GWR Class 800

[coppercapped]

+1.

But Hitachi do have 70% in both Agility East and Agility West, so there's a natural conflict between their desire to ensure they pick up new rolling stock orders, make the most money they can out of their Agility Trains shareholding and stop train orders going to other builders.

They'll have to walk a very fine line between Agility Trains pricing themselves out of the market for additional diagrams, Hitachi pricing themselves into the market for additional rolling stock and making sure they beat other bidders for the contract for new rolling stock.

In some ways, they've got FGW and DfT over a barrel, in other ways, FGW and ROSCOs can really brutally screw every last penny out of Hitachi by threatening to buy from Siemens or Alstom or someone else AND to use the minimum service obligation, not buying any additional diagrams in from Agility Trains.

I did say I should start selling adding machines - the bills and number crunching over the next 27.5 years will be monumental.

Quite! And did I mention that I have a good line in adding machines? It's not necessary to buy one, you pay on the basis of the number of keystrokes you make...

...you know it makes sense!

This discussion highlights the real problem of PFI/PPP deals - which has of course been previously identified by others cleverer than me. They are so inflexible that any change outside the originally agreed terms gets eye-wateringly complex to agree it's probably easier to look for a completely new solution.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Quite! And did I mention that I have a good line in adding machines? It's not necessary to buy one, you pay on the basis of the number of keystrokes you make...

...you know it makes sense!

This discussion highlights the real problem of PFI/PPP deals - which has of course been previously identified by others cleverer than me. They are so inflexible that any change outside the originally agreed terms gets eye-wateringly complex to agree it's probably easier to look for a completely new solution.

There is the option available to move IEP stock into a special purpose finance vehicle, as Hitachi has done with the AT200 order for ScotRail, then wind-up Agility Train and become a conventional rolling stock leasor.

I'd imagine they would offset all the remaining costs against tax or something clever to offset the development costs, making the IEP sets the same cost to lease as the AT300 sets.

We are fortunate though that whilst this is a PFI/PPP contract, the rolling stock itself is being made available to purchase by others, such as Eversholt, and not being kept to just Agility Trains, which could have happened.

 

[coppercapped]

There is the option available to move IEP stock into a special purpose finance vehicle, as Hitachi has done with the AT200 order for ScotRail, then wind-up Agility Train and become a conventional rolling stock leasor.

I'd imagine they would offset all the remaining costs against tax or something clever to offset the development costs, making the IEP sets the same cost to lease as the AT300 sets.

Ah! I must admit that this sort of solution had crossed my mind because as a result of a letter I wrote to my MP, in which I bitched about the high cost to the TOC of running these trains and saying that either the passenger will pay higher fares or the Government will not get such a good deal from the next franchise, I received an answer from Claire Perry. In this she, i.e., the DfT, claimed that the passenger will not be paying higher fares and also implied that the DfT will not lose out. I interpreted this as being some form of financial engineering - and I daresay it will be announced at some suitable time. Possibly when the trains enter passenger service or some other auspicious occasion.

We are fortunate though that whilst this is a PFI/PPP contract, the rolling stock itself is being made available to purchase by others, such as Eversholt, and not being kept to just Agility Trains, which could have happened.

Absolutely!

 

[Class 170101]

Ah! I must admit that this sort of solution had crossed my mind because as a result of a letter I wrote to my MP, in which I bitched about the high cost to the TOC of running these trains and saying that either the passenger will pay higher fares or the Government will not get such a good deal from the next franchise, I received an answer from Claire Perry. In this she, i.e., the DfT, claimed that the passenger will not be paying higher fares and also implied that the DfT will not lose out. I interpreted this as being some form of financial engineering - and I daresay it will be announced at some suitable time. Possibly when the trains enter passenger service or some other auspicious occasion.!

I don't consider civil servants and politicans to be that clever. More likely Claire Perry is being economical with the truth.

 

[Dave1987]

Ah! I must admit that this sort of solution had crossed my mind because as a result of a letter I wrote to my MP, in which I bitched about the high cost to the TOC of running these trains and saying that either the passenger will pay higher fares or the Government will not get such a good deal from the next franchise, I received an answer from Claire Perry. In this she, i.e., the DfT, claimed that the passenger will not be paying higher fares and also implied that the DfT will not lose out. I interpreted this as being some form of financial engineering - and I daresay it will be announced at some suitable time. Possibly when the trains enter passenger service or some other auspicious occasion.

