How do you free up 800/802 bi-modes?

[tbwbear]

Taking a slightly different angle -

isn’t there a just a small chance of XC getting IET due to reduced frequencies on GWR and LNER as we move forward to the “new normal”

That is how the MML got its first HST sets in the 80s - surplus from the WR in the recession.

Even with today’s more complicated structures, couldn’t that happen again? Storing brand new trains for years on end is not going to be too politically acceptable.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Taking a slightly different angle -

isn’t there a just a small chance of XC getting IET due to reduced frequencies on GWR and LNER as we move forward to the “new normal”

That is how the MML got its first HST sets in the 80s - surplus from the WR in the recession.

Even with today’s more complicated structures, couldn’t that happen again? Storing brand new trains for years on end is not going to be too politically acceptable.

That will very much depend on contract variation costs - DfT doesn't own the IET sets, and GWR and LNER don't lease the IET sets (though GWR do lease the Class 802 units in a traditional way). Agility Trains (the special purpose company formed by Hitachi, Axa and John Laing) are paid to provide sufficient units to operate agreed diagrams, with contract payments based on those diagrams (mileage, electric or diesel running etc). It will be expensive and complicated to move those units elsewhere, with Agility Trains needing to manage maintenance either through their existing sites or by building further maintenance facilities.

 

[Meerkat]

The bi-mode wouldn’t have to use the electric that far would it? Couldn’t you just tighten Up a bit so they can change over at the first place it is suitable? There are nearer crossovers than Barnet Green if the diesels don’t fire up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2020 ==

That will very much depend on contract variation costs - DfT doesn't own the IET sets, and GWR and LNER don't lease the IET sets (though GWR do lease the Class 802 units in a traditional way). Agility Trains (the special purpose company formed by Hitachi, Axa and John Laing) are paid to provide sufficient units to operate agreed diagrams, with contract payments based on those diagrams (mileage, electric or diesel running etc). It will be expensive and complicated to move those units elsewhere, with Agility Trains needing to manage maintenance either through their existing sites or by building further maintenance facilities.

Definitely complicated but....
Agility trains would supply the same contract, but with new trains (who would complain - customer gets newer train, Agility get a simpler and newer train to look after) and the old ones would be sold/re-leased (not sure who owns them) to XC/a new lessor.

 

[Energy]

re-leased (not sure who owns them)

Agility own them. I doubt they could easily stop providing the units and just give brand new ones without a change of contract. I would imagine that the DfT can ask Agility/Hitachi to remove the diesel engines on some of the trains under the existing contract.

 

[JonathanH]

I would imagine that the DfT can ask Agility/Hitachi to remove the diesel engines on some of the trains under the existing contract.

You don't have to imagine - read the versions of the contracts in the public domain for yourself and see if they include that provision. If you can find it maybe you can copy out the relevant bits.

 

[Energy]

You don't have to imagine - read the versions of the contracts in the public domain for yourself and see if they include that provision. If you can find it maybe you can copy out the relevant bits.

I could but the agreement for Great Western alone is 363 pages long, a look through the contents page hasn't revealed much and the bit on amending the contract just says that it needs to be in writing and signed by both parties. This is the contract from when the 9 car sets were meant to be electric.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The bi-mode wouldn’t have to use the electric that far would it? Couldn’t you just tighten Up a bit so they can change over at the first place it is suitable? There are nearer crossovers than Barnet Green if the diesels don’t fire up.

The only purpose for switching from diesel to electric in and out of Birmingham New Street is to reduce air pollution in and around New Street, it's not to provide any sort of performance benefit, it's not to convert a significant route or part of a route to electric traction, it's purely around cutting NOx, PM and CO emissions around Birmingham. There's really not any significant point in doing that if you're shutting off the diesel power units a mile out from New Street and switching them back on a mile past New Street.

If you want to make a meaningful reduction in pollution, and to reduce engine wear by a meaningful amount, you really would want to have an hour of diesel free running around Birmingham, ideally 20 to 30 miles out from New Street in each direction, which means you're reducing emissions around Bromsgrove, Longbridge and Five Ways, not just New Street itself.

