Talk:Hitachi Super Express

split

This page was created on 08 april 2009 by split from Intercity Express Programme http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intercity_Express_Programme&diff=282410343&oldid=282402299

Midland mainline

Will East Midlands Trains use any Super Express trains replacing the current class 43's?

I don't think anyone knows yet - the units are replacements for 43s so the answer may be yes

Cross Country and South East

Anyone know if they would run on Cross Country in the South East and on HS1 as they could go up to 140mph. Likelife (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Western electrification

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/railelectrification.pdf pg22 Electrification of the Great Western line means they will now only buy EMU and Bi-mode trains for it. Since the ECML is also fully electrified its doubtful the government will order any diesel only units anymore as the report believes that would lock in diesel use for a line for another 30 years. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that the Conservative party object to the GWL electrication programme, in favour of keeping more money for High Speed 2 to ensure its success; so it is worrying that the programme (despite obvious merits and the support of Network Rail themselves) may be binned complely in favour of a THIRD electrified mainline to Scotland. Also, the electrification isn't likely to be completed even by 2020, and the main question regarding how overhead wires are supposed to pass through the continously leaking Severn Tunnel is still unresolved. Likelyhood is that the HSTs will be kept in service for as long as reasonable possible, to cover the unelectrified areas such as South Wales, otherwise they will need diesel units or else lose South Wales for about six years. True the Voyagers could likely cover it with some help from still-workable HSTs, but eventually the Intercity 125 is going to become too old and unreliable, and I don't like the chances of that happening inbetween one fleet approaching 40 years old and the other not being usable yet. Kyteto (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Hitachi Super Express rendering.jpg listed for deletion

The artist's impression used at the top of this article, File:Hitachi Super Express rendering.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion because another editor believes it is not clear how this image adds significantly to the reader's understanding. Please see the discussion (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Intercity Express Programme

As of Feb 2010 it may be worth checking the status of the above article - the programme is currently in limbo - pending an enquiry on it's value for money following recent proposed developements (eg High Speed 2, Bristol-London electrification etc).

The programme may be cancelled, changed or postponed.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Stir welding

Removed this (temporarily?)

"As of September 2010, Agility Trains' website claimed that "Japanese manufacturing technology (friction stir welding) means use of less material and resource during manufacture. It also delivers lighter train weights which reduces track damage (and therefore maintenance) as well as supporting reduced fuel consumption and exterior noise levels."Source: "Case for IEP". Agility Trains. However, friction stir welding is a technology originating in the United Kingdom, and the Hitachi design failed to meet the weight targets set in the IEP specification."

Firstly, don't use quoted material to construct the text of the article.

The main points are:

• Clarify the weights
• Is this conflating two facts - what is being said here? If the trains are overweight does that make hitachi's claim incorrect (no not necessarily)
• Don't publish your own conclusions without being able to reference them (unless obvious)
• Again - what is attempting to be said here? Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, this article, Hitachi_Super_Express, would be merged back into Intercity Express Programme.

"reprinting 'standard corporate apologie' (scare quotes) is not necessary"

Mr Dormer stated that "We would never knowingly publish anything in error", but they don't appear to made a priority of fact checking since. Hence 'FSW = Japanese manufacturing technology', etc.

"If the trains are overweight does that make hitachi's claim incorrect"

The text removed by User: Sf5xeplus was not inaccurate.

It did not say Hitachi's claim was incorrect.

The trains don't exist, so there's no way of determining whether the claim on lower-track-wear, or no-need-for-expensive-infrastructure-upgrade, is true or not. All that can be done is to present facts as facts, and claims as claims. And that's what was done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitachi_Super_Express&diff=386732834&oldid=386732585

I'm not sure what purpose is served by removing this text altogether. People reading might think the absence of the Britain/Japan manufacturing split was a shortcoming of the article, rather than Agility's non-divulgence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitachi_Super_Express&diff=prev&oldid=386732585

Agility altered some website content to refer to 5-12 car trains, and added "Some formations of Super Express Trains also have small auxiliary generators which also allow limited self rescue but also provide full hotel services to the trains for up to 6 hours".

But the data sheet is still

http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf

So it's not clear what's happening.

The status is unknown.

Haskanik (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We should leave any analysis of misleading statements to reliable sources and journalists - it's not the job of an encyclopedia to do this. Same goes for forward looking statements - we (the encyclopedia) don't make them, or comment on the absense of them - that's the job of external media. If someone else mentions it then we can cover it.

The two pages were split a while ago (see Talk:Intercity_Express_Programme#Splitting_and_.28possible.29_expansion_of_Super_Express), you can suggest to remerge. Personally I don't mind either way about merging.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

update

The previous bi-mode specification is now dead. See http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/hammond20101125 and Intercity Express Programme.Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge , gone off topic

Merge Hitachi Super Express with Intercity Express Programme - a clear merge - in particular see Wikipedia:Content forking, as born out my my experience of effectively having to edit two articles everytime something happens..

