How do you free up 800/802 bi-modes?

[Energy]

- they are all Train Supply Agreements, which is how Hitachi do their business with the 80x fleets.

I thought the Train Supply Agreements were only for the IEP with non IEP 80xs on a conventional lease?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Assuming that XC take on the 221 displaced from Avati West Coast and assuming that my maths is correct that will give XC from 2022

34x 220 (4 car)
44x 221 (5 car with some 4 car)

Also from 2022 EMR will start to receive 33x 5 car 810 which will displace 222's comprising 6x 7 car, 17x 5 car and 4x 4 car, some of which could also go to XC.

If completion of MML electrification through to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield is authorised then would it not make sense to casecade those Bi-modes to XC with a new order of straight electrics for MML rather than removing the engines from the bi-modes. The 33 810's could be lengthened with intermediate coaches to match the capacity of the 22x that run doubled up?

MML electrification won't initially include the Erewash Valley or the Corby/Melton diversionary routes, for which bi-mode stock will come in useful, it also won't include Nottingham to Skegness, should the summer Saturday service continue when the Class 810 stock enters service.

 

[Domh245]

If completion of MML electrification through to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield is authorised then would it not make sense to casecade those Bi-modes to XC with a new order of straight electrics for MML rather than removing the engines from the bi-modes. The 33 810's could be lengthened with intermediate coaches to match the capacity of the 22x that run doubled up?

Seeing as the 'straight electrics' ordered would just be 810s without engines fitted, what's the point in cascading them away? If XC were to get new bimodes, it makes more sense for them to get the de-facto standard 26m long ones rather than the bespoke MML units?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Seeing as the 'straight electrics' ordered would just be 810s without engines fitted, what's the point in cascading them away? If XC were to get new bimodes, it makes more sense for them to get the de-facto standard 26m long ones rather than the bespoke MML units?

Route clearance is the only potential problem with 26m units for XC, given the MML and its associated routes will only be cleared for 23m AT300 units rather than 26m ones.

 

[Meerkat]

Route clearance is the only potential problem with 26m units for XC, given the MML and its associated routes will only be cleared for 23m AT300 units rather than 26m ones.

All the LNER, Transpennine, and GWR bits will be cleared for 26m though??

 

[Philip Phlopp]

All the LNER, Transpennine, and GWR bits will be cleared for 26m though??

Yes

 

[Clarence Yard]

I thought the Train Supply Agreements were only for the IEP with non IEP 80xs on a conventional lease?

They are leased but it's not a conventional arrangement of dry, soggy or wet - Hitachi have to supply a daily quota of diagrams, same as the IEP sets. They are fully responsible for the maintenance of the sets. The contracts mimic the IEP TARA arrangements but without some of the silliness.

 

[37424]

Seeing as the 'straight electrics' ordered would just be 810s without engines fitted, what's the point in cascading them away? If XC were to get new bimodes, it makes more sense for them to get the de-facto standard 26m long ones rather than the bespoke MML units?

But the Bespoke MML units are designed to offer performance more like 22x on Diesel and given the still likely long Diesel sections on XC when obtained would likely be the better choice and possibly a bit easier from a route clearance perspective as already suggested, whether ordered new or cascaded.

 

[HSTEd]

It absolutely does not! Firstly the phrase 'compulsory purchase' normally relates to land and buildings and there are definite laws and procedures attached, not least to avoid ECHR issues (Protocol 1 Article 1).

You can compulsarily purchase any property, including in this case share certificates. (We don't traditionally refer to it as compulsory purchase, but it is literally compulsory purchasing!)

For example see the first steel nationalisation (into the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain) where the shares themselves were compulsarily purchased rather than the undertakings. This was achieved by compulsarily converting the share certificates into special government bonds that could be redeemed on demand from the treasury.

Secondly that is not what is at issue here as what you are describing is actually forced nationalisation. Once again the ECHR applies (same protocol/article). There was much legal investigation done when Labour under Jeremy Corbyn proposed major nationalisation. See for example:

https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2019/07/UPDATE%2520Nationalisation%2520July%25202019.pdf

Your link returns a 404.

Do you realise that HMT does all of its calculations in fixed year pounds using net present value calculations (i.e a pound spent in the future is worth less than a pound spent now). The precise detail of the contract and how leasing costs change over time versus any borrowing costs change will form a very complicated calculation to see if any saving would actually be made by your proposal.

