East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

[jon0844]

If Hitachi has to guarantee xx% availability, will this not benefit everyone and - arguably - be worth a lot more to the economy overall? Less people delayed, less compensation (delay repay) claims etc?

That is of course assuming it works out like that, but imagine the possible savings elsewhere that might cancel out the extra cost year on year.

Of course, for Hitachi to manage to keep so many trains in serviceable condition at all times, we have to hope that they don't have any significant design faults or flaws from the outset.

 

[transmanche]

If Hitachi has to guarantee xx% availability, will this not benefit everyone and - arguably - be worth a lot more to the economy overall? Less people delayed, less compensation (delay repay) claims etc?

That is of course assuming it works out like that, but imagine the possible savings elsewhere that might cancel out the extra cost year on year.

I believe the contract includes things like penalty payments for not making a set available when agreed. And where delay minutes are attributed to Agility, they have to pick up the bill.

The contract's a bit wordy and rather lengthy though.

 

[jon0844]

Have you found the clause where it says they need to always make sure there's a seat available for me?

 

[ModernRailways]

I highly doubt they will really be expensive. It will be better to get official figures along with what is included in them instead of getting them from a magazine that may or may not know final figures.

The cost may also be justified if the trains are fairly fault free when in passenger service! The money saved by delays will be instead by put into maintenance.

 

[Dave1987]

I highly doubt they will really be expensive. It will be better to get official figures along with what is included in them instead of getting them from a magazine that may or may not know final figures.

The cost may also be justified if the trains are fairly fault free when in passenger service! The money saved by delays will be instead by put into maintenance.

At that price I would expect them to run completely without fault from day one. From the initial figures they do look expensive though. But yes indeed until the details are known we will not know if the very high cost is justified.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its something like a 15% increase in seats compared to the Mk4's as well.

They will be class 801/2

 

[jimm]

But as said the current MK4 and HSTs doesn't include Maintenance costs. Maybe this includes all costs, except for any that may be unexpected.

I highly doubt that they will be costing that much without any extra benefits. Maybe it includes a dedicated, trained team from Hitachi who will help out to maintain them at depots.

Hitachi are going to run the maintenance depots, not the train operators. Same as they do at Ashford with 395s, same as Alstom do with the Pendolino fleet and 175s and Bombardier do with Voyagers, in each case with a guaranteed number of sets available to the operators each day.

As for reliability, the Class 395 contract requires Hitachi to achieve a target of 30,000 miles per casualty, where the actual figure they manage at present is more than 50,000mpc and Shinkansen trains are ultra-reliable. Contract target for electric IEPs is 60,000mpc and 45,000mpc for bi-modes.

Prototypes will arrive from Japan next year, three years ahead of entry into service, and undergo intensive testing - out to Airport Junction and at high speed further out once the wires go up. Patrick Hallgate, Network Rail's western route director, suggests in the current Modern Railways that Didcot-Swindon is a possible location for this testing, as wiring that section is considered relatively straightforward, so could be done early.

 

[YorkshireBear]

So roughly a hundred trains (including maintenance costs etc) will cost a lot more than roughly thirty trains?

This is my problem with IEP. I am yet to see an actual like for like comparison in costs.

This has to include, staffing, maintenance, overhauls, reduced fiens for broken trains, improving passeneger response when wires come down and the electric IEPs can crawl away. And more importantly, must include the increase in carriages. Everything. When someone does one of those i will make my choice as to whether it is worth it.

 

[rebmcr]

This is my problem with IEP. I am yet to see an actual like for like comparison in costs.

This has to include, staffing, maintenance, overhauls, reduced fiens for broken trains, improving passeneger response when wires come down and the electric IEPs can crawl away. And more importantly, must include the increase in carriages. Everything. When someone does one of those i will make my choice as to whether it is worth it.

Quoted for truth.

 

[The Ham]

So roughly a hundred trains (including maintenance costs etc) will cost a lot more than roughly thirty trains?

There are going to be 93 full length IEP's (9 coach or paired 5 coach sets) with apparently a lease cost of £539million (including maintenance, finance, depots, etc.). Given each train has about 630 seats that works out at about £30 per day (not including Sundays).

There current 31 sets of 225's with apparently a lease cost of £82million (just the rolling stock). Give each train has about 550 seats that works out at about £16 per day.

To cover the extra £14 per day, it wouldn't push ticket prices up by very much, as most seats will be used by more than one person over the course of day.

