East Coast IEPs Ordered - Class 800

[AndyLandy]

Well I gather I'm the only one on here who feels this order is stupidly expensive for what it is. I only hope that this order doesn't push up ticket prices or make one of the few really profitable lines in the country a line which has to be propped up by subsidies.

So, I totally agree with the sentiment. I don't want us to be hemorrhaging money on a great fat white elephant of a train. But I do think we should consider the costs alongside the potential socio-economic benefits. If fares have to be held by pumping more subsidy into the line, surely that's acceptable if the s-e benefits outweigh the cost in additional subsidy.

Of course, that does all hang on the numbers stacking up correctly...

 

[Dave1987]

That is an interesting question. I would suspect the simple and obvious answer is that there's no ulterior motive, they merely had a change of direction on what they wanted to do and simply ran with it, but you can never be entirely sure.

This is the point though. Yes these new trains provide 18% more seating and a few other minor benefits, but wouldn't you expect the list of improvements to be vast for trains that are so expensive?

This is my opinion on why the DFT decided to make this decision instead of letting the next franchise holder decide. After they stated the would let them decide they entered negotiations with Hitachi. Once they realised that the deal being offered by Hitachi for the East Coast would never be taken up by the new franchise holder because of the cost they decided to make the decision to save face. They have now had to defend that position by quoting lots and lots of figures for which most of them have been disproved by Roger Ford. Like he says in his article any info coming from the DFT may be "potentially inaccurate or misleading". On the current track record of the DaFT I'm willing to accept what Roger says.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, I totally agree with the sentiment. I don't want us to be hemorrhaging money on a great fat white elephant of a train. But I do think we should consider the costs alongside the potential socio-economic benefits. If fares have to be held by pumping more subsidy into the line, surely that's acceptable if the s-e benefits outweigh the cost in additional subsidy.

Of course, that does all hang on the numbers stacking up correctly...

Hmmmm with the current state of affairs regarding tickets and the govt trying to get passengers to pay for 75% of the cost of the railway? Not to sure taxpayers or a lot of fare paying passengers would agree.

 

[YorkshireBear]

This is the point though. Yes these new trains provide 18% more seating and a few other minor benefits, but wouldn't you expect the list of improvements to be vast for trains that are so expensive?

This is my opinion on why the DFT decided to make this decision instead of letting the next franchise holder decide. After they stated the would let them decide they entered negotiations with Hitachi. Once they realised that the deal being offered by Hitachi for the East Coast would never be taken up by the new franchise holder because of the cost they decided to make the decision to save face. They have now had to defend that position by quoting lots and lots of figures for which most of them have been disproved by Roger Ford. Like he says in his article any info coming from the DFT may be "potentially inaccurate or misleading". On the current track record of the DaFT I'm willing to accept what Roger says.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He is very one sided. Do not take everything he says as gospel, his like for like comparisons I do not agree with and he has never considered the economic benefits of having units built in this country (which the alternative continually suggested is not, the pendo). Some of the extra cost could be seen as an investment stimulus for a struggling local economy paid for through higher subsidies. (based on high unemployment)

 

[Dave1987]

He is very one sided. Do not take everything he says as gospel, his like for like comparisons I do not agree with and he has never considered the economic benefits of having units built in this country (which the alternative continually suggested is not, the pendo). Some of the extra cost could be seen as an investment stimulus for a struggling local economy paid for through higher subsidies. (based on high unemployment)

Im sorry but Roger Ford is a very well respected and knowledgeable person. Like I said my close relative who has over 30 years experience in train planning said he would reserve judgement on the IEP deal until he had heard Roger Fords analysis.