 

[Meerkat]

The only purpose for switching from diesel to electric in and out of Birmingham New Street is to reduce air pollution in and around New Street, it's not to provide any sort of performance benefit, it's not to convert a significant route or part of a route to electric traction, it's purely around cutting NOx, PM and CO emissions around Birmingham. There's really not any significant point in doing that if you're shutting off the diesel power units a mile out from New Street and switching them back on a mile past New Street.

If you want to make a meaningful reduction in pollution, and to reduce engine wear by a meaningful amount, you really would want to have an hour of diesel free running around Birmingham, ideally 20 to 30 miles out from New Street in each direction, which means you're reducing emissions around Bromsgrove, Longbridge and Five Ways, not just New Street itself.

I disagree - the main aim is to get the pollution out of New Street station, then to reduce pollution on the acceleration out. Anything else is a bonus and will follow as soon as possible (and is surely easier to justify as every little extension will be used - you don’t have to electrify 100s of mile at a time)

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I disagree - the main aim is to get the pollution out of New Street station, then to reduce pollution on the acceleration out. Anything else is a bonus and will follow as soon as possible (and is surely easier to justify as every little extension will be used - you don’t have to electrify 100s of mile at a time)

You may disagree, but I'm explaining what's needed to build a business case for bi-mode stock at XC. Just so there's no misunderstanding, it's impossible to justify a bi-mode unit on the basis of five miles of electrification around New Street which won't actually stop bi-mode units either arriving and/or departing on diesel because of where the electrification limits are.

Wiring on the Derby lines runs to Proof House Junction, which isn't even a mile beyond New Street and given the complication of the OLE in the area, is not somewhere we would want to have on the move power changeovers. It would be possible (if there was sufficient power supply) to modify the OLE around Bournville to allow on the move power changeovers (it's really only upgrading the tensioning and moving to mechanically independent registration but it's not entirely straightforward on Mk.3 OLE) but it doesn't solve the issue of a unit still having to switch back over to diesel at New Street.

 

[Meerkat]

You may disagree, but I'm explaining what's needed to build a business case for bi-mode stock at XC. Just so there's no misunderstanding, it's impossible to justify a bi-mode unit on the basis of five miles of electrification around New Street which won't actually stop bi-mode units either arriving and/or departing on diesel because of where the electrification limits are.

Wiring on the Derby lines runs to Proof House Junction, which isn't even a mile beyond New Street and given the complication of the OLE in the area, is not somewhere we would want to have on the move power changeovers. It would be possible (if there was sufficient power supply) to modify the OLE around Bournville to allow on the move power changeovers (it's really only upgrading the tensioning and moving to mechanically independent registration but it's not entirely straightforward on Mk.3 OLE) but it doesn't solve the issue of a unit still having to switch back over to diesel at New Street.

You may disagree, but I'm explaining what's needed to build a business case for bi-mode stock at XC. Just so there's no misunderstanding, it's impossible to justify a bi-mode unit on the basis of five miles of electrification around New Street which won't actually stop bi-mode units either arriving and/or departing on diesel because of where the electrification limits are.

Wiring on the Derby lines runs to Proof House Junction, which isn't even a mile beyond New Street and given the complication of the OLE in the area, is not somewhere we would want to have on the move power changeovers. It would be possible (if there was sufficient power supply) to modify the OLE around Bournville to allow on the move power changeovers (it's really only upgrading the tensioning and moving to mechanically independent registration but it's not entirely straightforward on Mk.3 OLE) but it doesn't solve the issue of a unit still having to switch back over to diesel at New Street.

It wouldn’t be a pure economic decision - the situation in New Street is soon going to be difficult to justify.
of course the bi-modes would get to use all the OLE NW of Brum, and further to the North East, plus Didcot-Reading.
How significant a cost for extending from Proof House to somewhere better to changeover?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It wouldn’t be a pure economic decision - the situation in New Street is soon going to be difficult to justify.
of course the bi-modes would get to use all the OLE NW of Brum, and further to the North East, plus Didcot-Reading.
How significant a cost for extending from Proof House to somewhere better to changeover?

