IEP & Thameslink

[swt_passenger]

MML is now not happening, been robbed to pay for TP electrification and Cardiff. Bi-modes instead beckon... :-x

So you must have seen a leak of the SofS's finalised proposals for the CP5 HLOS/SofA, just over 2 months early?

Any other useful insider info you can give us?

 

[Zoe]

Very few pure EMUs now, mostly bi-mode.

Won't the London to Bristol route and services from London that terminate at Cardiff services be pure EMUs? If so then I'd have thought you'd need more than a few trains for this route.

 

[anthony263]

I think the GW will only be getting 8 pure emu's all being 8 carriages with some 8 carriage bi-mode but the majority of the bi-modes will be 5 carriages

 

[Zoe]

I think the GW will only be getting 8 pure emu's all being 8 carriages with some 8 carriage bi-mode but the majority of the bi-modes will be 5 carriages

I doubt 4 tph to Bristol and 1 tph to Cardiff can be done with just 8 units so are they going to be using bi-mode on services entirely under the wires?

 

[Nym]

yes, welcome to DfT stupidity...

 

[Pumbaa]

I doubt 4 tph to Bristol and 1 tph to Cardiff can be done with just 8 units so are they going to be using bi-mode on services entirely under the wires?

No Anthony is correct. There are only 8 all electric diagrams currently envisaged on the GW. So that's 10 EMUs at 80% utilisation.

 

[Zoe]

No Anthony is correct. There are only 8 all electric diagrams currently envisaged on the GW. So that's 10 EMUs at 80% utilisation.

I don't see how they are going to maintain 4 tph to Bristol and 1 tph to Cardiff though with just 8 all electric diagrams. It would seem that there will need to be some bi-mode diagrams entirely under the wires.

 

[Pumbaa]

So you must have seen a leak of the SofS's finalised proposals for the CP5 HLOS/SofA, just over 2 months early?

Any other useful insider info you can give us?

The EC IEP depot has been moved from Doncaster to Sheffield. Bi-mode on the MML would make the order justifiable once again. Send the 222s to GW as envisaged and bump off the rest of the HSTs. Job done.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

G'day everyone,
A quick and simple question which hopefully someone will be able to answer. Has the government given the definite go-ahead for the IEP project and as we speak are Hitachi constructing the first train?
Secondly, what progress are Siemens making with their Thameslink trains and when are they due to arrive?

No and no. There are no contracts for either IEP or Thameslink trains, just preferred suppliers.
Maybe another 6-9 months before Hitachi/Siemens can get going (assuming the contracts are signed).
So that means no progress with TL class 319 cascades either.
The July HLOS and imminent GW franchise ITT may give some clarity.

 

[anthony263]

I am sure I read somewhere before that the 8 carriage emu's were really only going to see use on the London Paddington - Swindon - Bristol TM services which run via Chippenham and the London Paddington - Cardiff services.

In fact I have heard talk over the last week or so of them cutting the Swansea - London service to hourly throughout the day with no additional trains from Swanse at say 06;00, 07:00 & 08:00 and from London at say 16:15, 17:15, 18:15 which in my opinion is asking for trouble as the 06:45 & 07:45 ATW Manchester services from Swansea would not be able to cope.

Basically meaning that there will be a number of workings which will be terminated at Cardiff.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I doubt 4 tph to Bristol and 1 tph to Cardiff can be done with just 8 units so are they going to be using bi-mode on services entirely under the wires?

Aren't Oxford fasts (entirely electrified) going to be IEP as well?

Great Western franchise consultation doc says

• 26x 5-car bi-mode (26 x 3 diesel engines = 78 = 19.5 million quid)
• 11x 8-car 'electric' (still 8 diesel engines, or £2m worth) and
• 12x 8-car bi-mode (any idea how many diesel engines that is?)

11 'electric' diagrams wouldn't cover 4tph to Bristol as well as the hourly Cardiff service, let alone any Oxford fasts that are IEP operated. So some bi-mode diagrams will contain services that are 100% under the wires*. DaFT.

* EDIT: Either that, or they'll be extending more Bristol services to Weston-Super-Mare/Taunton, which means they might as well extend the wires down there.

The EC IEP depot has been moved from Doncaster to Sheffield. Bi-mode on the MML would make the order justifiable once again. Send the 222s to GW as envisaged and bump off the rest of the HSTs. Job done.

