Hammond statement on IEP

[A60K]

Just been watching questions on the Transport Investment Statement in the House of Commons. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has said that a new bid for IEP has been received from Agility Trains and that the financial, technical and legal issues raised need to be looked at and that he expects to make a further statement in the next few weeks.

I suspect the legal questions will be to do with how far detached the new bid is from the tender specification and whether it can legally be accepted without one of the other tenderers taking action.

 

[O L Leigh]

Just been watching questions on the Transport Investment Statement in the House of Commons.

Have you thought about taking up a hobby...?

O L Leigh

 

[A60K]

Have you thought about taking up a hobby...?

Ha ha! It was entirely by accident - flicking through the TV channels I saw that he was talking and thought there might be something interesting to be said!

 

[sprinterguy]

So nothing definitive on whether the project is or isn’t happening then, just the affirmation that it’s still on the table. Although if the project were to be dropped, there seems to have been an awful lot of hype beforehand!

I hope the project is descoped somewhat from the original specification. I can’t see why, if Great Western electrification isn’t going ahead, FGW can’t order a squadron fleet of nine carriage Meridians to replace the HSTs, instead of more than likely ending up with a diesel fleet of IEPs, and introducing yet another route and operator specific Intercity train that is entirely different to all that has gone before: Instead of fulfilling one of IEPs’ main targets of standardising train types, it’s creating even more variation and a lack of interoperability.

In an ideal world, both the Midland Mainline and GWML would be electrified, and then a large fleet of electric IEP trains in five and ten carriage configurations could be ordered for these, with a follow on order for the ECML: Midland Mainlines’ eight seven carriage Meridians could go to East Coast to replace the HSTs, hopefully with pantograph cars added to make them up to nine carriage trains and allow them to run on the juice as far as Edinburgh.

We already have perfectly adequate (I’m not saying Meridians are perfect, but they do the job) designs of train in use or available to order on the routes that IEPs in various formations are intended for use on (350s on London to Northampton, potentially Meridians on GWML and replacing East Coast HSTs), so if new trains are required to replace the existing stock, order more of these, instead of introducing yet another brand new and untested design of train.

 

[starrymarkb]

I don't think FGW are too keen on the high speed DEMUs, they got their fingers burnt with the 180's thirst and operating costs.

The 180s and 22x remind me of the early Regional Jets, Quite a few airlines (British European/Flybe were a prominent example) were burnt by the low capacity yet thirsty CRJ-200s, a full jet was failing to break even as the fuel cost rose.

 

[Zoe]

Do you really want to sit on a Voyager style underfloor engine DMU from Paddington to Penance?

 

[tbtc]

I don't think FGW are too keen on the high speed DEMUs, they got their fingers burnt with the 180's thirst and operating costs

Two differences are that:

1. 222s are a tried and tested design, with any initial problems ironed out by EMT/HT's experiences
2. 222s have never had the serious problems 180s had

Plus if FGW ordered these it'd give a chance for further orders for other TOCs (maybe EMT to order some long ones to replace their HSTs which could go to XC, maybe some more for other TOCs too)...

 

[starrymarkb]

Two differences are that:

1. 222s are a tried and tested design, with any initial problems ironed out by EMT/HT's experiences
2. 222s have never had the serious problems 180s had

Plus if FGW ordered these it'd give a chance for further orders for other TOCs (maybe EMT to order some long ones to replace their HSTs which could go to XC, maybe some more for other TOCs too)...

Would they be the same design though, I understand their engines are out of production. Plus how long as the 375/7 been in production, still doesn't stop them having issues!

Plus you are still going to have the high fuel consumption and high maintainence costs. Think how many cylinders, pistons, valves and injectors a 9 car meridian has...

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Two differences are that:

1. 222s are a tried and tested design, with any initial problems ironed out by EMT/HT's experiences
2. 222s have never had the serious problems 180s had

3. 180s aren't DEMUs (the clue's in the Class number)

 

[starrymarkb]

3. 180s aren't DEMUs (the clue's in the Class number)

:roll: You knew what I meant! Though don't get me started on the BNS Pedants!

 

[Kneedown]

The point that seems to be being overlooked here is that there will be no more 222's due to the fact that the engines are no longer in production due to excessive emissions i believe?

