GWR Class 800

[The Ham]

Analyses have also been published that suggest that the costs for leasing the Class 800 trains through the IEP deal will amount to around £20,000 more per vehicle per month than comparably complex trains purchased by a ROSCO.

As long as that's on a totally comparable vehicle and not, like before the IEP fleet was delivered, comparing trains with significantly fewer seats on a train with the same number of coaches.

Otherwise it would be like saying that a Galaxy is more expensive than a Focus and ignoring the fact that you regularly need to transport 6 people.

 

[coppercapped]

As long as that's on a totally comparable vehicle and not, like before the IEP fleet was delivered, comparing trains with significantly fewer seats on a train with the same number of coaches.

Otherwise it would be like saying that a Galaxy is more expensive than a Focus and ignoring the fact that you regularly need to transport 6 people.

I stated quite clearly in my post that the comparison was with the Class 390, a 25kV multiple unit capable of 140mph and which includes tilting gear.

I also wrote

This comparison has been made as a sanity check on the validity of the numbers - it is an approximation as an indication of orders of magnitude, it is not expected to be accurate to the last decimal place.

so I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[D1009]

According to the Great Western Livery thread, up to 802012 have been delivered, but have any of the Pistoia built production series turned a wheel since delivery?

To answer my own question, I saw 802005 pass through Bristol Parkway earlier working 5Z42 0959 Royal Oak to Stoke Gifford.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I fundamentally disagree! The issue is not really one of sunk costs but of the cost of risk. In this context the leasing or usage cost per vehicle for HS2 will be more dependent on whether the DfT passes all the operational risk to the train supplier or whether the TOC carries some of the risk.

OK, I understand your thinking.
I had read all those reports but hadn't really appreciated the extent of the cost of risk transfer.
I know it's early days, but hopefully the DfT/GWR is getting some benefit from the IEP contract (in terms of payments to Agility for diagrams delivered).
We'll probably never know how the contract turns out, because of commercial confidentiality.
I do wonder if GWR is paying for all these 10-car diagrams even when they operate them as 5-car because of staff shortage.
Then there's the issue of whether DfT/HS2 will use the same model for HS2 stock (which would tell us if the risk transfer model is considered a good one).

 

[The Ham]

I stated quite clearly in my post that the comparison was with the Class 390, a 25kV multiple unit capable of 140mph and which includes tilting gear.

I also wrote

so I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

The point is to achieve the same capacity as a 9 coach 80x (630 seats) you need more than 9 coaches when using 390's (9 coaches have 469 seats, even the 11 coach versions have 589 seats).

As such comparing costs on a per coach basis is going to be more expensive, in the same way that a car with 7 seats will always cost more than a car with 5 seats.

If we assume a fleet of 400 coaches for a fleet of 80x's to have the same capacity the fleet of 390's would need to have 535 coaches.

That would mean that if the 390's cost £100,000 to lease per coach then the 800's could cost £134,000 to lease per coach and the overall fleet costs would be the same.

However, assuming that we had opted for 390's these would either be sat idle (due to the lack of wires) or the costs would be significant higher due to needing locos to drag then around on GWR's network. This is often overlooked when comparing costs.

 

[TwistedMentat]

I do wonder if GWR is paying for all these 10-car diagrams even when they operate them as 5-car because of staff shortage.

My understanding is the GWR has to pay for the trains provided. Staffing them is up to GWR. That means if they only have enough staff for one 5 car part of the 10 car set then they still have to pay for the full 10 cars.

It should also mean that if a train is provided for a service but that service is cancelled due to lack of staff, GWR still have to pay up as Agility met their side of the contract.

 

[najaB]

As long as that's on a totally comparable vehicle and not, like before the IEP fleet was delivered, comparing trains with significantly fewer seats on a train with the same number of coaches.

That's why the airline industry uses CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) rather than direct leasing costs when comparing airliners. As an example the lease rate for a 777-300 is around $750K/mth and a 737-800 is around $180K/mth, meaning that the 737 is the obvious choice since it's so much cheaper. But the 777 can carry 200 more passengers for well over twice the distance making the CASM a lot closer than the headline rates makes it seem.

