Are Pendolinos cheaper than the IEP?

Status
Not open for further replies.

cslusarc

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2011
Messages
90
In this post at The Rawailay Eye I read something strange: It said that the recent Pendolino Trial on the ECML should have had a sticker shouting: 'You can have this proven train for £20,000 per vehicle per month less than IEP'!

It got me thinking.... is that IEP so much more expensive?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,811
Well yes, the Pendolino is a proven family of trains, the IEP is brand new with associated design and R&D costs etc. Plus the fact it is stupidly complicated.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
If you believe certain people in the railway press who have a serious problem with Hitachi, the DfT and the IEP project as a whole then yes it is £20,000 per month cheaper. However, the operative word is 'if'.

As for proven technology of the Pendolinos - proven to keep breaking down (according official figures in Modern Railways - less reliable than Hull Trains' 180s!) and proven to have toilets that don't work and smell like a sewage farm.
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,811
Pendolino is a family of train, not just a class 390. So unless you know that all Pendolinos worldwide are unreliable and have smelly toilets, your comments are unfounded.
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,811
Pretty irrelevant as class 390s would not be built for the ECML. But another model of Pendolino could be.
 

w1bbl3

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2011
Messages
310
As a simpler design cl390 should be cheaper to lease per month than IEP. IIRC the monthly lease costs of cl 395 cars are lower than cl390 cars.
However based on target weight IEP even in bi-mode form should be cheaper to operate per mile.

IEP is lets face it a cow designed by committee I'd suspect that if the complexity of variants where stripped out and the trainset reduced to a standard high speed emu then the cost per car/train would be lower than a cl390. However any costs incurred thus far would have to be wiped out prior.

As a discussion point Hitachi have obviously been doing a lot of design work in between preferred bidder status and today let alone future order point, who actually pays for this? Have DfT rail written a separate design development contract or do Hitachi need to front these costs until a full order is placed?
The original contract was to be DBFO (design, build, finance, operate) I'd have assumed based on experience of such contracts Agility would front the cost of full design from specification and make an allowance for development costs from tender specification based on a duration and team size. This could have been say 50 people for 6 months e.g. £1.5m ish.

However the changes to concept and potential order have been so extensive and time consuming I can't honestly believe these would still be taken at risk. As the initial allowance would have been spent many months ago.

In the industry I work we wouldn't take design development at risk without a significant reward usually in the form of inflated design costs / contract value to cover the "risk", a reduction in scope can then make project costs to costs appear very expensive. The public client DBFO I'm currently involved in has for various reasons been de-scoped and value engineered from a simple 16m design, 184m build into a 16m P1 design, 6m P2 design plus 85m P1 build and 85m P2 build. The final order will only be for P1 works with P2 to be ordered later if funds become available thus making the 16% P1 design fees seem somewhat out of line against market benchmarks to the project cost consultants.

Coming back to IEP I'd assume with procurement 24 months behind schedule and the potential order reduced to a total of only 600 units of which the first stage will be only 308 units that design costs are now massively out of proportion to expectations/predications. Unless design is being separately accounted and paid, front loading onto a 308 unit order will make those appear quite frankly insane cost wise. Cl 390 was fundamentally an existing design adapted for the UK on a do minimum basis, IEP appears not be anymore.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,375
The main reason Pendolino are cheaper is its an old design thats already paid off its development costs but even the new ones are fairly expensive to insure because of their lack of age. But this is an argument thats simply a race to the bottom, an IC125 is cheaper than a Pendolino, a Sprinter is cheaper than an IC125, a pacer is cheaper than a Sprinter.

You want Wi-Fi, lots of electrical sockets, air conditioning, more energy efficency? you want a modern design youve got to pay for it.

R.e. above, I believe Hitachi has actually spent in the region of £20-30m on design work already, while their initial submission was an outline specification the fine negotiations that have taken place over the last couple of years have been with a detailed design tackling the normal problems you find when you move from theoretical specification to physical blueprints (like the fact the transformer was under rated for the power it needed to draw, and that certain components were over weight). That doesnt include the amount the Dft has spent on lawyers, accountants and consultants to evaluate reliability, practicality, running costs and feature inclusion (reportedly in the teens)
 
Last edited:

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
3,413
Location
Nottingham
This is the closest we have came to having a train built to our specifications (instead of an existing design shoehorned into our loading guage, or a BR design that has been modified) so hopefully by the end we would have something that would work better for us (instead of going out of guage when it tilts)
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
3,413
Location
Nottingham
Again, irrelevant. Not all Pendolinos tilt.

That was just an example of one of the problems with an off the shelf design . dont forget class 67's with their weight making them expensive inth track access charges, something that wouldnt be a problem in other countries that is here.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Again, irrelevant. Not all Pendolinos tilt.
But that's what they're for. RENFE has bought non-tilting versions, but they have more room to play with in the first place. The problem with buying Pendos if you don't need them to Tilt is that the bodyshell is designed to allow for tilt, and so it's narrower and slopes inwards, and the small Windows are part of the structure. Therefore, just ordering them because they'd cost less is a classic example of buying something because it's Cheap, rather than what's necesarily best suited to the job.
 