With regards to the construction of them, seriously who are Hitatchi trying to kid. Most of parts of these trains will be made abroad then shipped in to be assembled in this country. A small amount of components will be made in this country as with anything assembled in this country. The economic benefits will be minimal at best. I certainly don't see any of the small and medium sized business groups jumping for joy saying how wonderful the IEP deal is and how it will be the major boost the businesses they represent needed.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Im sorry but Roger Ford is a very well respected and knowledgeable person. Like I said my close relative who has over 30 years experience in train planning said he would reserve judgement on the IEP deal until he had heard Roger Fords analysis.

With regards to the construction of them, seriously who are Hitatchi trying to kid. Most of parts of these trains will be made abroad then shipped in to be assembled in this country. A small amount of components will be made in this country as with anything assembled in this country. The economic benefits will be minimal at best. I certainly don't see any of the small and medium sized business groups jumping for joy saying how wonderful the IEP deal is and how it will be the major boost the businesses they represent needed.

If hitachi manage to establish a base for European construction of rolling stock then it will have some very major economic benefits. Giving up to 750 people jobs is a very positive thing in my eyes.

I know how well respected he is, I respect him. I read his articles every month with much enjoyment. But sometimes on looking through his working I think he has been unfair in his like for like costs.

Just because he is far more knowledgeable and respected than me doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says.

For the record I think he is right in 99.9% of what he says.

 

[ainsworth74]

TS1983 Full Functionality of the IEP Trains must be maintained during and after exposure to salt water spray and such exposure must not cause excessive cosmetic degradation of exposed surfaces, components and equipment.

Someone has remembered what happened to the Voyagers the first time they met rough seas at Dawlish...

TS1938 For Train Unable to Proceed Under Main Power Source Mode, the IEP Train must maintain at least Basic Services for a minimum of three hours.

That includes saloon ventilation, passenger announcements and toilet flushing systems.

TS303 The body side window arrangement, including the dimensions of the windows, must be optimised to ensure that the maximum number of seated passengers in the saloon and standing passengers in a vestibule can see out of an adjacent window. As a minimum, the saloon shall be fitted with windows of at least 1400 in width and 650mm in height, except in the event that a single smaller window on each side is required so that the window arrangement matches the saloon length.

Whilst it would be nice to see it specified that every seat has a window it's good to see them specify that it must be maximised. Also nice to see that people standing in vestibules have been thought about as well!

TS1507 The auxiliary system must be designed such that a further 5kW load can be added to the auxiliary system on each IEP vehicle at a later date.

This one is interesting. I guess they're thinking about a bit of future proofing so that there is headroom for adding more electrical equipment in future (perhaps more detailed passenger information screens for instance as seen on RailJet?).

TS1599 The local control arrangements for internal doors shall include the following functions:

• allow passenger and train crew to cause the door to open without using their hands;

•ensure that the doors do not close on passengers while walking through or standing in the aperture; and

•allow train crew only to isolate the door in the open position.

Regarding the second bullet someone has been assaulted by the internal doors on Voyagers! As for the first I wonder if they'll go for sensors or button on the door and floor (as in 222s).

TS317 Passenger carrying IEP Vehicles must be fitted with Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems which conform to the requirements of BS EN 13129-1:2002, ‘Railway applications - Air conditioning for main line rolling stock – Comfort parameters’ with the following exceptions (reference to clauses below refer to the corresponding clauses in BS EN 13129-1:2002):

• Clause 8 – there are no specified preheating and precooling times – IEP Trains must meet the requirements of this section 4.8 when In Service with sufficient preheating or precooling carried out prior becoming In Service.

So no more hot/cold trains coming in to service from the depot they have to be at temperature by the time they go into service.

TS636 The IEP Trains must be fitted with an automatic seat reservation system. The system shall use data from a central database to provide an electronic display adjacent to each seat and for each bicycle storage position (the display for each bicycle storage position shall be located outside the bicycle storage area).

I don't think there are any trains that have electronic bike reservations!

TS638 There must be a holder suitable for displaying printed reservation tickets adjacent to each seat as a back-up to the automatic system.

