IEP - signed

[Zoe]

Eh?
Lets just assume FGW keep the GW franchise, just for ease of writing.
If FGW have to take the cost of IEP into account, they are going to either but in a bid with higher subsidy, or with less payments to the DFT. The difference in payments or subsidy will be the extra cost of IEP.
Lets take the £850 million figure, and make a couple of payment scenarios up. With the cheaper 390/180 EMU, they make a payment to the government of £850 million. With IEP they make payments of zilch. Do you really think FGW will put in a bid with IEPs included, but agree to cover the cost of them out of their back pockets? Therefore keeping payments of £850 million to the government? No, they wont. The government, and the railways are going to be paying for this. FGW wont be.

FGW are not going to be buying the trains either, they are to be financed by Agility. It's not as simple as cancel the IEP and save the government £850 million. The railways are also not entirely funded by the government.

 

[Donny Dave]

FGW are not going to be buying the trains either, they are to be financed by Agility.

And FGW will be paying the leasing costs with either higher fares or reduced premiums/higher subsidy.

IE. The tax payer and/or the passenger ends up paying ...

 

[Zoe]

And FGW will be paying the leasing costs with either higher fares or reduced premiums/higher subsidy.

It may well cost less to build but can we be certain that the ROSCOs would charge less?

 

[Chris125]

The IEP is supposed to be of a modular design where down the line they can just remove the engine tray/raft.

In theory yes, and that appears to be the DfT argument regarding bi-modes being made redundant, but Roger Ford asked Hitachi about it and i dont think they thought it would be practical in reality.

Chris

 

[WatcherZero]

The thing that still keeps driving me nuts is people making flawed cost comparisons. They compare the cost of say a Pendolino and an IEP coach only the price isnt for an IEP coach. The higher IEP leasing charge also includes all maintenence costs and refurbishments that Tocs would normally perform themselves, construction of the depots and stabling costs. It even includes the cost of driving the units to the first station at the start of their morning run and returning them to the depot in the evening.

Its like comparing the headline cost to just purchase a car (no running/upkeep costs) to the cost of leasing one 5 days a week and saying.. wow, purchasing a car is so much cheaper.

 

[Erniescooper]

The thing that still keeps driving me nuts is people making flawed cost comparisons. They compare the cost of say a Pendolino and an IEP coach only the price isnt for an IEP coach. The higher IEP leasing charge also includes all maintenence costs and refurbishments that Tocs would normally perform themselves, construction of the depots and stabling costs. It even includes the cost of driving the units to the first station at the start of their morning run and returning them to the depot in the evening.

Its like comparing the headline cost to just purchase a car (no running/upkeep costs) to the cost of leasing one 5 days a week and saying.. wow, purchasing a car is so much cheaper.

If you want to make a like for comparison here you go, DFT says BI-mode IEP costs £180,000 and electric IEP £170,000 a month. The PKP Pendolino contract that includes full maintenace and leasing works out at £130,000 a month, nice and simple.

 

[starrymarkb]

The thing that still keeps driving me nuts is people making flawed cost comparisons. They compare the cost of say a Pendolino and an IEP coach only the price isnt for an IEP coach. The higher IEP leasing charge also includes all maintenence costs and refurbishments that Tocs would normally perform themselves, construction of the depots and stabling costs. It even includes the cost of driving the units to the first station at the start of their morning run and returning them to the depot in the evening.

Its like comparing the headline cost to just purchase a car (no running/upkeep costs) to the cost of leasing one 5 days a week and saying.. wow, purchasing a car is so much cheaper.

I thought most Siemens stock is under a similar deal, Siemens maintain the units at their own new build depots (Northam, Northampton, Adwick, York)

 

[Class377/5]

I thought most Siemens stock is under a similar deal, Siemens maintain the units at their own new build depots (Northam, Northampton, Adwick, York)

Correct. In fact all maintance staff transfer to Siemens when they introduce a new fleet like the 450/444's.

Siemens have managed to be cheaper by maintaining the stock itself unlike the industry expected standard.

