Paying for IEP

[Dave1987]

Where do you think? My prediction is the same location where the 90's and DVT's ended up after retirement from the West Coast....sorry Great Anglia, you may be getting cast offs again like us Northern passengers have to put up with.....or the Midland Mainline is being electrified and I don't think there has been any news as to what rolling stock is to be used there.

Or a really silly suggestion is to send them to Northern instead of the 319's, much rather ride on the Chat Moss line on a 91....aaah I can but dream

Fair enough.

I think for me Roger Fords article said it all on IEP.

 

[jimm]

The configuration with diesel or electric power cars at either end, or a combination of one of each in the case of a Bi-Mode, was not the idea of the DafT or part of the IEP specification.
It was Agility Trains solution to the power requirements for all three versions asked for in the spec.
The losing bidder's proposal came up with a different arrangement.

I didn't say it was DafT's idea, it was one of the solutions suggested to meet what DafT wanted for a programme that it had dreamed up in the first place, then kept on changing the parameters for. The whole sorry saga stems from Daft - not anyone else.

Or staff cuts? Those DOO cameras on the side cannot be an accidental inclusion...

No, they're not accidental. The trains will be equipped for DOO - and why not? Turbos work DOO between Paddington, Oxford and Banbury and have for 20 years, including trains that go on to/come off the Cotswold Line, where a conductor is required, who joins/gets off at Oxford. It will likely depend on what type of services IEPs are working as to whether a train manager will be on board. If it's a fill-in trip from Paddington to Oxford and back then it would seem unlikely.

 

[w1bbl3]

What's made IEP even more expensive is that the costs include maintenance and full availability (i.e. Agility will get fined if they do not provide sufficient "fit" trains for each day), which makes them even more expensive than the basic ROSCO lease.

This could make the overall cost to a TOC cheaper (compared to keeping the maintenance "in house"), but it makes the headline figure look larger.

Continuing on this theme what is rarely understood is that PFI contracts general represent full risk transfer from the operator to the service provider over the total contract term. This may as you point out make the service actually cheaper in overall cost or may not but it does result in a very high apparent cost as all costs have to be quantified and considered over the lifetime.

Equally the prescriptive nature of PFI deals will normal prevent the provider from sweating the asset as can be and is generally done with traditionally procured assets.

To provide an example my employer was recently involved in provision of a number of new schools for a local authority some where to be funded traditionally by the LEA some under a building schools for the future PFI deal.

The PFI schools all had a build value per pupil much greater than the traditional schools needless to say the local press figured out that the PFI schools where "more" expensive. However what wasn't ever publicised was the build specification.

The PFI schools where on a 30 year term and thus the provider focused on cost over the total term, the LEA had cost focus primarily on build cost without really factoring operating costs for the schools they funded directly.

To better illustrate how this played out the roof systems available came with a number of warranty options of 15, 25 and 50 years. The PFI scheme costed all three including a in contract replacement factor for the 15 and 25 year warranty systems end conclusion the 50 year life system was cheaper over the term and was thus installed. The traditional procurement schools also costed all three options but only on the basis of installed cost, maintenance and replacement where not considered at all needless to say the 15 year system was selected.

Similar exercises where done on cladding and glazing, needless to say we expect a contractor be back in 20 years to replace everything on the traditional build.

I'd wager that if the PFI contract rubbish was stripped away from IEP the build cost per vehicle would be no more expensive than a traditionally funded vehicle built to the same specification.

As service available is the responsibly of Agility trains I'd expect Agility will either be procuring more operational spares than would normally be needed at their cost or the trainsets will be overbuilt to increase reliability.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I'd wager that if the PFI contract rubbish was stripped away from IEP the build cost per vehicle would be no more expensive than a traditionally funded vehicle built to the same specification.

If that is the case then it it makes me wonder if the could be procured directly by TOC's and open access operates e.g. Hull Trains will be wanting EMU's one electrification to Hull is given the go ahead (which is looking increasingly unlikely before 2019). By then the GW and EC orders at Newton Acyliffe will be coming to an end and with the maintenance facilities at Doncaster I wonder if there is a deal to be done?

 

[Haydn1971]

Given the IC225 sets will be nearly 30 years old by the time the 800/801's have replaced the EC HST sets and start to displace the 225 sets, it wouldn't suprise me if they are simply retired.

