IEP Construction Progress

[DXMachina]

I would be interested to hear about an electric locomotive that has remained in front line UK passenger service for more than 30 years.

Class 86 - 1965-2004, which is 39 years
Metropolitan line electric locomotives, 1922-1961, which is also 39 years

 

[Dave1987]

Every time you say that, it just shows you don't know what a PFI scheme is!

That £182m includes leasing costs for the rest of their lives. It can't be compared to a standard upfront cost.

I know exactly what PFI is thanks, I believe Roger Ford ran the numbers and came out with a large net increase in leasing costs per for year IEP. They are going to be a lot more expensive. Probably one of the reasons the DFT changed its mind on letting the next franchise holder make the decision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lets break this down point by point

Define life expired, surely the life of a train is determined by an operators willingness to continue using it. This willingness will be broken down into multiple factors such a cost implications, operational flexibility and reliability to name but a few.

That is more a personal preference than a fact. Anyway it is highly likely that should the 91s have been kept the mk4s would have been refurbished with an interior similar to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ERY4KOCrw is that modern seats I see!!


Well firstly modern coaching stock would have to be built with the same crash worthiness of modern EMUs with crumple zones and the like. Secondly you forgot the effectively apart from for storage useless DVT, I imagine that the leading 1/3s of the IEP set will find similar usage for storage or as a kitchen much like the Pendolino sets.
Finally as has been pointed out before 2x5 car sets will be used for peak strengthening, if they were going to be semi-permanently coupled I would expect re-forming to take place with extra coaches (again much like the Pendolinos), and the whole 'too many units' argument doesn't wash with me either. I can think of several places where IEP would be useful but not the 91. (Liverpool St-Norwich comes to mind).

The DVT can be converted into a kitchen etc as well but never mind. Is there anywhere you don't think this train is perfect for? :roll:

 

[JamesRowden]

I know exactly what PFI is thanks, I believe Roger Ford ran the numbers and came out with a large net increase in leasing costs per for year IEP. They are going to be a lot more expensive. Probably one of the reasons the DFT changed its mind on letting the next franchise holder make the decision.

I think that the sole reason for the DfT putting IEP as a requirement of the GWML and ECML franchises is because a reduction of risk for Hitachi's investment would mean that Hitachi would be willing to offer its services at a lower price.

 

[DXMachina]

I think that the sole reason for the DfT putting IEP as a requirement of the GWML and ECML franchises is because a reduction of risk for Hitachi's investment would mean that Hitachi would be willing to offer its services at a lower price.

^ Genuinely interesting and logical, you've probably hit the nail on the head there

 

[Dave1987]

I think that the sole reason for the DfT putting IEP as a requirement of the GWML and ECML franchises is because a reduction of risk for Hitachi's investment would mean that Hitachi would be willing to offer its services at a lower price.

Thats a very interesting point but it begs the question, why the DFT was so determined to get Hitachi's services even if it meant the leasing costs would go up.

 

[JamesRowden]

Thats a very interesting point but it begs the question, why the DFT was so determined to get Hitachi's services even if it meant the leasing costs would go up.

Looking at the IEP Specifications that the DfT produced: energy efficiency; train performance and reliability seem to be higher priorities than cost.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Maybe because some ppl believe this train is an extremely expensive flawed project........ Then again some ppl believe its the best thing since sliced bread. Simply a difference of opinion.

Deary me.

Some people believe that it is the best available compromise to satisfy so many different needs and requirements across our extremely complicated rail network.

And others don't believe it is the best available compromise, in certain respects. The bi-mode concept I have now accepted is a good compromise for some of the routes. Conversely the use of short trains and portion working I don't believe is a good compromise. Given how much we will be paying for it, thanks to the PFI deal, we shouldn't have to compromise on anything.

IEP on a PFI scheme is cheaper than keeping 91s and HSTs going for 15 years and then replacing them.