That had better be a joke. If that happens, it would be a disaster.

If the case for IEP needs such barmy plans to be justified, what would applying common sence to EC and using EMUs (class 67 hauled over the non-electrified sections) do to the case for the bi-mode IEP order, which would stand at just 37 units for GW?

 

[Pumbaa]

That had better be a joke. If that happens, it would be a disaster.

If the case for IEP needs such barmy plans to be justified, what would applying common sence to EC and using EMUs (class 67 hauled over the non-electrified sections) do to the case for the bi-mode IEP order, which would stand at just 37 units for GW?

No joke. Move the centre to Sheffield. EC and MML can share a load of bi-modes and foist the 222s to the West.

Roger Ford has picked up on it this month. Was released last week so not much media info. Unsurprisingly it wasn't 'announced' cos that way everyone would know :roll:

 

[sprinterguy]

[*]12x 8-car bi-mode (any idea how many diesel engines that is?)
[/LIST]

Four diesel engines per unit apparently. Is there a link to the GW franchise consultation document you could provide per chance? This is the first time I have seen mention of eight carriage Bi-mode IEP sets as a definite order so it would seem that I need to update my numbers since the last big IEP announcement in early 2011. The total fleet size still tallies up, so I don't doubt the numbers you have stated.

 

[Nym]

Tally up or not, it's still an insane idea...

 

[sprinterguy]

Tally up or not, it's still an insane idea...

Absolutely. The logic behind the allocation of IEP trains is ridiculous.

 

[Nym]

I'm also hoping that putting the EC Depot in Sheffeild to justify the Bi Mode is a joke...

I really do hope that this idea gets thrown out as being too expensive, I suspect the project has very few supporters now.

 

[Class377/5]

Siemens have not yet agreed a contract with the DfT etc for the supply of any Thameslink train. Until that happens one can safely assume no significant work is underway. The bogie shown at a exhibition earlier this year was a development prototype for testing of the new design.

Hitachi are in the same position re the IEP.

I can tell you now for a fact Siemens are working in the new 700's units. Initial parts sourcing is on going and first bogies are bing built to spend time testing prior to being fitted onto an actual units.

There is significant work bing under taken, just not lots of phsyical stuff. There is quite a lot to sort out on a technical level. Will be great to see these things in service.

But main problem is no contract igned, that's delaying every thing. Remember when the DfT started this the first new train needed to be in service for 1st Febuary 2012. Nearly four months past this date and they have yet to sign.

G'day everyone,

A quick and simple question which hopefully someone will be able to answer. Has the government given the definite go-ahead for the IEP project and as we speak are Hitachi constructing the first train?

Secondly, what progress are Siemens making with their Thameslink trains and when are they due to arrive?

Thanks in advance,

Richmond Commuter

I'm not sure of the current timetable but last year I had a timetable for introduction and it wasn't that long. It may be even shorter now with Siemens working behind the scenes.

No and no. There are no contracts for either IEP or Thameslink trains, just preferred suppliers.
Maybe another 6-9 months before Hitachi/Siemens can get going (assuming the contracts are signed).
So that means no progress with TL class 319 cascades either.
The July HLOS and imminent GW franchise ITT may give some clarity.

Does now seem the 319's will be going prior to the 377/5 now on Thmeslink.

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres some obvious problems with the Modern Rail calculation it costs 20k more a month, for a start risk. If the Government/Rosco bought the stock they take on the risk whereas their asking the manufacturer to assume the risk. Say theirs a collision and a unit has to be written off, under the Rosco model they collect the insurance and are just down one expecting the Government to order more. Under the manufacturer provision model the Manufacturer would have to provide a replacement in service straightaway or not get paid.

Pendolino is a mature model over a decade old with the development costs paid off, IEP would be a lighter more fuel efficent train of a brand new design with a higher service availibility percentage. Thirdly maintenence is included whereas for a Pendolino the Toc would have to maintain it itself and I bet you it costs more than 20k a month to maintain!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there a link to the GW franchise consultation document you could provide per chance?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-36/

Consultation closed 31 March, DfT response and GW ITT imminent.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Four diesel engines per unit apparently.

Ok, so 4 engines for 8-car, 3 for 5-car and 1 for 'electric'.

