IEP Construction Progress

[jimm]

In my opinion the economic case for keeping them where they are is better than the case for replacing them.

And you know this because? Have you seen the paperwork that was presumably presented to DfT by the parties concerned before it made its decision?

I suppose it depends what metric for failure rate Hitachi are using when they claim IEP will do 60,000.

Hitachi are not making any such claim, that is the mpc requirement set out by DfT in the IEP technical specification. They have shown what they can do with the 395. Their trains operating in Japan are also very reliable.

I agree the slower services which call at more stops, such as the calling pattern you described, will benifit significantly from IEP. I'm not saying the ECML shouldn't have IEP. I'm saying it should have a mix of IC225s and IEPs, instead of the current mix of IC225s and IC125s.

What I am saying is there is less need for rapid acceleration on the fastest London-Scotland expresses than there is on the MML, and probably on the GWML. Therefore, given two fleets of trains (the IC225s and the 270 IEP carriages ordered to replace them) I suggest that the logical thing to do would be to use the IEPs on the GWML or MML and leave the IC225s on the East Coast, rather than using the IEPs on the ECML and putting the IC225s on the MML (which runs the risk of increasing journey times compared to the current services worked by 222s).

But DfT thinks the logical thing to do is have one single train fleet on the route, with the same operating characteristics, so has ordered IEP. Why is there less need for rapid acceleration on Scottish services? If they get up to 125mph more quickly, they can reach their destination more quickly.

As for your ideas of logic, at one time I seem recall you telling us it was logical to have GWML services operated by a mix of HSTs to the South West, 91s and Mk4s to Bristol and South Wales and 22xs to the Cotswolds. Where was the logic in that?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Why is there less need for rapid acceleration on Scottish services?

Because there is less accelerating and more crusing to do if you have fewer stops.

As for your ideas of logic, at one time I seem recall you telling us it was logical to have GWML services operated by a mix of HSTs to the South West, 91s and Mk4s to Bristol and South Wales and 22xs to the Cotswolds. Where was the logic in that?

I still think that would be a logical solution, aside from the 22xs due to their many flaws, and the fact the idea of converting them to bi-modes is dead in the water. However, I now consider an IEP fleet for Great Western (but without 5-car sets, expect perhaps a small pool of 5 to 7 units), with some IC125s retained for the long-distance off-wire runs, to be logical also. This change of heart is partly because of the problem with what to use on the Cotswolds otherwise given the problems with 22xs.

Another factor in my change of tune is that the huge cost of IEP has now been committed to, so they have to be used somewhere and my focus has shifted from trying to avoid the sky-high costs to trying to make the number of IEP vehicles which have been ordered as useful as possible.

 

[TheGrew]

I wonder how favourably the IEPs are for track wear. I imagine it would probably be far better than the equivalent 91 with Mk4 rake. Because of the better distribution of weight. That might work in their favour as far as track access charges are concerned. Something which in the intercity game of high speed long distance running probably adds up quite a bit.

The MML I would suggest would be better off with either a Pendolino derivative (I gather tilt would be useful given a cost/benefit analysis). Or more wait for it.... IEP. Ultimately the success of the Class 43 and Intercity 125 can be partly attributed to fact we built so many of them which helps push advances in reliability more quickly.

As for the 60K figure, if Hitachi can't deliver then they are really shooting themselves in the foot. I work for a large IT managed services company and if we signed an SLA we couldn't deliver we would be screwed...

 

[TheKnightWho]

There are locos we classed as knackered that are now running around quite happily in Europe. I think it was some 86/87's.

I've already said - it's nothing to do with them being knackered! It's the fact that replacing them will be cheaper.

Being unusable is not the only reason for replacing a loco, even if it might seem like 'common sense' to you that it's cheaper to run things into the ground before replacing them.

 

[tbtc]

That's not the only reason I think we should keep 91s on their current services. I also think it would be better to save money buying new electric trains for the GWML and/or MML by using the 270 IEP carriages (the ones ordered to replace IC225s) on those routes instead.

As for why the GWML needs new electric trains, because the 5-car IEPs need lengthening.

It doesn't matter what the argument is, you find a reason why IEP IS A BAD THING - which kind of suggests that you are going to complain about IEP no matter what (however many times people explain that five coach IEP is going to be doubled up on busy sections or however many times people explain that "drags" don't work or however many times people explain that bi-mode isn't the end of the world or however many times people explain that we aren't going to electrify everything overnight).