I can easily merge the content on the procurement history in Intercity Express Programme into a background and history section within an article on the trains.

However there is the issue of what is the best title for the page - "Intercity Express Programme" seems the most common currently, though that will not be the name of the trains - ultimately this doesn't matter as it can be changed later - but does anyone have any thoughts?Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I can understand the desire, but I wonder if this is a little premature. Has the contract actually been signed? The deletion of self-powered versions is a significant variation of the previous negotiations, and the previous other bidders may yet complain. As to the name, it'll probably change twice before they enter service. Tim PF (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the merged title is still "Intercity Express Programme", and the text goes no further than stating that Hitachi & Co. are the preferred bidder, then the article would be correct no matter who eventually builds the train?

Either I'm just not following you, or ... . If the IEP is passed to another manufacturer, and Hitachi go on to build a Super Express (based on their current proposals), then we'd definitely need 2 separate articles. Tim PF (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be to merge to the title 'Intercity Express Programme' (I got the merge tags the wrong way round - or have only just come to this conclusion) - currently it's not clear what the name of the new trains will be - the "Super Express" moniker appears a working name, and ultimately the trains will have a TOPS code (?) as per British Rail Class 395... Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

They will have lots of TOPS codes, so they'd also need a family name as per the Bombardier Voyager family, which might as well start with this article. Tim PF (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point (not sure what tops code range "hybrid trains" come under - the electric ones will be 300 and something eg 399 ?? )

I hope the name isn't "Super Express" it's a rather bland brand name - hopefully they will come up with something exiciting and memorable.

Other point - I'm working from what is currently known - if the manufacturer changes then we can deal with that later - (if that happens the Hitachi Super Express article would almost certainly become a footnote in the history of the new article - since unbuilt products don't really need articles ie WP:UNDUE WEIGHT - the main idea is to avoid the content fork, rather than read the future.. :) Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll pass on the undue weight argument, and I'm sure some Japanese moniker will turn up sooner or later.

TOPS codes are easy. The electric trains will be 3xx, but the dual-mode will be an unmatched pair of 0xx sandwiching coaching stock. Or it could be something different, depending on whether or not they actually get made in either their current or original planned formats (I can still imagine a Class 57 waiting at Cardiff to haul the London train on to Swansea).

The TOPS codes are really starting to get a bit crowded in places (eg Class 70), and I think they might use 5xx codes (or even open up 6xx). Tim PF (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(wp:undue weight is the wrong link - what I meant was - "better not to write articles about things that didn't make it into existence.. because nobody will ever read them ..." , of course you can write them if you want eg British Rail Class 93 Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but there are two differences here. First, we already have the hypothetical article (the HSE is still vapourware, AFAIK). Second, we aren't writing it after the event, and I haven't found anything on Wikipedia that says articles shouldn't be written until it's cast in stone.

That's why I think we should hold fire on the merge for the moment. After all, the Intercity 250/Class 93 idea could be re-revived as part of a substitute IEProgramme.

I could join the general rant about the IEP being a jack-of-all-trades and master of none, that there are too many compromises which means that the 140 miles per hour (230 km/h) enhanced top speed for the electric-only InterCity sets is a joke (considering the GWML and ECML racetracks), and the untried and untested bi-mode versions are probably no better than running InterCity 125s or dragging electric trainsets the last bit with a diesel locomotive, but I won't Oops, I did.

At least the diesel-only versions have been dropped, but I've heard nothing firm about what will run on the mostly non-electrified routes (eg Paddington to Penzance). I'd also like to see some proper prototype bi-mode train (eg a converted IC125 or Bombardier Voyager) tested on routes such as London to Holyhead, London to Aberdeen, or Penzance (or Plymouth) to Glasgow (via WCML) before a bodged version is launched (if Virgin are happy to run their Super Voyagers from Birmingham to Scotland, and East Coast still run standard IC125s 20 years after electrification, it makes me wonder about the economics of electro-diesels). Tim PF (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of the most recent press releases were that if the service goes to a non-electrified part then they use the bi-mode train - eg:

• London-Edinburgh - electric
• London-Aberdeen - diesel/electric bimode train (all the way)

They (the goverment) have also ruled out changing trains as well - the sources are all linked to from Intercity Express Programme (I think) if you need to read them. The modified Hitachi hybrid design (according to the press) is a DMU (underfloor engines) with pantographs as well .. It's not clear that the cheaper (£3.3bn cheaper but less trains bought I think) modified design actually meets the original design specification .. I can dig out the sources if you really need them, but I'm sure they're in the article

It sounds similar to a supposed bombardier offer of "Class 222s with pantographs and transformers fitted" (my words) .. The whole thing looks like a lash up to get Hitachi to build a factory, but the (ex-)government (ie Adonis era) got a shock when the got the probable price tag from Hitachi.