• 26x 5-car bi-mode (26 x 3 diesel engines = 78 = 19.5 million quid)
• 11x 8-car 'electric' (still 8 diesel engines, or £2m worth) and
• 12x 8-car bi-mode (12 x 4 diesel engines = 48 = £12m)

Total: 134 engines, £33.5m, or wires halfway to Swansea

Do we know where East Coast's at now, is it still 35 5-car DMUs for a job that could be done with 14 10-car EMUs and a handful of 67s? That'd be 35 x 3 = 105 engines = £26,250,000

Total for both EC and GW is £59,750,000, only £2.25m-ish short of wires to Swansea. Look at guage clearance costs though, and IEP should have been chucked in the bin long ago.

I wonder what the cost of the DfT's latest escalation of daftness (IEP on MML) is. One element of that cost is guage clearance, probably alot, but I've no figures to base it on. I'm also going to need to blind guess at numbers, shall we say 25 5-car units? Modern Railways August 2011 comes out again, an IEP electric vehicle, it says, costs £2.25m. 25 x 5 = 125 x £2.25m = £281.25m. But wait, that's just an EMU, they'd be bi-modes, right? 25 x 3 = 75 engines, at £250,000 each that's another £18,750,000.

So, unless I'm converting between my decimal millions and my long numbers incorrectly, to put 25 5-car bi-mode IEPs on MML would cost £300m in trains plus an unknown (and very significant) amount in guage clearance.

So what could we buy for that? The DfT already think £127m for the XC Voyager fleet bi-mode might be worth doing. If that's agreed, then we can knock that off the £387m needed to buy 172 pantograph cars to convert the whole 22x fleet*. That's £260m, 300m - 260m = £40m left over, plus whatever MML IEP clearance costs. £20m might buy 10 diesel locos for beyond Swansea and Bristol - Taunton/Weston** and the remaining £20m, coupled with the MML guage clearance money, might just be enough to cover life-extension of some 2+7 Intercity 125s for XC's route 1 to release 5-car bi-mode 220s for Cotswolds and Westbury. There, I might just have done it, paid for a much more sensible option within the costs of IEP (though it depends hugely on just how many IEPs DaFT are planning to put on MML).

*I'm assuming 22x panto cars cost the same £2.25m as Modern Railways says an IEP car is.
**Yes, I know you have to sort-out signalling to make a loco attachment faster, but would that be all that hard?

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

I apologise in advance to all of those people I'm about to offend, but here goes...

A lot of the debate on this thread (and elsewhere in this forum) has focused on the issue of not wiring Cardiff-Swansea, and it's implied by many that the IEP bi-mode would be unnecessary, if only the government would ante-up a little more cash for 50 more miles of electrification. I wonder if it's worth taking a few steps back and thinking about the network as a whole for the next 40 or so years.

The problems:
1) Diesel is getting more expensive
2) A significant amount of the UK main lines are non-electrified
3) The HST fleet is in need of replacing
4) The country is (virtually) bankrupt

The ideal solution (if looking only at problems 1-3) is to electrify everything in the next five years and to order electric only stock. The problem is that (4) the country is bankrupt, so electrifying all in one go is not an option (or technically feasible). The main line train fleet is also comparatively young (excepting the HSTs) and in it's current incarnation, not particularly flexible. Clearly what is needed is a fleet which can:
1) Be easily moved between regions (i.e. from ECML & MML to WCML)
2) Can take advantage of a rolling programme of electrification

If I was the DfT I would have a 'masterplan' looking like this:

By 2020:
1) Electrify GWML to Cardiff and Bristol.
2) Retire HSTs by replacing with 220s and electric and bi-mode IEPs.
(Electric IEPs to ECML and GWML; Bi-mode IEPs to ECML, MML, GWML; 220s to GWML.)

By 2030
1) Complete electrification of ECML branches (Hull/Aberdeen/Bradford Interchange).
2) Replace entire ECML fleet (Cl 91 + Mk 4 and IEPs) with all electric fleet.
3) Electrify to Swansea, Exeter and Cheltenham.
4) Cascade ECML IEPs to GWML (electric IEPs displace bi-modes from Wales/Gloucestershire to Devon/Cornwall).
5) Electrify MML to Leicester and Corby (no change in rolling stock). (Possible takeover of this section by Thameslink?)