However for each 7 IEP's you run you'll need an extra 225. which means although the cost per seat (on the figures available - which are not a fair comparison) is about 1/2 by keeping the old stock. If by keeping the old trains it meant that you had to spend more on infrastructure to find an extra path for the extra services it probably wouldn't work out very cost efficient.

 

[Dave1987]

There are going to be 93 full length IEP's (9 coach or paired 5 coach sets) with apparently a lease cost of £539million (including maintenance, finance, depots, etc.). Given each train has about 630 seats that works out at about £30 per day (not including Sundays).

There current 31 sets of 225's with apparently a lease cost of £82million (just the rolling stock). Give each train has about 550 seats that works out at about £16 per day.

To cover the extra £14 per day, it wouldn't push ticket prices up by very much, as most seats will be used by more than one person over the course of day.

However for each 7 IEP's you run you'll need an extra 225. which means although the cost per seat (on the figures available - which are not a fair comparison) is about 1/2 by keeping the old stock. If by keeping the old trains it meant that you had to spend more on infrastructure to find an extra path for the extra services it probably wouldn't work out very cost efficient.

On the initial figures IEP does look very very expensive. I think the crucial part of this is the DFT forcing the TOC to have these new trains. By doing this the DFT is not allowing any potential bidders to look at the numbers and decide which way is more cost effective. If the next TOC is forced to raise ticket prices to pay for the higher leasing costs I do hope that they show it was the DFTs decision and therefore their responsibility that ticket prices have increased. I still don't see how the service provided by Hitatchi justifies the high costs unless the can guarantee these will be ultra reliable from day one. My colleagues who have witnessed new trains introduced many times have all said that new trains always have teething problems.

 

[JamesRowden]

On the initial figures IEP does look very very expensive. I think the crucial part of this is the DFT forcing the TOC to have these new trains. By doing this the DFT is not allowing any potential bidders to look at the numbers and decide which way is more cost effective. If the next TOC is forced to raise ticket prices to pay for the higher leasing costs I do hope that they show it was the DFTs decision and therefore their responsibility that ticket prices have increased. I still don't see how the service provided by Hitatchi justifies the high costs unless the can guarantee these will be ultra reliable from day one. My colleagues who have witnessed new trains introduced many times have all said that new trains always have teething problems.

I do not think that the introduction of expensive trains would instantly alter the ticket price at which the optimum profits are made by the company (unless it is publicised to the public that they are more expensuve which could subsequently make the public willing to pay more) when there is not the option of running less trains in order to save money (as will be the situation with the 'do minimum' franchise requirements). If these trains are more expensive to run, the primary effect will be that the TOC will not pay so much for the franchise and it will not be so willing to run additional services (which might cause a rise in fares in the long term as the trains become overcrowded with the TOC not neccesarilly willing to run extra services [Cross Country has this situation but it is probably at least partially due to lack of stock]).

All this is of course dependent on whether the new trains are as significantly more expensive to run as some people are making out, I am yet to be convinced.

 

[Dave1987]

I do not think that the introduction of expensive trains would instantly alter the ticket price at which the optimum profits are made by the company (unless it is publicised to the public that they are more expensuve which could subsequently make the public willing to pay more) when there is not the option of running less trains in order to save money (as will be the situation with the 'do minimum' franchise requirements). If these trains are more expensive to run, the primary effect will be that the TOC will not pay so much for the franchise and it will not be so willing to run additional services (which might cause a rise in fares in the long term as the trains become overcrowded with the TOC not neccesarilly willing to run extra services [Cross Country has this situation but it is probably at least partially due to lack of stock]).

All this is of course dependent on whether the new trains are as significantly more expensive to run as some people are making out, I am yet to be convinced.

I am going off the figures in Rail magazine. On initial glance the figures for leasing costs on the new trains, it looks like they will be expensive. It remains to be seen whether that price is worth it.

 

[joeykins82]

Without a meaningful, accurate figure for the costs of maintenance, depots & spare parts etc for the IC125 & IC225 sets that are being replaced any comparison is worthless because it isn't like for like.

 

[tbtc]

There are going to be 93 full length IEP's (9 coach or paired 5 coach sets) with apparently a lease cost of £539million (including maintenance, finance, depots, etc.). Given each train has about 630 seats that works out at about £30 per day (not including Sundays).

