IEP Construction Progress

[BananaRepublic]

???? ....exactly the same problem as Voyagers. The only thing that can be said about IEP is that at least some sets would be a decent length and some too short, rather than Voyagers which are all too short.

There is also a significant difference in that the IEP specification requires the capability for easily adjusting and reconfiguring set lengths, as well as the conversion between power sources.
All of those 5 car IEP trains have the potential to be lengthened, without any major technical issues, within a short time period.
If operational experience demonstrates a need to order new vehicles for lengthening of some sets, then other than financing and having suitable platforms, in theory it would be a relatively simple process.

Flexibility is a cornerstone part of the programme. That's something the Voyager order didn't include.

 

[joeykins82]

98x pantograph cars and 40x driving cars could've seen all of the Voyagers lengthened to 5-cars, able to operate from AC OHLE (and maybe even 3rd rail if they were fitted with DC pickup shoes as well) and added 20 new sets to someone's fleet using the 40 spare cars. It's a desperate shame it didn't happen in my opinion.

 

[HSTEd]

It would have been rather more than that.

It would have required massive reconstruction of every vehicle in the entire fleet.

 

[ainsworth74]

It would have been lovely but the finances didn't stack up.

 

[jopsuk]

if you were for that sort of fantasy, then you might as well have budgeted for adding the tilting bogies and subsystems to the 220s to convert them all to 221s and a massive deployment of TASS to the network...

 

[HSTEd]

Is this the part where I but in to say that money on TASS and things could be better spent on Shinkansen in all directions?

 

[ainsworth74]

It's been a while since you've said that so I don't see why not

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is also a significant difference in that the IEP specification requires the capability for easily adjusting and reconfiguring set lengths, as well as the conversion between power sources.
All of those 5 car IEP trains have the potential to be lengthened, without any major technical issues, within a short time period.

That may well be the case, but it doesn't say driving vehicles have the potential to be converted to intermediate vehicles, does it?

The diagrammed fleet could in theroy be used like this:

• 18x 9-car 'electric'
• 4x pairs of 5-car bi-modes on electrified routes
• 3x pairs of 5-car bi-modes on diesel routes
• 18x single 5-car bi-mode on diesel routes

Total 5-car units diagrammed = (4x2)+(3x2)+18 = 32, covering 25 actual diagrams.

That's about the right number of trains, if you lengthen the 5-car sets you'd have 7 more diagrammed sets than required, since you'd no longer have to double any up. Of course you could use intermediate trailers from those 7 to lengthen others, but you still end up with 14 redundant/spare driving vehicles.

If you don't want redundant driving vehicles, lengthening all 36 5-car sets to 9-car requires 144 additional vehicles.

On the other hand, 36 5-car sets is 180 carriages, which if built as 9-car sets instead would give you 20. Assuming four spares (leaving 16 diagrammed) you need 9 additional sets to make the 25 diagrams. That's only 81 additional vehicles. And if you only have 3 spares instead of four that saves another 9 vehicles.

If operational experience demonstrates a need to order new vehicles for lengthening of some sets, then other than financing and having suitable platforms, in theory it would be a relatively simple process.

My bold. Cost, much cheaper to vary the order up-front so you don't build driving vehicles you don't need. Better yet, give the class 91s a stay of execution, by keeping the IC225s on the ECML, and you have a large number of IEP vehicles you can transfer to the GW.

 

[The Ham]

???? How can you lengthen them without building more coaches? Only by shortening the nine car sets or by placing driving vehicles into storage. You still can't turn a driving vehicle into an intermediate one easily. The latter is exactly the same problem as Voyagers. The only thing that can be said about IEP is that at least some sets would be a decent length and some too short, rather than Voyagers which are all too short.

Ok, 17 WofE IC125 sets + 39 IEPs (21 9-car plus 18 10-car (half the number of 5-car sets)). That's 56 trains to replace the current 58, which might work if they weren't planning enhanced frequencies (primarily Bristols and a semi-fast to Westbury, I believe, which I think add to arround 12 additional diagrams).

The point is the only two ways of lengthening voyagers is to put end coaches in storage or building new coaches. Whilst with IEP there is there is also the option to reconfigure the length by shortening others. Also given the number ordered it is much more likely that a follow on order will be needed before the train design is obsolete.

Although there would appeare to be the same number of sets, the improved service pattern can be provided became the journey time will fall, even without any 140mph running. This is because the HST's take a lot longer to get to their top speed. Even just saving 20 minutes on a 2 hour journey means that for every six sets currently you only need five.