By 2040
1) Complete electrification of MML to Sheffield and Nottingham
2) New all-electric fleet for MML
3) Cascade remaining IEPs to GWML (removing diesel engines from some if desired).
4) Wires to Plymouth/Penzance if possible.

The advantage of the bi-mode IEP is that it can be moved from line to line as electrification catches up. It won't remain on the London-Swansea (or MML) for its entire working life.

There are many on these forums who will criticise DfT for not taking a holistic long-term view of the entire main line network, yet in focusing on the 'Wires-to-Swansea' issue are themselves falling into that same trap. The alternative to bi-mode is not 50 miles of one-off wiring, but a succession of piecemeal electric rolling stock orders as gradual electrification unfolds.

 

[HSTEd]

The problems:
1) Diesel is getting more expensive
2) A significant amount of the UK main lines are non-electrified
3) The HST fleet is in need of replacing
4) The country is (virtually) bankrupt

But it's not, our public debt is below what it's been several times in the last century as a percentage of GDP and our borrowing costs are the lowest they have been in living memory (which is a reflection of the crummy state of the economy in that Gilts are the best deal around, not because of any nebulous "confidence" inspired by state economic policy).

As for the remainder, why are you putting the electrification of minor branches of the ECML ahead of main line electrification projects like the Midland Main Line (the one with the positive financial case, ie. its cheaper overall to do it than not).
Once MML is completed HST sets become available to feed through the power door refit programme and the entire EMT 222 fleet becomes available, which pretty much destroys the case in the short term for Bi-mode IEP.

The savings produced by the MML electrification and cancellation of Bi-mode IEP will cover the interest of the capital costs of the extension of overhead wiring to Swansea and the purchase of sufficient pantograph carriages for the entire 22x fleet.

The next project on the list would be the Plymouth-Aberdeen and Manchester-Bournemouth Cross Country infill scheme starting with the Chiltern Main line.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

But it's not, our public debt is below what it's been several times in the last century as a percentage of GDP and our borrowing costs are the lowest they have been in living memory (which is a reflection of the crummy state of the economy in that Gilts are the best deal around, not because of any nebulous "confidence" inspired by state economic policy).

Well last time our debt was higher, we had just fought a world war, were trying to rebuild our country and had gone cap in hand to the US for a bail out.

Once MML is completed HST sets become available to feed through the power door refit programme.

But the point of the IEP is to replace the HSTs, not to enable them to have yet another life extension.

The savings produced by the MML electrification and cancellation of Bi-mode IEP will cover the interest of the capital costs of the extension of overhead wiring to Swansea and the purchase of sufficient pantograph carriages for the entire 22x fleet.

But even if the money was available to do immediately (which it isn't), it wouldn't be technically feasible to do it in the time frame that you want.

The next project on the list would be the Plymouth-Aberdeen and Manchester-Bournemouth Cross Country infill scheme starting with the Chiltern Main line.

Yes and once Chiltern's Silver Sets are ready for retirement, I'd expect their place to be taken by the bi-modes.

 

[HSTEd]

Well last time our debt was higher, we had just fought a world war, were trying to rebuild our country and had gone cap in hand to the US for a bail out.

We had not just fought a world war in 1970?
The national debt returned to 1930s levels by 1960 anyway.

But the point of the IEP is to replace the HSTs, not to enable them to have yet another life extension.

So you are proposing we just throw them away? Refitted HSTs would be an extremely useful method of expanding capacity on several secondary routes with relatively little in terms of capital expenditure (even including the rebuild cost). You don't just throw away 800+ 23m vehicles that supposedly can be refurbished to last another 15 years (well judging by the current plan to retain some anyway).

But even if the money was available to do immediately (which it isn't), it wouldn't be technically feasible to do it in the time frame that you want.

But it is available.... the last gilt issue by the DMO was covered by 2.2 times, which indicates that the market would be able to easily absorb the additional gilt issues neccesary to finance MML electrification.

And MML electrification actually improves the fiscal posistion of the government by permitting reduced operating subsidies to Network rail with money to spare.

Yes and once Chiltern's Silver Sets are ready for retirement, I'd expect their place to be taken by the bi-modes.