No it isn't. Well, maybe keeping IC125s going for another 15yrs would be more expensive due to the need for major work on the mrk3s to make them TSI-PRM compliant but the IEP PFI deal is way more expensive than continued use of IC225s.

91's are barely halfway through their life!

Exactly.

On what yardstick though?

They will be older than most 74s/ 81s/ 82s/ 83s/ 85s/ 87s/ 90s (etc) were when they were scrapped. Electric locos really haven't had very long lives.

The idea of them all reaching forty years only exists in Rhydgaled's imagination.

Have many 90s been scrapped? Anyway, if you extend that to EMUs there have been, I suspect, quite a few that reached 40. If EMUs can reach 40, what's different about an electric loco which means it can't? I don't know much about the others, but would 87s and 90s have been withdrawn from the WCML at the same time if tilting trains weren't available or didn't provide such time savings? How much of the early retirement of electric locos is down to the 'unit good, locos bad' view that is held by some?

The 91s much like the deltics before them were designed with one route in mind, a route which neither are now fit to operate in light of recent technological and operational developments.

What recent developments make 91s unfit to operate the ECML? The deltics aren't suitable because the route now has 125mph linespeeds and OHLE. There isn't any such change that makes 91s unfit. Surely only if you wanted to introduce tilit (as with 90s on the WCML) or linespeeds in excess of the 91's 140mph top-speed would you have a case comparable to the removal of deltics.

The reality now is that LHCS is looked upon unfavourably compared to distributed traction as we look to increasingly optimise the network we have. IEP has a number of features that will be particularly helpful on the ECML, notably the bi-mode operation allowing the end of diesel running on some large sections of electrified route.

The bi-mode feature does nothing to make 91s redundant. It makes the IC125s redundant but they are the smaller part of the ECML fleet, they even have three diagrams that are completely under the wires.

The 91s will never hope to hit the agreed requirement the DFT have set for the reliability of IEP.

You could probably say that of most operator's class 158s, yet SWT's units come closer to IEP's requirement than any current intercity stock.

I agree with the motion that LHCS is an outdated principle BUT I do not agree with scrapping trains that are not "life expired".

...

The other thing that really gets me is this notion of the loco wasting platform space. When you have 2 of these 5 cars coupled together you will have the cab space plus the crumple zone x 2 of wasted space on the middle of the train. I'm willing to bet that length would be about the same space as a loco. So you have not gained anything with 2 x 5 cars

According to wikipedia a class 91 is 19.4m long. A 2x5-car IEP formation would have only 3 more seats than a 9-car IEP, so a whole coach is lost. An IEP coach is 26m, a few meters longer than the 91. And that's with less space being lost to doors on the IEP thanks to the longer coaches.

Well firstly modern coaching stock would have to be built with the same crash worthiness of modern EMUs with crumple zones and the like. Secondly you forgot the effectively apart from for storage useless DVT

Are you talking about new-build LHCS, or the mark 4s? New build coaching stock would have crumple zones yes, which means there would be some seats on the DVT (which is effectively the crumple zone on the mrk4s). Eversholt's data sheet says the DVT is 18.6m. If we are assuming the crumple zone is 1/3 of the vehicle length a new build one would be 6.2m of space lost to seating, rather than all 18.6m on the current DVTs. If you add the 91 at the other end, the length of train unavailable for seating is 25.6m. That is not far off the length of an IEP vehicle, which is the amount of space wasted (compared to a 9-car IEP) in a 2x5-car IEP formation.

if they were going to be semi-permanently coupled I would expect re-forming to take place with extra coaches (again much like the Pendolinos)

Not like the Pendos, as I said before. They did not run in multiple.

and the whole 'too many units' argument doesn't wash with me either. I can think of several places where IEP would be useful but not the 91. (Liverpool St-Norwich comes to mind).

