GWR Class 800

[AM9]

but the fares alone aren't what's paying for it- they built it to make Heathrow a more attractive place to fly to/from by improving connectivity

So when Crossrail brings a far greater capacity and direct services to the West End, the City HS1 and Docklands, they give extra pull with no investment or extra risk.

 

[Starmill]

The print edition of the magazine brings a hybrid Informed Pan (from Roger Ford's Informed Sources and Ian Walmsley's Pan Up) column this week to discuss exactly this. Well worth a read.

 

[The Ham]

The GWR trains will cost roughly twice as much as a Pendolino to lease

...so even if Pendolino's were purchased the GWR cost of rolling stock would have been higher, so even if the three times higher than all the existing fleet costs is acurate (bearing in mind the accountacy required to understand if it is or not then I am still not sure that payments would be that high, as that would mean that First would be making a loss from all their rail divission) that would imply that GWR were paying well below the cost of new trains on their old trains

Although a few things to note, if they had there would have been even more problems given the wiring is late.

There would need to be locos to drag them off the wires or DMU's running significant distances under the wires.

There are 7% more seats in an 11 coach Pendolino's and 34% more than the 9 coach version. Depending on which type he is comparing the cost per seat would be between 1.5 and just below 2 times the cost.

All in all the cost comparison wouldn't appeare to be comparing an alternative that would be viable with the class 80x's

P.S. anyone else find it ironic that an "IEP" thread has been hijacked by a discussion about Crossrail?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Thanks. Quoted for anyone who wants to see the rest.

It seems to me that they're not critical of the trains themselves but rather the interiors the DfT have specified. Interiors aren't inherent to the train and so can be improved in the future.

This is true up to a point. Factors such as bay dimensions affect how well a seating layout will work, and the cost of the vehicles fixes a break-even point which determines how many seats have to be fitted in to make them earn their bread and butter.

A technically unsophisticated vehicle will cost a lot less. That is why third class passengers in British trains of the 1930s could enjoy so much more space than they can in today's trains. All they had was a braking system, steam heating and a low voltage lighting system powered by a dynamo with lead-acid battery backup.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

P.S. anyone else find it ironic that an "IEP" thread has been hijacked by a discussion about Crossrail?

No. That's what happens in discussion threads. The stock will be used on a route also used by XR, with all that implies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Doesn't one of them have interests in a ROSCO?

I'd take their opinions with a pinch of salt either way. It's all subjective.

Things like colour scheme are subjective but most of the parameters are measurable, such as seat pitch, luggage space per passenger and number of seats with unobstructed visibility. Other subjective factors are known from surveys, such as passengers' preferences for bay versus airline seating.

 

[Martin222002]

...so even if Pendolino's were purchased the GWR cost of rolling stock would have been higher, so even if the three times higher than all the existing fleet costs is acurate (bearing in mind the accountacy required to understand if it is or not then I am still not sure that payments would be that high, as that would mean that First would be making a loss from all their rail divission) that would imply that GWR were paying well below the cost of new trains on their old trains

Although a few things to note, if they had there would have been even more problems given the wiring is late.

There would need to be locos to drag them off the wires or DMU's running significant distances under the wires.

There are 7% more seats in an 11 coach Pendolino's and 34% more than the 9 coach version. Depending on which type he is comparing the cost per seat would be between 1.5 and just below 2 times the cost.

All in all the cost comparison wouldn't appeare to be comparing an alternative that would be viable with the class 80x's

P.S. anyone else find it ironic that an "IEP" thread has been hijacked by a discussion about Crossrail?

Agreed regarding Crossrail, and yes they may use the same route but that has very little to do with the IEP trains themselves which this thread is meant to be about.

Regarding comparing the IEP 80Xs with Pendolino's, basically they have been the only real comparator to compare with on a cost basis given that it's really been the only other intercity train on the market for the UK.

As you say however whatever train fleet was to replace the HSTs on the GWML will have costed more given to the fact they are new trains. The difference here is that the costs associated with the IEP 80Xs are inflated by the nature of it being a PFI contract. This is clearly shown when GWR announced their order of AT300s for the south west, which will essentially be the same train as the 800s for the IEP contract, but will cost significantly less.

As for the interiors, it has to remembered that the interior currently in 800002 is the one which the DfT has specified. However both VTEC and GWR are being allowed to specify the interiors for their 80Xs, so may not be exactly the same as those which have been shown on 800002. How far though the DfT while allow both GWR and VTEC to change from the interior they have specified will have to be seen.

