Badger
Member
I always thought they were doing a HST2. Whatever happened to the Intercity Express programme?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why didn't they do a HST2?
- Thread starter HYPODERMIC
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
But it isn't going to replace all the HSTs as some will be retained for the Paddington to Penzance and St Pancras to Nottingham routes although the latter will only be short term if indeed this route also gets electrified.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Because the government didn't see it as their job to decide investment in the privatised railways, it was the TOCs/ROSCOs.
The TOCs/ROSCOs then got what Roger Ford calls Stanier-Gresley syndrome - the rush to design their own breed of train.
Hence multiple DMU/EMU designs in penny numbers and generally incompatible with each other - just like the 1955 modernisation plan, for those with long memories.
The SRA and DfT then went the other way and for about 10 years have insisted on specifying new trains to the last detail (because they will be underwriting the cost).
The pendulum is about to swing back with the TOCs back in charge, with long franchises to make the investment worthwhile.
It looks like IEP will be the last such DfT-specified train, unless they relent and leave it to the new GW/EC franchisees.
These days you don't specify a train, just an operational requirement against which manufacturers/funders will bid.
Nobody is building an "HST2" type train at the moment, so you won't be able to buy one at reasonable cost.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
because every fule no that units are so much better
Temple Meads
Established Member
I personally think of the IEP project as "HST2", certainly they will be what I judge IEP against, and I'm sure others will too.
Whether IEP will match up to the might of the HST I'm not sure, somehow I doubt it to be honest.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
It wont. it will be a Voyager clone rather than a well built, well engineered, well designed, comfortable, enjoyable place to be!
Wyvern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 1,573
Even if you had an articulated or dual loco that was like Bo-Bo + Bo-Bo, it would allow high power with reduced axle load, overcoming the problem with the 67s.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
Just to go back to the original question, the 22X series were never intended as HST replacements. The Voyager was originally designed to replace the hauled stock, but it was fairly quickly decided to replace the entire Cross Country fleet. The HSTs of cource were not replaced but displaced, still having useful life in them. The Meridiens replaced the Turbostars on MML, and also included additional, longer, units for services to Leeds. The Leeds services never happened, so the longer units did replace some HSTs in the end. Back in the early 2000s though, HST replacement was no on the adgenda as anything but a future need, rarther like Sprinter replacement is now.
This is true, and they are both 140 MPH designs too. In defence of the class 91, the design of the 390 is 15+ years newer, so will incorporate more efficient, and better performing technology.
To draw a fair comparison between a locohauled formation and multiple unit, you would be better comparing a OBB Taurus/Railjet formation with a Pendolino, or a Class 168 with the Chiltern Locohauled rakes.
Interestingly (according to Network Rail), the 67/MK3/DVT rakes actually have better acceleration than sprinters and the chiltern 168s, though voyagers and 185s will have the edge over anything diesel loco hauled.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
oh and I forgot to add smelly, dark, claustrophobic, fitted with seats designed by some sort of S&M fetishist / Nazi evil genius (I mean how hard can it ACTUALLY be to design a comfortable seat?) there WONT be a buffet (or a trolley because they forgot to load it) it will rattle to sh*t, every piece of equipment, facia or trim in the train will be designed to resonate at a slightly different frequency to every other bit of kit ( see seats for the designer to blame!) AND they will be to bloody small for the loadings they are expected to carry ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH
Platform 1
Member
Quite right.
Furthermore, how on Earth are they going to create a passenger counting sysetem that can tell how many people are in each carriage?
A computer can't tell the difference between a human and a suitcase.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Quite right.
Furthermore, how on Earth are they going to create a passenger counting sysetem that can tell how many people are in each carriage?
A computer can't tell the difference between a human and a suitcase.
low tech? A bloke with a little clicker?
tbtc
Veteran Member
Thats the way I see it too.
The did directly replace HSTs on Cross Country services (and Holyhead, IIRC) - the HSTs weren't withdrawn of course, nor were they moved onto Virgin's planned additional routes (e.g. Blackpool).
Platform 1
Member
I agree that IEP is effectively HST2. The Pendolino is effectively the IC250, and is even designed to match BR's specifications for Mark V coaching stock.
That said, I still firmly think that the only design that could possibly make sense given the state of our network is a dual-voltage 140mph+ EMU in either 4 or 6 car configurations, with accompanying matched electro-diesel locos that have sufficient generating capacity to power the EMU at up to 90mph, if not 125mph, with full control over the EMU from the diesel's cab when "pulling" and likewise full control over the diesel from the EMU's cabs when "pushing" (though as the primary traction would be distributed this is a bit of a misnomer).
That said, I still firmly think that the only design that could possibly make sense given the state of our network is a dual-voltage 140mph+ EMU in either 4 or 6 car configurations, with accompanying matched electro-diesel locos that have sufficient generating capacity to power the EMU at up to 90mph, if not 125mph, with full control over the EMU from the diesel's cab when "pulling" and likewise full control over the diesel from the EMU's cabs when "pushing" (though as the primary traction would be distributed this is a bit of a misnomer).
sprinterguy
Established Member
In what way, out of curiosity? The mark 5 carriages proposed for Intercity 250 were intended to be 26 metres long for a start. And I can't believe that BR would have come up with an interior design for the IC250 trains that would have remotely resembled the "claustrophobic" interiors of the Pendolinos. Is it just hearsay that the designers tasked with drawing up the Pendolino interiors had an interior akin to that of an airliner in mind (or included in their brief), or is there an element of truth in it?