Yes, I can think places where IEP would be useful but not 91s too. The 91s are only useful right where they are (or perhaps the GWML) which is why I think they should divert the IEPs intended as IC225 replacement to London-Norwich or the MML rather than replacing the IC225s. Also, the 'too many units' would not be very many. 7 to 10 redundant units is enough to be a burden on the GWML but isn't really going to be a useful cascade to anywhere, unless you buy more expensive new units to make up the numbers. Get it right first time and save adding more cost later.

I know exactly what PFI is thanks, I believe Roger Ford ran the numbers and came out with a large net increase in leasing costs per for year IEP. They are going to be a lot more expensive. Probably one of the reasons the DFT changed its mind on letting the next franchise holder make the decision.

I agree.

As far as I can remember though, Roger Ford's comparison was only for the ECML, and was the total annual current rolling stock costs (not leasing costs) against the IEP's annual cost. I assume 'rolling stock costs' includes leasing AND maintainance, which is important given that the IEP contract includes maintainance. And yes, the annual cost of the current ECML fleet is significantly cheaper than IEP will be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thats a very interesting point but it begs the question, why the DFT was so determined to get Hitachi's services even if it meant the leasing costs would go up.

That is definiately a good question. I'm not sure of the answer, but it has been said on the WNXX fourm that somebody with influence at DfT has personal interests in giving Hitachi the contract. Or something like that. Also, the phrase "the answer's hitachi, now what's the question" has been thrown around over there a few times.

 

[TheGrew]

What recent developments make 91s unfit to operate the ECML? The deltics aren't suitable because the route now has 125mph linespeeds and OHLE. There isn't any such change that makes 91s unfit. Surely only if you wanted to introduce tilit (as with 90s on the WCML) or linespeeds in excess of the 91's 140mph top-speed would you have a case comparable to the removal of deltics.

OK then how about the 140mph top speed with ETCS signalling that has been said to be possible in places (something a 91 would never be able to achieve reliably). Or the fact we have the congestion on lower ECML fasts because the 365s can out accelerate 91s.

 

[YorkshireBear]

OK then how about the 140mph top speed with ETCS signalling that has been said to be possible in places (something a 91 would never be able to achieve reliably). Or the fact we have the congestion on lower ECML fasts because the 365s can out accelerate 91s.

Everything can out accelerate a 91 including me pulling the MkIVs....

 

[Rhydgaled]

OK then how about the 140mph top speed with ETCS signalling that has been said to be possible in places (something a 91 would never be able to achieve reliably).

91s were deisgned for 140mph, 91s have done 140mph, 91s still have a sticker saying they can do 140mph, Eversholt's proposed 91 refurb would include ETCS. From that evidence, I assume it is possible that the IC225s could do 140mph again someday, if 140mph is going to be allowed.

 

[dosxuk]

IEP on a PFI scheme is cheaper than keeping 91s and HSTs going for 15 years and then replacing them.

No it isn't. Well, maybe keeping IC125s going for another 15yrs would be more expensive due to the need for major work on the mrk3s to make them TSI-PRM compliant but the IEP PFI deal is way more expensive than continued use of IC225s.

You can't possibly know the figures involved. And even if you did, getting them to the point of a fair comparison would be a major undertaking.

I certainly would rather take the word of people who have been involved in calculating those figures than someone who's main reason for keeping the 225's is a dislike of the replacement stock and who's entire knowledge of the subject is based on what they read in some magazines and on some websites.

 

[TheGrew]

91s were deisgned for 140mph, 91s have done 140mph, 91s still have a sticker saying they can do 140mph, Eversholt's proposed 91 refurb would include ETCS. From that evidence, I assume it is possible that the IC225s could do 140mph again someday, if 140mph is going to be allowed.