Another lesson learned from the Voyagers and good to see a bit of common sense. I think electronic systems are the future but it's silly not to keep a holder just in case they break! They've also thought about the other issue with the current generation of electronic reservations:

TS640 The automatic seat reservation system must deliver the following functionality:

• displays for each seat must indicate whether that seat is free, reserved for part of or for the remainder of the journey. The method of display must be easy for passengers to interpret quickly when boarding, and shall seek to convey an overall impression of the extent of reserved and unreserved seats within the saloon;

TS1630 IEP Trains must be capable of providing a range of catering services. The catering solutions provided must be capable of providing catering services at four levels:

• Level 1 - Full restaurant service or at seat first class service with meals cooked on board;

• Level 2 - Servery that provides hot and cold snacks and drinks which may be delivered by either of the following methods:

o an at seat first class service together with the replenishment of trolleys for standard class service without the provision of a Café-Bar counter service; or

o the replenishment of trolleys and the provision of a Café-Bar counter service combined together;

• Level 3 - Hot and cold snacks and drinks through a ‘Café-Bar’ style outlet; and

• Level 4 - A trolley service.

Well hopefully this will help assuage concerns around the catering provision. They're going to be capable, depending on what the operator specified, of doing everything up to and including a restaurant service.

The more I read the more I like what I hear. Whilst they're going to be expensive (though excluding the depot costs the EMU variant isn't actually much more expensive than an off the shelf 390) it sounds like they're accounting for a lot of the complaints with recent stock that's been built. It's also nice to see that now we've ordered the IC225 replacement option they've finally ordered enough to actually warrant a UK factory (originally they ordered so few it wasn't, supposedly, worth having a UK production plant).

 

[swt_passenger]

Very little of the IEP technical spec has been changed since originally published; I have a downloaded copy from November 2008 and it has nearly all you've listed above.

The problem is, there's been a lot of repetitive speculation in online forums that appears to have continually disregarded the published evidence. I mean how many times have people posted almost 'as fact' that it will be cramped inside just the same as a Voyager?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Very little of the IEP technical spec has been changed since originally published; I have a downloaded copy from November 2008 and it has nearly all you've listed above.

The problem is, there's been a lot of repetitive speculation in online forums that appears to have continually disregarded the published evidence. I mean how many times have people posted almost 'as fact' that it will be cramped inside just the same as a Voyager?

When infact the technical specifications seem hell bent on avoiding being a voyager!

 

[Dave1987]

If hitachi manage to establish a base for European construction of rolling stock then it will have some very major economic benefits. Giving up to 750 people jobs is a very positive thing in my eyes.

I know how well respected he is, I respect him. I read his articles every month with much enjoyment. But sometimes on looking through his working I think he has been unfair in his like for like costs.

Just because he is far more knowledgeable and respected than me doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says.

For the record I think he is right in 99.9% of what he says.

I presume this is the 0.1% bit then

I think £266m a year is a bit expensive for 750 jobs.

Plus what happens to the fitters who maintain the 225s? Will they be TUPE over to Hitachi?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I presume this is the 0.1% bit then

I think £266m a year is a bit expensive for 750 jobs.

Plus what happens to the fitters who maintain the 225s? Will they be TUPE over to Hitachi?

Its not even all IEP just his comparisons!

It is, but there are other benefits too. The 225s are likely to be cascaded and I would hope none of them would be lost they would maintain other rolling stock. Some of them maybe the IEPs. We are building more and more trains at the moment, I don't think fitters are going to be out of work, just maybe working on different stock. That can hardly be counted as a disadvantage....

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The other thing to remember about IEP is that one of the prime political motivations for it is to help Britain get out of recession. This isn't just a "procure some trains" exercise, it's an attempt to seriously invest in British industry. We're funding the construction of new train building facilities in this country, designed to create jobs for British people.