However NR builds the depots not the TOC who then rent it back over time. Small difference but I'm pedantic at the best of times.

However does the 390 contract work off diagrams filled or trains made available?

 

[jon0844]

Then you lose the benefit of having the ability to use electric power when under the wires. With bi-mode the trains will have this ability immediately and you won't have the situation where you are having to run diesel engines under the wires for the electrified part of the route.

Sorry, I didn't mean specifically for routes that are part electric where IEP is actually a good idea, but the areas of the UK still using diesel only but that, might one day, get electrified.

 

[HSTEd]

If you want to make a like for comparison here you go, DFT says BI-mode IEP costs £180,000 and electric IEP £170,000 a month. The PKP Pendolino contract that includes full maintenace and leasing works out at £130,000 a month, nice and simple.

What interest rate on the up front capital spend did you assume?
Do we have any information as to the interest rate that has been obtained by Hitachi as that could skew the figures compared to the PKP contract.

EDIT:
If we were allowed to use public money to purchase trains siilar in cost to the PKP Pendolinos at current exchange ranges, using Inflation linked 20 year bonds, over the 17 year maintenance contract that would come to £108,000/month.

And we would own the trains outright at the end of it as well.

 

[Aictos]

While I don't have problems with underfloor engines (beyond the initial take off roll I don't notice them) I must say I agree. Would it not be better to buy something off the shelf (like Alstom's 180 with Pendolino drive) and use the money saved to extend the wires, which would have the knock on of allowing local services to benefit in some areas from going over to EMU operation as well.

I suspect Bombardier & Siemens would be happy to build some ICE-T* derivatives for the UK (without tilt). OK they'd need a custom bodyshell, but the traction pack and components are proven.

If the UK were insist on going down the Bi-Mode route wouldn't it be better to build a batch of Bi-Mode Sprinter type units first - Walk before trying to run...


*With the ICE-T; Herr Bombardier makes the Bodies and Herr Siemens does the Traction. Signor Alstom (ex-Fiat) supplies the Tilt kit...

Seconded, bearing in mind these IEPs will be around for quite some time UK Railways have no choice but to make sure they don't screw this up ala Operation Princess!

 

[swt_passenger]

Correct. In fact all maintance staff transfer to Siemens when they introduce a new fleet like the 450/444's.

AFAICR in the particular case of Northam depot they employed mainly newly recruited staff off the street, many of whom had no railway background. TUPE did not apply for some reason. Back in the early 2000s, this was headline news in the Eastleigh area as you can imagine.

I think the only transferees were at the outstabling points. You'll recall that Desiros stable at various places all over the SWT network, Northam is mainly the deeper maintenance, although there is some stabling there as well.

 

[Manchester77]

Hi. Will cross country and it's franchise successors get any bi mode IEP trains to replace their 5 HSTs?

 

[sprinterguy]

Hi. Will cross country and it's franchise successors get any bi mode IEP trains to replace their 5 HSTs?

I don't think it's on the cards. My favoured response to these sorts of musings is to say let's wait and see what proposals become evident for the West Coasts' rolling stock policy: If some 221s are freed up from West Coast after 2016 then it is far more likely that they will move to Crosscountry to replace their HSTs.

 

[tbtc]

Hi. Will cross country and it's franchise successors get any bi mode IEP trains to replace their 5 HSTs?

I don't know, but XC could be a home for any/all bi-modes if any gaps in the "London" routes are plugged (e.g. Cardiff - Swansea, Doncaster - Hull, Edinburgh - Aberdeen) - if these routes move over to "pure" electric operation then XC will always suit bi-mode (because the gaps will never be fully filled in during my lifetime).

 

[TGV]

Correct. In fact all maintance staff transfer to Siemens when they introduce a new fleet like the 450/444's.

Not the case for the Velaro Eurostar though.

 

[Kneedown]

Just so you all know why people have problems with IEP and Bi modes.

Not being able to hear the person next to you

There's a school of thought that would consider that a GOOD thing.