 

[The Ham]

One final thought on the 3 times the cost of the existing fleet, that is based on an inflation rate as defined by the DfT of 3.5%, however the DfT are not the ones specifying the lease costs. This means that this figure could be higher than that which a company may be willing to work with.

Also that is based on the UK's rate of inflation. If the 80x's were to built and mainly financed by companies based elsewhere the acceptable inflation rate could be much lower or even, if it were a Japanese company, be negative (deflation). As such it would be interesting to see how the calculation worked out with a 1% rate. As it is likely to have a significantly different answer.

As such unless the DfT specified the inflation rate the calculation is flawed and is only a possible outcome (which may or may not be very accurate).

 

[sprinterguy]

As for the interiors, it has to remembered that the interior currently in 800002 is the one which the DfT has specified. However both VTEC and GWR are being allowed to specify the interiors for their 80Xs, so may not be exactly the same as those which have been shown on 800002. How far though the DfT while allow both GWR and VTEC to change from the interior they have specified will have to be seen.

I may yet be proved wrong, but I can't see the interior design of the production sets varying greatly from that displayed by the pre-production trains. Granted that the first two pre-production Virgin Pendolino sets were thoroughly refitted IIRC to match the rest of the build before entering passenger service and hence Hitachi could do the same, but presumably Hitachi have already selected suppliers and specifications for materials from those suppliers, so I can't see these changing much for the sake of three pre-production trains compared to the production build.

I see that trends in design are continuing to move in quarter-century circles and we are back to witnessing swathes of "executive" greys as exemplified by the East Coast mark 4 stock as delivered. I thought this looked quite slick when they were new, but, and it may have been down to the materials used, began to look very drab and tatty long before the trains witnessed their next refurbishment.

Considering interior-wise the IEP is basically a 377/6, I'm not surprised.

I really can't see the resemblance.

 

[AM9]

This is true up to a point. Factors such as bay dimensions affect how well a seating layout will work, and the cost of the vehicles fixes a break-even point which determines how many seats have to be fitted in to make them earn their bread and butter.

A technically unsophisticated vehicle will cost a lot less. That is why third class passengers in British trains of the 1930s could enjoy so much more space than they can in today's trains. All they had was a braking system, steam heating and a low voltage lighting system powered by a dynamo with lead-acid battery backup.

... and were made of matchwood with no crash protection for passengers, and were only safe (collisions excepted) up to far lower speeds, etc..

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No. That's what happens in discussion threads. The stock will be used on a route also used by XR, with all that implies.

Yes, fully agree, discussions are contributed to by members with tendencies rangeing from gadfly brains to anal retentives. Posts from either end of the scale (and all shades of 'compliance' with OT rules between) are equally valid provided they are in context. Crossrail will have a major impact on passenger flows and consequently, class 800 usage so it cannot be ignored.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... such as passengers' preferences for bay versus airline seating.

... or alternatively their preference for airline seating.

 

[ainsworth74]

I may yet be proved wrong, but I can't see the interior design of the production sets varying greatly from that displayed by the pre-production trains. Granted that the first two pre-production Virgin Pendolino sets were thoroughly refitted IIRC to match the rest of the build before entering passenger service and hence Hitachi could do the same, but presumably Hitachi have already selected suppliers and specifications for materials from those suppliers, so I can't see these changing much for the sake of three pre-production trains compared to the production build.

Well we know that the VTEC sets are going to be getting full buffets so that's at least one major change already to the interior.

 

[Goldfish62]

Ian Walmsley works (or at least worked) for Porterbrook.

He's retired from Porterbrook as is well known and has also criticised his old employer in his column, but don't let that get in the way of your judgement of his opinions.

 

[sprinterguy]

Well we know that the VTEC sets are going to be getting full buffets so that's at least one major change already to the interior.

There is that, but I expect common features such as seating, flooring and interior panels to remain largely the same.

 

[ainsworth74]

He's retired from Porterbrook as is well known and has also criticised his old employer in his column, but don't let that get in the way of your judgement of his opinions.

Err someone asked a question and I answered it. I'm not sure how that counts as a 'judgement of his opinions'?

There is that, but I expect common features such as seating, flooring and interior panels to remain largely the same.

Guess we'll have to wait and see!

 

[sprinterguy]

Guess we'll have to wait and see!

Indeed, as I say I may yet be proved wrong; after all Virgin do have form with quite tightly specifying train interiors to their own preference, based on the similarities in design and appearance between the Pendolino and Voyager fleets built by two completely different manufacturers.

