• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
If DfT have an option in the order for more vehicles then they could take that up and use it as they wish
There are options for the London - Exeter Plymouth - Penzance route and also for the London to Northampton route as I said above. If the DfT used these options but then after the order was committed they decided to use the trains on the London to Sheffield/Derby route, would there be no grounds for a legal challenge even if the options on the contract were to provide trains on specific routes? Don't forget Hitachi will be providing the trains for service each day rather than building them and leaving them for the TOC to take care of so I'm not sure it the trains could easily be moved elsewhere if the contract was specific as to which routes they would be provided on.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,762
Location
Ilfracombe
On a related note the existing ROSCO's are disappointed (well there's a surprise) by the new order:

I think that because not all of the 91s and Mark IVs will fit a service well after being displaced on the ECML there will not be a high demand for them. The ROSCO might subsequently be willing to lease them to a less suitable service for a substantially lower price than the future East Coast TOC would have payed (had they not been displaced). This means that the East Midlands and Cross Country TOCs might find it to be more profitable to use cheap 91s for 10-15 years on the more suitable routes rather than order new stock.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
The question here though is if it still counts as a public service procurement even if ordered by the franchised TOC since they operate under a public service contract with the government. For example water companies are in the private sector but still subject to EU procurement rules.
I think the EU procurement rules would still apply.

The 'Utilities' rules apply to "private sector bodies which operate on the basis of special or exclusive rights or which are deemed to do so" (which I think would include TOCs) that operate in certain sectors; including "the operation of networks providing transport services to the public by rail, tramway, trolleybus, bus, cable or automated systems".

Utilities do have the option of using the 'negotiated procedure', "under which a purchaser may select one or more potential bidders with whom to negotiate the terms of the contract". So that may be an option open to TOCs.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
I think bi-mode is a waste of time, I would much rather they concentrate on actually getting the wires up than having bi-mode trains. Such a waste of energy and money. Why not accelerate the programme for putting up the wires then order more javelins like on hs1? They would be much much cheaper than IEP and you would have no need to drag dead Diesel engines under the wires for 20 odd years.

Thought on this?

Plus how much more expensive are they going to be for next franchise holder?
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,666
I think bi-mode is a waste of time, I would much rather they concentrate on actually getting the wires up than having bi-mode trains. Such a waste of energy and money. Why not accelerate the programme for putting up the wires then order more javelins like on hs1? They would be much much cheaper than IEP and you would have no need to drag dead Diesel engines under the wires for 20 odd years.

Thought on this?

Plus how much more expensive are they going to be for next franchise holder?

No it wouldn't. You are suggest boom and bust tactics to electrification. Which in the long run always prove more expensive. In this case i think they have the bi-modes right. (i had been swayed by the very good arguments for bi-modes made by several people on this forum over the last 2 days) we are already about to electrify at capacity. To do more at once would prove idiotic i believe.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,101
Location
Sheffield
we are already about to electrify at capacity. To do more at once would prove idiotic i believe.

This is the key reasoning I feel - you can only throw so much resource at a task in non-wartime periods - the companies that deliver the overhead cable infrastructure will have capacity to deliver x amount of miles per year, which could of course be increased by a degree, but the infrastructure companies will have no desire to invest in training staff for a short term gain and will be more able to provide a long term sustainable level of new overhead equipment.

To throw more money at electrification now, would result in a rushed botched job completed by 1000's of poorly trained new staff that will be faced with the job centre once the network is complete. A sustainable level of delivery with rolling stock that takes advantage of cable when it's installed is a good lower risk middle route to take.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
This is the key reasoning I feel - you can only throw so much resource at a task in non-wartime periods - the companies that deliver the overhead cable infrastructure will have capacity to deliver x amount of miles per year, which could of course be increased by a degree, but the infrastructure companies will have no desire to invest in training staff for a short term gain and will be more able to provide a long term sustainable level of new overhead equipment.