Of course she won't admit her department well and truly cocked up the order for IEP. She's a politician at the end of the day and they have no humility to admit when they have got it wrong. They were so keen to announce the fact that the Newton Aycliffe plant would be opened with all those jobs created. I'm sure they will spin their way out of it. Look at how many requests Roger Ford has made for facts and figures on both the IEP and Thameslink deals and every time he has been fed some spin about how they "don't recognise his figures". If passengers are not going to face increased fares and the GW franchise is not going to end up needing subsidies then they will have to make sure every train is full throughout the day.

 

[jimm]

If passengers are not going to face increased fares and the GW franchise is not going to end up needing subsidies then they will have to make sure every train is full throughout the day.

And I thought you were the person who keeps telling us that every train operated by 800/801 stock will be bulging at the seams with passengers whatever time it is, all day, every day.

In which case they won't have to worry at all about the trains being full...

 

[Dave1987]

And I thought you were the person who keeps telling us that every train operated by 800/801 stock will be bulging at the seams with passengers whatever time it is, all day, every day.

In which case they won't have to worry at all about the trains being full...

Well actually it supports my argument that they will run with 5 cars when ever they can get away with it no matter how rammed they are. They will need every seat filled so have no doubt you will see people standing on 5 car SET's

 

[Clarence Yard]

With respect Dave, that's absolute rubbish. The IEP contract includes an assumed mileage element so you are paying a hefty sum for the things whether they are in service or not.

So what GW will do (and have already planned) is to keep them running all day and use them as much as possible, given the maintenance limits in the TARA.

When it comes to "not enough units", there is the very short term fix in the contract where an extra unit can be provided on a day, at the predetermined (by Agility/DfT) rate.

Longer term, as GW have already shown, you order some more AT300 to cope with growth on GWML and double up your five car IEP sets where you need to.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm astonished as to how many people believe this is a good deal and good value for money. I'm not surprised the politicians chose this deal with all the announcements they could make, especially again as they are not paying. When they are introduced I think I will make a point of making a few trips to see family to see if all the claims on here stand up. That will no doubt be off peak. Wonder if I or others will have to stand..... We shall see won't we!

 

[The Ham]

I'm astonished as to how many people believe this is a good deal and good value for money. I'm not surprised the politicians chose this deal with all the announcements they could make, especially again as they are not paying. When they are introduced I think I will make a point of making a few trips to see family to see if all the claims on here stand up. That will no doubt be off peak. Wonder if I or others will have to stand..... We shall see won't we!

As I see it there are two views on this forum with regards to the cost of the IEP contract:

- IEP will cost so much money that the likes of First will make a loss on all its rail businesses because of it

OR

- although IEP isn't as cheap as the AT300 contract (and is more expensive than leasing 40 year old trains which have less capacity than the new trains and which will need work to be done to make them usable post 2019) it's not as disastrous as some may suggest and are pointing this out.

That second one is a whole lot different a view than the IEP contract is cheap/good value for money. However, as most people who fall into the first camp often suggest alternatives which wouldn't meet the capacity demands without being longer (so any future capacity works will cost more/need to happen sooner), which is why those in the second camp point out that the cost per seat can have a lower proportional cost than the cost per coach (i.e. 88 seats in a coach costing £2 million is broadly the same cost per seat as 76 seats in a coach costing £1.7 million).

Finally the IEP contract also pays for the works to allow the 26m trains to run on the network, some of which (such as electrical supply improvements to the ECML) would have been needed even if 23m stock had been proposed.

 

[coppercapped]

As I see it there are two views on this forum with regards to the cost of the IEP contract:

- IEP will cost so much money that the likes of First will make a loss on all its rail businesses because of it

OR

- although IEP isn't as cheap as the AT300 contract (and is more expensive than leasing 40 year old trains which have less capacity than the new trains and which will need work to be done to make them usable post 2019) it's not as disastrous as some may suggest and are pointing this out.

That second one is a whole lot different a view than the IEP contract is cheap/good value for money. However, as most people who fall into the first camp often suggest alternatives which wouldn't meet the capacity demands without being longer (so any future capacity works will cost more/need to happen sooner), which is why those in the second camp point out that the cost per seat can have a lower proportional cost than the cost per coach (i.e. 88 seats in a coach costing £2 million is broadly the same cost per seat as 76 seats in a coach costing £1.7 million).

Finally the IEP contract also pays for the works to allow the 26m trains to run on the network, some of which (such as electrical supply improvements to the ECML) would have been needed even if 23m stock had been proposed.