 

[jimm]

There is that, but I expect common features such as seating, flooring and interior panels to remain largely the same.

Why? It's perfectly easy to put a different colouring in the plastics used for the panelling and seat shells and different dyes in the fabric for the seats and carpets. The first East Coast set won't be going down a production line until some point in 2018, so with Japanese just-in-time manufacturing principles for deliveries of components there might still be time...

 

[Emblematic]

Your forgetting the maintenance, fuel, depot costs and some staff costs which the contracts also include, not just leasing costs. The only thing that aren't included in the contracts are the driver and other train staff. According to ORR the total FGW pays in train operating costs in 2012 was £500m of which train staff was 30%, rolling stock costs was 27% and other operational costs was 43%. The other operational costs are mostly included in these contracts barring platform access fees, Police, debt interest and marketing costs.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-benchmarking-report-2012.pdf

Actually that's incorrect, fuel, depot rental and business rates are reimbursable costs in the IEP contract, so those will still form part of the operator's costs on top of the train supply contract.

Correction - depot rental is only reimbursed on the ECML contract, not the GW.

 

[sprinterguy]

Why? It's perfectly easy to put a different colouring in the plastics used for the panelling and seat shells and different dyes in the fabric for the seats and carpets. The first East Coast set won't be going down a production line until some point in 2018, so with Japanese just-in-time manufacturing principles for deliveries of components there might still be time...

The first bi-mode 9-car set destined for the East Coast (800101) has in fact been in the UK since August as the second of the pre-production trains (The two 5-car pre-production sets, 800001/002, are both destined for the GWML). However I don't know if we've seen any pictures of the interior of this set, or whether it is likely that it will be entirely changed before the train enters passenger service.

 

[33Hz]

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2015/12/22/hitachi-to-build-new-great-western-trains-in-italy/


Mark Hopwood, managing director of Great Western Railway, said: “The AT300 trains are a key cornerstone of our strategy to deliver the biggest upgrade in a generation across the Great Western network, bringing more seats, and faster, more frequent services for our customers between London and the south west.

“Hitachi Rail Italy has a fantastic pedigree in building and delivering world class high-speed trains on time and on budget, and we are delighted to be working with them on this project.”

FYRA...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2015/12/22/hitachi-to-build-new-great-western-trains-in-italy/

AT300/802 was never intended for construction at Newton Aycliffe, it was planned to assemble at Kasado, Japan.

 

[33Hz]

My comment was more that isn't this the division which, under it's previous name made an absolute cluster bomb of the Dutch FYRA and Danish IC4 orders and FGW thinks they have a fantastic pedigree?!?

 

[455driver]

My comment was more that isn't this the division which, under it's previous name made an absolute cluster bomb of the Dutch FYRA and Danish IC4 orders and FGW thinks they have a fantastic pedigree?!?

Its just the usual fluffy cr4p they have to use in all press releases!

 

[class26]

My comment was more that isn't this the division which, under it's previous name made an absolute cluster bomb of the Dutch FYRA and Danish IC4 orders and FGW thinks they have a fantastic pedigree?!?

But that was before Hitachi took the place over

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's now obvious that Newton Aycliffe is competing directly with Pistoia for Hitachi's European train orders.
It may well provide earlier delivery dates for the AT300s (maybe the anticipated TPE units will go the same way).
But it takes away Newton Aycliffe's USP.
Being privately financed, the government's scoring system for train manufacture (if it was ever actually used) does not apply.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ern-at300-trainsets-to-be-built-in-italy.html

Edit: Presumably all the body shells (and much else) will still be fabricated in Japan?

 

[47802]

It's now obvious that Newton Aycliffe is competing directly with Pistoia for Hitachi's European train orders.
It may well provide earlier delivery dates for the AT300s (maybe the anticipated TPE units will go the same way).
But it takes away Newton Aycliffe's USP.
Being privately financed, the government's scoring system for train manufacture (if it was ever actually used) does not apply.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ern-at300-trainsets-to-be-built-in-italy.html

Edit: Presumably all the body shells (and much else) will still be fabricated in Japan?

As has already been said the AT300's were never down to be assembled in the UK, and probably the UK plant will be unable to build them in the required timescale I suspect this will include the TPE units as well.

Unfortunately looks like increased demand and the 2020 compliance is going to cause feast and then famine for the manufacturers.

 

[coppercapped]

One final thought on the 3 times the cost of the existing fleet, that is based on an inflation rate as defined by the DfT of 3.5%, however the DfT are not the ones specifying the lease costs. This means that this figure could be higher than that which a company may be willing to work with.