To throw more money at electrification now, would result in a rushed botched job completed by 1000's of poorly trained new staff that will be faced with the job centre once the network is complete. A sustainable level of delivery with rolling stock that takes advantage of cable when it's installed is a good lower risk middle route to take.

I'm sorry but at the moment the country needs plenty of investment in infrastructure. This is exactly the right time to accelerate putting the wires up. I'm not saying electrify the entire network over the next 5-10 years but why not get the wires up on the routes these bi-modes will run on. Then you don't waste loads on energy and money hauling Diesel engines under the wires for 20 years. These IEP trains are not cheap at all. Probably a lot cheaper to electrify the non wired parts where the bi-modes would go then buy more javelins.

Does any other country operate bi-mode trains??
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
I think bi-mode is a waste of time, I would much rather they concentrate on actually getting the wires up than having bi-mode trains. Such a waste of energy and money.
I think this discussion has been done to death, but mainly with opinion and not a huge amount of factual information. So some things for you ponder: what do we do in the time it takes to get the wires up - with the best will in the world there is a maximum amount that can be done in any year

Why not accelerate the programme for putting up the wires then order more javelins like on hs1? They would be much much cheaper than IEP and you would have no need to drag dead Diesel engines under the wires for 20 odd years.
This seems to be the main objection: 'dragging' diesel engines under the wires. But that didn't seem to be a problem when people were talking about the possibility of eVoyagers, or the large amount of diesel mileage currently under the wires - especially EC HSTs and VT SuperVoyagers running journeys that are completely under the wires.

Looking at the IEP spec, a 9-car bi-mode train should be no more than about 15 tonnes heavier than a 9-car electric train. To give some comparison, a MkIV carriage weighs approx 40 tonnes. What you have to decide is; does the extra flexibility offered by the bi-mode outweigh the extra 15 tonnes when operating under the wires?
 
Last edited:

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,101
Location
Sheffield
I'm sorry but at the moment the country needs plenty of investment in infrastructure. This is exactly the right time to accelerate putting the wires up.

The country has seen a massive boost in infrastructure investment in the last few years and will see more over the next 30 years - however, there is also a massive skills gap, in that companies can't find candidates able to do the job now, or of a sufficient aptitude to be trained to do the work we have now, let alone the increasingly larger order book. To push this further as you suggest is misguided and will not achieve a cost effective progression.

Whilst many people believe that throwing money at a problem can fix it, the reality is that the skills shortages are the defining factor. There is an enormous amount of electrification planned in the next 10 years, many feel that the current work load is not achievable.

I make my living from designing roads, the skills gap is also very evident there too, in that the ability of a local authority being able to design and build major projects as done before the 90's has gone through retirement and budget cuts, the industry has a reduced capability that is being filled to a degree by the private sector, who will invest in staff, but sadly the graduates with good enough appropriate degrees are a tad thin on the ground, similarly with trades, you need youngsters with a science and maths understanding to be able to work the equipment and understand what they are installing, sadly Pop Idol has made most youngsters aspire towards a career of being famous rather than building something....

The introduction of bi-mode trains reflects the ability of the industry to deliver the overhead equipment - i.e. not as fast as joe public would imagine.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,666
I'm sorry but at the moment the country needs plenty of investment in infrastructure. This is exactly the right time to accelerate putting the wires up. I'm not saying electrify the entire network over the next 5-10 years but why not get the wires up on the routes these bi-modes will run on. Then you don't waste loads on energy and money hauling Diesel engines under the wires for 20 years. These IEP trains are not cheap at all. Probably a lot cheaper to electrify the non wired parts where the bi-modes would go then buy more javelins.

Does any other country operate bi-mode trains??

It is getting plenty of investment in infrastructure. Why on earth would we electrify to Inverness, Aberdeen, Lincoln, Carmarthen, Worcester etc before electrifying the major routes? That would be an incredible waste of resources.
 