 

[Chris125]

Hi. Will cross country and it's franchise successors get any bi mode IEP trains to replace their 5 HSTs?

The cost of buying IEP sets and altering the infrastructure to allow their operation would surely make like-for-like replacement of such a small fleet of HST's unviable. Its perhaps more likely that electrification and/or alterations to routes could see some operated by EMU's, but until there's some kind of long term rolling stock and electrification strategy its hard to know.

Chris

 

[Class377/5]

AFAICR in the particular case of Northam depot they employed mainly newly recruited staff off the street, many of whom had no railway background. TUPE did not apply for some reason. Back in the early 2000s, this was headline news in the Eastleigh area as you can imagine.

I think the only transferees were at the outstabling points. You'll recall that Desiros stable at various places all over the SWT network, Northam is mainly the deeper maintenance, although there is some stabling there as well.

But as for the rest of Siemens work didn't they include current staff (Northampton, Ardwick)? I know the 700 deal is take on existing staff at some points plus additional staff.

Not the case for the Velaro Eurostar though.

I was talking about the UK only railway, not that familiar with Velaro deal.

 

[gwr4090]

It's not just a result of removing station calls but the IEP will offer better acceleration and this will reduce the journey time between London and Bristol by 22 minutes. With journey time of just over 1 hour 20 minutes between Bristol and London, and about 30 minutes between Bristol and Taunton the difference will be quite a bit less than 30 minutes. 125 mph between Bristol and Brigwater is under consideration and once ERTMS is installed on the GWML it certainly won't be imposisble for futher line speed improvements on this route and this will further reduce any time difference.

The bi-mode IEPs will have maximum speed of 110mph in diesel mode, so the 125mph extension south of Bristol would not be much help.

David

 

[Yew]

That's odd, So it's possible a diesel locomotive could be faster than a Bi-mode IEP on places cleared to 125? As well as cheaper?

 

[Zoe]

The bi-mode IEPs will have maximum speed of 110mph in diesel mode, so the 125mph extension south of Bristol would not be much help.

Any plan to use the IEP west of Bristol would need futher electrification to benefit from the improved line speeds, electirifacation would also likely be needed to benefit from improved acceleration. As far as I know the only use would be on services to Taunton which tend to stop at quite a few places between Bristol and Taunton and so the trains wouldn't benefit much from 125 mph. There is however no need for 125 mph IEP bi-mode west of Bristol though as HSTs are to be retained on most routes west of Exeter. The only exception to this is a 1 train per day IEP bi-mode to Paignton but this will run via the Berks and Hants line where there are no 125 mph sections.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's odd, So it's possible a diesel locomotive could be faster than a Bi-mode IEP on places cleared to 125? As well as cheaper?

I'm not sure if the accereration would be qutie as good with a locomotive and also there isn't anywhere off the wires that wouls require 125 mph at this time.

 

[HSTEd]

Although you could probably rig an IEP bi-mode to be able to work with a Pendolino type train if you fitted the correct coupling adaptors and programmed the TMS correctly, this would result in a drastic reduction in the production of IEP bodyshells and in many of its other common components like traction motors.

So to save any significant money you effectively have to eliminate Bi-mode, but as I have said I do not think that loco hauls are practical due to the effective dead-weight that a locomotive must haul to generate sufficient tractive effort, and the inefficiency of using an entire seperate traction chain.

The other options are try to electrify every InterCity route that recieves even one train a day, which would be enormously expensive and impractical, abandon such services entirely, which would be politically and economically inadvisable. (Despite what people say on this forum, a great many normal people hate changing trains). Or to somehow attempt to pass power to the traction motors of the existing train using the ETH couplings if they could be enormously uprated.

If you were to do that you would just need a four wheel wagon or a short bogie wagon (if that is required for the speeds desired) that is fitted with one of those CAT generators used in the Eurolight which could either be fitted with a cab or simply run round at the destination so that it is always on the rear of the train.

Are the ETH connectors on the existing Pendolinos to enable Class 57 drags to take place coupled directly to the main Low Voltage train bus or are they connected to a separate "hotel" bus?