 

[Mikey C]

That's why the airline industry uses CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) rather than direct leasing costs when comparing airliners. As an example the lease rate for a 777-300 is around $750K/mth and a 737-800 is around $180K/mth, meaning that the 737 is the obvious choice since it's so much cheaper. But the 777 can carry 200 more passengers for well over twice the distance making the CASM a lot closer than the headline rates makes it seem.

The flip side of CASM being that a full 777 will have much lower CASM than the 737, but this only works if you can fill the seats!

Railways are slightly different in that tickets aren't sold on a seat basis. indeed the way to make the most money is to have the equivalent a 737 but fill it with the same number of passengers that the 777 holds

 

[najaB]

The flip side of CASM being that a full 777 will have much lower CASM than the 737, but this only works if you can fill the seats!

That would be RASM (revenue per available seat mile) as the costs are pretty much fixed (catering aside).

 

[swaldman]

Railways are slightly different in that tickets aren't sold on a seat basis. indeed the way to make the most money is to have the equivalent a 737 but fill it with the same number of passengers that the 777 holds

Evidence might suggest that that was pretty much Virgin's strategy with the Crosscountry franchise...

 

[coppercapped]

The point is to achieve the same capacity as a 9 coach 80x (630 seats) you need more than 9 coaches when using 390's (9 coaches have 469 seats, even the 11 coach versions have 589 seats).

As such comparing costs on a per coach basis is going to be more expensive, in the same way that a car with 7 seats will always cost more than a car with 5 seats.

If we assume a fleet of 400 coaches for a fleet of 80x's to have the same capacity the fleet of 390's would need to have 535 coaches.

That would mean that if the 390's cost £100,000 to lease per coach then the 800's could cost £134,000 to lease per coach and the overall fleet costs would be the same.

However, assuming that we had opted for 390's these would either be sat idle (due to the lack of wires) or the costs would be significant higher due to needing locos to drag then around on GWR's network. This is often overlooked when comparing costs.

Oh dear.
I was not suggesting in any way that the Class 390s were an alternative to the Class 800s for use on the Western - that is your addition.

I clearly stated I was simply using the costs published for the Class 390 trains as a guideline to see how the costs of a modern 25kV 140mph-capable tilting electric multiple unit procured by a ROSCO with (a) competitive bidding for the finance and (b) competitive bidding for the maintenance compared to those of a modern 25kV 140mph-capable electro-diesel multiple unit procured by a PFI-type deal which did/does not separate the various components.

The issue of the size of the fleets of the different train types required to offer the same number of seats is irrelevant with regard to the Western at the moment as in practice the number of trains running is limited by track and platform capacity in the peak periods and train length is limited by platform lengths. Many more or longer trains are not an affordable option with the current infrastructure. The additional 18 seats per coach (on average) offered by the Class 800 trains compared to the 390s will affect the cost/seat calculation to a certain extent but do not affect the National Audit Office's conclusion that the total contract payments per carriage for the 369 vehicles ordered for the Western amount to £11.1 million over the life of the contract (2014 prices). Assuming the first coaches cost £2.5 million each (above the upper end of the unit price from the later ROSCO contracts) this means that cleaning, maintenance and servicing the debt will cost a cool £8.6 million per coach.

You could buy a lot of trains for that amount.

 

[coppercapped]

thanks for your detailed answer. I had not realised just how much money is involved in the transfer of risk- a truly staggering amount.

The other part is the interest payable on the money Agility Trains/Hitachi had borrowed. The NAO report lists the funders for the entire IEP (in 2014 terms) as:

• Debt - Japanese Bank for International Cooperation £1,827 million
• Debt - European Investment Bank £470 million
• Debt - Commercial lenders £1,836 million
• Equity finance £528 million
• Total £4,700 million.

The financial deal was closed in July 2012 when Hitachi started full scale development. It is clear that not all the money was drawn down at the start, but since July 2012 Hitachi has been paying interest on an ever increasing loan. The first time it possibly received any income was when the first trains started running in October 2017, over five years later.

Even at low interest rates, interest on a billion over 5 years mounts up! These interest payments are also recovered as part of the Train Service Provision payments made by the franchisees to Agility Trains.