ModernRailways

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2011
Messages
2,180
In my opinion, BI-Mode is a great proposition. It opens a lot more routes, it also means that should the overhead wires fail, trains can still operate. It's also easier for service recovery when trains are delayed. I've seen a few times the Aberdeen train has been delayed due to a late inbound service, and as such passengers have had to wait. With bi-mode the first train that comes in would be able to become this service as long as it was long enough.

Does anyone know whether or not you could run a bi-mode and electric only in a 2 x 5 car formation with the diesel engines powering both units or would they both have to be diesel powered?
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,666
In my opinion, BI-Mode is a great proposition. It opens a lot more routes, it also means that should the overhead wires fail, trains can still operate. It's also easier for service recovery when trains are delayed. I've seen a few times the Aberdeen train has been delayed due to a late inbound service, and as such passengers have had to wait. With bi-mode the first train that comes in would be able to become this service as long as it was long enough.

Does anyone know whether or not you could run a bi-mode and electric only in a 2 x 5 car formation with the diesel engines powering both units or would they both have to be diesel powered?

Don't think you'd have enough power with 4(i think bi-mode has 3 engines could be 4 or 5) engines on 10 cars. I think the idea for Scotland is 9 car bi-modes. But for other routes (Harrogate maybe? or Scarborough, Middlesbrough etc maybe) There is the possibility of 5 car bi mode running off the wires and connecting to 5 car electric at principal stations (e.g. Leeds for Harrogate) to form a 10 car service along the trunk part of the route.

Equally you could split at York and have 5 car bi-modes go to Middlesbrough/Scarborough. So i think a 5 car electric can operate with a 5 car bi mode but only under the wires.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Look I see bi-mode as a waste of energy, when the countr faces a power shortage which has been well publicised I don't think we should be wasting energy like this. I am no expert on this (as you have probably gathered) and people on here are clearly very knowledgable but there must be a better, cheaper solution than this in which we don't waste energy.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,666
Look I see bi-mode as a waste of energy, when the countr faces a power shortage which has been well publicised I don't think we should be wasting energy like this. I am no expert on this (as you have probably gathered) and people on here are clearly very knowledgable but there must be a better, cheaper solution than this in which we don't waste energy.

But your saying with electricity running out we should electrify more??? your countering your own argument there! Bi mode makes sense as they can oeprate when electricity runs out!

(railways are a very low strain on national electricity production. Currently about 1.5% of national production is railways (including LU and all trams. Expected to rise to 2.6% by 2025. )
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
But your saying with electricity running out we should electrify more??? your countering your own argument there! Bi mode makes sense as they can oeprate when electricity runs out!

(railways are a very low strain on national electricity production. Currently about 1.5% of national production is railways (including LU and all trams. Expected to rise to 2.6% by 2025. )

Look I've read that industry experts think bi-mode is a silly idea. Clearly some Whitehall civil servant believes it is a good idea and that's why it has gone ahead. Plus when the wires do go up what do you do with all those spare Diesel engines? I see bi-mode as an excuse not to push on with electrifying the network more quickly.

No one has said how much more expensive these trains will be to the next lease holder. Seeing as these trains are been forced on them I hope they are not a lot more expensive otherwise far rises are inevitable.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
Look I see bi-mode as a waste of energy
You're never going to achieve total efficiency, there will always be some 'wasted' energy. If the desired weights in the IEP spec are met, then the 15 tonnes extra weight of a 9-car bi-mode will be insignificant compared with 100 tonnes extra weight being carried around if using an 11-car Pendolino, when only 9-car capacity is required - or the power losses from using 750V DC third rail compared to 25kV AC overhead
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,101
Location
Sheffield
Look I see bi-mode as a waste of energy

Hmmm... Any idea of how electricity is generated ? ...and how much is wasted in transmission loses... Diesel isn't great I grant you, it still has many advantages over electric, the main one being it allows services to run everywhere that the HST's currently service and more... you can't wave a magic wand and switch to all electric over 10 years, we will still be putting overhead wires up 50 years from now, the cost per train reduces dramatically with the larger number you buy, so buying one design now, then another in a few years, then another and another would actually cost considerably more than going full bore with a standardised design now. The beauty also is that the new trains are assembled in the UK making use of UK suppliers and UK based staff, supply line and maintenance. Bi-mode allows for a gradual progression from diesel to electric, ultimately where we want to be... Being realistic in that its not going to happen overnight.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
I see bi-mode as an excuse not to push on with electrifying the network more quickly.
Even though others have already told you that it's not feasible to increase the rate of electrification?

