Unless the standstill period is extended, we should soon have more detailed information about Abellio's plans for the East Midlands; I'm looking forward very much to seeing these, as I'm having great difficulty in reconciling what we've been told thus far (by DfT, Abellio, the rail minister, and in the railway industry press) with the requirements of the ITT.
In recent awards, it's been suggested that the successful bidders have gone for substantial or complete fleet replacement strategies as they would have scored better under the tender evaluation criteria used by the DfT; however, for the East Midlands the DfT has specifically said (in clause 5.9.1 of the ITT) that - except where stated otherwise in the ITT - it will not differentiate in its scoring between new and refurbished trains. The only new trains specified are bi-modes for intercity services (clause 5.9.4); moreover, it states categorically that they must be capable of operating 222 timed trains "with no detriment to intermediate and end-to-end journey times". It is clear that the DfT was aware that no such train existed at the time the ITT was issued, as (in clause 5.9.5 a)) it states that at least one train meeting the specification and being capable of being used for track testing and as a demonstrator must be available by 31 December 2021.
Elsewhere, compatability with existing technical and operational constraints of the infrastructure is emphasised; this must be important to the DfT as it is mentioned in both clauses 5.9.3 a) and 5 9 15 a) iii). Presumably, this means that the 8XX series bi-modes would be non-compliant as they are unable to use enhanced speeds for HSTs on the MML; however, bidders are given an option to propose "further infrastructure enhancement schemes that the bidder commits to fund and deliver", so this may give them an opportunity to offer new trains from Hitachi. But can HST enhanced speeds be "upgraded" for either MU or general use so that 8XX series trains can use them, even if Abellio are prepared to fund the necessary infrastructure works required?
Bidders were restricted as to what vehicles could be included in their fleet proposals for the new franchise; except for the mandated new MML bi-modes, other trains comprised in bidder's fleet plans had to be either already operated by EMT, be new build, be off-lease, be coming off-lease, or be the subject of a swap between the new EMR franchise and another TOC. Therefore, an exchange with XC with Meridians being swapped for 170s would be compliant with the ITT, but one with TPE whereby Meridians were swapped for 185s wouldn't be (because of non-compliance with infrastructure operational constraints). I believe the infrastructure operational constraint also affects using 175s; aren't there some SP restrictions in the East Midlands Railway operational area?
The Railway Gazette website reported that there will be a complete regional fleet replacement; this was also implied by the rail minister during the House of Commons debate after the preferred bidder for the franchise was announced, and although Hansard records that he frequently used "new" to describe the proposed EMR regional fleet, the general consensus on this forum seems to be that he meant new to the franchise. This is a very reasonable assumption - if brand-new trains were actually being procured for regional services, the DfT would have shouted about this very loudly when the successful franchise bidder was announced.
If it wasn't for the Railway Gazette report and the rail minister using "new" to describe the regional fleet, the line-by-line improvements planned for the new franchise and described on the DfT website could have been met by keeping the EMT class 158 fleet, refurbishing them and using them instead of class 153s and 156s, and bringing in 170s going off-lease in the West Midlands for the Norwich - Nottingham - Derby service; all trains would then have been quicker than those they replaced, be airconditioned, be more modern, etc. But - taking the infrastructure operating constraint into account - aren't there only Turbostars which could be brought in from elsewhere if both the Railway Gazette complete fleet replacement report and the general interpretation of the minister's use of "new" are correct?
All of the Hitachi trains operating in the UK are heavy, and therefore - unless there are relaxations on MML HST enhanced speeds - 8XX series trains seem out of the picture; so far as I am aware, the only British-gauged bi-mode currently on offer is Bombardier's Aventra, and with their experience from Voyagers/Meridians they can probably build this to meet HST enhanced speed requirements. Are there any others likely to be offerred?
But how the reports published thus far about the regional fleet renewal proposals and the requirements of the ITT will be reconciled is going to be interesting to see; let's hope the standstill period is soon over, and we learn how much is fact and how much spin.