There current 31 sets of 225's with apparently a lease cost of £82million (just the rolling stock). Give each train has about 550 seats that works out at about £16 per day.

To cover the extra £14 per day, it wouldn't push ticket prices up by very much, as most seats will be used by more than one person over the course of day.

However for each 7 IEP's you run you'll need an extra 225. which means although the cost per seat (on the figures available - which are not a fair comparison) is about 1/2 by keeping the old stock. If by keeping the old trains it meant that you had to spend more on infrastructure to find an extra path for the extra services it probably wouldn't work out very cost efficient.

That sounds like a good place to start comparisons. It's tricky when we don't know the maintenance costs, of course, but I suppose that's all confidential.

The other question, I guess, is what part of the overall cost the leasing cost will be - since the staffing costs will be the same etc - presumably the bi-mode IEP will be more efficient in terms of fuel than an HST all the way to Aberdeen/ Inverness?

And, as you allude, what's the cost of the alternative (finding extra capacity on the busy routes otherwise)?

 

[WatcherZero]

Seen a pie chart recently in a ORR or NR document which broke down the costs and leasing was only around 16% of the industry service costs or something. But for want of a better reference a similar chart in the McNulty report page 21 shows just how small the cost of rolling stock is, in 2011 ROSCO fees were £2bn out of an industry expenditure of around £12bn, even if you strip out infrastructure costs leasing is still only half of the service cost.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...ealising-the-potential-of-gb-rail-summary.pdf

 

[RobShipway]

My problem with this IEP saga is that it should be down to the Train Operators as the Government suggests to pick the rolling stock they require to run their services, however it seems that the Government are choosing the rolling stock. I know people will say that this was started by the previous Labour Government, but even people within that Government where saying it should be up to the Train Operators.

Will any Train Operator want to run the IEP trains once they are in service?

 

[swt_passenger]

Will any Train Operator want to run the IEP trains once they are in service?

Of course not. They'll probably just leave them unused in a depot and completely abandon their contracted responsibility to run the service. :roll:

 

[Dave1987]

Of course not. They'll probably just leave them unused in a depot and completely abandon their contracted responsibility to run the service. :roll:

The problem every company who wants the franchise has now though is they will be forced to use these trains and the leasing costs that go with them. Hardly makes great business sense does it when you have no control over the trains you are going to have to use or how much they are going to cost you. Still think the DFT should have asked the TOC's what they wanted rather than forcing them. Its almost like the DFT are patting themselves on the back for the great publicity they have got with the order for these shiny new trains when they know they wont have to pay the leasing costs.

 

[transmanche]

The problem every company who wants the franchise has now though is they will be forced to use these trains and the leasing costs that go with them. Hardly makes great business sense does it when you have no control over the trains you are going to have to use or how much they are going to cost you.

On the plus side, any potential franchisee knows exactly what their leasing and maintenance, etc costs are for the lifetime of their franchise. And they don't need to factor in certain other costs in their business plan - such as all the delay minutes accrued due to mechanical failure - as some of these can be charged back to Agility.

I guess it's a bit like when people take out a long-term fixed rate mortgage...

 

[tbtc]

My problem with this IEP saga is that it should be down to the Train Operators as the Government suggests to pick the rolling stock they require to run their services, however it seems that the Government are choosing the rolling stock. I know people will say that this was started by the previous Labour Government, but even people within that Government where saying it should be up to the Train Operators.

Will any Train Operator want to run the IEP trains once they are in service?

The problem every company who wants the franchise has now though is they will be forced to use these trains and the leasing costs that go with them. Hardly makes great business sense does it when you have no control over the trains you are going to have to use or how much they are going to cost you

Is it really that different from most new TOCs? Do you think that Arriva sat down with dozens of options before finally deciding to use the same Voyagers on XC that Virgin had run? And National Express whittled several alternatives down before plumping for exactly the same HSTs and 225s that GNER had run before them? Hell of a coincidence!

Realistically, the IEP is too important to be left to the whims of different private companies - we need a long term plan for a compatible fleet of long distance trains and can't wait another few years for different TOCs to tender for them.

We don't want lots more small fleets like 175s or 180s - we need something on the scale of the original HST ambitions.

 

[Dave1987]

Indeed I take both of your points. Still not convinced this project is value for money but never mind it's happening.

