IEP for beginners

[RichmondCommu]

How many times a day, and when, are trains going to need a loco change at Waverley to proceed to Aberdeen?

Thats not the issue! Head up to Edinburgh and you will see just how busy the station is. You cannot simply say that you will just run Aberdeen and Inverness trains between 22.00 and 07.00 in the morning.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Not really - and it's that sort of assumption that is completely illogical, and clouds the debate. Take a 23m Mk3 vehicle that has a mixture of table and airline of 76 seats. Add 3m extra length to the seated area, as the drawings show, and that would easily provide 12 extra seats, at 4 across, and at normal spacings.

It is wrong to use a simple 'ratio' of 26:23 for the seated area because the existing coaches have a significant part of their length without seats. So it is the current seating area, say about 18m, that has to be scaled up by +3m; so 21:18 which is uncannily near to 88:76

So there is no real evidence that the seat spacing will be any worse than current trains.

No worse than current trains is not good enough. 88 seats in a 26 metre vehicle is 16 seats too many. The Swedish X2000 trains have 72 seats in a 26 metre vehicle. British passengers are made to travel like cattle. They should not tolerate it. Click on the link and then click on vagnsskiss and you can download a pdf of the plan of all the carriages in the X2000 train. These are provided so that people can pick whatever kind of seat they want. And the carriages are over 3 metres wide.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And then as soon as the wires are up all the way just get rid of the loco.

What to be dumped on the scrap line?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

88 seats in a 26 metre vehicle is 16 seats too many. The Swedish X2000 trains have 72 seats in a 26 metre vehicle. British passengers are made to travel like cattle. They should not tolerate it. Click on the link and then click on vagnsskiss and you can download a pdf of the plan of all the carriages in the X2000 train. These are provided so that people can pick whatever kind of seat they want. And the carriages are over 3 metres wide.

You seem to have forgotten that more people live in the UK then Sweden? Trust me people who have paid a fortune for their tickets would much rather sit than stand. Which is why we need as many seats as possible. You also seem to forget about our loading gauge.

 

[Dave1987]

What to be dumped on the scrap line?

No put over to freight probably

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Thats not the issue! Head up to Edinburgh and you will see just how busy the station is. You cannot simply say that you will just run Aberdeen and Inverness trains between 22.00 and 07.00 in the morning.

And are you saying that there is no space for three loco changes in each direction during the daytime? It is not a proper loco change anyway as the train would be pushed from the London end by electric loco and the Aberdeen portion drawn off by the diesel. Opposite arrangement in the reverse direction.

And who says the loco change needs to be at Edinburgh Waverley?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What to be dumped on the scrap line?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You seem to have forgotten that more people live in the UK then Sweden? Trust me people who have paid a fortune for their tickets would much rather sit than stand. Which is why we need as many seats as possible. You also seem to forget about our loading gauge.

Loading gauge has nothing to do with seat pitch. Actually, a seat pitch of 95 cm is acceptable, that is the spacing of the facing bays on the Adelante as originally delivered. When you have got hold of the drawing work out how many seats can be fitted in at that spacing.

The number of people in a country has nothing to do with it. Most of the X2000 trains run as 5 or 6 car sets (they are push-pull units with a loco at one end), and there are a lot less railways as well. The British should stop putting up with being treated like cattle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because they have an awful lot of difficulties. The last pendo drag was cancelled as the 390 and 57 wouldn't talk with each other and it was replaced by a double voyager...

Sounds like bad design all round. The trains should be designed so that they can talk to locos with full operational compatibility.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And are you saying that there is no space for three loco changes in each direction during the daytime? It is not a proper loco change anyway as the train would be pushed from the London end by electric loco and the Aberdeen portion drawn off by the diesel. Opposite arrangement in the reverse direction.

.

I would say that you would be very hard pushed to find the room for conflicting light engine movements. Not only that but Waverley is likely to get busier in years to come but you want to block this with unnecesary loco moves. And where do you propose to stable the diesel loco at Waverley?

And who says the loco change needs to be at Edinburgh Waverley?