Not really. It precisely is about "procuring some trains".
The procurement was kicked off by Labour under the then public procurement rules and is about HST/225 replacement, nothing more.
There were 3 bidders, all offered some (but not that much) UK content, but in any case you can't discriminate on that basis or the EU Competition people will complain.

Alstom (who would have offered Preston-built traction kit in a largely French-built train) backed out.
Bombardier/Siemens offered a joint bid which would not have had much UK content though it might have been assembled in Derby.
Hitachi offered a Japanese train, and eventually offered to assemble it in the UK. UK content very low, like the 395s.
If the government had failed to sign with Hitachi the order would have gone to Bombardier/Siemens, with mostly German/Swedish technology.

In my view the jobs that really matter are the design and development ones, and Hitachi are offering few of those.
They are funding the whole thing, so you would expect them to retain the IPR in Japan.
If Hitachi locate some high added-value work in the UK (like the Japanese car manufacturers have) it would be great, but they are not obliged to.
Some of the hands-on depot jobs will also be very valuable if Hitachi expands its UK production.

All Newton Aycliffe does is give the industry a choice of final train assembly in the UK and defuses the "last train builder in the UK" issue.
This is same position it had up to the point that Alstom stopped building trains in Birmingham after the first batch of Pendolinos were built.

The European view is that they are appalled at the UK placing orders outside the EU, with the prospect of Hitachi making inroads in other EU states on the back of the IEP order.

 

[ainsworth74]

Very little of the IEP technical spec has been changed since originally published; I have a downloaded copy from November 2008 and it has nearly all you've listed above.

Well I've never sat down and read it before Besides seeing as there is so much disinformation floating around it seems like a good idea to repeat the facts from time to time!

 

[jon0844]

Well I've never sat down and read it before Besides seeing as there is so much disinformation floating around it seems like a good idea to repeat the facts from time to time!

I'm glad you did, as it makes these new trains seem rather exciting from a passenger point of view. Ultimately, that's what matters.

 

[E&W Lucas]

I can not think of one occasion in the last 10 years where I have heard/seen that happen.

It's more regular then you think! Often a vehicle can be exchanged on depot, so from the lineside, you wouldn't be aware.

 

[Mainliner]

From the Technical Specification:

"IEP Trains must monitor the railway infrastructure as detailed in the subsections below, on a continuous basis during the time the IEP Trains are In Service. The data that is recorded shall be collected, stored and provided to the Relevant Operator and Network Rail at the intervals specified."

This doesn't sound cheap - will Network Rail be paying for the data supplied, or reducing track access charges for trains equipped with it?!

 

[159220]

This Channel Five program on FGW stated that each HST train costs £2million per year for maintenance.

Now it did not say whether they meant every Class 43 or every 125 "set"

Either-way it certainly makes HST vs SET far more comparable!

I shall allow others to do the maths, but I make SET cheaper than HST

Just in case I did this maths for FGW:

SET (21x801s and 36x800s - 369 coaches) life time cost (27.5 years) is £2.4bn which is £236,511 per coach per year.

HST (54x125 sets - 432 coaches and 108x43s - total 540) with a lease of £85m per year and maintenance of at least £108m per year is £193m per year or £357,407 per coach per year.

I make SET £120,896 per coach, per year cheaper!

Either way. I dont like Roger Ford not comparing like for like. I cannot wait for the SET Class 800/801s.)

 

[WatcherZero]

Alstom (who would have offered Preston-built traction kit in a largely French-built train) backed out.
Bombardier/Siemens offered a joint bid which would not have had much UK content though it might have been assembled in Derby.
Hitachi offered a Japanese train, and eventually offered to assemble it in the UK. UK content very low, like the 395s.
If the government had failed to sign with Hitachi the order would have gone to Bombardier/Siemens, with mostly German/Swedish technology.