 

[Haydn1971]

It's a shame we won't get to read the variety of options by the franchise bidders on how they each propose to use the new fleet on the ECML and if other options are allowed in the bids.

 

[RichmondCommu]

There you go again.... Love and peace, don't be an angry banker !

I'm a happy little soul. Life is too short to be anything other than cheerful!

 

[Rhydgaled]

I wonder how favourably the IEPs are for track wear. I imagine it would probably be far better than the equivalent 91 with Mk4 rake. Because of the better distribution of weight. That might work in their favour as far as track access charges are concerned. Something which in the intercity game of high speed long distance running probably adds up quite a bit.

Could easily go either way. IEP might be kinder to the track or it might not. Some time ago there was a peice in Modern Railways which suggested retaining LHCS on the London - Norwich service could be less of a track maintainance concern than replacing them with EMUs.

The MML I would suggest would be better off with either a Pendolino derivative (I gather tilt would be useful given a cost/benefit analysis). Or more wait for it.... IEP.

Assuming there are no major guage clearance issues, it would be better to use IEPs on the MML than to replace the IC225s in my opinion. I think there's going to be an IEP depot at Doncaster and EMT will still have several services (one to Lincoln, two north of Corby and summer Saturdays to Scarborough) which go beyond the wires. If you specified neutral branding in the franchise aggreements, you could have a shared fleet between EC and EMT consisting of something like:

• 30x IC225 sets
• 20x 9-car 'electric' IEP
• 15x 9-car bi-mode IEP
• 10x 10-car 'electric' IEP

The big unknown is how many diagrams are required for the MML, as I don't have the diagrams for the Meridian fleet (unlike the IC125's, which are available from the 125 group website). Also, the split between the 9-car bi-modes and 9-car 'electrics' may need slight ajustment.

I've already said - it's nothing to do with them being knackered! It's the fact that replacing them will be cheaper.

I disagree that replacing them will be cheaper, and if you are refering to the 91s then doesn't Eversholt believe retaining 91s to be cheaper than replacing them with TraXX? TraXX has advantages over 91s, but they come with a price tag attached which is higher than sticking with the 91s, and given the public spending crisis and the ammount already commited on IEP I'm flying the flag of the cheap option in this case.

It doesn't matter what the argument is, you find a reason why IEP IS A BAD THING

No, you've got me wrong. Before the order was signed I was treating IEP as a bad thing due in part to the insanely high cost it carries. The trains themselves, aside from a few details, are not a bad thing, but given the vast ammount spent on them I'm trying to suggest ways to eek maximum benifits out of them. For example, new electric trains on the MML being more useful than replacing IC225s on the East Coast.

however many times people explain that five coach IEP is going to be doubled up on busy sections

and I've made it clear that I appreicate that point but that I disagree with portion working (except with things like 158s) and am concerned the choice of 5-car or 9-car will lead to 5-car being used when passenger numbers require a train longer than 5-car but less than 9.

or however many times people explain that "drags" don't work

and I believe that they can work. They (drags) aren't the answer in all cases, but if the East Coast franchise has to run with a stand-alone flee I believe they are an answer to the many miles of under-wires running for the infrequent off-wire services that TOC operates.

or however many times people explain that bi-mode isn't the end of the world

it isn't the end of the world, it's just unecessary in some cases because of the ability to drag with a diesel locomotive or likelihood of future electrification. In other cases, like the Cotswolds line, it is the best way to maintain through services so is a good solution assuming removing the through service is not an acceptable option.

or however many times people explain that we aren't going to electrify everything overnight).

this last I am well aware of. The problem I have is that we don't know the order things will be electrified after the currently announced schemes, but some of the routes IEPs are earmarked for look more likely candidates for priority wiring than regional routes.

 

[Haydn1971]

due in part to the insanely high cost it carries

Out of interest, has anyone done the calculations here comparing the PFI costs over the 27 years against the inflation adjusted costs of the (extrapolated) Voyager/Meridian, the 225 or better still the 125 fleets over a similar period ? Covering the same costs as the PFI covers ?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Out of interest, has anyone done the calculations here comparing the PFI costs over the 27 years against the inflation adjusted costs of the (extrapolated) Voyager/Meridian, the 225 or better still the 125 fleets over a similar period ? Covering the same costs as the PFI covers ?