My understanding based on things I have read in magazines and on this forum is that the 91s really wouldn't be able to hack 140mph operation. I know this is what they were designed for but much like a car that hasn't been broken in properly the 91s haven't operated at 140mph for over a decade and thus would struggle to now. I also dare not think how long they would take to get there anyway! I thought this article was interesting to give a comparison with the Class 390 http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/...y-times-than-hs2-for-anglo-scottish-services/

 

[Haydn1971]

...so

About that factory

Seriously though, did anyone find out the original costs of the 125 or 225 fleets ?

 

[tbtc]

IEP would last longer than Voyagers, pendo's etc so why not scrap them as well and replace them with IEP? Why not scrap every train after 5 years and replace with a new one?

So your argument against replacing the 1970s HSTs and 1980s 91s with IEP is because we aren't also scrapping modern stock?

Given how much we will be paying for it, thanks to the PFI deal, we shouldn't have to compromise on anything

We have some electrified lines, some that are being electrified in the next few years, some that may be electrified in the 2020s and some that realistically will not be electrified in the short/medium term.

We have some lines where a 260m train will be needed, some where it will only be needed at certain times and some where a 260m train is going to be ridiculously long (and require a lot of pointless platform extensions to cope).

We have some lines where we have to do portion working as there aren't enough paths at the London end to provide a "stand alone" direct train to/from everywhere.

I think that there needs to be some compromises. There's no "one size fits all" solution, sorry.

if you extend that to EMUs there have been, I suspect, quite a few that reached 40

Locos aren't EMUs though. And, despite you repeating that you think that locos should last forty years, we're not seeing a lot of examples of this.

I don't know much about the others, but would 87s and 90s have been withdrawn from the WCML at the same time if tilting trains weren't available or didn't provide such time savings?

87s and 90s were withdrawn from the WCML because they were replaced by something significantly better. Just like the 91s are going to be replaced by IEP which will be significantly better. Do you see the parallels?

Were the 87s kept in service until they reached forty years old, just to prove a point?

You could probably say that of most operator's class 158s, yet SWT's units come closer to IEP's requirement than any current intercity stock

Ah, yes, the SWT 158/159s. Despite all of the moans about portion working/ splitting etc, I'm not aware of any examples of SWT accidentally sending two coach SuperSprinters to Waterloo because of failed connections, I'm not aware of lots of problems coupling 159s, I'm not aware of crew being stuck in the wrong place...

...but we can see a system that gives maximum capacity at the London end, provides direct services to more than one destination at the "non London" end (some London services run to both Exeter and Bristol), it seems a really efficient way to use stock.

it has been said on the WNXX fourm that somebody with influence at DfT has personal interests in giving Hitachi the contract. Or something like that

What? Someone on an internet forum claimed that there's a conspiracy? Hold the front page...

Everything can out accelerate a 91 including me pulling the MkIVs....

 

[47802]

And others don't believe it is the best available compromise, in certain respects. The bi-mode concept I have now accepted is a good compromise for some of the routes. Conversely the use of short trains and portion working I don't believe is a good compromise. Given how much we will be paying for it, thanks to the PFI deal, we shouldn't have to compromise on anything.

No it isn't. Well, maybe keeping IC125s going for another 15yrs would be more expensive due to the need for major work on the mrk3s to make them TSI-PRM compliant but the IEP PFI deal is way more expensive than continued use of IC225s.

Exactly.

Have many 90s been scrapped? Anyway, if you extend that to EMUs there have been, I suspect, quite a few that reached 40. If EMUs can reach 40, what's different about an electric loco which means it can't? I don't know much about the others, but would 87s and 90s have been withdrawn from the WCML at the same time if tilting trains weren't available or didn't provide such time savings? How much of the early retirement of electric locos is down to the 'unit good, locos bad' view that is held by some?

What recent developments make 91s unfit to operate the ECML? The deltics aren't suitable because the route now has 125mph linespeeds and OHLE. There isn't any such change that makes 91s unfit. Surely only if you wanted to introduce tilit (as with 90s on the WCML) or linespeeds in excess of the 91's 140mph top-speed would you have a case comparable to the removal of deltics.