Trust me the situation would be no better at Haymarket given that everything from Waverley passes through Haymarket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The number of people in a country has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does! The size of the population dictates how many trains and seats you need.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No put over to freight probably

Yes Dave and we're crying out for those :roll:

 

[jimm]

And are you saying that there is no space for three loco changes in each direction during the daytime? It is not a proper loco change anyway as the train would be pushed from the London end by electric loco and the Aberdeen portion drawn off by the diesel. Opposite arrangement in the reverse direction.

And who says the loco change needs to be at Edinburgh Waverley?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Loading gauge has nothing to do with seat pitch. Actually, a seat pitch of 95 cm is acceptable, that is the spacing of the facing bays on the Adelante as originally delivered. When you have got hold of the drawing work out how many seats can be fitted in at that spacing.

The number of people in a country has nothing to do with it. Most of the X2000 trains run as 5 or 6 car sets (they are push-pull units with a loco at one end), and there are a lot less railways as well. The British should stop putting up with being treated like cattle.

Ah, broken record time again. No-one agrees with you but you just keep banging away at the same points over and over nevertheless.

What kind of trains do you think SJ would be building if it had to handle UK traffic levels? Not an X2000, nor an X55/SJ3000 - all of 241 seats in a four-coach train (though that is admittedly better than a four-car 220 but that's not difficult to achieve, is it?). That level of seating capacity would work well on a 17.00 long-distance departure from any of the London termini, wouldn't it?

Touched as I am by your concern for Britain's rail passengers, I'm afraid your 1950s-esque fantasy of steam-hauled wood-panelled Mk1s and lots of locomotives pottering about has no place in the modern world. And if you're so worried about us, then what about Japanese rail passengers (the E4 double-deck Shinkansen set carries 1,600-plus people in a 16-coach formation), or all those poor French people packed into double-deck TGVs?

 

[The Ham]

Sorry but only passenger doors need to be in the platform. That's why HST power cars can be off the end of the platform.

Yes, that is true at stations along the line that is possible, but at the London Termini that is not possible without blocking other platforms.

Also the maximum number of seats on a HST is 557 (GW high capacity), meaning that to have the same number of seats as a 9 coach IEP has 627 seats. Meaning to get close to the same capacity the HST's would need to run as 9+2, but it's a longer train and with just as much cramming in of seats.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

And yet nobody has challenged it. I would have expected companies that could make probably hundreds of millions of pounds in profits over 27.5 years to have challenged it if what you say is true, but they haven't.

Roger Ford discussed this in Modern Railways last year, hinting that there could have been a bit of pressure put on them by DfT not to do that if they wanted any more orders. You need to read between the lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, that is true at stations along the line that is possible, but at the London Termini that is not possible without blocking other platforms.

Also the maximum number of seats on a HST is 557 (GW high capacity), meaning that to have the same number of seats as a 9 coach IEP has 627 seats. Meaning to get close to the same capacity the HST's would need to run as 9+2, but it's a longer train and with just as much cramming in of seats.

There is plenty of room to extend platforms at Kings Cross and Paddington by a couple of coach lengths.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah, broken record time again. No-one agrees with you but you just keep banging away at the same points over and over nevertheless.

What kind of trains do you think SJ would be building if it had to handle UK traffic levels? Not an X2000, nor an X55/SJ3000 - all of 241 seats in a four-coach train (though that is admittedly better than a four-car 220 but that's not difficult to achieve, is it?). That level of seating capacity would work well on a 17.00 long-distance departure from any of the London termini, wouldn't it?

SJ runs X2000 trains as 2 x 7 car sets at busy periods, more often now the X3000 have come into service. Doesn't bother me I only come to the UK at most once a year but I am amazed at people's willingness to accept poor travelling conditions.

But it sounds as if there is a need for more railways, and before 2026. And the London termini have had their platforms shortened to make them into shopping malls so there is room to put the space back again without building new railways. They could also adjust the ratio of first and second class - SJ sometimes charge less for first class to fill them up, and a bit of tuning of the fares could shift passengers off the high peak. But then again it is easier to assert that "it can't be done"

 

[Clip]

In summary:

• 
  [*]It will be uncomfortable, due to squeezing in as many seats as possible

• 
  
  That is one mighty large assumption given you have not been on one yet isnt it. :roll:

 

[tbtc]

There is plenty of room to extend platforms at Kings Cross and Paddington by a couple of coach lengths

Is that you finally suggesting a "major infrastructure upgrade"

Except that, of course, IEP doesn't need that because it can have an extra coach in the space that a 225 set "wastes" with the engine and DVT.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

I don’t hate the trains they do what the specification required. I hate the Department of Transport's incompetence and gross waste of public money.