Also that is based on the UK's rate of inflation. If the 80x's were to built and mainly financed by companies based elsewhere the acceptable inflation rate could be much lower or even, if it were a Japanese company, be negative (deflation). As such it would be interesting to see how the calculation worked out with a 1% rate. As it is likely to have a significantly different answer.

As such unless the DfT specified the inflation rate the calculation is flawed and is only a possible outcome (which may or may not be very accurate).

Once again, the 3.5% is NOT an inflation rate and it's NOT set by the DfT.

It is the value of the Test Discount Rate and it is set by the Treasury for use in Government-sponsored procurements. It is NOT an inflation rate.

One of the reasons why the Train Service Provision payments - they are NOT leasing payments - are so high and why the procurement went on for so long was that when Hitachi was trying to raise the finance to fund the development, manufacturing and test phases there was turmoil in the finance markets. As a result the interest rates that they are having to pay are almost certainly higher than would be the case now. I suspect that as soon as Hitachi starts having a positive cash flow from the trains when they enter service they may well try to re-negotiate their finance package to take advantage of the current lower interest rates. It could then be that the Train Service Provision payments per diagram are reduced.

Leasing gets you hardware. The DfT has contracted to purchase a certain number of DIAGRAMS each day and the payments are for the diagrams. How many trains Hitachi builds to fulfil the diagrams is up to Hitachi.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Unfortunately looks like increased demand and the 2020 compliance is going to cause feast and then famine for the manufacturers.

The Rail Delivery Group report from earlier this year expects 13,000 to 19,000 new electric vehicles to be procured between 2015 and 2044 (which ties in with our 2043 planning date for electrification) and something in the region of 3,500 self powered vehicles, mainly for replacement of life expired stock on rural lines.

That's exclusive of any additional tram-train vehicles that might be added to the network.

 

[47802]

The Rail Delivery Group report from earlier this year expects 13,000 to 19,000 new electric vehicles to be procured between 2015 and 2044 (which ties in with our 2043 planning date for electrification) and something in the region of 3,500 self powered vehicles, mainly for replacement of life expired stock on rural lines.

That's exclusive of any additional tram-train vehicles that might be added to the network.

I think that remains to be seen perhaps in the longer term yes but with so many franchises recently renewed and more due soon and the need to get compliant stock in place by 2020, along with the major rolling stock renewal of HST's, Thameslink, and the new Crossrail line, I think a significant downturn post 2020 is likely

 

[RAGNARØKR]

... and were made of matchwood with no crash protection for passengers, and were only safe (collisions excepted) up to far lower speeds, etc...

Modern methods of construction in themselves (robots, CADCAM) should add little to the cost of the basic structure as compared to that in use until the 1960s. Crashworthiness is a matter of getting the metal in the right place ie using monocoque construction and testing the design using FEA, instead of in the wrong place with a lightweight body on a heavy underframe.

Design for speed naturally has a cost, because speed implies components specified to different standards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that was before Hitachi took the place over

Yes, Hitachi purchased Ansaldo who built a lot of lemons - the Danish IC4 trains and the trams for Oslo and Gothenburg have been endlessly troublesome. Hitachi will have a lot of work to do to sort out the quality control problems.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.


... or alternatively their preference for airline seating.

There are statistics on this. There was a Swedish study published in English but I can't find it on line any more. It found that roughly 1/3 prefer table bays, 1/3 prefer airlines and 1/3 have no preference.

As was mentioned earlier in this very long thread, preferences also depend on the circumstances of people's journeys. Airline seating enables more to be fitted in without reducing legroom. Bay seating can provide space for luggage between seat backs. It could also be made lighter as pairs of back to back seats could in theory be (but in practice are not) designed to form a stable structure. Airline seats have to be made structurally stable and crashworthy as individual free-standing units.

 

[jayah]

He's retired from Porterbrook as is well known and has also criticised his old employer in his column, but don't let that get in the way of your judgement of his opinions.

It makes a refreshing change from puff pieces, verbatim regurgitation of unfathomable DfT press releases and photos of this months GWR Pullman dinner. I wonder if they ever have to pay for these?

 

[The Ham]

There are statistics on this. There was a Swedish study published in English but I can't find it on line any more. It found that roughly 1/3 prefer table bays, 1/3 prefer airlines and 1/3 have no preference.