 

[AndyLandy]

Realistically, the IEP is too important to be left to the whims of different private companies - we need a long term plan for a compatible fleet of long distance trains and can't wait another few years for different TOCs to tender for them.

Quoted for Truth™

This is the key piece, to my mind. The reason why the HSTs are still all over the place is partly because there's loads of them, but also because they're a unified fleet of trains. When one TOC finishes with some HSTs, any other HST-operating TOC can just take on additional trains. Their drivers already sign the traction, the vehicles are already cleared for the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed I take both of your points. Still not convinced this project is value for money but never mind it's happening.

I think that's a concern everyone shares. It's not without reason that the project is sometimes referred to as the Incredibly Expensive Project.

Still, time will tell on that. I live in optimistic hope that the costs are high because they cover so much more. And if it represents an investment in infrastructure and this country's economy, so much the better.

 

[HSTEd]

I still wish for a return of a unified railway with in house stock design and manufacturing facilities.

But those days will never come again.

 

[The Ham]

Quoted for Truth™

This is the key piece, to my mind. The reason why the HSTs are still all over the place is partly because there's loads of them, but also because they're a unified fleet of trains. When one TOC finishes with some HSTs, any other HST-operating TOC can just take on additional trains. Their drivers already sign the traction, the vehicles are already cleared for the line.

The number of IEP's (currently on order) have a total of 18 coaches more than the total number of Mark 3's built. With the possibility that more could be ordered.

 

[Dave1987]

According to Roger Ford IEP on East Coast is a net increase of £181m per year over the cost of the current trains. He says this will effectively wipe out the profit the East Coast is currently making. He also says the deal will make the east coast franchise a very hard sell. The cost per seat of the new trains will go up and he says that the DFT were very very cagey when this was pointed out to them. It does seem that ticket prices are likely to go up.

 

[YorkshireBear]

According to Roger Ford IEP on East Coast is a net increase of £181m per year over the cost of the current trains. He says this will effectively wipe out the profit the East Coast is currently making. He also says the deal will make the east coast franchise a very hard sell. The cost per seat of the new trains will go up and he says that the DFT were very very cagey when this was pointed out to them. It does seem that ticket prices are likely to go up.

That wasn't mentioned in the article at all I don't believe. Having read it on my commute this morning. They will go up at RPI +1% for quite a while but no more than that.

He did also say that the phase 2 is significantly cheaper and as it includes no depots etc is actually in line with the Pendilino price. So even he is admitting that IEP when on a level playing field (ie just the train), is no more expensive than a Pendilino. It is just the way the Dft have formulated the contracts.

 

[hwl]

According to Roger Ford IEP on East Coast is a net increase of £181m per year over the cost of the current trains. He says this will effectively wipe out the profit the East Coast is currently making. He also says the deal will make the east coast franchise a very hard sell. The cost per seat of the new trains will go up and he says that the DFT were very very cagey when this was pointed out to them. It does seem that ticket prices are likely to go up.

Comparing apples with oranges?
Eastcoast will have more capacity (mostly seats /train) post IEP introduction so they can sell more tickets on the busy services which will be good for profit.
Also as the time penalty for stops will decrease (especially for HST replacement) so there may be more stops with some intermediate stations getting more frequent services (which has traditionally increased usage).
Reduced cost of thunderbirds for breakdowns / diversions and less bustitution should also help. (Also less delay repay etc. as time lost should decrease).

 

[LexyBoy]

He did also say that the phase 2 is significantly cheaper and as it includes no depots etc is actually in line with the Pendilino price. So even he is admitting that IEP when on a level playing field (ie just the train), is no more expensive than a Pendilino. It is just the way the Dft have formulated the contracts.

Who would be paying for the depots if the contracts were on a train-only basis though? (genuine question).

I'd not rely too much on the RPI+1% increases - nothing to stop it being RPI+3%, and a lot of leisure journeys are made on unregulated fares which could go up considerably. Assuming of course that there's any basis in the article: even with a higher price per seat, it's possible that the price per seat per journey could be lower owing to faster journeys and higher uptime. If IEP delivers all that is promised...

 

[D365]

Have you remembered to factor in the fact that IEP carriages are 3m longer than Mk3/4. A 5-car unit will be 15m longer (3mx5) and a 9-car unit will be 27m longer - about an extra carriage length. Shorter than a 9-car 125/225 formation though, as IEP comes without locomotives/DVT - being an EDMU. A good number of additional extra seats on each train.