The ideal solution would be to somehow manufacture a 25kV 50Hz power generator for the "wagon" and then couple it somehow directly to the 25kV bus on the Pendo. You could save the weight of the transformer if you could couple to the 3900V bus on the Pendo, but you might only be able to power some of the train's traction motors if you did that.
Do dual voltage Pendolinos that run on 3kV have to have both pantographs up when doing so?

Such a wagon would need a single traction motor on one axle and could be built as lightly as possible as it would not be expected to generate large amounts of tractive effort by itself.

 

[MarkyT]

For the GWML application, I think the proposal to use bi-modes on every train to Swansea and Weston Super mare is misguided, as a (hopefully much more likely now) extension of wires would permit a much larger proportion of the IEP fleet to be straight electric. The difference in the leasing charge between the electric and bi-mode seems to be very small; too little perhaps to truly account for the extra maintenance and potential downtime of the diesel fitted units, so perhaps there's an opportunity to renegotiate a lower fee for a fleet with a much lower proportion of bi-modes.

 

[HSTEd]

Well since I keep generating statistical analyses I thought I would do one using that Data from that PKP pseudo Pendolino order. (As far as I can tell IEP style 26m carriages with no tilt equipment, presumably you could shrink down the bodyshell to the British loading gauge and eliminate the tilt profiling as you do so).

The concept of this analysis is to calculate what the effect on the cost of the GWML project would be caused by electrifying all those sites that are projected to receive IEP services in the Franchise Consultation, as well as Plymouth (as not electrifying a few miles between Newton Abbot and Plymouth would be stupid) and operating non tilting EMUs similar to downscaled versions of those ordered by PKP retaining the 26m coach length of the IEP. (The only extra gauge clearing is between Newton Abbot and Plymouth).

Note: This projection is based upon the premise that the state would be willing to use public money to purchase the sets directly and to carry out the outlined capital improvements without resorting to PFIs. Therefore Inflation Index linked Treasury gilts of appropriate durations have been used to obtain capital discount rates.

Currently 314 carriages are planned to be ordered as part of the IEP project for the Greater Western franchise area.
If we add five additional seven car sets to this order to account for the replacement of HSTs currently serving on Plymouth terminators, leaving only the Penzance trains under HST operation, we get to 349 carriages.

The PKP order was for 30 7-car sets, and as such for a proper comparison we should calculate an order that averages to 7 car sets, with vehicles being moved between sets to disproportionate them based on franchise requirements.
A nice round number of 50 sets seems appropriate. Although this is smaller than the combined planned HST and IEP fleet on GW, the fact is that doubling up bi-mode and electric sets will be unnecessary under this plan, reducing the total set count.

Assuming the new smaller bodyshell for the existing 26m equipment can be amortised into insignificance across the larger 50 set order, the cost per set should be similar to the PKP value, which is 22 million euros (665 / 30 sets) per set.
The total would be 1.1 billion euros, or roughly £865m at current exchange rates. These prices include the purchase of the sets and 17 years maintenance.
If we assume we wish to defray the entire cost of the sets over the first seventeen years to avoid having to untangle the maintenance costs, this gives us a value of £72,150/month for each seven car set. (Using a typical IL20 bond yield of -0.95%)

To allow an all electric pseudo-Pendolino fleet to be deployed on all IEP assigned duties on the Greater Western franchise area, I calculate the following routes will have to be electrified:

• Bristol to Plymouth Line
• Berks and Hants
• Cardiff to Swansea Line
• Cotswold Line
• Golden Valley Line
• Swansea to Camarthan line
• Paignton Branch Line

I calculate these routes to total roughly 422 double track miles, and using a Delta Rail Report on the low cost electrification of branch lines I calculate a figure of roughly £1m per double track mile electrification.
Holding the project to cost can be easily achieved in my opinion, especially such as proposals for the isolation of overhead wiring underneath troublesome bridges to avoid gauging works can be implemented.