 

[gingertom]

The other part is the interest payable on the money Agility Trains/Hitachi had borrowed. The NAO report lists the funders for the entire IEP (in 2014 terms) as:

• Debt - Japanese Bank for International Cooperation £1,827 million
• Debt - European Investment Bank £470 million
• Debt - Commercial lenders £1,836 million
• Equity finance £528 million
• Total £4,700 million.

The financial deal was closed in July 2012 when Hitachi started full scale development. It is clear that not all the money was drawn down at the start, but since July 2012 Hitachi has been paying interest on an ever increasing loan. The first time it possibly received any income was when the first trains started running in October 2017, over five years later.

Even at low interest rates, interest on a billion over 5 years mounts up! These interest payments are also recovered as part of the Train Service Provision payments made by the franchisees to Agility Trains.

there's also the additional engines and larger fuel tanks that will have to have been funded via a variation to the order.

 

[The Ham]

Oh dear.
I was not suggesting in any way that the Class 390s were an alternative to the Class 800s for use on the Western - that is your addition.

A single coach pacer would be cheaper still (if we are not going to cost trains that are an alternative).

 

[coppercapped]

A single coach pacer would be cheaper still (if we are not going to cost trains that are an alternative).

You have comprehensively misunderstood the content of the postings.

The issue is not what an individual coach costs, but what the entire programme costs.

The cost to purchase an individual Class 800 coach is known from the contracts placed, subsequent to the IEP deal, by the ROSCOs for the supply of trains to various TOCs. The prices quoted range from £2.2 million per coach to £2.4 million per coach.

Applying these prices to the 866 coaches (at £2.4 million each) in the Intercity Express Programme means they all could have been purchased for a total of £2,078 million. The Net Present Value of the Intercity Express Programme (in 2014 terms) was £7,700 million over the life of the contract, nearly 4 times as much.

I have said it before but the IEP deal includes maintenance, cleaning, the passing on of all the operating risk to the train service provider and the need to service some £4.7 billion of debt and equity financing. These costs are not included in the straight purchase price and certainly the maintenance and cleaning have to be added to it, but even if each coach costs as much to maintain over the years as it cost new, there is still some £4 billion going on the other two items.

My argument is that if the DfT hadn't thought it could do better than people with experience and if it could have avoided the temptation of playing the role of Sir Topham Hatt a much more economical way of financing the purchase and operation of the trains would not have burdened fare- and taxpayers with excessive payments for the next quarter of a century.

 

[Noddy]

You have comprehensively misunderstood the content of the postings.

The issue is not what an individual coach costs, but what the entire programme costs.

The cost to purchase an individual Class 800 coach is known from the contracts placed, subsequent to the IEP deal, by the ROSCOs for the supply of trains to various TOCs. The prices quoted range from £2.2 million per coach to £2.4 million per coach.

Applying these prices to the 866 coaches (at £2.4 million each) in the Intercity Express Programme means they all could have been purchased for a total of £2,078 million. The Net Present Value of the Intercity Express Programme (in 2014 terms) was £7,700 million over the life of the contract, nearly 4 times as much.

I have said it before but the IEP deal includes maintenance, cleaning, the passing on of all the operating risk to the train service provider and the need to service some £4.7 billion of debt and equity financing. These costs are not included in the straight purchase price and certainly the maintenance and cleaning have to be added to it, but even if each coach costs as much to maintain over the years as it cost new, there is still some £4 billion going on the other two items.

My argument is that if the DfT hadn't thought it could do better than people with experience and if it could have avoided the temptation of playing the role of Sir Topham Hatt a much more economical way of financing the purchase and operation of the trains would not have burdened fare- and taxpayers with excessive payments for the next quarter of a century.

With regards to your later point - Do we know how much GWR are paying per carriage per year for both the IET sets and the ROSCO sets though? Although the ROSCO sets are c2.4 mil per carriage so on paper clearly much much cheaper, presumably they (the ROSCO) will be looking to recoup the c.2.4 mil over a much shorter time period than the IET programme which is for 27 years as there is no guarantee that GWR couldn’t just dump them after 10years (eg Class 458/460) and they (the ROSCO) might struggle to find other users.