As Lexy put it clearly they are bespoke, and expensive have taken 7 years to get this far at a cost of over £60million so far.

I get a lot of my information from modern railways and it is not Hitachis fault, they have done what the government asked of them. The DofT seems to be staffed by people with no technical background as the specification was strange to say the least. Most of the traditional manufacturers were not interested in bidding which says it all. Hitachi went for it because they were interested in breaking into the European market and once they had committed although the DofT kept on changing the specification they couldn’t really afford to back out. In the last 3 years the design of the train has pretty much completely changed.

There have been a few attempts to kill it but it has always risen like Lazarus from the dead. There have been two audits of it and both have said all alternatives have not been considered and they didn’t consider it best value for money. But the DofT has ploughed on.

The DofT still wants to order more for the ECML but last months modern railways had an interesting comparison of cost.

A IEP is £60k per month
Pendolino £33k per month
Traxx loco with refurbed mark 4s £28k per month
Refurbed 91 and mark 4s £25k per month.

So IEP is double the cost of next expensive option.

Who is going to end up paying those astronomical rental prices? The passengers! At a time when the railways are already considered in-

It proves more than anything that the DofT micro manages the railway more than it did in the days of BR and it should be kept as far away as possible as it is incompetent.

As there is enough electrification going forward my preference is either ordering a off the shelf 125mph emu. Alstom have already said they can do a non tilt pendolino. Or Bombadier has said it can have a UK Traxx loco on the market in 3 years. Order this with refurbed mark 3s/4s or order new coaches. Plus then there would be a market for Traxx for freight as well. There should be enough people willing to order it to keep the costs down.

And beyond the wires loco haul it as virgin did to hollyhead. DRS has orderded class 68's, more of these could be ordered for these services. Keep devon and plymouth intercities refurbished HSTs or cascade meridians and voyagers from electrification

 

[tbtc]

The DofT still wants to order more for the ECML but last months modern railways had an interesting comparison of cost.

A IEP is £60k per month
Pendolino £33k per month
Traxx loco with refurbed mark 4s £28k per month
Refurbed 91 and mark 4s £25k per month.

So IEP is double the cost of next expensive option

Those figures make IEP look expensive. But aren't the IEP figures the total cost (including depots/ maintenance) whilst the other figures are just the lease costs?

As there is enough electrification going forward

Not to Inverness/ Aberdeen/ Hereford etc

 

[AndyLandy]

What would happen to the Diesel engines of the bi-mode trains once the wires are all up? They would be removed and probably scrapped, ie a total waste of money designing and building bi-mode trains!!

We aren't going to get enough knitting up to do away with diesel IC routes. As such, here are your choices:

• Build an EMU with cutover diesel engines to run off the wires. Throw those engines away once the wires go up.
• Build an EMU and haul it with a diesel locomotive off the wires. Throw the diesel locos away once the wires go up.
• Build a DMU and run it under the wires as well as off. Throw the whole DMU away once the wires go up.

I'll go with option A, thanks.

Sorry but only passenger doors need to be in the platform. That's why HST power cars can be off the end of the platform.

The actual platforms don't need to accommodate the power cars, but the signalling blocks and platform loops do need to be able to. Of course, once you've stretched the signalling blocks and track loops, the platform extensions are little more than some more concrete. At which point you're still best off with MUs where the driving vehicles can accommodate passengers.

That is one mighty large assumption given you have not been on one yet isnt it. :roll:

*sigh* I wish people would actually read my posts, rather than making sweeping assumptions. The OP asked what reasons were given by the anti-IEP brigade. I replied with the common answers. At no point did I suggest I agreed with them. Indeed I even clarified that specific point. "My personal opinion is that we do need something to replace the HSTs, but I have some reservations about what IEP is likely to deliver." I am hopeful that IEP will deliver some decent trains, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Dave1987]

I don’t hate the trains they do what the specification required. I hate the Department of Transport's incompetence and gross waste of public money.