Therefore I derive a value of roughly £452m for the electrification works on this project.
If the capital cost of the project is defrayed over 37 years (again using IL37 gilts, of roughly 0.05% yield) the repayment cost for this project comes to roughly £1m per month.

So, 50 7-car sets at roughly £72,150 per month each comes to £3.6m/month, combined with the capital spend on electrification that comes to £4.6m/month.

Assuming the DfT study on the leasing costs (I assume that includes maintenance and minor things, but the whole ECS in the morning thing seems like it would cause all sorts of headaches and not save much money anyway) is correct we would see £170,000/month for 5 car electrics and marginal more for bi-modes.

£4.6m/month spread over sets at £170,000/month comes to roughly 27 5-car sets.

So this plan is cheaper than the DfTs proposal on the face of it, I'm not sure if I've missed something critical but it appears this is a major indictment of the IEP itself and of PFIs in general.

EDIT:
For clarities sake I calculate the GW IEP fleet to be normalised to 62.8 5-car sets, which is a saving of 35.8 5-car sets, which translates to a total saving of nearly £73m per year.

This is assuming that the HSTs have zero leasing costs and that overall diesel costs are equivalent to the same energy value of electricity (which is a stupidly conservative estimate).

 

[WatcherZero]

Did you actually read what the low cost electrification measures were? Their mostly impractical for the routes you mention, for example they limit line speed to 50mph.

 

[HSTEd]

Did you actually read what the low cost electrification measures were? Their mostly impractical for the routes you mention, for example they limit line speed to 50mph.

Yes, but I was chiefly referring to the neutral section thing, since that does not seem to be particularly impractical.

You just need basic 25kV electrification with headspans and single track cantilevers really.
You probably don't even need the booster transformers assumed in that electrification costing (do rail return instead).

Note: this figure was derived from full main line electrification costs as the baseline they sought to improve on, not from the low cost electrification proposal itself.

 

[junglejames]

Well since I keep generating statistical analyses I thought I would do one using that Data from that PKP pseudo Pendolino order. (As far as I can tell IEP style 26m carriages with no tilt equipment, presumably you could shrink down the bodyshell to the British loading gauge and eliminate the tilt profiling as you do so).

The concept of this analysis is to calculate what the effect on the cost of the GWML project would be caused by electrifying all those sites that are projected to receive IEP services in the Franchise Consultation, as well as Plymouth (as not electrifying a few miles between Newton Abbot and Plymouth would be stupid) and operating non tilting EMUs similar to downscaled versions of those ordered by PKP retaining the 26m coach length of the IEP. (The only extra gauge clearing is between Newton Abbot and Plymouth).

Note: This projection is based upon the premise that the state would be willing to use public money to purchase the sets directly and to carry out the outlined capital improvements without resorting to PFIs. Therefore Inflation Index linked Treasury gilts of appropriate durations have been used to obtain capital discount rates.

Currently 314 carriages are planned to be ordered as part of the IEP project for the Greater Western franchise area.
If we add five additional seven car sets to this order to account for the replacement of HSTs currently serving on Plymouth terminators, leaving only the Penzance trains under HST operation, we get to 349 carriages.

The PKP order was for 30 7-car sets, and as such for a proper comparison we should calculate an order that averages to 7 car sets, with vehicles being moved between sets to disproportionate them based on franchise requirements.
A nice round number of 50 sets seems appropriate. Although this is smaller than the combined planned HST and IEP fleet on GW, the fact is that doubling up bi-mode and electric sets will be unnecessary under this plan, reducing the total set count.

