IEP setback

[RAGNARØKR]

There is a news story about the second tranche of the IEP order, which is now in doubt. As the only report so far is behind the FT's paywall, it is not possible to provide a link.

The doubt relates to the vehicles for replacement of the IC225 fleet, which have not get been given the financial go-ahead by the government. The question that now arises is what effect it will have on the viability of the whole project?

 

[ainsworth74]

The IC225 replacements were only ever an option so I'm not sure it'll have any impact (unfortunately) on the program going forward.

 

[tbtc]

The question that now arises is what effect it will have on the viability of the whole project?

None, I would imagine (other than those who've always been against IEP will seize on the chance to criticise it again).

Maybe a second phase will be postponed until the first sets are up and running, who knows. Either way, there will need to be some more long distance traction ordered in the next decade (MML electrification etc).

 

[wintonian]

Link to the story at The Northern Echo

Blow to multi-billion pound train building scheme

HE Government has admitted it may not sign off on part of a multi-billion pound contract which would bring train building back to the region, it was reported on Sunday.

Hitachi has already received a £4.5bn order to supply 596 carriages to the Department of Transport for the Intercity Express Programme (IEP).

The units will be assembled at a purpose-built factory at Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, in a move which could create more than 700 jobs directly and many more in the supply chain.

The Japanese manufacturer also secured an option for a further 270 vehicles to run on the East Coast Main Line and replace the InterCity 225 trains (read more)

 

[northwichcat]

There were concerns raised a while back about the cost of IEP as 225 replacement compared to the cost of buying Pendolinos as replacement.

 

[Wath Yard]

The IC225 replacements were only ever an option so I'm not sure it'll have any impact (unfortunately) on the program going forward.

Well, yes. That's what an option is. If it was a guaranteed order then it wouldn't have been an option. Retaining the 91s and Mk IVs, which is what the article states is being considered, has always been the other (more sensible considering the age of the fleet) option.

I don't think anybody who matters has considered replacing the 91s with Pendolinos. There has been an infinite amount of excited speculation on forums but I've never seen any evidence of a real plan. One test run on the ECML doesn't make a plan.

 

[fgwrich]

Well, yes. That's what an option is. If it was a guaranteed order then it wouldn't have been an option. Retaining the 91s and Mk IVs, which is what the article states is being considered, has always been the other (more sensible considering the age of the fleet) option.

I don't think anybody who matters has considered replacing the 91s with Pendolinos. There has been an infinite amount of excited speculation on forums but I've never seen any evidence of a real plan. One test run on the ECML doesn't make a plan.

By the sounds of it (from Roger Ford this morning), there should be a few more details & a detailed examination of the Pendolino of the East Coast in the next Modern Railways Magazine.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well, yes. That's what an option is. If it was a guaranteed order then it wouldn't have been an option.

Well quite. Hence why I said in response to the OP that I don't think it'll have an impact on IEP going forward.

Retaining the 91s and Mk IVs, which is what the article states is being considered, has always been the other (more sensible considering the age of the fleet) option.

Indeed, come back in eight years and then it'll about time to start replacement program but there's no need for it now. A heavy refurbishment of the Mk4s and either the same to the 91s or brand new locomotives is all that's needed there for the time being. A program that looks suspiciously like a PFI scheme is not what we need.

 

[Wath Yard]

By the sounds of it (from Roger Ford this morning), there should be a few more details & a detailed examination of the Pendolino of the East Coast in the next Modern Railways Magazine.

I don't need to spend £4.80, or whatever Modern Railways costs, to discover Roger Ford hates IEP with a passion and loves Pendolinos, but thanks anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think anybody who matters has considered replacing the 91s with Pendolinos. There has been an infinite amount of excited speculation on forums but I've never seen any evidence of a real plan. One test run on the ECML doesn't make a plan.

The current government commissioned a review in to IEP and the alternatives available.