The bi-mode feature does nothing to make 91s redundant. It makes the IC125s redundant but they are the smaller part of the ECML fleet, they even have three diagrams that are completely under the wires.

You could probably say that of most operator's class 158s, yet SWT's units come closer to IEP's requirement than any current intercity stock.

According to wikipedia a class 91 is 19.4m long. A 2x5-car IEP formation would have only 3 more seats than a 9-car IEP, so a whole coach is lost. An IEP coach is 26m, a few meters longer than the 91. And that's with less space being lost to doors on the IEP thanks to the longer coaches.

Are you talking about new-build LHCS, or the mark 4s? New build coaching stock would have crumple zones yes, which means there would be some seats on the DVT (which is effectively the crumple zone on the mrk4s). Eversholt's data sheet says the DVT is 18.6m. If we are assuming the crumple zone is 1/3 of the vehicle length a new build one would be 6.2m of space lost to seating, rather than all 18.6m on the current DVTs. If you add the 91 at the other end, the length of train unavailable for seating is 25.6m. That is not far off the length of an IEP vehicle, which is the amount of space wasted (compared to a 9-car IEP) in a 2x5-car IEP formation.

Not like the Pendos, as I said before. They did not run in multiple.

Yes, I can think places where IEP would be useful but not 91s too. The 91s are only useful right where they are (or perhaps the GWML) which is why I think they should divert the IEPs intended as IC225 replacement to London-Norwich or the MML rather than replacing the IC225s. Also, the 'too many units' would not be very many. 7 to 10 redundant units is enough to be a burden on the GWML but isn't really going to be a useful cascade to anywhere, unless you buy more expensive new units to make up the numbers. Get it right first time and save adding more cost later.

I agree.

As far as I can remember though, Roger Ford's comparison was only for the ECML, and was the total annual current rolling stock costs (not leasing costs) against the IEP's annual cost. I assume 'rolling stock costs' includes leasing AND maintainance, which is important given that the IEP contract includes maintainance. And yes, the annual cost of the current ECML fleet is significantly cheaper than IEP will be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That is definiately a good question. I'm not sure of the answer, but it has been said on the WNXX fourm that somebody with influence at DfT has personal interests in giving Hitachi the contract. Or something like that. Also, the phrase "the answer's hitachi, now what's the question" has been thrown around over there a few times.

So Rhydgaled do have access to all the detailed costing's and information, that were used to make the decisions regarding IEP? If not I suggest you call it a day, IEP is coming end of.

Any further info on Construction Progress?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Locos aren't EMUs though.

They aren't, but what difference is there to make locos have a shorter life? The electronic components (traction motors etc.) will be similar won't they? Diesel locos, I suspect, have a comparable life span to DMUs, why would that not be true of electric locos and EMUs?

87s and 90s were withdrawn from the WCML because they were replaced by something significantly better. Just like the 91s are going to be replaced by IEP which will be significantly better. Do you see the parallels?

Only if you think IEP will be significantly better, and I don't. IEP versus IC225 on the ECML would be 'as good as' in pretty much all aspects and probably even slightly better in some respects but not significantly better, not like replacing 90s and mrk3s with 390s. If it were anywhere else (expect perhaps GWML) then IEP would be significantly better.

Ah, yes, the SWT 158/159s. Despite all of the moans about portion working/ splitting etc, I'm not aware of any examples of SWT accidentally sending two coach SuperSprinters to Waterloo because of failed connections, I'm not aware of lots of problems coupling 159s, I'm not aware of crew being stuck in the wrong place...

...but we can see a system that gives maximum capacity at the London end, provides direct services to more than one destination at the "non London" end (some London services run to both Exeter and Bristol), it seems a really efficient way to use stock.

I agree, portion working with 158s/159s can be a really neat way of going about things. However, as I've already explained, portion working with Intercity units is a whole different kettle of fish for a number of reasons.

What? Someone on an internet forum claimed that there's a conspiracy?