 

[Mikey C]

As an aside, I had my second experience on the 800s today, and found another annoyance

The seats aren't cantilevered out from the sidewalls, hence when you're in a window airline seat there is a seat leg right where you'd want to put your feet. As I then changed to a 387, I could immediately tell the difference as there the seats are attached to the sidewalls, leaving more footroom.

A small thing, but on a long journey annoying

 

[Bletchleyite]

I hadn't noticed that. I wonder will the seats get wobbly over time like those on the 175/180 which are similarly mounted and seem to move independently of the body?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

As an aside, I had my second experience on the 800s today, and found another annoyance

The seats aren't cantilevered out from the sidewalls, hence when you're in a window airline seat there is a seat leg right where you'd want to put your feet. As I then changed to a 387, I could immediately tell the difference as there the seats are attached to the sidewalls, leaving more footroom.

A small thing, but on a long journey annoying

I'm nearly always in an airline style window seat and I've never had any problem putting my feet anywhere on an 800; which specific seat number was this? It might be something that is confined to a small number of the seats?

 

[Mikey C]

I'm nearly always in an airline style window seat and I've never had any problem putting my feet anywhere on an 800; which specific seat number was this? It might be something that is confined to a small number of the seats?

I sat on a couple of 800s today and both were the same, no idea what seat number. This photo from the internet shows the seat leg, maybe it only affects people with wide feet and long legs!

For comparison, this photo of a (non GWR) 387 shows the cantilevered seat design which frees up space for the window seats

 

[James James]

As an aside, I had my second experience on the 800s today, and found another annoyance

The seats aren't cantilevered out from the sidewalls, hence when you're in a window airline seat there is a seat leg right where you'd want to put your feet. As I then changed to a 387, I could immediately tell the difference as there the seats are attached to the sidewalls, leaving more footroom.

A small thing, but on a long journey annoying

That seems truly ridiculous given there are now "true" cantilevered seats in the world that have 0 floor attachments (even that 387 photo above isn't actually a cantilever...). Oldest ones I know of are from the year 2000...

 

[800001]

I sat on a couple of 800s today and both were the same, no idea what seat number. This photo from the internet shows the seat leg, maybe it only affects people with wide feet and long legs!


That seat area is narrower than other seats, if you note no middle arm rest. May only affect seats near the window less seats?

Ive sat on plenty of airline seats, and cant say I've noticed that problem, and at 6ft 4" i would with me long legs.

For comparison, this photo of a (non GWR) 387 shows the cantilevered seat design which frees up space for the window seats

That seems truly ridiculous given there are now "true" cantilevered seats in the world that have 0 floor attachments (even that 387 photo above isn't actually a cantilever...). Oldest ones I know of are from the year 2000...

That seat area is narrower than other seats, if you note no middle arm rest. May only affect seats near the window less seats?

Ive sat on plenty of airline seats, and cant say I've noticed that problem, and at 6ft 4" i would with me long legs

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Well, if it is only an issue at the window-less seats, no wonder I haven't noticed it! I'd rather stand than sit there... However, Mikey C did specifically say a window seat. I'll have a closer look next time I'm on one, which should be Friday next week.

 

[Mikey C]

That seat area is narrower than other seats, if you note no middle arm rest. May only affect seats near the window less seats?

Ive sat on plenty of airline seats, and cant say I've noticed that problem, and at 6ft 4" i would with me long legs

It's not just window less seats, that was the only photo I could find.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I've traveled on a fair few IET services now and the issue with the seats applies to all non table seats. I've noticed it and I am only 5ft4" and have small feet.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I've traveled on a fair few IET services now and the issue with the seats applies to all non table seats. I've noticed it and I am only 5ft4" and have small feet.

Interesting - I'm about 5ft 10 so how come I haven't had any problems in those seats?

Are we doing different things with our feet?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Interesting - I'm about 5ft 10 so how come I haven't had any problems in those seats?

Are we doing different things with our feet?