Not as such as far as I know, there was a comparison with class 390s which I believe included maintainance costs etc. £74,500 per diagramed vehicle per month for the IEP phase 1 fleet, compared to £37,000 per diagrammed vehicle per month for the class 390s.

The nearest to what you've asked for though is found at the bottom of page 27 in the Sept2013 Modern Railways. There's a table which lists the 'rolling stock costs' for the East Coast franchise:

• Current fleet (IC125 and IC225): £85m per anum
• Planned IEP-only fleet: £266m per anum
• Net increase: £181m per anum

By way of comparison, the table also lists the premium paid by East Coast in 2011-12, £187.7m. The increase in costs brought by IEP is almost enough to wipe out the premium.

 

[BananaRepublic]

• Current fleet (IC125 and IC225): £85m per anum
• Planned IEP-only fleet: £266m per anum
• Net increase: £181m per anum

That isn't comparing like with like though.
One is for fully written down (amortised) stock, based on largely different metrics, while the other includes purchase finance and other elements that would apply to any new fleet purchase.

 

[159220]

Considering the thread is called "construction progress" it is my understanding that the first Class 800 shall be completed for the IEP project by June. I am aware a small team of Hitachi UK factory workers (what is the PC term for a train builder?) are in Japan training. And most importantly are NOT headhunted from Bombardier Derby! (Means Hitachi employees shall be able to construct a train that does not rattle)

The whole Japanese ideology that a career/job is for life, like a family. I think setting up their European Train Assembly factory in Co. Durham is only a brilliant thing for long term train construction in the UK for all of Europe. What are members opinions on this future of Hitachi Rail UK construction? (Positive discussion about the benefit to the UK and not repeated incorrect speculation about the Intercity Express Programme that was signed contract a long time ago)

 

[Dave1987]

I've already said - it's nothing to do with them being knackered! It's the fact that replacing them will be cheaper.

Being unusable is not the only reason for replacing a loco, even if it might seem like 'common sense' to you that it's cheaper to run things into the ground before replacing them.

I don't class leasing costs going from £85m to £266m as being "cheaper". I do not believe it costs over £181m to maintain the current fleet so your argument about new trains being cheaper is completely flawed!

 

[NotATrainspott]

Considering the thread is called "construction progress" it is my understanding that the first Class 800 shall be completed for the IEP project by June. I am aware a small team of Hitachi UK factory workers (what is the PC term for a train builder?) are in Japan training. And most importantly are NOT headhunted from Bombardier Derby! (Means Hitachi employees shall be able to construct a train that does not rattle)

The whole Japanese ideology that a career/job is for life, like a family. I think setting up their European Train Assembly factory in Co. Durham is only a brilliant thing for long term train construction in the UK for all of Europe. What are members opinions on this future of Hitachi Rail UK construction? (Positive discussion about the benefit to the UK and not repeated incorrect speculation about the Intercity Express Programme that was signed contract a long time ago)

Hitachi are bidding for Crossrail and they have prospective designs for commuter (AT-100), regional (AT-200) and express (AT-300, aka the 395 Javelin) trains. These designs can be delivered in any length between 20 and 26 metres and are available with whatever interior arrangement you want. As a result I can see them replying to every single tender which is going up in the near future. At the very least it isn't going to be a two-horse race between Bombardier and Siemens in Germany.

 

[tbtc]

and I've made it clear that I appreicate that point but that I disagree with portion working (except with things like 158s) and am concerned the choice of 5-car or 9-car will lead to 5-car being used when passenger numbers require a train longer than 5-car but less than 9

I know that you don't like portion working, but its going to happen, so pretending that there'll only be five coaches on services at the London end of a route is disingenuous.

All of this talk that "5-car IEPs need lengthening" ignores the fact that they won't be running five coach trains on busy services - they'll be doubled up.

And nobody has convinced me that five 26m coaches won't be able to cope with routes like Swindon to Gloucester/ Cheltenham or Oxford to Worcester/ Hereford.

 

[The Ham]

I know that you don't like portion working, but its going to happen, so pretending that there'll only be five coaches on services at the London end of a route is disingenuous.

All of this talk that "5-car IEPs need lengthening" ignores the fact that they won't be running five coach trains on busy services - they'll be doubled up.