It's not clear if Bombardier will appeal (there are grounds) - but it seems pretty clear that the whole procurement proceedure was set up for Hitachi to shine.. so acting pragmatically they probably wont.

In my experience any public sector funded scheme always is a farce (if you want something to make sense try the private sector eg rail-freight - they actually have to earn the money, not just get it given to them by the tax man) Passenger transport would make sense if it were run as a profitable business by independent business - but it's not, and probably can't be (see competition from the Automobile for why) end of my rant/lecture Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It almost sounds as if Hitachi were grasping at Bombardier's straws (ie Bombardier Voyager family#Operation Thor, and IMHO, Bombardier probably have the best proven electro-diesel technology at present, whilst Hitachi may be better at Hybrid technology (ie battery or ultracapacitor backup).

I therefore think that Bombardier may still have a good case to try to get into the bi-mode market, even if they have to borrow Virgin's 2-car Super Voyager and build a few extra cars (one with a pantograph) as an Operation Thor prototype, much in the way that the Deltic, DP2, Kestrel and Avocet were run.

Incidentally, short of using an electro-diesel locomotive, such as the Bombardier ALP-45DP, I think that the most viable bi-mode trainset is either the Bombardier bi-mode Voyager / SNCF Class B 82500 or an EMU with a diesel power car (which supplies power to the EMU's existing traction motors, rather than a Class 43 style locomotive), which can always be left in Cardiff or Edinburgh. Tim PF (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The operation thor stuff is very interesting - I had heard this mentioned in passing before - but the actually reference given [1] says near to nothing about it - have you got any more referenes for that page.?Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because this got a bit off topic I've restarted the merge proposals taking into account what timPF said - see below.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Consensus was merge. My feeling at the moment from the history of this train order is that this article should be recreated when the order is placed and we have details of this. Edgepedia (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I restart the merge proposal as the last one got a little off topic

Merge Hitachi Super Express with Intercity Express Programme - a clear merge - in particular see Wikipedia:Content forking, as born out my my experience of effectively having to edit two articles everytime something happens. My suggestion would be to use the title "Intercity Express Programme" (as the exact name of the trains is not yet 100% certain). Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I can understand the desire, but I wonder if this is a little premature. Has the contract actually been signed? The deletion of self-powered versions is a significant variation of the previous negotiations, and the previous other bidders may yet complain. (Copied from the previous section, less name bits). Tim PF (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with the merge of the two articles? Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Is there anything in this article worth retaining? At the moment the article seems to contain mostly out of date information about the orginial specification. This was greatly modified before the Fowler review and as been greatly changed afterwards. At the moment why not just redirect this article to Intercity Express Programme? This seems to contain this information. Reading the statement made in Parliment the contract is not going to be signed until the end of the year at the latest, so I doubt we will see the new designs and timescales (and perhaps a new name?) until then. Edgepedia (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, my answer is yes (assuming that it's not already duplicated in the other article) - for historical purposes in a background section the original specification should be kept - in particular the links which may need an archive url later - though it would probably be summarised, rather than gone into detail.

I would expect the future as yet unwritten article to note that the specification changed - so a brief mention of the "Mk1" spec will be useful. It does seem though that there is not much there that is not already in Intercity Express Programme.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What about User:Edgepedia/IEP ? Anything I've missed? Edgepedia (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume that this is a proposed merged article.? It looks ok - I'd make a few minor additions eg add a mention of "east coast mainline" and "great western mainline" to the first paragraph of the lead section. Another minor point is that "Hitachi Super Express" is being merged it may need an addition disambigation hatnote eg "Hiatchi Super Express redirects here, for the express train service in Japan known as the "Super Hitachi"...." Plus a few other minor edits.

The only bit you missed is the decision to build a plant a Newton Aycliffe, which would go at the end, and possibly in the lead.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft merged article updated. I've taken the refs out of the lead; this should summerize the article and the refs are there. I've just noticed we're not talking about replacing the Intercity 225s now, so I've removed that but added a note further down, etc. Edgepedia (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems 100% ok. I'd probably want to say a little more about Hitachi's updated and cheaper proposal, including the prices of the initial (7.5bn [2]) and second (4.5bn [3]) offers eg http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f5475ee-443e-11e0-931d-00144feab49a.html#axzz1G2fCgiwp - that's not actually missing info - it's not in the current article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If your looking for extra details you could add Hitachi will be contracted to provide 533 carriages for daily service (meaning a larger number would be built to maintain availability) and the ratio will be 60% Hybrid to 40% EMU (details from FGW Presentation) http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8547.0 WatcherZero (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.