 

[sprinterguy]

You sure about this? I'm sure that, just like East Coast, FGW have a somewhat larger pool of HST power cars than operational HST coaching stock sets.

Isn't the effective number of 'HSTs' more like 54 or so?

Indeed. First Great Western operate a fleet of 53 complete HST rakes.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Rhydgaled As i have already said it won't necessarily work like that 10 car to Oxford and 5 car Beyond etc will distort the figures for doubling up.

 

[159220]

Might I add in with some interesting remarks made from Hitachi during a recent talk on the SET/Class 800/801 to which I attended.

Firstly, Hitachi confirmed that the MTU power units for the Class 800 (I did not ask with regard to the Class 801) are on a 10 year lease. At 10 years, Agility Trains can then extend the lease or return the power units to MTU. This would happen if (more likely when) the Class 800s became Class 801s due to the expansion of electrification in CP6-7. Very interesting and logical contracting I thought.

Secondly, the follow on orders within the original IEP specification/tender are cancelled/voided/over (I forget the specific term used). By follow on orders I mean the GWML Newbury-Penzance add on; GWML/Oxford electric add on; ECML/Cambridge/Kings Llyn add on; and the WCML/Northampton add on. Hitachi stated that the relevant operators would be responsible for ordering more Class 800/801 for these services if they thought they were an operational requirement. Thus, if FGW or the future operator believed Class 800s for Penzance are superior to HST refurbished for Penzance then it would be entirely for the operator and ROSCO to order Class 800s (Imagining the wires dont reach Penzance for Class 801s). Again, very interesting and logical contracting.

Thirdly, within FGW DfT remit to source EMU units for the electrified GWML there are two sorts of requirements. One which can be addressed by Class 319s, Adventra's, Desiro City's or AT100/200 half breed (Hitachi's wording by taking the benefits of the AT 100 and 200 to make a bespoke unit for the GWML Class 165/166 replacements). The other requires a 125/140 mph EMU for the Oxford fasts which are currently a HST diagram. Thus FGW/DfT can order the proposed 5 Car Class 801s first required within the IEP deal, but now as a separate order through a ROSCO at reduced cost. This would then allow for Hereford/Worcester 5 car Class 800 services to be doubled with a 5 car Class 801 between Paddington and Oxford. Again, very interesting and logical.

One other thing I wish to add to the forum, I also attended a talk from the boss of EMT who went onto explain in good length the reasons for not proceeding with pre-Operation Thor. I am sure members remember that before plans to add a pantograph to Class 220, EMT tooted the idea of adding a pantograph to Class 222. The cost of this and Operation Thor would match the cost for a like for like brand new EMU! The 220/221/222 to receive a pantograph/transformer coach would need a total re-build of the entire train. The cost match directly for a new build and as such, Operation Thor and relevant to EMT the original plans were dropped for being uneconomical. EMT did not say which 125mph EMUs they were considering, but noted that the Class 801 is a contender.

 

[Zoe]

Secondly, the follow on orders within the original IEP specification/tender are cancelled/voided/over (I forget the specific term used). By follow on orders I mean the GWML Newbury-Penzance add on; GWML/Oxford electric add on; ECML/Cambridge/Kings Llyn add on; and the WCML/Northampton add on. Hitachi stated that the relevant operators would be responsible for ordering more Class 800/801 for these services if they thought they were an operational requirement. Thus, if FGW or the future operator believed Class 800s for Penzance are superior to HST refurbished for Penzance then it would be entirely for the operator and ROSCO to order Class 800s (Imagining the wires dont reach Penzance for Class 801s). Again, very interesting and logical contracting.

So IEP for Plymouth/Penzance has officially been removed as an option in the contract then rather than the DfT deciding that it will be left to the TOCs to decide if they wish to take it up? Back in July 2012 it was still an option availble but if this is no longer the case (although I can't find any reports that it is officially no longer an option available, it may be that they first announced it at the talk) then I expect any future order will have to go to tender throughout the EU and Hitachi would then be up against the likes of Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens.

 

[The Ham]

So IEP for Plymouth/Penzance is has officially been removed as an option in the contract then rather than the DfT deciding that it will be left to the TOCs to decide if they wish to take it up? Back in July 2012 it was still an option availble but if this is no longer the case (although I can't find any reports that it is officially no longer an option available) then I expect any future order will have to go to tender throughout the EU and Hitachi would then be up against the likes of Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens.