And nobody has convinced me that five 26m coaches won't be able to cope with routes like Swindon to Gloucester/ Cheltenham or Oxford to Worcester/ Hereford.

Also, if they are not run doubled up, then there is the possibility (subject to there being the same total number of units and finding the paths) that service frequency could be increased. (although due to the pathing issues it's highly likely that they will be run paired up).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also with regards to costs not only should the cost per vehicle be looked at, but also the cost per seat. As otherwise if I needed to build a train with a set number of coaches I could cut costs to the bone by not fitting any seats and having each coach as small as possible. In doing so I could therefore be able to claim that my train was a lot cheaper than my competitors and wasn't the DfT being silly by not giving me the order.

In comparison the nine coach 390's have about 70% the number of seats as the draft layouts for the IEP's. That basicly means for every 5 coach IEP you would need to run the 390's as 7 coaches long and for each 9 coach IEP you need the 390's to be 13 coached long. Now although the costs in providing those extra coaches my not be that much more, the cost of enabling the infrastructure to run trains that long may be horrendous.

Then when looking at the cost comparison of the 91's and Mark 4's, given the limited number of Mark 4's the only way to increase their capacity is to remove others from service to do so (given the 31 sets, that would mean replacing at least 3 of them just to lengthen each set by one coach). Therefore to provide more capacity you need to partly replace them anyway (three sets) and provide each loco with more power or live with slower journey times and possibly undertake infrastructure works for them to fit on the network. All of which may be a lot more expensive than just going with IEP's (even allowing for a few new Locos for the Mark 4's to carry on being used) with the added bonus that the Mark 4's can be used elsewhere on the network.

 

[Dave1987]

I know that you don't like portion working, but its going to happen, so pretending that there'll only be five coaches on services at the London end of a route is disingenuous.

All of this talk that "5-car IEPs need lengthening" ignores the fact that they won't be running five coach trains on busy services - they'll be doubled up.

And nobody has convinced me that five 26m coaches won't be able to cope with routes like Swindon to Gloucester/ Cheltenham or Oxford to Worcester/ Hereford.

So what do you do if one portion is delayed? You would then have a 5 car stranded with no path and no train crew. Also when they are "doubled" up how is the guard supposed to get all the way through the train?

 

[anthony263]

Hitachi are bidding for Crossrail and they have prospective designs for commuter (AT-100), regional (AT-200) and express (AT-300, aka the 395 Javelin) trains. These designs can be delivered in any length between 20 and 26 metres and are available with whatever interior arrangement you want. As a result I can see them replying to every single tender which is going up in the near future. At the very least it isn't going to be a two-horse race between Bombardier and Siemens in Germany.

Hitachi are going around to everyone presenting their designs.

Even the Welsh Government have been approached. Depending on the costs perhaps we could see brand new roliing stock ordered for the Cardiff Valleys.

No doubt Hitachi will have done their homework before bidding for the IEP contract and no doubt are doing their best behind the scenes to make sure the class 800/801's are very reliable. I wont be too surprised if we see the 1st class 800 completed early ready for shipping over to the uk

Japan has a excellent railway network and that knowledge could be a very good thing to have in the uk.

Anyway I think having Hitachi around will certainly keep Bombardier on their toes especially if we do see this rumoured EDMU order from the DFT

 

[ainsworth74]

So what do you do if one portion is delayed?

What happens currently? You know on the hundreds of services that join and split everyday.

Also when they are "doubled" up how is the guard supposed to get all the way through the train?

The same that XC guards do currently I'd propose...

 

[Rhydgaled]

Considering the thread is called "construction progress" it is my understanding that the first Class 800 shall be completed for the IEP project by June.

Interesting, I didn't think the squadron introduction was due to start until 2016/17. Any idea when the prototype completed in June will reach the UK for testing?

I think setting up their European Train Assembly factory in Co. Durham is only a brilliant thing for long term train construction in the UK for all of Europe.

Personally, I think it will be a good thing provided both it and the Derby plant can be sustained. I think the Derby plant does more than the Durham one will so, if I had to choose one to keep I'd pick Derby. I hope both can be sustained though.

Anyway I think having Hitachi around will certainly keep Bombardier on their toes especially if we do see this rumoured EDMU order from the DFT

First I've heard of it. Any details? Assuming by EDMU you mean electro-diesel (aka bi-mode) rather than diesel-electric, I hope this will be for regional express stock with end doors, we have plenty of suburban 1/3,2/3 type stock arround (170s, 185s, 172s, 350s, 450s, 377s etc.) but are short on things like 158s.