As Lexy put it clearly they are bespoke, and expensive have taken 7 years to get this far at a cost of over £60million so far.

I get a lot of my information from modern railways and it is not Hitachis fault, they have done what the government asked of them. The DofT seems to be staffed by people with no technical background as the specification was strange to say the least. Most of the traditional manufacturers were not interested in bidding which says it all. Hitachi went for it because they were interested in breaking into the European market and once they had committed although the DofT kept on changing the specification they couldn’t really afford to back out. In the last 3 years the design of the train has pretty much completely changed.

There have been a few attempts to kill it but it has always risen like Lazarus from the dead. There have been two audits of it and both have said all alternatives have not been considered and they didn’t consider it best value for money. But the DofT has ploughed on.

The DofT still wants to order more for the ECML but last months modern railways had an interesting comparison of cost.

A IEP is £60k per month
Pendolino £33k per month
Traxx loco with refurbed mark 4s £28k per month
Refurbed 91 and mark 4s £25k per month.

So IEP is double the cost of next expensive option.

Who is going to end up paying those astronomical rental prices? The passengers! At a time when the railways are already considered in-

It proves more than anything that the DofT micro manages the railway more than it did in the days of BR and it should be kept as far away as possible as it is incompetent.

As there is enough electrification going forward my preference is either ordering a off the shelf 125mph emu. Alstom have already said they can do a non tilt pendolino. Or Bombadier has said it can have a UK Traxx loco on the market in 3 years. Order this with refurbed mark 3s/4s or order new coaches. Plus then there would be a market for Traxx for freight as well. There should be enough people willing to order it to keep the costs down.

And beyond the wires loco haul it as virgin did to hollyhead. DRS has orderded class 68's, more of these could be ordered for these services. Keep devon and plymouth intercities refurbished HSTs or cascade meridians and voyagers from electrification

Well said that man!! I didn't realise IEP was that expensive compared even to a pendo. Why are they so incompetent and blind to other cheaper alternatives!

 

[Clip]

*sigh* I wish people would actually read my posts, rather than making sweeping assumptions. The OP asked what reasons were given by the anti-IEP brigade. I replied with the common answers. At no point did I suggest I agreed with them. Indeed I even clarified that specific point. "My personal opinion is that we do need something to replace the HSTs, but I have some reservations about what IEP is likely to deliver." I am hopeful that IEP will deliver some decent trains, but I'm not holding my breath.

I did read your whole post thanks and a lot of it made sense but the part that I quoted did not.

[*]It will be uncomfortable, due to squeezing in as many seats as possible

You do not know this. In fact I find 125s a bit uncomfortable if I dont have a table seat given that im 6' 4" and they never seem to have enough leg room in them. But do I claim this as a reason that the trains are no good? No. And thats trhough using them quite regularly.

To claim they are uncomfortable before setting foot in one is quite a daft claim to make imo.

 

[Dave1987]

[*]Build an EMU and haul it with a diesel locomotive off the wires. Throw the diesel locos away once the wires go up.

But you wouldn't throiw the diesel loco away after you can use it for freight etc. If you have a bi-mode train first you are wasing vast amounts of energy hauling a dead diesel engine under the wires, then once the wires are up all the way and the engine is removed, unless it can be retrofitted to something else it is useless. A loco would not be scrapped after in fact if it was one of the new class 68's it would be used straight away in freight.

 

[AndyLandy]

I did read your whole post thanks and a lot of it made sense but the part that I quoted did not.

You do not know this. In fact I find 125s a bit uncomfortable if I dont have a table seat given that im 6' 4" and they never seem to have enough leg room in them. But do I claim this as a reason that the trains are no good? No. And thats trhough using them quite regularly.

To claim they are uncomfortable before setting foot in one is quite a daft claim to make imo.

I completely agree. Yet people make that claim, so I cited it as one of the many reasons for IEP-bashing. I never said that all the claims were grounded in any sense! I'm 6'3" so I sympathise, I struggle with legroom, too! In fact, I'm sure a FlyBe Dash 8 seat has more legroom than a Pendolino standard class airline seat.