The bi-mode IEP will never be deployed on the Chiltern Main Line, they just won't fit without ludicrously expensive gauge clearing works and if you want an electric Manchester-Bournemouth service you will have to electrify most of it anyway.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The savings produced by the MML electrification and cancellation of Bi-mode IEP will cover the interest of the capital costs of the extension of overhead wiring to Swansea and the purchase of sufficient pantograph carriages for the entire 22x fleet.

Not quite. By my calculations, above, just not buying any diesel engines AT ALL to put in the IEPs for East Coast and Great Western saves £59,750,000. That nearly pays for wires to Swansea, but we need IEP (just as an EMU, not how DaFT want to do it) so can't really save any more without cutting the carriges down to size so we don't need to pay for guage clearance. Even if you keep the 26m coaches, leaving everything beyond Weston-S.-M., Westbury and Cardiff uncleared and bringing the IC225s over from East Coast to cover Swansea (sending the IEPs there were destined for Swansea to East Coast in their stead) might pay for wires between Swindon and Cheltenham. However, as seen above I had to make some rather dubious assumptions to find enough savings to get 172 class 22x pantograph cars. However, the reduced running costs of IEP sans diesel engines might make it work out better.

The bi-mode IEP will never be deployed on the Chiltern Main Line, they just won't fit without ludicrously expensive gauge clearing works

165s fit, if anything I'd guess at places where 166s and 165s fit being the only places where it would be anywhere near affordable to make IEP fit. Whoever it was at DaFT who thought specifying 26m coaches was a good idea should be thrown in the loony bin. The only benifit it has is that it means there is money we can try and get DaFT to divert into electrification and panto cars for 22xs in order to kill off IEP in its current enviromentally perverse form.

 

[Martin222002]

By 2020:
1) Electrify GWML to Cardiff and Bristol.
2) Retire HSTs by replacing with 220s and electric and bi-mode IEPs.
(Electric IEPs to ECML and GWML; Bi-mode IEPs to ECML, MML, GWML; 220s to GWML.)

By 2030
1) Complete electrification of ECML branches (Hull/Aberdeen/Bradford Interchange).
2) Replace entire ECML fleet (Cl 91 + Mk 4 and IEPs) with all electric fleet.
3) Electrify to Swansea, Exeter and Cheltenham.
4) Cascade ECML IEPs to GWML (electric IEPs displace bi-modes from Wales/Gloucestershire to Devon/Cornwall).
5) Electrify MML to Leicester and Corby (no change in rolling stock). (Possible takeover of this section by Thameslink?)

By 2040
1) Complete electrification of MML to Sheffield and Nottingham
2) New all-electric fleet for MML
3) Cascade remaining IEPs to GWML (removing diesel engines from some if desired).
4) Wires to Plymouth/Penzance if possible.

I'm sorry but I find this timetable ridiculous. Why should the MML wait nearly 30 years to be electrified. It's like saying lets take 30 years to electrify to Swansea.

 

[WatcherZero]

Do we know a Cummins QSK19-R costs £250,000? I thought it would be nearer £50k.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The advantage of the bi-mode IEP is that it can be moved from line to line as electrification catches up. It won't remain on the London-Swansea (or MML) for its entire working life.

There are many on these forums who will criticise DfT for not taking a holistic long-term view of the entire main line network, yet in focusing on the 'Wires-to-Swansea' issue are themselves falling into that same trap. The alternative to bi-mode is not 50 miles of one-off wiring, but a succession of piecemeal electric rolling stock orders as gradual electrification unfolds.

I for one agree with your principles.
IEP is the transition buffer from all-diesel to all-electric working.
We just need DfT electrification policy to stay constant for a decade or two.
There's lots wrong with the IEP programme but the basic idea is sound.
e-Voyagers would give us another tranche of transition stock.

 

[Rhydgaled]

e-Voyagers would give us another tranche of transition stock.

e-Voyagers and e-Meridians would give us all the transition stock we need. Apart from perhaps 10 locomotives (though my prefered option is completly replacing all the internals of existing stored locos), we don't need to buy any more stock with diesel engines for Intercity work.

 

[TheWalrus]

So at an additional cost of £20k per vehicle per month IEP isnt looking like an investment is it? If Pendos are much cheaper then wouldnt the money be better invested in electrifying Newbury/Bristol-Plymouth; Swindon-Cheltenham; Cardiff-Swansea and possibly Oxford-Worcester? Then have all electric pendos with no bimodes which should be cheaper.

Any idea of the costs?