Wasnt the Hitachi UK content marginally higher than Bombardiers offer, something like 5% (both around 60 give or take a couple of percent)? Though some argued the real value was in the shell production rather than the fitting out, ive always thought the more complex and extensive electrical components and the less flashy 'door knobs and broom handles' so to speak that went in, produced by a network of small private suppliers were more important as that was proportionally a higher ratio of the value and had a higher economic multiplier than a large corporation returning the value to its shareholders.

I think what really killed off Project Thor (and not the high costs as it was seen as a political sop to Derby) was when Bombardier started switching its proposal from UK (Alstom in Preston wasnt it?) sourced traction equipment to ones made in Europe by its own subsidaries.

 

[Martin222002]

This Channel Five program on FGW stated that each HST train costs £2million per year for maintenance.

Now it did not say whether they meant every Class 43 or every 125 "set"

Either-way it certainly makes HST vs SET far more comparable!

I shall allow others to do the maths, but I make SET cheaper than HST

As far as I am aware it has been widely quoted that the cost per IEP vehicel per month for the Great Western phase is £74,500, making it £894,000 per year. So I'm not exactly sure how you have got to £236,511?

Also I would take everything that was said on that Channel 5 programme as fact, as they mistakenly said that a HST only has 2,000hp, not the 4,500hp they actually have.

 

[The Ham]

This Channel Five program on FGW stated that each HST train costs £2million per year for maintenance.

Now it did not say whether they meant every Class 43 or every 125 "set"

Either-way it certainly makes HST vs SET far more comparable!

I shall allow others to do the maths, but I make SET cheaper than HST

Just in case I did this maths for FGW:

SET (21x801s and 36x800s - 369 coaches) life time cost (27.5 years) is £2.4bn which is £236,511 per coach per year.

HST (54x125 sets - 432 coaches and 108x43s - total 540) with a lease of £85m per year and maintenance of at least £108m per year is £193m per year or £357,407 per coach per year.

I make SET £120,896 per coach, per year cheaper!

Either way. I dont like Roger Ford not comparing like for like. I cannot wait for the SET Class 800/801s.)

Using those figures even just the mainternace works out at £250,000 per year for the HST's. If that is the case then it could be cheaper (£13,489 per year assuing that FGW own the HST's being used) to do away with the HST's altogether and only run IEP's. Even if the fuel costs were (for off wire running) higher for IEP for the services to the west country, then it may be not worth spending money to sort out the HST's so they can be used post 2019 (assuming more IEP's can be purchased).

Using the above figures a 5 coach IEP would cost £1,182,555 with a 9 coach set costing £2,128,599 compared with £2,859,256 for an 8+2 HST set, even though IEP would provide a higher capacity (as discussed before). Making the cost per seat on IEP significantly cheaper than on HST's, as the staffing costs per seat would also fall (assuming the same number of staff would be required on both trains, although even with extra staff [say 2] on doubled up IEP's the staffing costs per seat would only be marginally higher, 5p per day per seat for each £10,000 of extra staff costs. i.e. 50p per seat per day if the staff costs were £100,000 more).

 

[159220]

As far as I am aware it has been widely quoted that the cost per IEP vehicel per month for the Great Western phase is £74,500, making it £894,000 per year. So I'm not exactly sure how you have got to £236,511?

Im not one for maths! I got £236,511 per coach per year through dividing the total cost of the contract (£2.4bn) by contract length (27.5 years) and by total coach number within the GW contract (21x801s and 36x800s - 369 coaches)

Fair enough, I never watch Channel Five, thus I dont hold it to being a example broadcaster. But the £2m figure is better than no figure. As Roger Ford seems uninterested in adding a like for like comparison. He seems to forget the IEP contract includes maintenance, track recording etc in the SETs. So this £2m is a starting point. I am going to email FGW to confirm this figure, then ask Roger Ford to start comparing the SET and HST including maintenance.

not worth spending money to sort out the HST's so they can be used post 2019 (assuming more IEP's can be purchased).

Very interesting. I hope your right as I travel regularly to Exeter and the HSTs have had it. If there is no cost benefit in making them 2020 proofed then replace them with 9 car Class 800s SETs.