But you wouldn't throiw the diesel loco away after you can use it for freight etc. If you have a bi-mode train first you are wasing vast amounts of energy hauling a dead diesel engine under the wires, then once the wires are up all the way and the engine is removed, unless it can be retrofitted to something else it is useless. A loco would not be scrapped after in fact if it was one of the new class 68's it would be used straight away in freight.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If we need more diesels for hauling freight right now, that's a separate issue entirely. Any diesels we buy for IEP drags wouldn't help with that demand. As we throw up more wires, more and more freight corridors will be electrified, just as passenger corridors are. If we buy a bunch of Class 68s for freight duties now, as the knitting goes up, we'd replace them with "Class 93"s (or whatever we call them) and those 68s would be free for redeployment.

 

[Dave1987]

I completely agree. Yet people make that claim, so I cited it as one of the many reasons for IEP-bashing. I never said that all the claims were grounded in any sense! I'm 6'3" so I sympathise, I struggle with legroom, too! In fact, I'm sure a FlyBe Dash 8 seat has more legroom than a Pendolino standard class airline seat.



I don't think that's necessarily true. If we need more diesels for hauling freight right now, that's a separate issue entirely. Any diesels we buy for IEP drags wouldn't help with that demand. As we throw up more wires, more and more freight corridors will be electrified, just as passenger corridors are. If we buy a bunch of Class 68s for freight duties now, as the knitting goes up, we'd replace them with "Class 93"s (or whatever we call them) and those 68s would be free for redeployment.

I severely doubt all freight lines will be electrified considering they usually have to have overhead cranes etc around them. Why would DRS even bother with a new diesel loco if freight was going the way of electric locos. But you still haven't addressed the point about hauling the dead weight of the Diesel engine under the wires. Immense waste of energy considering there is an alternative. Bi-modes are not necessary!

 

[AndyLandy]

But you still haven't addressed the point about hauling the dead weight of the Diesel engine under the wires. Immense waste of energy considering there is an alternative. Bi-modes are not necessary!

How heavy are these diesel engines in the grand scheme of things? Are they really so heavy as to have a significant impact on the train's weight and therefore its energy cost?

And my point about loops and signalling blocks still stands for locomotives. You may not need platform space for them, but there are plenty of other cases where the locomotive represents additional formation length that needs to be accommodated.

It may be that this is all easily addressable, and that loco hauling EMUs off-the-wires is genuinely a better option, but I'm skeptical...

 

[Dave1987]

How heavy are these diesel engines in the grand scheme of things? Are they really so heavy as to have a significant impact on the train's weight and therefore its energy cost?

And my point about loops and signalling blocks still stands for locomotives. You may not need platform space for them, but there are plenty of other cases where the locomotive represents additional formation length that needs to be accommodated.

It may be that this is all easily addressable, and that loco hauling EMUs off-the-wires is genuinely a better option, but I'm skeptical...

Thats fair enough but at least you are not discounting the idea. The Diesel engine for a bi-mode would be pretty heavy. For example you look at the voyagers and consider how big the engines are underneath them. Thats what your are looking at on a bi-mode and all that would be dead under the wires. A completely unnecessary bulk to haul around. Along with the electrical equipment for the pan, this will make them a great deal heavier. So the track access charges will be greater. I honestly believe loco hauling when the wires end is the best solution to the problem. It also seems to be the least expensive.

 

[HSTEd]

Bi-mode ends up lighter under diesel traction than a diesel locomotive and EMU combination.
And the additional weight under electric traction makes no significant difference to operating costs under electric traction.
Electricity is cheap and we are only talking 20t or so including fuel to match the so called "Class 68".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thats fair enough but at least you are not discounting the idea. The Diesel engine for a bi-mode would be pretty heavy. For example you look at the voyagers and consider how big the engines are underneath them. Thats what your are looking at on a bi-mode and all that would be dead under the wires. A completely unnecessary bulk to haul around. Along with the electrical equipment for the pan, this will make them a great deal heavier. So the track access charges will be greater. I honestly believe loco hauling when the wires end is the best solution to the problem. It also seems to be the least expensive.

The engines that are currently under a 5-car Super Voyager would be sufficient to operate any train we want to operate, as that would give teh formation a similar amount of power to the vaunted Eurolight.

