![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Intercity Express Programme page were merged into Hitachi Newton Aycliffe on 28 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it time to start a new page, e.g. Super Express (train)? Biscuittin ( talk) 12:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
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?
"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)
"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).
"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.
"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?
"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)
FengRail ( talk) 05:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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. [1]
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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 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)
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)
"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?
"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)
{{
future}}
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)
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)
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)
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>
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Intercity_Express_Programme&oldid=499828391
*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.
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)
[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/?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)
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)
There seems to be quite a lot of controversy about this order. Some points I've seen mentioned:
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)
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.
It should be noted here (for future reference) that the design has changed from the original specification:
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)
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)
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)
MTU 12V 83.100.211.252 ( talk) 22:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 13:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
With the ECML contract 'signed' the Doncaster depot is likely to be built - relavent documents are:
Doncaster Council planning applications
... added as
Doncaster IEP depot.
Prof.Haddock (
talk)
01:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Intercity Express Programme page were merged into Hitachi Newton Aycliffe on 28 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it time to start a new page, e.g. Super Express (train)? Biscuittin ( talk) 12:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
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?
"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)
"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).
"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.
"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?
"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)
FengRail ( talk) 05:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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. [1]
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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 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)
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)
"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?
"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)
{{
future}}
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)
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)
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)
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>
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Intercity_Express_Programme&oldid=499828391
*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.
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)
[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/?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)
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)
There seems to be quite a lot of controversy about this order. Some points I've seen mentioned:
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)
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.
It should be noted here (for future reference) that the design has changed from the original specification:
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)
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)
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)
MTU 12V 83.100.211.252 ( talk) 22:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 13:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
With the ECML contract 'signed' the Doncaster depot is likely to be built - relavent documents are:
Doncaster Council planning applications
... added as
Doncaster IEP depot.
Prof.Haddock (
talk)
01:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)