I seem to recall seeing references to MML & XC services being serviced by the IEP Program, which sits nicely with the expected completion of the MML electrification to Sheffield and probably beyond to Doncaster/Moorthorpe - it wouldn't suprise me to see cascaded Class 800's gradually displaced from GW & EC to XC as the threads of each mainline get wired into the 2020's, gradually displacing the then tired Voyager fleet to a regional express role replacing the remaining "express" 158/9 & 165/6 fleets which will be 30+ years old by then too.

 

[ainsworth74]

If that is the case then it it makes me wonder if the could be procured directly by TOC's and open access operates e.g. Hull Trains will be wanting EMU's one electrification to Hull is given the go ahead (which is looking increasingly unlikely before 2019).

A senior HT manager was recently overhead to be saying that all the big manufactures had expressed interest in building EMUs for them. Who those big manufactures are I do not know, Siemens and Bombardier are the two obvious ones but whether or not that would include Hitachi is anyone's guess!

 

[DownSouth]

A senior HT manager was recently overhead to be saying that all the big manufactures had expressed interest in building EMUs for them. Who those big manufactures are I do not know, Siemens and Bombardier are the two obvious ones but whether or not that would include Hitachi is anyone's guess!

Just because they haven't had many orders in the UK to date doesn't mean that Hitachi should be regarded as not a big train manufacturer along with the 'big three' of Siemens, Bombardier and Alstom with which the average UK punter is more familiar.

Hitachi has a long history of building excellent trains for both home (Japan) and export markets which was a capacity built from the ground up, in contrast to Bombardier's strategy of eliminating competition by buying up existing manufacturers such as Budd, Pullman-Standard, GE's passenger railcar assets and Adtranz. Hitachi-designed EMUs were being license-built in Australia three years before the first rail build order of any kind was started by Bombardier in Canada.

 

[33Hz]

I'll bash the DfT all I like. It was their obstinate opposition to an electrification programme that first led to the initial IEP concept, as a diesel-powered HST replacement, when just about any sane and rational organisation would have seen the need to replace a life-expired diesel fleet as the ideal opportunity to electrify.

This farce has been going on since 2005. It will have taken 10 years by the time the first prototype turns a wheel and 12 to passenger service. FGW's HSTs are having to undergo yet another life-extension overhaul to keep them going for four more years.

No, this dates back to 2002 when FGW announced with great fanfare that they were working with Siemens on an HST replacement.

http://www.firstgroup.com/latest_news/?id=003201

Then the SRA and DfT started micromanaging a lot more aspects of the industry and this was one of them. It evolved into IEP.

However, regarding sane and rational organisations and diesel, the above archived press release has this to say:

The next generation of HSTs must set even higher standards for intercity rail travel in Britain. They must deliver new levels of comfort, acceleration, safety and reliability for our passengers. On the Great Western Main Line, the new trains would be diesel powered and, like our existing HSTs, would normally have a minimum of eight coaches. The design will be very flexible so that they could also operate with power drawn from overhead cables, on electrified routes elsewhere.

 

[ainsworth74]

Just because they haven't had many orders in the UK to date doesn't mean that Hitachi should be regarded as not a big train manufacturer along with the 'big three' of Siemens, Bombardier and Alstom with which the average UK punter is more familiar.

I quite agree but my comment was more to do with me not knowing the full context of his comment. Whether he was referring to big companies that already have a presence in the UK/European market or big companies in general in the rail industry. If it's the former then that would probably exclude Hitachi whilst the latter would certainly include them.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Im glad some other people are starting to realise the cost is part of the procurement not the actual trains. IEP are likely to be fantastic trains as some of the government specification is detailed and very positive!

 

[tbtc]

So you are telling me any other replacement would cost as much as this?

Strip out the PFI costs (or fairly compare like with like) and they'll probably cost around the same as other trains. And it looks like they'll be pretty good quality too

I would like to know where they would possibly end up then?

There are going to be a number of longer distance services electrified over the rest of the decade without stock decided upon:

• Manchester - Glasgow/ Edinburgh
• Liverpool - Newcastle
• Manchester - Southampton
• Sheffield/ Nottingham - London

Plus maybe to replace current stock on London - Norwich, London - Cambridge?

...plenty chance of 225s being moved to these lines for another five/ ten years (maybe replaced by follow on orders of IEP). Obviously 225s will need replaced at some stage, but plenty of places for them to cascade them to in the meantime.