So what do you do if one portion is delayed? You would then have a 5 car stranded with no path and no train crew.

What happens currently? You know on the hundreds of services that join and split everyday.

Not sure if it's been due to delay or other reasons, but I've travelled on Cambrian services missing one of the portions before, it's no fun.

Also when they are "doubled" up how is the guard supposed to get all the way through the train?

The same that XC guards do currently I'd propose...

They have to get off at a station, not exactly very convienant compared to be able to walk along the train while it's moving.

 

[anthony263]

Yes EDMU aka bi-mode.

Not much information available at the moment although there is a thread over on wnxx on this subject. Certainly a regional unit would be great for those routes which run under the wires for parts of their journeys.

As for who could build such units Bombardier and Hitachi would be the most likely the latter having the experience from the class 800's

 

[Dave1987]

What happens currently? You know on the hundreds of services that join and split everyday.



The same that XC guards do currently I'd propose...

This is going to happen on a much bigger scale. At the moment trains are strengthened during the peak from depots. You are talking about two car trains splitting going to two separate destinations and then joining up the return trip everytime. If one is late, you are either going to have to delay the onward service or leave a portion sat in the platform when it finally arrives with no path and no crew.

 

[ainsworth74]

You are talking about two car trains splitting going to two separate destinations and then joining up the return trip everytime. If one is late, you are either going to have to delay the onward service or leave a portion sat in the platform when it finally arrives with no path and no crew.

I take it you've never been to the former Southern Region then? What you're talking about (trains going to seperate desinations) is a common occurance there. For example here, this train will be serving Three Bridges and Reigate splitting at Redhill. Or how about this service? Bognor Regis to London Victoria joined at Horsham by a service from Southampton Central before running together to London Victoria.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Or the Norwich Liverpool's which do it everyday.

 

[NotATrainspott]

And the IEP spec document says the trains have to be able to do it quickly and reliably. If this doesn't transpire to be the case then Agility Trains will be on the hook to fix it.

 

[dosxuk]

Personally, I think it will be a good thing provided both it and the Derby plant can be sustained. I think the Derby plant does more than the Durham one will so, if I had to choose one to keep I'd pick Derby.

Because it's been there longer by any chance? With any regards to whether a new plant could do it's job quicker, easier and cheaper disregarded?

 

[Haydn1971]

That isn't comparing like with like though.
One is for fully written down (amortised) stock, based on largely different metrics, while the other includes purchase finance and other elements that would apply to any new fleet purchase.

Exactly why I worded my question as I did - of course a new fleet of 800/801's is going to cost more to introduce than continuing to run the existing 225 fleet, but what happens when you include the purchase cost of the existing fleets, adjust for inflation and/or cost indices... £100m in 1975 is the same as anything between £0.7-1.1Bn in today's prices depending how you work it out, perhaps £0.8-1.3Bn in 2020 prices - how much did the 125 initially cost. ?

 

[Dave1987]

I take it you've never been to the former Southern Region then? What you're talking about (trains going to seperate desinations) is a common occurance there. For example here, this train will be serving Three Bridges and Reigate splitting at Redhill. Or how about this service? Bognor Regis to London Victoria joined at Horsham by a service from Southampton Central before running together to London Victoria.

Right so what happens when one portion is delayed? What happens when they turn up in the wrong order for the diagrams they are booked on?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Because it's been there longer by any chance? With any regards to whether a new plant could do it's job quicker, easier and cheaper disregarded?

Maybe slightly because it's been their longer, but more to do with the impression I have that a wider range of work is carried out at Derby than will be the case at Hitachi's UK train factory. Granted I mainly got that impression from certain posters who rather over-exaggerate by saying the work done at Hitachi's plant will amount to applying 'do not eat the soap' stickers, but that implies a wider range of skills would be lost if Derby closes than if Hitachi's plant does.

 

[ainsworth74]

Right so what happens when one portion is delayed? What happens when they turn up in the wrong order for the diagrams they are booked on?

That's what I asked earlier! You raised that issue, I pointed out that they seem to cope elsewhere with the many trains that do it day in and day out and asked 'What happens currently?'. Only for you to come back and ask me the same question I posed earlier in the thread!

So basically we've just gone around in a huge flipping circle