As was mentioned earlier in this very long thread, preferences also depend on the circumstances of people's journeys. Airline seating enables more to be fitted in without reducing legroom. Bay seating can provide space for luggage between seat backs. It could also be made lighter as pairs of back to back seats could in theory be (but in practice are not) designed to form a stable structure. Airline seats have to be made structurally stable and crashworthy as individual free-standing units.

Therefore a train with a mix of airline and tables is what is required, given a third have no preference and of those that have a preference for table seating there will be those that will more than tolerate airline seating it's not too unreasonable to provide over 60% airline seats.

Especially it it enables more seats to be provided making the chance of getting ANY seat higher. Given that 100% of people would prefer a seat to not having a seat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once again, the 3.5% is NOT an inflation rate and it's NOT set by the DfT.

It is the value of the Test Discount Rate and it is set by the Treasury for use in Government-sponsored procurements. It is NOT an inflation rate.

OK, but it is still a rate set by the UK government. Which means that if it is set within the contract then other organisations can (if it is useful in allowing them to win work) off set this increase against other costs to keep their prices down. If it is not set in the contract then there is nothing stopping others setting it lower.

It may not be inflation but it exists because of inflation, therefore in a country where inflation doesn't exist (such as Japan) the rate of return needn't be as high as somewhere where inflation (such as the UK) does exist.

Interest rates (and the availability of credit) would have been an issue for however the trains were tendered for, because it was government backed I would suggest that the rate of interest would likely have been better than if a TOC with a 7 year franchise had ordered them.

 

[jimm]

The first bi-mode 9-car set destined for the East Coast (800101) has in fact been in the UK since August as the second of the pre-production trains (The two 5-car pre-production sets, 800001/002, are both destined for the GWML). However I don't know if we've seen any pictures of the interior of this set, or whether it is likely that it will be entirely changed before the train enters passenger service.

Oh dear, silly me for not specifying the first train of the main series production run at Newton Aycliffe for the East Coast.

As far as I'm aware, none of the pre-series trains has a complete interior right now, in order that they can carry test kit, and given the fact that the pre-series trains will all need to be overhauled and fully kitted out before entering passenger service it seems unlikely Virgin will want one set running around that differs from the rest if they do indeed get much more say on the interior than DafT was willing to give GWR on the initial batch.

My comment was more that isn't this the division which, under it's previous name made an absolute cluster bomb of the Dutch FYRA and Danish IC4 orders and FGW thinks they have a fantastic pedigree?!?

As noted above, it's PR nonsense. But Hitachi acquired Ansaldo Breda in full knowledge of all the rubbish that they have built over the years - and you can bet your life quality control will be top of the list of priorities for action. Hitachi only paid Finmeccanica 30 million Euros for AnsaldoBreda's assets, which says a lot. The real money was spent on the simultaneous acquisition from Finmeccanica of its stake in the Ansaldo STS signalling business.

Steps had already been taken in the right direction before Hitachi took over, with the new Frecciarossa 1000 high speed trains for FS in Italy apparently performing well - perhaps because AnsaldoBreda has an incentive to ensure this as it also holds the maintenance contract and knows if they are rubbish there is a ready-made replacement in the wings in the shape of Alstom's AGV, used by the open access Italian intercity operator NTV.

It's now obvious that Newton Aycliffe is competing directly with Pistoia for Hitachi's European train orders.
It may well provide earlier delivery dates for the AT300s (maybe the anticipated TPE units will go the same way).
But it takes away Newton Aycliffe's USP.
Being privately financed, the government's scoring system for train manufacture (if it was ever actually used) does not apply.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ern-at300-trainsets-to-be-built-in-italy.html

Edit: Presumably all the body shells (and much else) will still be fabricated in Japan?

Given that Newton Aycliffe is basically full up with work on IEP and AT200 until the end of 2018, with a lot of the East Coast IEP work running on until 2020, they are not competing for anything right now.

Pistola is busy with Frecciarossa 1000 and coaches for FS until early 2017 but Hitachi presumably wants to keep work flowing there after that date, so switching the AT300s from Kasado suits them, especially if there are orders in the wind for more bi-modes to go to TPE, all due in service by 2019, requiring a lot more production capacity quickly. The TPE sets are all meant to be in service by 2019 and Newton Aycliffe is busy, so couldn't build many if any to meet that deadline given its existing commitments.

Given the uncertainty over Britain's future relationship with the European Union, it's perhaps not surprising that Hitachi don't want to put all their eggs in one basket in the shape of Newton Aycliffe, given that their declared strategy has always been to enter the wider European market. Buying AnsaldoBreda secured access to that market, whatever happens here.