Continuing on this theme what is rarely understood is that PFI contracts general represent full risk transfer from the operator to the service provider over the total contract term. This may as you point out make the service actually cheaper in overall cost or may not but it does result in a very high apparent cost as all costs have to be quantified and considered over the lifetime.

Equally the prescriptive nature of PFI deals will normal prevent the provider from sweating the asset as can be and is generally done with traditionally procured assets.

To provide an example my employer was recently involved in provision of a number of new schools for a local authority some where to be funded traditionally by the LEA some under a building schools for the future PFI deal.

The PFI schools all had a build value per pupil much greater than the traditional schools needless to say the local press figured out that the PFI schools where "more" expensive. However what wasn't ever publicised was the build specification.

The PFI schools where on a 30 year term and thus the provider focused on cost over the total term, the LEA had cost focus primarily on build cost without really factoring operating costs for the schools they funded directly.

To better illustrate how this played out the roof systems available came with a number of warranty options of 15, 25 and 50 years. The PFI scheme costed all three including a in contract replacement factor for the 15 and 25 year warranty systems end conclusion the 50 year life system was cheaper over the term and was thus installed. The traditional procurement schools also costed all three options but only on the basis of installed cost, maintenance and replacement where not considered at all needless to say the 15 year system was selected.

Similar exercises where done on cladding and glazing, needless to say we expect a contractor be back in 20 years to replace everything on the traditional build.

I'd wager that if the PFI contract rubbish was stripped away from IEP the build cost per vehicle would be no more expensive than a traditionally funded vehicle built to the same specification.

As service available is the responsibly of Agility trains I'd expect Agility will either be procuring more operational spares than would normally be needed at their cost or the trainsets will be overbuilt to increase reliability.

True - there's a lot of unfair comparisons made about PFI

If that is the case then it it makes me wonder if the could be procured directly by TOC's and open access operates e.g. Hull Trains will be wanting EMU's one electrification to Hull is given the go ahead (which is looking increasingly unlikely before 2019). By then the GW and EC orders at Newton Acyliffe will be coming to an end and with the maintenance facilities at Doncaster I wonder if there is a deal to be done?

Stagecoach/ First/ Arriva (etc) currently lease some of their bus fleets - something that seems quite popular in the London market due to the fixed term contracts there - no reason why they couldn't self-finance purchase of trains in future, if they have a long enough contract.

IEP are likely to be fantastic trains as some of the government specification is detailed and very positive!

Agreed - the more I read about them, the more I like.

 

[andyb2706]

There are going to be a number of longer distance services electrified over the rest of the decade without stock decided upon:

• Manchester - Glasgow/ Edinburgh
• Liverpool - Newcastle
• Manchester - Southampton
• Sheffield/ Nottingham - London

Plus maybe to replace current stock on London - Norwich, London - Cambridge?

...plenty chance of 225s being moved to these lines for another five/ ten years (maybe replaced by follow on orders of IEP). Obviously 225s will need replaced at some stage, but plenty of places for them to cascade them to in the meantime.

In regards to the 225's running on the Liverpool-Newcastle and Manchester-Edinburgh/Glasgow services I'm not sure whether this is a possibility. If the new TPE/Northern franchises are kept similar as two separate entities or one TOC with a regional and inter city brand, would they want an ad-hoc stock for its Inter City/TPE section? Modern DMU (185)/EMU (350/4) and a 25+ year old stock with a locomotive? By the time the 225 are released majority of the TPE routes will be or well under way to being fully electrified so would it be more likely that an order of IEP could be placed for these lines as they do 5 car variation of these electric trains? They could then release the 350/4 and the majority of the 185, just keeping some for the Manchester-Cleethorpes/Hull services.

 

[TheKnightWho]

In regards to the 225's running on the Liverpool-Newcastle and Manchester-Edinburgh/Glasgow services I'm not sure whether this is a possibility. If the new TPE/Northern franchises are kept similar as two separate entities or one TOC with a regional and inter city brand, would they want an ad-hoc stock for its Inter City/TPE section? Modern DMU (185)/EMU (350/4) and a 25+ year old stock with a locomotive? By the time the 225 are released majority of the TPE routes will be or well under way to being fully electrified so would it be more likely that an order of IEP could be placed for these lines as they do 5 car variation of these electric trains? They could then release the 350/4 and the majority of the 185, just keeping some for the Manchester-Cleethorpes/Hull services.