I am so pleased when reading this thread that members are starting to realize the massive improvement SETs are going to make. The specifications, if delivered, sound an outstanding improvement over HSTs.

I have emailed Hitachi to see whether the mock up shall be open to the public later this year!

 

[AndyLandy]

I've noticed we've just started calling the IEP trains 'SET's. That's a new one on me, what does it stand for?

 

[swt_passenger]

It's Hitachi's name for them; 'Super Express Trains'...

 

[AndyLandy]

It's Hitachi's name for them; 'Super Express Trains'...

Cool, thanks. I rather suspected it would probably stand for something along those lines. So predictable, these train manufacturers, eh?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Fair enough, I never watch Channel Five, thus I dont hold it to being a example broadcaster. But the £2m figure is better than no figure. As Roger Ford seems uninterested in adding a like for like comparison. He seems to forget the IEP contract includes maintenance, track recording etc in the SETs. So this £2m is a starting point. I am going to email FGW to confirm this figure, then ask Roger Ford to start comparing the SET and HST including maintenance.

I think you will find the figure is "commercially confidential".
Channel 5 will just have made a guess, like everyone else.
I doubt it is more accurate than "a big number".

 

[swt_passenger]

then ask Roger Ford to start comparing the SET and HST including maintenance.

In his latest article doesn't Roger Ford explain that the extra batch of IEP for ECML comes in at roughly the same 'all-in' cost as an equivalent Pendolino?

"So as you might expect [electric IEP] would cost around the same to own and operate as a Class 390 Pendolino."

He does have a bit of a go at DfT for using the 'as delivered' Pendolino first/standard ratio of seats and interior layout for comparison, as though it's unchangeable, but that's probably academic because the nice Mr Branson likes them the way they are...

Comparing directly with the current HST costs is a dead end, because HSTs cannot run on for ever - at some time they have to be replaced with 'something', and whatever it is it will have to be new...

 

[anthony263]

Cool, thanks. I rather suspected it would probably stand for something along those lines. So predictable, these train manufacturers, eh?

Yep and before IEP it was known as HST2

 

[jopsuk]

He does have a bit of a go at DfT for using the 'as delivered' Pendolino first/standard ratio of seats and interior layout for comparison, as though it's unchangeable, but that's probably academic because the nice Mr Branson likes them the way they are...

The 11 car Pendolinos have a pretty good Firsttandard ratio mindyou. Better than an East Coast mark 4 set

 

[Captain Chaos]

Having read the specification I notice in one of the tables that catering will be chosen at Level 1 and Level 4 and there will be no crew office at all for the TM. Hypothetical question: If IEP is going to cost considerably more to lease, maintain and run etc given the options selected is it possible to conclude that the reduction in running costs will come form the removal of the staff on board? No Crew Office being available doesn't fill me with much confidence in TM's being around much longer if I have to be honest

 

[WatcherZero]

The idea is the TM can access the train information systems from anywhere on the train.

 

[jimm]

Having read the specification I notice in one of the tables that catering will be chosen at Level 1 and Level 4 and there will be no crew office at all for the TM. Hypothetical question: If IEP is going to cost considerably more to lease, maintain and run etc given the options selected is it possible to conclude that the reduction in running costs will come form the removal of the staff on board? No Crew Office being available doesn't fill me with much confidence in TM's being around much longer if I have to be honest

a. The final interior layouts, catering set-up, etc are still subject to agreement with the TOCs.
b. If a crew office is so vital, why do FGW's train managers on the trains I use seem to spend precisely zero time in their office in the TGS, apart from an odd visit to make an announcement on the PA if they happen to be at that end of the train? The trains are going to be equipped for driver-only operation anyway but as to what routes they may operate in this mode, no one knows at the moment. I expect train managers will still be on board on many services, whether or not they have a cubbyhole all of their own.