Last edited:

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,268
Location
Somewhere, not in London
So why not have pendilino traction systems in a Cordia bodyshell? Simples...

And I'm not posting the whole thing again, but a disto traction LHCS style setup, or bogo standard LHCS would be cheaper still...
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
3,413
Location
Nottingham
And I'm not posting the whole thing again, but a disto traction LHCS style setup, or bogo standard LHCS would be cheaper still...
You forget that for some reason everybody except EC thinks MU's = Good Locos = Bad
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
The problem with buying Pendos if you don't need them to Tilt is that the bodyshell is designed to allow for tilt, and so it's narrower and slopes inwards, and the small Windows are part of the structure. Therefore, just ordering them because they'd cost less is a classic example of buying something because it's Cheap, rather than what's necesarily best suited to the job.
There's nothing stopping Alstom making a different bodyshell, as the important "off the shelf" parts are surely the inner workings such as the traction equipment.

Also, to be honest, the Pendolinos aren't That much narrower. It has to be remembered that they are 24m as opposed to 23m, so even without tilting would be narrower.

I'd imagine with IEP aiming for 25m carriages they aren't going to be all that wide themselves.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,128
Location
Mold, Clwyd
If you believe certain people in the railway press who have a serious problem with Hitachi, the DfT and the IEP project as a whole then yes it is £20,000 per month cheaper. However, the operative word is 'if'.

As for proven technology of the Pendolinos - proven to keep breaking down (according official figures in Modern Railways - less reliable than Hull Trains' 180s!) and proven to have toilets that don't work and smell like a sewage farm.
In that survey the top Inter City train for reliability was the XC class 220.
So let's have a lot more 4-car Voyagers instead of these fancy electrics...
Pendolinos do the business, don't knock 'em.

Alstom backed out of the IEP bidding early on (good move!).
So the reserve bidder if DfT can't close a deal with Hitachi is Bombardier/Siemens.
Who? Can you see their offering anywhere?
No noises from Derby on this one.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
It was a 390 on the test run. How much of a clue of the type of train do you need?
Pretty irrelevant as class 390s would not be built for the ECML. But another model of Pendolino could be.
Surely the 390 would be the cheapest option as it is an off-the-shelf product. A different Pendolino variant would have design costs to add on reducing the difference between IEP and a Pendolino.

Although, saying that a modified 390 with the tilt facility removed may in fact be cheaper.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
I'm sure I read that a portion of the 20k figure was based on lower track access charges.
Which makes sense, but I've not heard anything more than what is on Railway Eye TBH so I'd appreciate if anyone has more details.

You'd assume the 20k would be more to do with the design being pre existing, but who knows.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,746
Which makes sense, but I've not heard anything more than what is on Railway Eye TBH so I'd appreciate if anyone has more details.

You'd assume the 20k would be more to do with the design being pre existing, but who knows.
Tbh it could have been speculation on the forum...

It is 20k per vehicle per month so presumably that's been put over at least 10-15 years, so I'd be surprised if therer that much saving in design!

 

DXMachina

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2011
Messages
652
This forum ain't exactly representative of society as a whole though is it? We all have interests, or axes to grind. The public just wants to get places in comfort, speed, and cheaply as possible.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,935
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
This forum ain't exactly representative of society as a whole though is it? We all have interests, or axes to grind. The public just wants to get places in comfort, speed, and cheaply as possible.
Agreed.

I just posted that as a reminder to the anti-Voyager crowd on here that they are mechanically sound units (just too short).
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
You must also consider that there is other possibilities as well with the use of other off the shelf designs such as those from CSRE or even as mentioned before a version of Voyager/Meridian with a pantograph car which is what is going to happen to the Cross Country voyagers is it not to lengthen them? Why not keep the Production line going with not just building the Pantograph cars?
 

GNER 373

Member
Joined
28 Apr 2010
Messages
510
Location
Gateshead
...yet they are still the most hated class of units on this forum.
More than the 142!!??!? ;)

Agreed Class 220 are very reliable and considering the amount of miles they cover you can't knock them, yes they could be lengthened but from what I know it won't be for a few years yet! The only issue with the panto car is dragging those 4 engines around whilst not in use!
 

w1bbl3

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2011
Messages
310
R.e. above, I believe Hitachi has actually spent in the region of £20-30m on design work already, while their initial submission was an outline specification the fine negotiations that have taken place over the last couple of years have been with a detailed design tackling the normal problems you find when you move from theoretical specification to physical blueprints (like the fact the transformer was under rated for the power it needed to draw, and that certain components were over weight).
Interesting the 20 - 30m mark sounds about what I'd have guessed, this would be something around 70k to 100k per car if assigned purely to the first order tranche which does appear expensive to me. However the cost per car still around £2.1m - £2.3m?

What I'd be interested is learn is what effect client specification changes have had on the outline specification in terms of abortive cost. I
do understand that an outline bid specification would have formed a high level functional specification. Whereby this can then be bound the later technical specification which can in turn then drive detailed design work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top