It couldn't be an economic decision at all - this was all looked at extensively for 'Project Thor' or 'eVoyager' and Alstom/Bombardier couldn't make the sums add up then on existing assets and a traction package which had a nice safety case already approved.

There has to be significant change in the operating circumstances of the core XC routes across central England to justify bi-mode again, and as I suggested, part of that would be providing a significant amount of electric operation in and around Birmingham.

The cost to extend from Proof House to somewhere better to changeover - few million, just decide where you want to do the changeover about. Washwood Heath, Saltley or Castle Bromwich would all be good areas - enough plain line for the changeover with flexible track layout to handle any technical issues.

 

[Speed43125]

It couldn't be an economic decision at all - this was all looked at extensively for 'Project Thor' or 'eVoyager' and Alstom/Bombardier couldn't make the sums add up then on existing assets and a traction package which had a nice safety case already approved.

I've heard lots of talk on here of the DfT being idiots for not having the foresight to go with the Virgin bid and cheaping out by going with arriva and condemning us to short, emissions spewing, cramped trains etc. etc. But also the odd comment as here which mentions difficulties both technically and economically to make the idea work.

Could you tell us a little more about Project Thor, or indeed link to a good sum up of the idea (any period documents or summaries etc)?

 

[JonathanH]

Could you tell us a little more about Project Thor, or indeed link to a good sum up of the idea (any period documents or summaries etc)?

There is a summary on the Wikipedia page for the class 220/221 fleet.

In 2010 Bombardier proposed the conversion of several Voyager multiple units into hybrid electric and diesel vehicles capable of taking power from an overhead pantograph (electro-diesels EDMUs). The proposal was named Project Thor.

In October 2010 it was speculated that 123 additional pantograph vehicles would be manufactured at Derby Litchurch Lane Works, and 21 sets converted, at a cost of approximately £300million, however in 2011 the plant did not have the facilities to manufacture steel carriages, though it was expected that much of the work would take place in the UK, and provide work for the Derby plant. In December 2011 a proposal to electrify 30-35 sets for the CrossCountry franchise, referred to as "eVoyager", was considered by the Department for Transport.

In practice, the solution was too expensive in the eyes of the DfT and would have led to construction work being somewhere other than Derby.

However, as can be seen in this thread from 2013, there were many reasons why it didn't happen. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/project-thor-evoyager.79563/

In the context of this thread about freeing up 80x and getting bi-modes onto Cross Country some of the same comments apply about their usefulness.

 

[K.o.R]

That is starting to look dangerously like an arguement in favour of loco haulage.

This is why I like the design of the 755s - the benefit of the distributed traction of a multiple unit, but with a "locomotive" that is designed to just be powerful enough to drive the unit (plus a bit for rescue, maybe). The problem with traditional locomotives is they are designed to be able to accommodate being the only power for a potentially huge train, and thus are often far bigger and heavier (thus more damaging to the track) than is necessary for a typical passenger train.

 

[43096]

That will very much depend on contract variation costs - DfT doesn't own the IET sets, and GWR and LNER don't lease the IET sets (though GWR do lease the Class 802 units in a traditional way). Agility Trains (the special purpose company formed by Hitachi, Axa and John Laing) are paid to provide sufficient units to operate agreed diagrams, with contract payments based on those diagrams (mileage, electric or diesel running etc). It will be expensive and complicated to move those units elsewhere, with Agility Trains needing to manage maintenance either through their existing sites or by building further maintenance facilities.

Simplest way out of this would be for the Government to buy Agility Trains. Given Agility's disinterest in actually providing a service for the end customer, and contrary to my view on Government, I'd actually support nationalisation of Agility at asset value (i.e. no profit for the Agility shareholders).

 

[Energy]

Simplest way out of this would be for the Government to buy Agility Trains. Given Agility's disinterest in actually providing a service for the end customer, and contrary to my view on Government, I'd actually support nationalisation of Agility at asset value (i.e. no profit for the Agility shareholders).