My take is slightly different! If one assumes that a PFI/PPP-type contract was the way to go (which I dispute) the major mistake that the DfT made was to combine two contracts (a) to design, develop, manufacture and operate the trains for 27.5 years including the design, build and operation of the maintenance depots and (b) raise the finance to pay for (a). This means that nobody knows whether the deal Agility Trains made to raise the money was the best deal possible at the time for all time. It is also uncertain whether the train design and pricing was the best obtainable as the DfT didn't get other quotes after the design had been changed from head-end power to distributed power.

One hopes at least that there is a clause in the contract which allows for a re-financing deal at some stage as things will certainly change at some point in the next 27.5 years. Agility Trains could get a cold and back out (after paying some penalties) or the DfT could find that the Train Service Provision payments are well out of kilter with leasing costs of similar trains.

As, under current conditions, it looks as if the Train Service Provision payments for a given number of seat-miles will be higher than for those obtained under the conventional deal with the ROSCO, it would seem certain that no more coaches or trains will be purchased under the IEP contract. Any further trains will be purchased by a ROSCO, especially as the DfT seems more likely to want to stay out of train procurement after the critical National Audit Office report on the IEP and Thameslink programmes.

The GW and East coast franchisees will not lose money in operating the trains procured via the IEP. The franchise terms will allow for the higher outgoings and the effect will be that the premiums paid by the franchisee will be lower than they could be.

I am sure that Hitachi have built a train which will meet the requirements of the specification written by the DfT. Whether the DfT, being at least a couple of layers removed from the fare-paying customers, have specified a train that these customers, and indeed the TOCs, would have chosen is moot.

As to your final point. My understanding is that the IEP contract did not cover the cost of way and works (apart from the maintenance depots) but these were included in the CP5 settlement between the DfT and Network Rail.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In a nutshell (agreeing with the above post). The government need to butt out of interfering with the PRIVATISED railway. I was not comfortable with railway privatisation but consoled myself with the fact that at least the railways would then be left alone to run themselves commercially with out interference.

One thing that grinds me down is that the government were blowing trumpets over IEP generating jobs in the North East. But we then order so many more of these trains (and variants thereof) plus we want them so soon that they will have to be made outside Britain !. To add insult - not one of these trains has yet completed testing so we really do not know what we are letting ourselves in for !. Fools rush in.....

History lesson.
What happened to so many of the modernisation plan diesels ?.
Answer quite a few designs were ordered in large quantities, were not very successful and ended up withdrawn early in their lives.

Granted that if these IEP trains turn out to work very well then they could be very useful. But we do not know yet.

There was me thinking I was a positive kind of person.

 

[The Ham]

In a nutshell (agreeing with the above post). The government need to butt out of interfering with the PRIVATISED railway. I was not comfortable with railway privatisation but consoled myself with the fact that at least the railways would then be left alone to run themselves commercially with out interference.

One thing that grinds me down is that the government were blowing trumpets over IEP generating jobs in the North East. But we then order so many more of these trains (and variants thereof) plus we want them so soon that they will have to be made outside Britain !. To add insult - not one of these trains has yet completed testing so we really do not know what we are letting ourselves in for !. Fools rush in.....

History lesson.
What happened to so many of the modernisation plan diesels ?.
Answer quite a few designs were ordered in large quantities, were not very successful and ended up withdrawn early in their lives.

Granted that if these IEP trains turn out to work very well then they could be very useful. But we do not know yet.

There was me thinking I was a positive kind of person.

The 80x's are basically a variant of the 395's so aren't a total unknown and given that the contract is not for a number of units then if there are reliability issues then it is at no risk to the DfT or the TOC.

As to how suitable the units will be overall, I would suggest that as they can be reconfigured in more ways than most modern trains that should be less of an issue.

Also given the AT300 order by First I would suggest that they are happy with them as a unit.

Finally given that the specification was basically "we want something better than Voyagers" then I think that passengers on the whole won't have too much of a problem with them (other than some will hate the seats, but then others will love them).

 

[coppercapped]

Also given the AT300 order by First I would suggest that they are happy with them as a unit.

An order for the AT300s may not show that First is 'happy' (for some value of 'happy') with the trains, but the complications of operating two different types of train may carry more weight in their choice.

 

[Dave1987]

An order for the AT300s may not show that First is 'happy' (for some value of 'happy') with the trains, but the complications of operating two different types of train may carry more weight in their choice.