No one has said how much more expensive these trains will be to the next lease holder.
According to this Parliamentary question, the total costs of the GW & EC fleets will be £449 million pa, at 2009 prices. I understand that the contract is for a specific number of 'daily diagrams' rather than a specific number of units - so effectively includes the leasing and maintenance costs - plus the costs for 'spare' units.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,666
Look I've read that industry experts think bi-mode is a silly idea. Clearly some Whitehall civil servant believes it is a good idea and that's why it has gone ahead. Plus when the wires do go up what do you do with all those spare Diesel engines? I see bi-mode as an excuse not to push on with electrifying the network more quickly.

No one has said how much more expensive these trains will be to the next lease holder. Seeing as these trains are been forced on them I hope they are not a lot more expensive otherwise far rises are inevitable.

I never argued against any of what you say above. I argued against your we're running out of electricity point.

It is hard to compare figures because no lease has been done like this before as a total complete package. So figures can be made to bias to the authors opinion as has happened. They are more expensive I don't deny that. The concept of bi-mode is not a bad one IMHO, but the way this one has been handled by the daft has been bad. Why do the bi-mode trains have to be kept on electrified routes? They could be transferred to other partially electrified routes to avoid scrapping serviceable diesel engines. I am not a great supporter of this concept, but it is happening now and i am trying to constructively respond.
 

joeykins82

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2012
Messages
601
Location
London
Yes there is a risk that the added complexity of bi-mode trains will result in a higher breakdown rate, but it is only a risk. The facts are that we do not have a fully electrified rail network and that the best balance is achieved by running hybrid trains that can be converted to electric only operation once the rolling electrification programme has covered the whole route map for a given franchise including its diversionary routes and obscure branches. Would nationwide OHLE be better than bi-mode? Yes. Should we run HSTs under the wires on the GWML and ECML until we have nationwide OHLE? I'd say no if bi-mode IEP is a viable option on the table.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
I never argued against any of what you say above. I argued against your we're running out of electricity point.

It is hard to compare figures because no lease has been done like this before as a total complete package. So figures can be made to bias to the authors opinion as has happened. They are more expensive I don't deny that. The concept of bi-mode is not a bad one IMHO, but the way this one has been handled by the daft has been bad. Why do the bi-mode trains have to be kept on electrified routes? They could be transferred to other partially electrified routes to avoid scrapping serviceable diesel engines. I am not a great supporter of this concept, but it is happening now and i am trying to constructively respond.

Ok I'm with you, I suppose this is just making the best of a bad situation. I understand that there is no perfect solution. But when you look at how expensive these trains are and the alternative Eversholt were offering I really do question whether this was the most cost effective way of doing things. Why if the current transport secretary ends up working for Hitachi in the future we will know won't we. I really hope that this doesn't mean higher fares on the ECML especially seeing how well it is doing at the moment. Only time will tell.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,893
Location
UK
How much heavier will these trains be for having some diesel fuel tanks? It's surely pretty small compared to the weight of the train filled with people, staff and luggage.

A far bigger issue is a long train running around half-empty off peak, but nobody seems to be that bothered about that.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,666
Ok I'm with you, I suppose this is just making the best of a bad situation. I understand that there is no perfect solution. But when you look at how expensive these trains are and the alternative Eversholt were offering I really do question whether this was the most cost effective way of doing things. Why if the current transport secretary ends up working for Hitachi in the future we will know won't we. I really hope that this doesn't mean higher fares on the ECML especially seeing how well it is doing at the moment. Only time will tell.