Is there any motivation for Agility to prove a service for the end customer? The only orders which go through Agility are the DfT ones, everyone else goes for the normal ROSCO lease and either does maintenance in house or gives a separate contract to Hitachi. So why would Agility want to provide a great service?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Is there any motivation for Agility to prove a service for the end customer? The only orders which go through Agility are the DfT ones, everyone else goes for the normal ROSCO lease and either does maintenance in house or gives a separate contract to Hitachi. So why would Agility want to provide a great service?

They're paid on the basis of the diagrams and services which run, if a unit isn't available and a diagram goes uncovered, there are deductions from what they're paid. It's basically 'the gig economy' for rolling stock provision.

 

[Wolfie]

Simplest way out of this would be for the Government to buy Agility Trains. Given Agility's disinterest in actually providing a service for the end customer, and contrary to my view on Government, I'd actually support nationalisation of Agility at asset value (i.e. no profit for the Agility shareholders).

Firstly what makes you think Agility would go for that?
Secondly what makes you think Agility wouldn't litigate in the event HMG tries to force them. Forced nationalisation would have a seriously detrimental effect on the perception of UK as a place to do business.

 

[HSTEd]

Firstly what makes you think Agility would go for that?

Because the state has powers to compulsory purchase property at will?

Secondly what makes you think Agility wouldn't litigate in the event HMG tries to force them. Forced nationalisation would have a seriously detrimental effect on the perception of UK as a place to do business.

If they get paid the fair value of the company then literally noone would care.

 

[Meerkat]

Because the state has powers to compulsory purchase property at will?


If they get paid the fair value of the company then literally noone would care.

If you pay them fair value then you will be paying them most, if not all the profit up front.....and I thought the point was to avoid them making a profit.....

 

[HSTEd]

If you pay them fair value then you will be paying them most, if not all the profit up front.....and I thought the point was to avoid them making a profit.....

No you won't.

The value of the company will be defined by its profits, but the state obtains capital cheaper.
So even paying them a free market value for the company (taking into account future revenues) still saves the state a lot of money in the long run.

This is why PFI was a terrible idea.
The company will be valued assuming a desired ~10% real return on investment.
The state's required eal returns on investmetn are currently negative.

So even if the state pays them what they think the company its worth, the state saves huge amounts of money.

 

[Meerkat]

No you won't.

The value of the company will be defined by its profits, but the state obtains capital cheaper.
So even paying them a free market value for the company (taking into account future revenues) still saves the state a lot of money in the long run.

This is why PFI was a terrible idea.
The company will be valued assuming a desired ~10% real return on investment.
The state's required eal returns on investmetn are currently negative.

So even if the state pays them what they think the company its worth, the state saves huge amounts of money.

I don’t think PFI is relevant - that is comparing from a zero starting point.
If you pay Agility the value of its future profits then that’s the same as paying those profits in the future.
Either way you broadly pay the same unless inflation etc doesn’t match the assumptions.
The government only gains if it pays Agility less than value, unless you are convinced the government could then produce the output cheaper than Agility will.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I don’t think PFI is relevant - that is comparing from a zero starting point.
If you pay Agility the value of its future profits then that’s the same as paying those profits in the future.
Either way you broadly pay the same unless inflation etc doesn’t match the assumptions.
The government only gains if it pays Agility less than value, unless you are convinced the government could then produce the output cheaper than Agility will.

If you pay Agility Trains the sum of the current value of their assets plus future profit, you will save the difference between Government's borrowing costs and Agility Trains borrowing costs, plus any effect of compounding that difference across the lifetime of the contract.

What has never been made clear (at least as far as I'm aware) is at what cost Hitachi charged Agility Trains for the IET rolling stock, was it at a loss, was it at cost price, or was there profit made. Is there exchange rate hedging involved. That will clearly impact the overall cost of nationalising Agility Trains.

 

[Meerkat]

If you pay Agility Trains the sum of the current value of their assets plus future profit, you will save the difference between Government's borrowing costs and Agility Trains borrowing costs, plus any effect of compounding that difference across the lifetime of the contract.

What has never been made clear (at least as far as I'm aware) is at what cost Hitachi charged Agility Trains for the IET rolling stock, was it at a loss, was it at cost price, or was there profit made. Is there exchange rate hedging involved. That will clearly impact the overall cost of nationalising Agility Trains.