Indeed. Given the 800/801 fleets were imposed on the franchise, then I'm sure the fact the AT300's are very similar was a key point in the decision making process. Kinda like 'we are stuck with the SETs, Hitachi are offering the AT300's at a reasonable cost and they would be operationally easier to manage along side the SETs'. If the DFT hadn't butted in and made the decision it would have been very very curious to have seen what the TOC's decision would have been. My bet would be that it would not have been the deal the DFT agreed!

 

[The Ham]

Indeed. Given the 800/801 fleets were imposed on the franchise, then I'm sure the fact the AT300's are very similar was a key point in the decision making process. Kinda like 'we are stuck with the SETs, Hitachi are offering the AT300's at a reasonable cost and they would be operationally easier to manage along side the SETs'. If the DFT hadn't butted in and made the decision it would have been very very curious to have seen what the TOC's decision would have been. My bet would be that it would not have been the deal the DFT agreed!

There was talk that GW would have kept the HST's (with a refurbishment) for the services which the AT300's are now going to run (i.e. kick the can down the road and deal with it as part of a later franchise). As such although the uniform fleet argument played a part, I don't think that if the thought that the AT300's were likely to be "unsuccessful" (bearing in mind what I was responding to) that they would likely have ordered more of them.

History lesson.
What happened to so many of the modernisation plan diesels ?.
Answer quite a few designs were ordered in large quantities, were not very successful and ended up withdrawn early in their lives.

Yes there is a risk that any new train doesn't turn out as well as it could have (Voyagers are a modern example), however reliability issues aren't a TOC issue (in that they are guaranteed to have enough stock under the IEP contract), lack of capacity shouldn't be a problem (there are enough of them to replace every existing HST and class 180 and they have more seats per train than those they are replacing), increasing frequency of services shouldn't be a problem (they will have reduced journey times and can run shortened sets at the edges of the network where passenger demand allows to run more services elsewhere). I think that covers most of the key items which would make them unsuccessful, unless you can think of others.

There's always going to be "issues", such as seat comfort, which are very much personal preference but do not make a unit successful or not rather just make them liked by some and not by others.

Your bet that the TOC's wouldn't have had the deal that the DfT made is clearly the case and I would wager the same, but that has little to do with whether the 80x's/AT300's will be a good/bad unit.

If it were a TOC supply I would have expected something like the 390's or 22x's (although maybe without the tilt profile but with bi-modal capability), probably in similar numbers and lengths (although maybe 11 and 6 to provide some extra capacity over the HST's) to what we are getting through the IEP contract. Although GW would probably end up with one type and EC another, thus limiting them to staying where they were ordered for (there would then be a good chance that XC would find a third type to further complicate things).

 

[class26]

There was talk that GW would have kept the HST's (with a refurbishment) for the services which the AT300's are now going to run (i.e. kick the can down the road and deal with it as part of a later franchise). As such although the uniform fleet argument played a part, I don't think that if the thought that the AT300's were likely to be "unsuccessful" (bearing in mind what I was responding to) that they would likely have ordered more of them.

First also wanted AT 300's because they will accelerate a lot faster than the HST's and clear the congested section between Paddington and Reading faster

 

[jimm]

In a nutshell (agreeing with the above post). The government need to butt out of interfering with the PRIVATISED railway. I was not comfortable with railway privatisation but consoled myself with the fact that at least the railways would then be left alone to run themselves commercially with out interference.

Privatised? You are joking aren't you? Who 'owns' Network Rail? And with all the taxpayers' money that still goes into the system one way or another, the politicians are not going to butt out, as you so charmingly put it.

One thing that grinds me down is that the government were blowing trumpets over IEP generating jobs in the North East. But we then order so many more of these trains (and variants thereof) plus we want them so soon that they will have to be made outside Britain !. To add insult - not one of these trains has yet completed testing so we really do not know what we are letting ourselves in for !. Fools rush in.....

History lesson.
What happened to so many of the modernisation plan diesels ?.
Answer quite a few designs were ordered in large quantities, were not very successful and ended up withdrawn early in their lives.

Granted that if these IEP trains turn out to work very well then they could be very useful. But we do not know yet.

There was me thinking I was a positive kind of person.

If Hitachi had not secured the AT200 order for Scotrail, then they might well have been able to build more AT300s at Newton Aycliffe but if it comes down to getting new trains sooner, I'd rather have that thanks - never mind that lots of the components, wherever the individual trains are assembled, will be made in the UK, so will secure jobs and boost turnover at all the suppliers.