Unstable ground I know, but a claim from someone on an internet fourm is the best I have to go on in that regard. There's no rational explanation for why DfT went against their claimed policy of being less prescriptive on franchisings and mandated the use of IEP as the electric stock on the East Coast franchise rather than letting bidders decide whether they wanted 91s, TraXX, IEP or Pendolinos.

I suggest you call it a day, IEP is coming end of.

It is coming, I accepted that ages ago. But I'm not happy sitting back and allowing deployment to be a farse of short trains replacing long ones and electric locos with nowhere else to go being binned rather than using the last 270 IEP coaches ordered elsewhere, somewhere like the MML which will be needing electric stock.

 

[dosxuk]

Only if you think IEP will be significantly better, and I don't. IEP versus IC225 on the ECML would be 'as good as' in pretty much all aspects and probably even slightly better in some respects but not significantly better, not like replacing 90s and mrk3s with 390s. If it were anywhere else (expect perhaps GWML) then IEP would be significantly better.

So, IEP is better than HSTs + Mk3s on the MML and 90s + Mk3s on the GEML, but not better than HSTs + Mk3s on the GWML?

 

[Rhydgaled]

So, IEP is better than HSTs + Mk3s on the MML and 90s + Mk3s on the GEML, but not better than HSTs + Mk3s on the GWML?

I meant significantly better than IC225 on those routes. Ie.:

• IEP would be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the GEML and
• IEP would be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the MML
• But IEP would NOT be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the ECML and
• IEP may not be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the GWML

(Decent length) IEP should, once the planned wires are up, be better than IC125 anywhere IC125s are currently used except the Paddington - Taunton/Devon/Cornwall route. The latter is because there isn't enough electrification currently planned.

 

[Manchester77]

Only if you think IEP will be significantly better, and I don't.

So surely it's all down to you're personal opinion and perception of the project and with other members on this thread actually saying that they do think IEP is a good idea surely this is now you ramming your opinions down other people's throats to make them accept it rather than saying what you believe and jumping on anyone who disagrees?

Any further info on Construction Progress?

Yes there is a mock up, someone posted photos on wnxx and I described them on here however it went unnoticed with the seemingly never ending IEP argument debate.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I meant significantly better than IC225 on those routes. Ie.:

• IEP would be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the GEML and
• IEP would be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the MML
• But IEP would NOT be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the ECML and
• IEP may not be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the GWML

That just makes no sense at all...

 

[Dave1987]

Yes IEP is coming. It will be built....... Sadly, considering Chiltern have demonstrated what can be achieved with older well designed stock and for considerably cheaper. Never mind, wouldn't be UK without wasting a few million £ I suppose.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes IEP is coming. It will be built....... Sadly, considering Chiltern have demonstrated what can be achieved with older well designed stock and for considerably cheaper. Never mind, wouldn't be UK without wasting a few million £ I suppose.

Oh yeah good old Chiltern. Anyone would think you worked for them.....

 

[Rhydgaled]

I meant significantly better than IC225 on those routes. Ie.:

• IEP would be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the GEML and
• IEP would be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the MML
• But IEP would NOT be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the ECML and
• IEP may not be significantly better than 91+mrk4 on the GWML

That just makes no sense at all...

Why not?

 

[sprinterguy]

...so

About that factory

It's still early days yet: Construction was only reported as commencing in November last year (and I can't find any more recent updates), with completion expected in the summer of 2015.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne..._150_jobs_building_Hitachi_Rail_Europe_plant/
http://www.merchantpark.co.uk/

 

[ainsworth74]

I think we've had enough of this and as such the thread is locked. Everyone has had more than ample time to make their points and I think we can agree that no one is going to change anyone elses mind at this point.

If anyone has updates regarding the progress of IEP (news on the factory, mock-ups or prototypes for instance) please contact someone in the staff team and consideration will be given to unlocking the thread.