 

[tbtc]

How heavy are these diesel engines in the grand scheme of things?

According to some people they are as heavy as a house and the noise of an underfloor engine is louder than a jumbo jet. But then I think that some people exaggerate...

Seriously though, until every line in the UK is electrified, there's always going to be "waste". The waste of having an underfloor engine that's only used for part of the journey is often discussed, but what about the waste of building locos that will only be used for a handful of journeys a week? What about the extra staffing costs required for those trips?

 

[Dave1987]

According to some people they are as heavy as a house and the noise of an underfloor engine is louder than a jumbo jet. But then I think that some people exaggerate...

Seriously though, until every line in the UK is electrified, there's always going to be "waste". The waste of having an underfloor engine that's only used for part of the journey is often discussed, but what about the waste of building locos that will only be used for a handful of journeys a week? What about the extra staffing costs required for those trips?

Sorry a handful of jobs a week?? The lines they will run on have a much more frequent service than that lol. You wouldn't need any extra crews so staffing wouldn't be an issue.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry a handful of jobs a week?? The lines they will run on have a much more frequent service than that lol. You wouldn't need any extra crews so staffing wouldn't be an issue.

Then who handles all these light movements that are going to be required to get locomotives into and out of position and people running all over stations and the like?

And there will be only a handful of jobs available per week.
Just look at the number of intercity trains to say holyhead, even if they were all loco hauled you are only going to be able to manage one, maybe two round trips a day per locomotive.

 

[D365]

Sorry a handful of jobs a week?? The lines they will run on have a much more frequent service than that lol. You wouldn't need any extra crews so staffing wouldn't be an issue.

And with those frequent services, the changeover time for a bi-mode set is going to be a lot quicker than having to attach a locomotive... Acceleration will be better too. Locos have maintenance requirements too. And staff ARE needed for light movements/shunts. Like HSTed, I'm just getting started!

 

[tbtc]

Sorry a handful of jobs a week?? The lines they will run on have a much more frequent service than that lol. You wouldn't need any extra crews so staffing wouldn't be an issue.

We are talking about one loco for the daily Edinburgh - Inverness service, maybe two locos for the Edinburgh - Aberdeen services, one for the daily Leeds - Harrogate service, one for the weekly Carmarthen service, a handful of locos for the Oxford - Worcester - Hereford services, at least one loco for the Bristol - Weston service... that's a lot of locos to build for a relatively low number of services a day.

You wouldn't need any extra crews? So when the London - Harrogate train arrives in Leeds, the driver gets out of his cab, walks to the siding where the "68" is stored, shunts it onto the front of the London train and then drives the combined service to Harrogate?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And with those frequent services, the changeover time for a bi-mode set is going to be a lot quicker than having to attach a locomotive... Acceleration will be better too. Locos have maintenance requirements too. And staff ARE needed for light movements/shunts. Like HSTed, I'm just getting started!

Agreed - in comparison bi-mode is going to be as simple as the AC/ DC switchover that EMUs regularly manage on routes like Thameslink and the NLL.

Having grown up with a model railway, I can see the attraction of lots of shunting movements, but a busy station like Leeds or Edinburgh isn't the place to be doing it.

 

[rebmcr]

You wouldn't need any extra crews? So when the London - Harrogate train arrives in Leeds, the driver gets out of his cab, walks to the siding where the "68" is stored, shunts it onto the front of the London train and then drives the combined service to Harrogate?

Presumably there would be a driver change, with the replacement ready and waiting, possibly at the front of the platform already.

There will also be a huge reduction in platform staff not having to slam Mk3 doors once the HSTs are gone, so it all balances out.

 

[tbtc]

Presumably there would be a driver change, with the replacement ready and waiting, possibly at the front of the platform already.

There will also be a huge reduction in platform staff not having to slam Mk3 doors once the HSTs are gone, so it all balances out.

Exactly - you'd need to introduce driver changes on routes that currently have none.

Or, with bi-mode IEP, you just press a button.

 

[HSTEd]

There will also be a huge reduction in platform staff not having to slam Mk3 doors once the HSTs are gone, so it all balances out.

Its more than slightly dodgy to assign those savings to your project and not to IEP.