Gilt borrowing costs would not change - they are fixed for the duration at the moment the gilts are issued.
HMT is also far from an apolitical actor in this mess.
Also given the current real return on government debt being negative, a real pound spent tomorrow is actually worth more than a real pound spent today.

Again I am probably being dim, but paying that market value could still be less than Agility’s owners get by keeping their company?

Assuming everything goes perfectly for Agility yes.
But the actual value of the company is determined by the free market method, risks have to be taken into account etc.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Seeing as the 'straight electrics' ordered would just be 810s without engines fitted, what's the point in cascading them away? If XC were to get new bimodes, it makes more sense for them to get the de-facto standard 26m long ones rather than the bespoke MML units?

To save having to remove the diesel engines after only a few years of use

Route clearance is the only potential problem with 26m units for XC, given the MML and its associated routes will only be cleared for 23m AT300 units rather than 26m ones.

All the LNER, Transpennine, and GWR bits will be cleared for 26m though??

But not the MML and what about the WCML or south of Reading?

But the Bespoke MML units are designed to offer performance more like 22x on Diesel and given the still likely long Diesel sections on XC when obtained would likely be the better choice and possibly a bit easier from a route clearance perspective as already suggested, whether ordered new or cascaded.

Any bi-modes for XC will still have diesel running South of Bristol for some time as electrification in the South West is a few years away so yes that is a good point.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

...But not the MML and what about the WCML or south of Reading?...

WCML is partially cleared already (Carlisle north) and remainder plus North Wales will be done prior to introduction of Class 80x units with Avanti/ICWC.

 

[Domh245]

Route clearance is the only potential problem with 26m units for XC, given the MML and its associated routes will only be cleared for 23m AT300 units rather than 26m ones.

A fair point, although I thought the 26m long AT300 was gauged similarly to the 23m mark 3? Part of the reason for the long overhang on them, and why the only issue that cropped up with IEP clearance (that I remember) was a single tunnel in Wales used for summer only extensions?

But the Bespoke MML units are designed to offer performance more like 22x on Diesel and given the still likely long Diesel sections on XC when obtained would likely be the better choice and possibly a bit easier from a route clearance perspective as already suggested, whether ordered new or cascaded.

There will still be long sections of diesel, but is the higher speed performance necessary on those? I think this was discussed before but the only high speed section where they couldn't run on electric (assuming the power supplies can cope) is Birmingham - Sheffield, everywhere else with 125mph running is wired, meaning a 'bog standard' 802 type train should be able to keep to time on the unwired sections - 802s aren't exactly slouches on diesel either IIRC, at least not at low speed where a fair amount of the time savings can be made

Even if you did want 22x like performance on diesel, this could likely be achieved by a 7 car (@ 26m) train with 5 motored vehicles - something that couldn't be done for MML (without comprising train lengths) although my gut feeling is that you'd be better taking the hit on the rapid acceleration and 125mph crusing on diesel for the sake of otherwise near uniformity across the rest of the British IC fleet

To save having to remove the diesel engines after only a few years of use

Given that the one of the things the IEP trains (and hence bi mode AT300 platform) is designed for ease of removal of engines, that's not really a good sell. AIUI, the gensets on these are hardly integral to them, they're on rafts and can quite easily be dropped out overnight.

Given the MML units are likely to be compromised* as a result of the specific requiremts of MML, I really dont see the appeal in sending them off to XC, not least because you'd need to order more of them on top of the cascade trains to replace the voyagers. You'd be better off ordering the right number of perfectly XC optimised units from the off and diverting the gensets removed from the MML units to be fitted to those XC units than this obsession with cascading nearly new trains about.

*Vehicle length (and seat capacity), pantograph arrangements, high floors throughout

 

[Philip Phlopp]

A fair point, although I thought the 26m long AT300 was gauged similarly to the 23m mark 3? Part of the reason for the long overhang on them, and why the only issue that cropped up with IEP clearance (that I remember) was a single tunnel in Wales used for summer only extensions?

I wouldn't expect any major issues, but you never know. Expect the unexpected, basically.

 

[Energy]

They are leased but it's not a conventional arrangement of dry, soggy or wet - Hitachi have to supply a daily quota of diagrams, same as the IEP sets. They are fully responsible for the maintenance of the sets. The contracts mimic the IEP TARA arrangements but without some of the silliness.

Interesting, I wonder how they will do maintenance for the Avanti units as they are getting joint maintained by Hitachi and Alstom.