Maybe haha. I don't think its a massive deal, and you can easily avoid it (or at least I can) by either not stretching your lets out as much or by just moving them to the side a bit. But the way I naturally put my feet as I would do on any other train just isn't possible on the IET's. It really isn't a big deal for me, and I've only mentioned it because I have noticed it!

 

[coppercapped]

With regards to your later point - Do we know how much GWR are paying per carriage per year for both the IET sets and the ROSCO sets though? Although the ROSCO sets are c2.4 mil per carriage so on paper clearly much much cheaper, presumably they (the ROSCO) will be looking to recoup the c.2.4 mil over a much shorter time period than the IET programme which is for 27 years as there is no guarantee that GWR couldn’t just dump them after 10years (eg Class 458/460) and they (the ROSCO) might struggle to find other users.

A good question!

I think that, at present, we won't find any numbers which will give an accurate answer. One of the problems is that the way that the franchisee (GWR or its successor) pays for the trains is not strictly comparable between the two procurement models. So I apologise in advance for not giving a simple straight answer.

For the trains supplied under the IEP Train Service Provision deal essentially the franchisee only pays in full for a completed diagram; once the diagram is completed then no further payments are due. In a sense it's a 'power by the hour' deal and outside the contracted hours Agility Trains receives no payment from the franchisee. So given enough information it should be possible to calculate how much the franchisee pays per supplied coach per year, and the figures I put in an earlier post suggested that these payments are around £20,000 per coach per month more than a Pendolino. (I do have the Pendolino numbers somewhere - they were originally published in, I think, Modern Railways some years ago but I'm not going to search for them now, it's nearly my bed-time!). However in order to reduce the risk of not being able to supply a train for a diagram - and therefore not getting paid - it has been reported that Agility Trains has not aimed for a very high utilisation of its fleet. In other words in order to cover its costs it needs to charge more per coach supplied per day to cover the costs of ownership of the extra coaches.

In the case of trains leased from a ROSCO the franchisee pays the lease whether or not the train is in service - and in this case the lease payments per coach per year are calculable, but only if someone is kind enough to reveal the lease rates. Nevertheless an approximation can be made using the published figures but one needs to make some heroic assumptions about future interest rates, amortisation periods and so on - so at best one can only calculate a possible range of leasing costs.
The lease payments will also vary depending on how much of the running maintenance is taken over by the ROSCO, whether maintenance is sub-contracted by the ROSCO or by the franchisee directly or even whether the franchisee carries out the maintenance 'in-house'.

Regarding the risk that a successor to GWR does not take on the trains for a future franchise period. In order to raise the necessary finance for the purchase of the trains this possibility will have been considered and the deal between the ROSCO and its financial partners will have factored this risk into the ROSCO's payments; in turn it will affect the lease payments made by the TOC. The DfT also has the power to classify the trains (and other assets) as a 'franchise asset' meaning that any future franchisee will be obliged to continue to lease the trains - in which case this risk disappears.

The ORR published an informative document in January 2015 Understanding the Rolling Stock Costs of TOCs in the UK. I don't have a URL but a search engine of your choice should find it. Although some of the numbers may need to be updated a bit it is a comprehensive description of the factors affecting the TOCs costs.

 

[Mikey C]

Maybe haha. I don't think its a massive deal, and you can easily avoid it (or at least I can) by either not stretching your lets out as much or by just moving them to the side a bit. But the way I naturally put my feet as I would do on any other train just isn't possible on the IET's. It really isn't a big deal for me, and I've only mentioned it because I have noticed it!

I imagine it would be annoying on a long journey, having to effectively sit with your legs at an angle, and not ideal if someone is next to you.

It just seems a shame to give generous kneeroom and then not be able to exploit this.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Maybe haha. I don't think its a massive deal, and you can easily avoid it (or at least I can) by either not stretching your lets out as much or by just moving them to the side a bit. But the way I naturally put my feet as I would do on any other train just isn't possible on the IET's. It really isn't a big deal for me, and I've only mentioned it because I have noticed it!

Ah!

You sit with your feet stretched forwards? I tend to sit with my feet downwards and with my knees bent a bit so they tend to be underneath the seat I'm sitting in - that may be the difference. Anyway, I will have a close look at the seats next Friday hopefully.