Is there a possibility of getting tilting versions of IEP? Getting the TPE routes up to 125mph would seriously free up some paths towards the top of the WCML.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is there a possibility of getting tilting versions of IEP? Getting the TPE routes up to 125mph would seriously free up some paths towards the top of the WCML.

The bodyshell would have to be completely redesigned and it might not do well with having 26m long carriages either. If tilt capability will make a big difference on newly electrified routes then the most likely train would be mini-Pendolinos. If a tilting bi-modal train were absolutely necessary for somewhere then the 22x fleet could be sorted out with pantograph cars - all of them have the bodyshell to tilt but only the 221s with Virgin have the tilt mechanism - but the cost of this is likely too high to justify it. However, as the TPE routes are going to be mostly electrified by the end of the decade it's unlikely it would be worth giving them new diesel or bi-mode trains at all. The 350/4s are capable of 110mph, as are all new EMU families, so even if they ended up with a fleet of 380s they're not going to take up too many paths on the WCML.

 

[tbtc]

In regards to the 225's running on the Liverpool-Newcastle and Manchester-Edinburgh/Glasgow services I'm not sure whether this is a possibility. If the new TPE/Northern franchises are kept similar as two separate entities or one TOC with a regional and inter city brand, would they want an ad-hoc stock for its Inter City/TPE section? Modern DMU (185)/EMU (350/4) and a 25+ year old stock with a locomotive? By the time the 225 are released majority of the TPE routes will be or well under way to being fully electrified so would it be more likely that an order of IEP could be placed for these lines as they do 5 car variation of these electric trains? They could then release the 350/4 and the majority of the 185, just keeping some for the Manchester-Cleethorpes/Hull services.

I suppose that the two are different types of service.

We are told that Liverpool to Newcastle is going to be a "fast" service, and looks like the kind of route which could do with a long rake of coaches like a 225 set. You could keep something like a 387 for the shorter distance passengers at places like Stalybridge/ Dewsbury/ Garforth - I'm thinking that a half hourly Liverpool - Newcastle service would probably need just under twenty sets to operate, which would use up a large number of 225s.

Manchester to Glasgow/ Edinburgh is a tricky one. Does it need 125mph running (which means narrow bodied stock to enable tilting)? Whilst the current TPE service is the "stopper" (i.e. Virgin generally omit Penrith/ Lockerbie etc), its still a long way between stations, so the 225s should be able to cope with the stopping pattern.

Obviously it depends on the future franchise map - will one TOC run all of the services on the Lancaster - Carstairs corridor? Will Liverpool - Newcastle be merger into "Northern", but there are certainly some places where you could use a 225 rake into the 2020s and get a few more years out of them (after IEP makes their current use on the ECML redundant).

 

[Gareth Marston]

All very well but coming back to OP how does the cost of IEP help the great swathes of the UK that have inadequate quantity s of sometimes poor and old rolling stock that have no clear plan for replacement/ addition to?

 

[BantamMenace]

As ive mentioned on a different thread previously i still think XC should be getting a new fleet (most likely IEP) and the e-voyager project being picked up to make a fleet of 6-car high speed EMUs for TPE. If an intermediate car with pantograph were added, as well as a further intermediate car added were necessary to make all units 6-car TPE would have a 125mph capable fleet of relatively new (dare i use the word smart) vehicles with plenty of life left in them at a fraction of the cost of a new build fleet with the same capacity and capabilities (125mph and tilt capable).

This then increases the business case for tilting infrastructure between york and newcastle, leeds and manchester as well as the already operating WCML.

I really dont see where the voyagers will go if this project isnt undertaken unless we just keep running them under wires the majority of the time just as we currently, wastefully, do.

 

[DownSouth]

We are told that Liverpool to Newcastle is going to be a "fast" service, and looks like the kind of route which could do with a long rake of coaches like a 225 set. You could keep something like a 387 for the shorter distance passengers at places like Stalybridge/ Dewsbury/ Garforth - I'm thinking that a half hourly Liverpool - Newcastle service would probably need just under twenty sets to operate, which would use up a large number of 225s.

Manchester to Glasgow/ Edinburgh is a tricky one. Does it need 125mph running (which means narrow bodied stock to enable tilting)? Whilst the current TPE service is the "stopper" (i.e. Virgin generally omit Penrith/ Lockerbie etc), its still a long way between stations, so the 225s should be able to cope with the stopping pattern.