The alternatives for ECML running were:

* Reform the management of connecting
services and remove through-journeys for
long-distances (e.g. Aberdeen, Inverness);
connecting trains should be of high quality
using re-engineered IC125 trains for
instance
* Reform existing IC225 trains by adding a
single coach to each by breaking up 3 trains
and redistributing the coaches; replace these
with 3 trains of re-engineered MkIII coaches
that are currently in storage
* New high performance electric locomotive to
replace the electric locomotive on the
reformed IC225 and MkIII trains outlined
above
* Re-engineering of IC125 trains to extend
their life and achieve suitable compliance to
the regulations for persons of reduced
mobility
* New long-distance electric train that can be
hauled with a diesel locomotive off the
electrified network; the electric train should
have high acceleration and a top speed of
125mph

A Pendolino meets the last suggestion. DfT can't say Pendolino though unless they are proposing a cascade of existing Pendolinos due to rules on tenders. However, they can write an invitation to tender which a Pendolino would meet all the requirements for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A heavy refurbishment of the Mk4s and either the same to the 91s or brand new locomotives is all that's needed there for the time being.

Although it was envisaged that the mk4s would be cascaded elsewhere as mk3 replacement if that IEP option went ahead. There were no plans to write them off yet.

 

[Wath Yard]

Options listed in a project review don't constitute a plan. It was reported a while ago that the DfT had come to the conclusion there are no realistic options to cascade the 91s and Mk IVs, which is why the IEP option to replace them has never been that likely.

 

[dosxuk]

During the WCML debacle, we were told by numerous people that Pendo's can't be built any more, Althom have got rid of the jigs, and that the "baby Pendo's" won't be Pendo's, but a completely new product based on the same ideas.

If that's all as true as was being made out, how can Pendo's still be an option for the ECML? And if they're talking about a new train (like the baby Pendo's) that's not been built yet, how can anyone know the costings for it in order to compare it?

 

[ainsworth74]

During the WCML debacle, we were told by numerous people that Pendo's can't be built any more, Althom have got rid of the jigs, and that the "baby Pendo's" won't be Pendo's, but a completely new product based on the same ideas.

We were? What's the sources for this out of curiosity?

 

[northwichcat]

If that's all as true as was being made out, how can Pendo's still be an option for the ECML? And if they're talking about a new train (like the baby Pendo's) that's not been built yet, how can anyone know the costings for it in order to compare it?

Class 221s are really the same train as class 220s but only the 221s can tilt. A non-tilting Pendolino could be called a class 389 and run on the ECML although there are obvious disadvantages to that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

there are no realistic options to cascade the 91s and Mk IVs, which is why the IEP option to replace them has never been that likely.

That was also the case with the 319s a few years back. There were suggestions that Northern would give up EMUs to LM or vice versa and get 319s in return. However, that would have meant over 50 x class 319s unallocated.

The solution DfT came up with was a scrap a new DMU order for extra capacity for Northern, TPE and FGW and electrify certain routes instead.

 

[Wath Yard]

The Class 319 analogy is on no way relevant. They are bog standard inner/outer suburban EMUs that can work anywhere. The 91s and Mk IVs are 125 mph (140 mph design) trains built specifically for one route. The DfT can't just magic up 125 mph electrified mainlines to cascade them to.

 

[starrymarkb]

During the WCML debacle, we were told by numerous people that Pendo's can't be built any more, Althom have got rid of the jigs, and that the "baby Pendo's" won't be Pendo's, but a completely new product based on the same ideas.

If that's all as true as was being made out, how can Pendo's still be an option for the ECML? And if they're talking about a new train (like the baby Pendo's) that's not been built yet, how can anyone know the costings for it in order to compare it?

Order another batch and Alstom can get more jigs easily enough - the designs would be archived - they managed it for the follow on batch 10 years after the original order. Dismantling the jigs is not an issue at all!

 

[northwichcat]

The Class 319 analogy is on no way relevant. They are bog standard inner/outer suburban EMUs that can work anywhere. The 91s and Mk IVs are 125 mph (140 mph design) trains built specifically for one route. The DfT can't just magic up 125 mph electrified mainlines to cascade them to.

So you're saying you know for certain that there is no way they can be used as class 86 replacement in the Anglia franchise?

 

[Wath Yard]

Yes, I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty they won't replace 86s on the GEML!

 

[tbtc]

What would be the point in ordering non-tilting Pendolini (when the tilting nature of the 390s is responsible for many of the problems - the narrow body, the lack of overhead luggage space etc - since it needs to be fairly sleek inside)?

The "jigs" argument seems bogus to me - order some and they'll build them - even if they had no archive material and had to reverse engineer them using an existing 390 as a template! (it's more of an issue with DMUs, as I understand it, due to the engines)

 

[dosxuk]

We were? What's the sources for this out of curiosity?

There were various posts saying as much on the "First win Intercity West Coast" thread, starting from around page 160 (but I think it was mentioned earlier, I've not reviewed the whole thing).