I would have thought that if the TOC is the purchaser then they can enter agreements with whomever they like. If not then they just need to make the specification state so many features that it makes it difficult for any other train to be used including that the new train has to be able to work in passenger service with the IEP's and then it will almost guarantee to rule out any other company being able to produce something that will fit the brief (unless they are willing to spend lots on R&D so that they can ensure that Hitachi can't so easily get into the European market).

 

[tbtc]

Might I add in with some interesting remarks made from Hitachi during a recent talk on the SET/Class 800/801 to which I attended.

Firstly, Hitachi confirmed that the MTU power units for the Class 800 (I did not ask with regard to the Class 801) are on a 10 year lease. At 10 years, Agility Trains can then extend the lease or return the power units to MTU. This would happen if (more likely when) the Class 800s became Class 801s due to the expansion of electrification in CP6-7. Very interesting and logical contracting I thought.

Secondly, the follow on orders within the original IEP specification/tender are cancelled/voided/over (I forget the specific term used). By follow on orders I mean the GWML Newbury-Penzance add on; GWML/Oxford electric add on; ECML/Cambridge/Kings Llyn add on; and the WCML/Northampton add on. Hitachi stated that the relevant operators would be responsible for ordering more Class 800/801 for these services if they thought they were an operational requirement. Thus, if FGW or the future operator believed Class 800s for Penzance are superior to HST refurbished for Penzance then it would be entirely for the operator and ROSCO to order Class 800s (Imagining the wires dont reach Penzance for Class 801s). Again, very interesting and logical contracting.

Thirdly, within FGW DfT remit to source EMU units for the electrified GWML there are two sorts of requirements. One which can be addressed by Class 319s, Adventra's, Desiro City's or AT100/200 half breed (Hitachi's wording by taking the benefits of the AT 100 and 200 to make a bespoke unit for the GWML Class 165/166 replacements). The other requires a 125/140 mph EMU for the Oxford fasts which are currently a HST diagram. Thus FGW/DfT can order the proposed 5 Car Class 801s first required within the IEP deal, but now as a separate order through a ROSCO at reduced cost. This would then allow for Hereford/Worcester 5 car Class 800 services to be doubled with a 5 car Class 801 between Paddington and Oxford. Again, very interesting and logical.

One other thing I wish to add to the forum, I also attended a talk from the boss of EMT who went onto explain in good length the reasons for not proceeding with pre-Operation Thor. I am sure members remember that before plans to add a pantograph to Class 220, EMT tooted the idea of adding a pantograph to Class 222. The cost of this and Operation Thor would match the cost for a like for like brand new EMU! The 220/221/222 to receive a pantograph/transformer coach would need a total re-build of the entire train. The cost match directly for a new build and as such, Operation Thor and relevant to EMT the original plans were dropped for being uneconomical. EMT did not say which 125mph EMUs they were considering, but noted that the Class 801 is a contender.

Interesting stuff (and nice to see this thread going back to factual discussion about IEP rather than the well trod "what if" about eVoyagers and the opinionated bashing of IEP that it was in danger of descending in to)

 

[YorkshireBear]

Note any future orders will be procured the normal way and therefore cheaper!

 

[Zoe]

I would have thought that if the TOC is the purchaser then they can enter agreements with whomever they like.

They are running a public service contact for the government though so I expect the EU procurement rules will still apply.

Annex IV of directive 2004/17/EC includes

Providers of rail services which operate on the basis of special or exclusive
rights granted by the Department of Transport or any other competent
authority.

as a contracting entity in the field of rail services.

 

[ainsworth74]

They are running a public service contact for the government though so I expect the EU procurement rules will still apply.

Though one assumes that including the perfectly reasonable specification that 'all trains must be fully compatible with classes 800 and 801' would leave Hitachi as the runaway winner of any procurment project...

 

[Zoe]

Though one assumes that including the perfectly reasonable specification that 'all trains must be fully compatible with classes 800 and 801' would leave Hitachi as the runaway winner of any procurment project...

If it has to be compatible. One possibility is to retain HSTs on the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route and these certainly would not be comptabile so I'm not sure any new stock for this route would have to be compatible with the IEP.

 

[jimm]

IEP - a waste of all that money, how long did hst take to develop and go in to squadron service...this should have happened years ago...it needs to be bi-powered. simple.. build a voyager type unit, lob a pan on it, a transformer, place a diesel power divert in to the circuits JOB DONE...Bombardier wanted to do this and should have bit bullet and just developed the project. with the extra coach handling the overhead/dc plant would have been a simple unit to test as well, HS2 at night ???