I may be being dim here but isn’t that assuming you can pay off Agility’s debt without penalty - ie depriving the lenders of their profit?

 

[HSTEd]

I don’t think PFI is relevant - that is comparing from a zero starting point.
If you pay Agility the value of its future profits then that’s the same as paying those profits in the future.
Either way you broadly pay the same unless inflation etc doesn’t match the assumptions.
The government only gains if it pays Agility less than value, unless you are convinced the government could then produce the output cheaper than Agility will.

Agility sees its net revenue is £10 per year
The private sector therefore values the company at about £100. (Ten percent rate of return).

The state pays £100 for the company.
But if the state borrowing cost is only 1% - the state only has to run net revenue of £1/yr.

The state has saved £9/yr.

 

[Meerkat]

Agility sees its net revenue is £10 per year
The private sector therefore values the company at about £100. (Ten percent rate of return).

The state pays £100 for the company.
But if the state borrowing cost is only 1% - the state only has to run net revenue of £1/yr.

The state has saved £9/yr.

Again I am probably being dim, but paying that market value could still be less than Agility’s owners get by keeping their company?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Is there any motivation for Agility to prove a service for the end customer? The only orders which go through Agility are the DfT ones, everyone else goes for the normal ROSCO lease and either does maintenance in house or gives a separate contract to Hitachi. So why would Agility want to provide a great service?

Not quite. They are not normal leases with maintenance separate - they are all Train Supply Agreements, which is how Hitachi do their business with the 80x fleets. For example, all the 802 servicing at Laira & Penzance is GWR acting as a Hitachi contractor, as part of that overall TSA. If you choose Hitachi you effectively don't get to chose how the maintenance is done or where.

If you want to free up 80x stock, you make the existing ones longer and then you will have the units to play with for elsewhere. Could be quite a job saver for Newton Aycliffe.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Not quite. They are not normal leases with maintenance separate - they are all Train Supply Agreements, which is how Hitachi do their business with the 80x fleets. For example, all the 802 servicing at Laira & Penzance is GWR acting as a Hitachi contractor, as part of that overall TSA. If you choose Hitachi you effectively don't get to chose how the maintenance is done or where.

If you want to free up 80x stock, you make the existing ones longer and then you will have the units to play with for elsewhere. Could be quite a job saver for Newton Aycliffe.

The maintenance for the Class 80x fleet is complicated by the fact that through Hitachi, Agility Trains can effectively 'hire' a Class 802 unit from GWR to operate a specific service or diagram which should be covered under by an IET Class 800 unit. The same can happen with LNER and either Hull Trains or TransPennine, in theory, with one of their Class 802 units being hired by Agility Trains to operate an LNER diagram.

 

[Wolfie]

Because the state has powers to compulsory purchase property at will?

It absolutely does not! Firstly the phrase 'compulsory purchase' normally relates to land and buildings and there are definite laws and procedures attached, not least to avoid ECHR issues (Protocol 1 Article 1).

Secondly that is not what is at issue here as what you are describing is actually forced nationalisation. Once again the ECHR applies (same protocol/article). There was much legal investigation done when Labour under Jeremy Corbyn proposed major nationalisation. See for example:

https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2019/07/UPDATE%2520Nationalisation%2520July%25202019.pdf

Do you realise that HMT does all of its calculations in fixed year pounds using net present value calculations (i.e a pound spent in the future is worth less than a pound spent now). The precise detail of the contract and how leasing costs change over time versus any borrowing costs change will form a very complicated calculation to see if any saving would actually be made by your proposal.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Assuming that XC take on the 221 displaced from Avati West Coast and assuming that my maths is correct that will give XC from 2022

34x 220 (4 car)
44x 221 (5 car with some 4 car)

Also from 2022 EMR will start to receive 33x 5 car 810 which will displace 222's comprising 6x 7 car, 17x 5 car and 4x 4 car, some of which could also go to XC.

If completion of MML electrification through to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield is authorised then would it not make sense to casecade those Bi-modes to XC with a new order of straight electrics for MML rather than removing the engines from the bi-modes. The 33 810's could be lengthened with intermediate coaches to match the capacity of the 22x that run doubled up?