Eversholt's option would only last 15 years remember before they would really be reaching the end of their life. These will last 30-50 years. Its all a balance.

I hope fares don't go up either but as you say. Only time will tell.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,917
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Clearly some Whitehall civil servant believes it is a good idea and that's why it has gone ahead.

I think you'll find that your "civil servant" included one or more senior railway technical experts, employed by or seconded to DfT.

There have been some very experienced people working for DfT or as consultants to them for the major rolling stock procurements (IEP, Thameslink, Crossrail).
People like Tony Mercado who ran the Alstom development team for the Pendolino; he signed off the Thameslink train spec.

I think the best quote I saw from Roger Ford was that these people made the IEP very much better than it was originally (and dumped the all-diesel version).
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
I think you'll find that your "civil servant" included one or more senior railway technical experts, employed by or seconded to DfT.

There have been some very experienced people working for DfT or as consultants to them for the major rolling stock procurements (IEP, Thameslink, Crossrail).
People like Tony Mercado who ran the Alstom development team for the Pendolino; he signed off the Thameslink train spec.

I think the best quote I saw from Roger Ford was that these people made the IEP very much better than it was originally (and dumped the all-diesel version).

Look its a very very expensive project that may or may provide value for money. I doubt it. I don't see how people can say these trains will last for 30-50 years, as people are calling for trains that are only 25 years old currently to be scrapped.
 

Stats

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2009
Messages
943
As I understand it the EC order now stands at:
- 13 x 9-car Bi-mode trains
- 30 x 9-car electric trains
- 12 x 5-car electric trains
- 10 x 5-car Bi-mode trains

And I think those are daily diagrams rather than the total fleet?

They are the total fleet size. For the original order 10 x 9-car Bi-mode, 8 x 5-car Bi-mode and 10 x 9-car electric trains are required to be available for use each day.
 

ModernRailways

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2011
Messages
2,180
Look its a very very expensive project that may or may provide value for money. I doubt it. I don't see how people can say these trains will last for 30-50 years, as people are calling for trains that are only 25 years old currently to be scrapped.

Yes, it will be better value. It's quite clearly viewable. Would you rather separate diesel IEPs that in 20-30 years time would be rendered useless because the whole route will be electric?
Also, Bi-mode will allow for diversionary routes that may not be electrified, for example the Durham Coast Line which is still used on a regular basis (every 6 months or so) and is one of the best diversionary routes for East Coast when there are problems. When there are power supply problems they can run with diesel. And whilst there may be more to maintain and go wrong. The benefits will be huge.
These trains will certainly last 30-50 years if they are looked after properly. No-one is calling for 25 year old trains to be scrapped either. Instead of speculating on what will happen with the MK4s etc. surely it would be better to just wait and see. I cannot see them disappearing and I certainly don't see them being scrapped. I stand by my point that they will move to Chiltern and be operated by Class 67s and DVT. With the 91's moving to other duties. I am also fairly sure I head Freightliner wanted some so they could replace their 86s and 90s, sadly I can't find a source other than me.
 
Last edited:

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,101
Location
Sheffield
Certainly lots of life in the Mk4 carriages and to be fair the Class 91's - but not necessarily together, but I suspect a minor refurbished move to MML will be the first place they end up, perhaps been split after newer (as yet unspecified) stock then starts to trickle into the MML franchise in 10-15 years from now.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,056
Location
Reston City Centre
Any chance we can keep the argument about bi-mode to a bi-mode thread? And the ECML stuff somewhere else? Probably too late?

I doubt it. I don't see how people can say these trains will last for 30-50 years, as people are calling for trains that are only 25 years old currently to be scrapped

Who is calling for what 25 year old trains to be scrapped? Unless you are talking about Pacers?

Why if the current transport secretary ends up working for Hitachi in the future we will know won't we

You've reached the conspiracy theory level. Congratulations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top