Build a Voyager-type unit? Hands up anyone who think more vehicles to that design are a good idea...

 

[HSTEd]

I do, they are the most reliable intercity sets on the network.

9-car Voyager/Meridian units replacing all the HSTs for example.

 

[jimm]

I do, they are the most reliable intercity sets on the network.

9-car Voyager/Meridian units replacing all the HSTs for example.

Well I don't. Due to Oxford flooding and shift issues on Wednesday I forsook the Cotswold Line to drive to Banbury to be sure of a later train to get me somewhere near home - no-one with a brain is taking a car anywhere near Oxford at the moment due to flooding shutting lots of roads.

Travelled back out of Oxford on a Voyager. Vestibule door had failed, so was locked open, letting the toilet stink permeate the entire coach, which suffered constant vibration, far worse than any Class 180 I've ever ridden on.

The 22xs may be mechanically and electrically very reliable - forgetting that unfortunate period when Voyager engines were being overhauled with a part put in the wrong way round, causing fires - but as a passenger experience they, er, stink.

 

[HSTEd]

And the HSTs are so amazing?

My experiences of the ride and noise qualities of East Coasts' Mark 3s have now driven me to go to extreme lengths to ride on Mark 4s instead.

 

[jimm]

And the HSTs are so amazing?

My experiences of the ride and noise qualities of East Coasts' Mark 3s have now driven me to go to extreme lengths to ride on Mark 4s instead.

Who said anything about HSTs? And is it that surprising they are showing their age when they should all have been pensioned off by now?

Instead FGWs sets are now undergoing yet another life-extension overhaul. I take it EC's will require more work too so they can stagger on until 2019.

 

[HSTEd]

Who said anything about HSTs? And is it that surprising they are showing their age when they should all have been pensioned off by now?

My experiences riding Voyagers and Meridians show them to be superior to HSTs, which is what I am proposing they should have replaced, ten years ago or more.

HSTs should never have made it into the 21st Century in front line service.

 

[edwin_m]

Though one assumes that including the perfectly reasonable specification that 'all trains must be fully compatible with classes 800 and 801' would leave Hitachi as the runaway winner of any procurment project...

They would have to be very sure it was in fact "perfectly reasonable" otherwise they could find themselves in court. And if another potential bidder was feeling really cheeky they might even request full drawings and specs of the 800 and 801 as this information would be necessary for them to offer a "fully compatible" product.

 

[TheGrew]

They would have to be very sure it was in fact "perfectly reasonable" otherwise they could find themselves in court. And if another potential bidder was feeling really cheeky they might even request full drawings and specs of the 800 and 801 as this information would be necessary for them to offer a "fully compatible" product.

I sometimes wish railway procurement was more like aircraft where a certain number of planes are ordered with 'options' to be taken up at a later date. I do wonder if the 22x series would have been more successful had Virgin been given the coaches they asked for.

 

[swt_passenger]

I sometimes wish railway procurement was more like aircraft where a certain number of planes are ordered with 'options' to be taken up at a later date.

They usually are ordered with options for follow on extras. The 350/3s, 350/4s, 377/7s, and 378 fifth cars are all currently progressing examples of options on existing orders...

 

[Zoe]

I sometimes wish railway procurement was more like aircraft where a certain number of planes are ordered with 'options' to be taken up at a later date. I do wonder if the 22x series would have been more successful had Virgin been given the coaches they asked for.

The IEP contract did have further options (Paddington - Exeter - Plymouth - Penzance and Euston - Northampton for example) but is seems that this part of the contract has been voided. I'm not quire sure what advantage there was to voiding it as opposed to leaving the option in there but not taking it up should the TOCs elect to use or order alternative stock. Now any new stock on the routes will likely have to go to tender even if the IEP is wanted by the TOC.

 

[edwin_m]

The IEP contract did have further options (Paddington - Exeter - Plymouth - Penzance and Euston - Northampton for example) but is seems that this part of the contract has been voided. I'm not quire sure what advantage there was to voiding it as opposed to leaving the option in there but not taking it up should the TOCs elect to use or order alternative stock. Now any new stock on the routes will likely have to go to tender even if the IEP is wanted by the TOC.

Options are likely to expire after a period of time. The supplier is basically saying they will give you a good price if you order more of the same, but they wouldn't want to keep that offer open indefinitely in the face of rising costs.