 

[Woody]

IEP needs the same foreward thinking as the HS2 project.ie forget bi-mode and electrify the GWML at least down to Exeter/Plymouth even if it is only via Bristol.

 

[Pumbaa]

The point that seems to be being overlooked here is that there will be no more 222's due to the fact that the engines are no longer in production due to excessive emissions i believe?

The engines can be simply replaced and worked into the design. Cummins already offer a 700hp of that engine, which would suffice.

 

[sprinterguy]

I’m sure if Bombardier received interest for a further build of 222s, they would find a way around the engine problem.

Whilst an HST is vastly superior on the Great Western and South West main lines, there will eventually come a point if GWML electrification gets dropped indefinitely where the HSTs are life expired and need replacement by a new design: As things stand currently, a development of the Meridian seems like one of the most likely contenders and one of the most sensible options. Building a fleet of diesel IEPs for GWML seems a bit silly, when they would have limited applications elsewhere, unless Crosscountry could be persuaded to order a fleet by the DfT, where the idea gains more merit.

Personally, I’ve got my fingers crossed for GWML, and additionally MML, electrification, where an electric fleet of IEPs does make sense: Even if the Great Western electrification is postponed, I advocate keeping the HSTs in service, suitably refurbished, until they drop to bits and then electrify the GWML either late in Period CP5 or early CP6, so 2017-2021.

 

[WillPS]

158s have different engines depending on the batch, as do 170s (I think?) - can't see why 222s couldn't.

I've long said we don't need an IEP - we need a bloody big order of 222s.

 

[gordonthemoron]

another contender for replacement of diesel HSTs, could be Siemens ICE-D, but with more than 4 carriages

 

[Chafford1]

Just been watching questions on the Transport Investment Statement in the House of Commons. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has said that a new bid for IEP has been received from Agility Trains and that the financial, technical and legal issues raised need to be looked at and that he expects to make a further statement in the next few weeks.

I suspect the legal questions will be to do with how far detached the new bid is from the tender specification and whether it can legally be accepted without one of the other tenderers taking action.

I think the revised IEP specification is something along the lines of 5 car trains with diesel engines under the carriages and an electric transformer - significantly different from the original spec.

 

[LE Greys]

I think the revised IEP specification is something along the lines of 5 car trains with diesel engines under the carriages and an electric transformer - significantly different from the original spec.

In other words, basically the electro-diesel Voyager we've discussed on here enough times. I still reckon it would be a lot easier if we just ordered a batch of new coaches ¿ MkV ? designed to work with Class 91s and a new diesel locomotive operating one at either end in the same manner as the HSTs, only with standard 1,000V d.c. ETS. A standard-gauge version of the CAF coaches used in Ireland would be ideal. As for locomotives, it's probably possible to use buy something off-the-shelf, Vectron resized for our loading gauge would be ideal, especially since there is supposed to be a diesel version using MTUs. The idea would be to increase flexibility (there's nothing to stop a Vectron hauling MkIVs or MkIIIs, or a 57 hauling MkVs) without driving up costs and making something too complicated. We would need to revive loco-changing procedures to make it easier to swap a Vectron for a 57 in under five minutes, but it would still be a lot easier to order stuff already in production, since it will have to be built overseas no matter where it is designed.

 

[tbtc]

I've long said we don't need an IEP - we need a bloody big order of 222s

I'm coming round to this way of thinking too...

One reason HSTs worked so well is that there were thousands(1) of them and they were all basically the same(2). Same with 47s etc. Same with Leyland National buses (or other industries where a common design is used)

We need a new standard train capable of doing these long distance routes, plus one capable of having a pantograph car for EMU operation.

Find a way round the engine issue, and start ordering a large number for GMLW/ MML (mainly eight coach, but some with four/five). There'll then be scope for operators like EMT/ TPE/ Scotrail to order a batch for their operations too. Order more and the "unit cost" comes down further. The new 222s will allow a cascade of other units to beef up non-express services. We just need someone to make the first move.

The last thing we want is someone to order a new class 223 with just a dozen trains, which will cause yet more of the headaches we currently have (see also 175/ 180...)