After a testing programme that started last summer, two years before a set turns a wheel in passenger service, Hitachi might just spot and solve any potential problems.

The 395s are a decent piece of kit, their trains operating in Japan and elsewhere also seem to work pretty well, so it would be odd if these trains turn out to be a load of junk - a description that might well be applied to certain modernisation plan diesels, which certainly didn't see pre-series versions go through two years of testing. Diesels that were often built by companies on their last legs, like NBL, or which should probably have stuck to mining locos in the case of Clayton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In a nutshell (agreeing with the above post). The government need to butt out of interfering with the PRIVATISED railway.

With subsidy they are purchasing that influence. It isn't a true free market and never would be unless it was cut to the point (Serpell-style) that no subsidy was required.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 395s are a decent piece of kit, their trains operating in Japan and elsewhere also seem to work pretty well, so it would be odd if these trains turn out to be a load of junk

I think the design is solid, but the idea of giving AnsaldoBreda a contract to build anything doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[class26]

With subsidy they are purchasing that influence. It isn't a true free market and never would be unless it was cut to the point (Serpell-style) that no subsidy was required.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think the design is solid, but the idea of giving AnsaldoBreda a contract to build anything doesn't inspire confidence.

But it isn`t Ansaldo anymore but Hitachi

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it isn't Ansaldo anymore but Hitachi

The outcome of that depends on their ability to fix what is an utterly rotten business.

 

[class26]

The outcome of that depends on their ability to fix what is an utterly rotten business.

Of course but any company making a take over certainly doesn`t allow things to carry on as before. Quality control would be high on the list of areas to look at I guess and Hitachi hopefully are fully aware of what they have bought into. They are trying to have a big push into Europe and to fall at this fence would not help their cause one bit.

 

[The Ham]

Of course but any company making a take over certainly doesn`t allow things to carry on as before. Quality control would be high on the list of areas to look at I guess and Hitachi hopefully are fully aware of what they have bought into. They are trying to have a big push into Europe and to fall at this fence would not help their cause one bit.

Quite, Hitachi are going to be keen that any of the trains that form the first few orders are if high quality otherwise they may find themselves leaving Europe not long after they entered it.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Quite, Hitachi are going to be keen that any of the trains that form the first few orders are if high quality otherwise they may find themselves leaving Europe not long after they entered it.

GWR and Eversholt are reported to have visited the factory before OKing the transfer of production from Japan to Italy (delivery may be a little quicker as a result of not having to ship by sea the entire fleet).

The manufacture is rarely the problem with any unreliable fleet, it tends to be design deficiencies - poor cable routing, poor exhaust routing, inadequate ventilation of motors, water ingress to door mechanisms, that sort of thing. AnsaldoBreda (as was, now Hitachi Rail Italy) won't be doing any design work on the fleet.

It'll be fine, perhaps teething problems aside. I don't think anybody genuinely expects AT300s to be as unreliable as Alstom's DMUs when delivered.

 

[snowball]

The manufacture is rarely the problem with any unreliable fleet, it tends to be design deficiencies - poor cable routing

It was said of either Manchester's or Birmingham's Ansaldo trams that no two of them had identical cabling.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It was said of either Manchester's or Birmingham's Ansaldo trams that no two of them had identical cabling.

Yes, it was an issue with BREL too. It was, I think, an issue with updated drawings changing the colour codings, depending on which drawing was being worked on, the same wires would have different colours.

There's something very badly wrong if workers are pleasing themselves on what colour of wire to use for a given circuit, and it's especially bad if that's not then being picked up by QC.

 

[455driver]

But it isn`t Ansaldo anymore but Hitachi

So changing the sign on the front wall will fix all the problems will it, just like when British Leyland became Rover! :roll:

 

[class26]

So changing the sign on the front wall will fix all the problems will it, just like when British Leyland became Rover! :roll:

That was totally different, just a change of name. Hitachi have lots to loose if they make a mess of this. I guess the quality control people will be all over and also, as previous posts have mentioned , the design is nothing to do with the Italians. Utterly different

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How's the testing of the 800s going?

 

[class26]

So changing the sign on the front wall will fix all the problems will it, just like when British Leyland became Rover! :roll:

Try reading the previous post. The big problem is with the design which will still be 100% Hitachi and 0% Italian, couple that with Hitachi quality control people instead of Italians. BL / Rover was simply a change of name , nothing more , same design , same everything. Not comperable