot is likely to be built - relavent documents are:

Doncaster Council planning applications

• (10/00403/FULM) Erection of new rail maintenance facility comprising of new buildings for maintenance, stores, offices, wheel lathe, train wash and cleaners accommodation ..., Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, 18 February 2010
  • (10/01390/FULM) Erection of new rail maintenance facility ... (resubmission), Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, 24 May 2010
  • (11/03277/MAT) Erection of new rail maintenance facility ... (amended resubmission), Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, 29 November 2011
• (12/00380/WCC) Erection of new rail maintenance facility..., Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, 14 February 2012
• (13/01948/WCC) Erection of new rail maintenance facility ..., Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, 12 September 2013

... added as Doncaster IEP depot. Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

figures! cost

the financial figures don't quite add up. It starts with a quoted 4.5 billion cost. First phase is then stated to cost 2.4 billion, then a 1.2 billion option is said to have been taken up (total cost now 5.7 billion ?) the second phase final cost is stated at 2.7 billion..

That makes 5.1 billion (2.4 + 2.7) which is neither 4.5 nor 5.7 ?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.174.82 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Interiors

Mockups (not final) released. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/hitachi-reveals-set-interiors.html?device=auto

Bottle green glass in the windows! Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intercity Express Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204014/http://www.railway-news.com/railway-industry-news/hitachi-rail-europe-completes-steel-frame-of-manufacturing-facility to http://www.railway-news.com/railway-industry-news/hitachi-rail-europe-completes-steel-frame-of-manufacturing-facility
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092023/http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/19489/hull-trains-limited-s17-hull-trains-response-to-network-rail-representations.pdf to http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/19489/hull-trains-limited-s17-hull-trains-response-to-network-rail-representations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)