If there are any concerns over the ability of the 225 sets to keep up with the stopping patterns they could always have the gearing swapped for slightly shorter ratios to eke out the extra acceleration while still having a top end fast enough for York-Darlington and other faster sections.

 

[NotATrainspott]

All very well but coming back to OP how does the cost of IEP help the great swathes of the UK that have inadequate quantity s of sometimes poor and old rolling stock that have no clear plan for replacement/ addition to?

At the very least the IEPs provide a traction package which could be slightly derated and fitted to the 156/158/159 successor on partly-electrified regional routes. The fabled 244/344/444/744/844 perhaps?

Pacerland is going to be electrified. We could have gone with the 200 DMU order to replace them immediately but then these places wouldn't be electrified for decades before the new trains become life-expired or diesel becomes too expensive. A 2 car 172 is a nice upgrade from a 1.5 car bus on tracks but a 3/4 car 380/387/700 will be even better once the wires come.

 

[The Ham]

At the very least the IEPs provide a traction package which could be slightly derated and fitted to the 156/158/159 successor on partly-electrified regional routes. The fabled 244/344/444/744/844 perhaps?

Pacerland is going to be electrified. We could have gone with the 200 DMU order to replace them immediately but then these places wouldn't be electrified for decades before the new trains become life-expired or diesel becomes too expensive. A 2 car 172 is a nice upgrade from a 1.5 car bus on tracks but a 3/4 car 380/387/700 will be even better once the wires come.

It very much depends on the priority for CP6, as if there is only a little bit of IC wiring done (parts of XC) and one longer distance DMU route (for instance Basingstoke to Exeter) that could allow a few shorter pacer routes and several infill schemes to remove lots of under wire running. This is possible as the majority of IC routes, other than XC, would either be wired or would be being run with bimodal trains.

 

[w1bbl3]

If that is the case then it it makes me wonder if the could be procured directly by TOC's and open access operates e.g. Hull Trains will be wanting EMU's one electrification to Hull is given the go ahead (which is looking increasingly unlikely before 2019). By then the GW and EC orders at Newton Acyliffe will be coming to an end and with the maintenance facilities at Doncaster I wonder if there is a deal to be done?

For the size and scale of investment in Newton Acyliffe I don't honestly see the Hitachi Rail Europe board as having signed off on basis of IEP and then closure/exit. Hitachi IMHO intend to collect follow-on orders for type and to widen out to a fuller range.

I wouldn't be shocked if Hitachi have under the auspices of the programme actually developed the core of a UK tailored modular concept range. The traction package in both emu and bi-mode forms looks ideal for re-purposing into commuter, branch line and intermediate applications. I can't see why the streamlined cab couldn't be further developed into a blunt end gang-way cab.

The maybe scope for "innovative" finance deals involving conversion of bi-modes post 2020 to emu's and using the diesel power module in a designed compatible new build.

It is afterall an awfully large factory to idle just before an election.

 

[The Ham]

For the size and scale of investment in Newton Acyliffe I don't honestly see the Hitachi Rail Europe board as having signed off on basis of IEP and then closure/exit. Hitachi IMHO intend to collect follow-on orders for type and to widen out to a fuller range.

I wouldn't be shocked if Hitachi have under the auspices of the programme actually developed the core of a UK tailored modular concept range. The traction package in both emu and bi-mode forms looks ideal for re-purposing into commuter, branch line and intermediate applications. I can't see why the streamlined cab couldn't be further developed into a blunt end gang-way cab.

The maybe scope for "innovative" finance deals involving conversion of bi-modes post 2020 to emu's and using the diesel power module in a designed compatible new build.

It is afterall an awfully large factory to idle just before an election.

I would tend to agree, even if Hitachi don't make much money for a year or so they are looking to break into the Europen market and so may be willing to take the long term veiw.

Also if you look at the publicisty photos for the plant they show flat ended trans.

 

[33Hz]

Not to mention being in a good position to supply HS2 rolling stock.

 

[DownSouth]

I can't see why the streamlined cab couldn't be further developed into a blunt end gang-way cab.

More likely that they would simply adopt a blunt-ended cab from a proven Hitachi design already in use elsewhere, even shipping cab modules from other factories for assembly in England if that proved to be more efficient than setting up otherwise redundant plant in England.