Including, on page 165:

Procurement, development, build and acceptance will take a while. There is nothing 'off the peg' to order. Even if it is baby Pendolinos they won't be Pendolinos. IEP isn't going to enter service until approx 2017 and that order has already been confirmed.

Along with numerous posts to the point that the extra 390s were only built as special derogations to the current build standards.

I don't know if any of it is true, hence asking...

 

[sprinterguy]

Indeed, come back in eight years and then it'll about time to start replacement program but there's no need for it now.

Eight years time is roundabout the earliest date that the ICC225s could be replaced by IEP trains.

 

[ainsworth74]

Eight years time is roundabout the earliest date that the ICC225s could be replaced by IEP trains.

Well yes but my point was that 2020 would be the earliest time to even start the procurement program for a replacement not the time that such a replacement should be entering service. And I certainly wasn't suggesting a hard and fast date, eight years was simply, to my mind, the earliest that such a program should start I wouldn't be worried if it started later.

 

[route:oxford]

Is it really so hard?

Replace the 91 and first 3 coaches with a 5 car 140mph capable 6300hp EMU that is capable of hauling 6 Mk4 Coaches and a DVT.

Distributing traction over 12 axles rather 4 than should help improve acceleration and reduce track wear.

Passenger accommodation in the leading coach as well as the the additional coach would add around 100 seats to each set.

The 122(?) "spare" coaches...

That's 20 sets of 6 Mk4 coaches...

All ready to be attached to a further batch of 5 car of EMUs along with a new build of 20 DVTs.

Problem solved...

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 might render the replacement programme moot in favour of an expanded order of classic compatible trains that would run the remaining all-classic services that won't be covered by the IEPs.

 

[anthony263]

Shame and here I was hoping a miracle had happened and someone in the DFT had pulled the plug on IEP for the GW

 

[AndyLandy]

So you're saying you know for certain that there is no way they can be used as class 86 replacement in the Anglia franchise?

Class 86? Are there any 86s left on that service? I thought it was all 90s.

I got the impression from another thread here that using 91s on the GEML was counter-productive because their acceleration profile isn't anywhere near that of the 90s they'd be replacing, so they'd actually be a step backwards for journey times, especially if the line is still limited to 100mph operation.

 

[Goatboy]

91's and Mk4's will live out their entire life on the ECML. It is the only sensible place for them - nowhere else has track suitable for them really except perhaps the WCML and thats hardly likely to happen. Therefore the most sensible option, which I expect is the one that will be chosen, is a heavy refurbishment to give them another 20 years and then throw them all in the bin once they reach 40.

Anything else is just a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Though its interesting to see 50% of the options in the DFT options thing quoted above included re-engineered IC125's.

 

[northwichcat]

Class 86? Are there any 86s left on that service? I thought it was all 90s.

Did my time machine not work again? :roll:

I got the impression from another thread here that using 91s on the GEML was counter-productive because their acceleration profile isn't anywhere near that of the 90s they'd be replacing, so they'd actually be a step backwards for journey times, especially if the line is still limited to 100mph operation.

Different suggestion then - what about shortening the length of the mk4 sets and using them with 91s on a Newcastle-Liverpool service? Could that work?

 

[sprinterguy]

Well yes but my point was that 2020 would be the earliest time to even start the procurement program for a replacement not the time that such a replacement should be entering service. And I certainly wasn't suggesting a hard and fast date, eight years was simply, to my mind, the earliest that such a program should start I wouldn't be worried if it started later.

Ah, ok now I follow you. And to be honest, I agree with you.

 

[AndyLandy]

Did my time machine not work again? :roll:

Afraid not. That's what you get when you let the DfT run the procurement for it!

Different suggestion then - what about shortening the length of the mk4 sets and using them with 91s on a Newcastle-Liverpool service? Could that work?

I'd imagine the situation would be similar, possibly even worse. The 91s are hulking great beasts with a decent top speed, but not exactly fantastic acceleration. I've even been told that a 90 could probably outpace a 91 on KGX-PBO. The only services they're really suitable for are high speed lines with long distances between station calls.

The other key observation that occurs to me is that they're only two years younger than the 90s, so there's not much real-world benefit in cascading 91s to replace 90s. However, if you're looking to create accessible trains and don't want to spend money on Mk3 refurbs, I don't see any reason why a 90 couldn't haul a Mk4 rake.