The Pendolinos have brought about the same sorts of benefits (Faster journey times using tilting trains) that IC250 would have realised, but even if they were allowed to run at their top speed they would still fall short of the ambitious speed targets set by BR for Intercity 250, which put 150mph running back on the drawing board.
And the Intercity 250 project wasn't planned to involve tilting trains but route realignments instead. Virgin ordered Pendolino trains from Alston using technology from Fiat, a company that had already been building them for other countries for many years. The small windows seem to be a design feature of Pendolino trains in general and not something specified by BR for Intercity 250. I have seen no evidence that Virgin or anyone told specified the design based on the Intercity 250.
Last edited:
sprinterguy
Established Member
Please, no more ridiculously short Intercity multiple units with no possibility of access between units when working as a pair.
I think that, for most Intercity routes in the UK, specifying a top speed of 140mph would be over-engineering the trains, let alone anything more. I think that the only routes that would be likely to see any possibility of 140mph running within the lifespan of the trains would be the Great Western, West Coast and East Coast, and even then any opportunities for 125mph+ running would be bounded by pathing constrains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yeah, that too. The Italian Pendolino trains have been around for a good while now.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Please, no more ridiculously short Intercity multiple units with no possibility of access between units when working as a pair.
I think that, for most Intercity routes in the UK, specifying a top speed of 140mph would be over-engineering the trains, let alone anything more. I think that the only routes that would be likely to see any possibility of 140mph running within the lifespan of the trains would be the Great Western, West Coast and East Coast, and even then any opportunities for 125mph+ running would be bounded by pathing constrains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yeah, that too. The Italian Pendolino trains have been around for a good while now.
And yet ours appear to be the only ones with such a poor spec!
What else is there to complain about other than the small windows which as I have said above, most pendolino trains seem to have.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
it is nt really the windows that i dont like. It is the interior fit out spec. It is just not nice.
I meant only in the most fundamental sense - purely that the Pendolinos had to meet the specifications laid down by BR "Current Network Rail track design standards use the Mark 5 coach to represent coaching stock with a 19m bogie centre", sayeth Wikipedia referencing "Network Rail Track Design Handbook NR/L2/TRK/2049".
Please, no more ridiculously short Intercity multiple units with no possibility of access between units when working as a pair.
What makes you think that would be the case? Admittedly 140mph would make standard flat-fronted stock with gangways a bit....difficult to say the least...but they can manage at least 110mph with them...and I dare say 125mph as well. Who knows if they could make it all the way to 140mph given research.
...regardless, I envisaged gangwayed stock. Failing that, then streamlined EMUs in semi-fixed formation would be a necessity, in which case you'd need 12, 10, 8, & 6 car variants. Perhaps designed so that although the coaches were motored, the number between the EMU end units were easily adjustable in the depot.
Trog
Established Member
Uncomfortable seats,
Vile smells in the vestibules,
Rough ride, you can feel the things fighting the track on every curve,
Aisle so narrow you hit your arms on those silly sticky out ear hand holds,
Standing room only in standard, tumble weeds in first.
Reservation system takes so long to load everyone is seated before it works,
Seat numbers not clearly marked,
Seats do not line up with windows,
Cheap looking plastic interior,
You could get in a lot of trouble for revealing DfT procurement documents you know...
Nice bit of PR there.
Lampshade
Established Member
The interior is more cramped on UK Pendolinos due to loading gauge constraints.
Subjective; I rather like them.
Can't say I've noticed. Voyagers on the other hand...
Wouldn't have said it was rough at all, I only know when we're travelling over points because you can hear it.
I'm with you on that one.
That's down to operator specification, not an inherent design feature.
Maybe at other termini but they've always been ready out of Euston whenever I've used them.
With you on that one.
Partially down to operator specification - cram 'em in seating.
Definitely agree on that one, it's the heavy cream plastics that cause the claustrophobic feeling of the interior. The seats also contribute, as we've seen with FGW HST refurbs.
Subjective; I rather like them.
Can't say I've noticed. Voyagers on the other hand...
Wouldn't have said it was rough at all, I only know when we're travelling over points because you can hear it.
I'm with you on that one.
That's down to operator specification, not an inherent design feature.
Maybe at other termini but they've always been ready out of Euston whenever I've used them.
With you on that one.
Partially down to operator specification - cram 'em in seating.
Definitely agree on that one, it's the heavy cream plastics that cause the claustrophobic feeling of the interior. The seats also contribute, as we've seen with FGW HST refurbs.
Nym
Established Member
Rather sweeping statment there...
I'd love to see where Siemens R&D for Power Systems is if it isn't in Congleton and Didsbury...
...just had a nose around, and found that there's at least one manufacturer that has a novel product - gangways that recess into the unit and have a closable door, solving the aerodynamic issues. Very nice. Guess that's one of the major issues out the way then for my 140mph standard EMU 
- Status