Assuming the new smaller bodyshell for the existing 26m equipment can be amortised into insignificance across the larger 50 set order, the cost per set should be similar to the PKP value, which is 22 million euros (665 / 30 sets) per set.
The total would be 1.1 billion euros, or roughly £865m at current exchange rates. These prices include the purchase of the sets and 17 years maintenance.
If we assume we wish to defray the entire cost of the sets over the first seventeen years to avoid having to untangle the maintenance costs, this gives us a value of £72,150/month for each seven car set. (Using a typical IL20 bond yield of -0.95%)

To allow an all electric pseudo-Pendolino fleet to be deployed on all IEP assigned duties on the Greater Western franchise area, I calculate the following routes will have to be electrified:

• Bristol to Plymouth Line
• Berks and Hants
• Cardiff to Swansea Line
• Cotswold Line
• Golden Valley Line
• Swansea to Camarthan line
• Paignton Branch Line

I calculate these routes to total roughly 422 double track miles, and using a Delta Rail Report on the low cost electrification of branch lines I calculate a figure of roughly £1m per double track mile electrification.
Holding the project to cost can be easily achieved in my opinion, especially such as proposals for the isolation of overhead wiring underneath troublesome bridges to avoid gauging works can be implemented.

Therefore I derive a value of roughly £452m for the electrification works on this project.
If the capital cost of the project is defrayed over 37 years (again using IL37 gilts, of roughly 0.05% yield) the repayment cost for this project comes to roughly £1m per month.

So, 50 7-car sets at roughly £72,150 per month each comes to £3.6m/month, combined with the capital spend on electrification that comes to £4.6m/month.

Assuming the DfT study on the leasing costs (I assume that includes maintenance and minor things, but the whole ECS in the morning thing seems like it would cause all sorts of headaches and not save much money anyway) is correct we would see £170,000/month for 5 car electrics and marginal more for bi-modes.

£4.6m/month spread over sets at £170,000/month comes to roughly 27 5-car sets.

So this plan is cheaper than the DfTs proposal on the face of it, I'm not sure if I've missed something critical but it appears this is a major indictment of the IEP itself and of PFIs in general.

I expect you will find difference in leasing costs even bigger than you predict.
Also, to save even more money, scrap the 26m coach lengths. Virtually all of the routes need to be route cleared, at a cost well into the millions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

FGW are not going to be buying the trains either, they are to be financed by Agility. It's not as simple as cancel the IEP and save the government £850 million. The railways are also not entirely funded by the government.

I know all that, and my point still stands. The government will be £850 million worse off through smaller premium payments.

FGW will be leasing these trains (dunno where you got the idea that i said purchasing them) and the government will feel the cost of this. FGW will not cover the extra cost out of their own back pocket. Especially as they dont want the things anyway.

 

[Zoe]

FGW will be leasing these trains (dunno where you got the idea that i said purchasing them)

You seem to think that £850 million of public money is going to be spent by having the trains built. The trains are to be financed privately and the leasing costs although higher will include maintainance which is not covered currently. Also don't forget that the railways are not entirely funded by public money so it can't be known for sure that the entire cost of the trains will be unlimately funded with public money. If the government were purchasing the trains or FGW were purchasing them and the government were going to cover the full cost then it could be said that £850 million of public money is going to be spent on the trains but this is not the case. It can't accurately be said that the government will be paying the full £850 million for the trains as the railways are not entirely funded by the government.

 

[HSTEd]

You seem to think that £850 million of public money is going to be spent by having the trains built. The trains are to be financed privately and the leasing costs although higher will include maintainance which is not covered currently. Also don't forget that the railways are not entirely funded by public money so it can't be known for sure that the entire cost of the trains will be unlimately funded with public money.

Well in a sense it will be.
We will commit to giving them some obscene sum of money so they can make enormous profits.
If I have to spend £1 a year for the next 30 years or something, it is effectively equivalent to me borrowing a certain sum and having to pay back those £30 as if they were repayments on the loan.

The extra cost will be passed onto the taxpayer with extra added on, that is how PFIs work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I expect you will find difference in leasing costs even bigger than you predict.
Also, to save even more money, scrap the 26m coach lengths. Virtually all of the routes need to be route cleared, at a cost well into the millions.

We don't know if 23m vehicles are significantly cheaper than 26m ones though, and since we would need more vehicles for each train to have the same capacity, thanks to extra vestibules and the like, it is not clear what the saving overall would be.

Sine 26m vehicles have certain operational benefits that are hard to derive cash values for I chose to exclude them from the analysis.
But either way the saving seems sufficiently large to cause me to question its accuracy.