(1) - awaits someone pointing out that there weren't actually thousands and I was exaggerating

(2) - awaits someone pointing out that there were 253 and 254s etc etc

 

[90019]

One reason HSTs worked so well is that there were thousands(1) of them and they were all basically the same(2).

There weren't thousands and there were 253s and 254s etc etc

Seriously though, they were just a variation of the same thing, and I agree that we shouldn't be getting new trains but expanding the classes we already have instead.
It seems like madness to keep building loads of different classes that can't work with each other. Whilst variation is nice, operationally, it seems to make no sense unless they are able to work together.

 

[Chris125]

another contender for replacement of diesel HSTs, could be Siemens ICE-D, but with more than 4 carriages

Not unless we start rebuilding lines to allow european size rolling stock, which seems unlikely...

 

[Oswyntail]

...
Seriously though, they were just a variation of the same thing, and I agree that we shouldn't be getting new trains but expanding the classes we already have instead.
It seems like madness to keep building loads of different classes that can't work with each other. Whilst variation is nice, but operationally, it seems to make no sense unless they are able to work together.

Roger Ford calls it the "Stanier/Gresley" syndrome. Standardisation must be the way to go, and has worked in the freight world. But with the fragmentation of the franchises, it needs a bigger player to take the lead. The DfT has shown itself incapable of standing up to the TOCs when they say "we want our own bells and whistles". But why is there not a ROSCO taking this up, taking a view on what is required, getting into bed with one supplier and producing a mega-fleet of interchangeable stock. It is not difficult, and the ROSCOs have the financial backing to be able to do this.
Personally, I would go (on the IC front) for coaches and a loco at each end. Fully flexible - nothing to stop there being a diesel/electric pair even

 

[gordonthemoron]

Not unless we start rebuilding lines to allow european size rolling stock, which seems unlikely...

I meant suitably scalled down :roll:

 

[A60K]

I think the revised IEP specification is something along the lines of 5 car trains with diesel engines under the carriages and an electric transformer - significantly different from the original spec.

If that is this case then I think the other manufacturers who were in the competition will feel very annoyed if Agility get the contract. That's so far away from what was originally specified that it's an entirely different ball game.

 

[Kneedown]

The engines can be simply replaced and worked into the design. Cummins already offer a 700hp of that engine, which would suffice.

According to Cummins own website, their newest engine is the current QSK19 as already fitted to Meridians, with no mention that i can find of a 700hp version.
Besides, lowering output would be a recipe for disaster. The power of the Meridians currently is perfect and any reduction of that performance would be a step back, not forward.

http://cumminsengines.com/every/applications/rail/rail.page?

Besides, underfloor engines are not popular for long journeys. If we're going to build something that have a service life of 30years plus, then it'll be better if we do it right. IEP with an engine at each end, and ability to convert to AC power in the future should it be required, would be the way forward IMO.

 

[tbtc]

Roger Ford calls it the "Stanier/Gresley" syndrome. Standardisation must be the way to go, and has worked in the freight world. But with the fragmentation of the franchises, it needs a bigger player to take the lead. The DfT has shown itself incapable of standing up to the TOCs when they say "we want our own bells and whistles". But why is there not a ROSCO taking this up, taking a view on what is required, getting into bed with one supplier and producing a mega-fleet of interchangeable stock. It is not difficult, and the ROSCOs have the financial backing to be able to do this.
Personally, I would go (on the IC front) for coaches and a loco at each end. Fully flexible - nothing to stop there being a diesel/electric pair even

YES! Exactly what I'm talking about.

What surprises me is that after fifteen years of privatisation we still have 95% of units provided by the same three ROSCOs and the three of them remaining roughly as big as each other. None of them has ever taken a real risk or tried to get above 33% of the market.

Presumably they realise that its not in their interests to try and grow because that'd mean competition which would mean lower prices to TOCs...

If one company out there (whether an existing ROSCO or a new organisation to railways) had the guts to say they were going to start the production line on a minimum of (say) 50x 222s they'd find TOCs willing to take orders, meaning a total order of many more (which would be cheaper to built too, per coach)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There weren't thousands and there were 253s and 254s etc etc

But, seriously, I agree with your point about different units not able to work together and complicating things considerably