Great Western, Essex Thameside and Thameslink bidders

[Zoe]

Seems roger ford is gearing up for one last attack aginst the Hitachi IEP and lets hope he is sucessful.

Do you really want it to be scrapped? Any order for new trains will then have to go to tender again and this will delay the introduction of new trains.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Do you really want it to be scrapped? Any order for new trains will then have to go to tender again and this will delay the introduction of new trains.

I think if they scrap it now they have time. But much longer and yes i agree it would delay introduction too long.

 

[Class377/5]

Do you really want it to be scrapped? Any order for new trains will then have to go to tender again and this will delay the introduction of new trains.

Considering how fast the 377/6 order was done, yes scrap IEP and let the TOC's order a new fleet.

Both Thameslink and IEP fleets are dragging their heels in actually getting to the stage of being able to build the fleets. In Thameslink's case, when they started back in 2008 they expect 2x 12 units in service from the May 2012 timetable change. Here we are about to start the change and ink isn't even on the contract yet.

 

[Zoe]

Considering how fast the 377/6 order was done, yes scrap IEP and let the TOC's order a new fleet.

The franchise starts in April 2013. The IEP is due in servce in 2016. That leaves just three years for a new order to go to tender and to actually build and test the trains.

 

[Schnellzug]

Considering how fast the 377/6 order was done, yes scrap IEP and let the TOC's order a new fleet.
.

indeed. let Government keep their grasping little hands as far away as possible.

 

[tbtc]

Do you really want it to be scrapped? Any order for new trains will then have to go to tender again and this will delay the introduction of new trains.

Considering how fast the 377/6 order was done, yes scrap IEP and let the TOC's order a new fleet

That was for additional units in an existing class, meaning that they had already been tested/ approved.

IEP is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Deerfold]

Fair comments - is that how London buses work? That seems to be okay there.

Pretty much, yes. Operators get bonuses if they run buses particularly well (evenly spaced on hi-freq routes, on time on low freq routes) and penalties if they run them badly. If they run very well they can get a 2-year extension to the normal 5 year contract (some contracts are for less than 5 years, but5+2 is the norm).

 

[pemma]

That was for additional units in an existing class, meaning that they had already been tested/ approved.

IEP is a whole different kettle of fish.

The suggestion is the 390s can replace the electric option for IEP so there just needs to be a diesel-electric variant of a 390 with the diesel only IEP option being scrapped.

 

[ainsworth74]

The suggestion is the 390s can replace the electric option for IEP so there just needs to be a diesel-electric variant of a 390 with the diesel only IEP option being scrapped.

Or a diesel locomotive to haul 390s away from the wires.

 

[Zoe]

The suggestion is the 390s can replace the electric option for IEP so there just needs to be a diesel-electric variant of a 390 with the diesel only IEP option being scrapped.

Why order a tilting train for the London to Bristol route when it's never going to tilt?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The suggestion is the 390s can replace the electric option for IEP so there just needs to be a diesel-electric variant of a 390 with the diesel only IEP option being scrapped.

As far as I know, the current plans are for electric and bi-mode IEP only. There are no plans for a diesel only IEP.

 

[pemma]

Why order a tilting train for the London to Bristol route when it's never going to tilt?

They can order the same train minus the tilting mechanism.

As far as I know, the current plans are for electric and bi-mode IEP only. There are no plans for a diesel only IEP.

Which is what I said. There was a diesel only IEP option proposed but that proposal was scrapped.

 

[anthony263]

Why order a tilting train for the London to Bristol route when it's never going to tilt?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As far as I know, the current plans are for electric and bi-mode IEP only. There are no plans for a diesel only IEP.

Alstom have already said they would build a mini pendolino and a new high speed emu with similar bodywork to the class 180 which can be hooked up to a diesel locomotive quickly and easily and is far cheaper to operate than the IEP.

Put it this way the alstom alternative is far cheaper than Hitachi's so yes I would like to see IEP scrapped and teh alternative ordered.

we just need for the DFT to listen to the industry who have also been saying they are not to happy with what they are supposed to be getting from Hitachi.

 

[Zoe]

Put it this way the alstom alternative is far cheaper than Hitachi's so yes I would like to see IEP scrapped and the alternative ordered.

You can't just go to Alstom though and ask them to build the train. It would have to go to tender throughout the EU and I expect Bombardier and Siemens would be interested.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They can order the same train minus the tilting mechanism.

But it would still be tilt profile though and so narrower than it needs to be?

 

[pemma]

You can't just go to Alstom though and ask them to build the train. It would have to go to tender throughout the EU and I expect Bombardier and Siemens would be interested.

It doesn't though. Alstom could have extra Pendolinos added on to the existing WCML order, in the same way Siemens got the TPE order.

Or if a tender was issued they could do it in the way LM did it when they specified something they knew only Siemens could provide because they really wanted more 350s.

 

[ainsworth74]

You can't just go to Alstom though and ask them to build the train. It would have to go to tender throughout the EU and I expect Bombardier and Siemens would be interested.

But what were tendering for is an EMU + Locomotive to haul away from wires which is a much much simpler than the original IEP and can probably be sourced almost off the shelf so you get rid of a lot of the R&D time as well as the testing time. That is assuming that you don't use the tender to set up who you want to win as we've seen before.

It's tight but if IEP were to be cancelled in the next 6 months and a tender issued along the lines that have been suggested here, there is no reason why the big three couldn't produce a solution that could be in service for the 2016 deadline.

 

[Zoe]

It doesn't though. Alstom could have extra Pendolinos added on to the existing WCML order, in the same way Siemens got the TPE order.

I'm not sure this would be allowed though. The additional WCML trains would be a follow-on to the original order and would need to have been 390s to maintain a uniform fleet. I'm not sure a large order for a new fleet of trains on a different route would be covered by this.

 

[pemma]

I'm not sure this would be allowed though. This is an order for a new fleet of trains.

OK it's not quite the same but if a tender was issue for new electric units for Birmingham-Scotland, new units for the ECML could be added on to that. Once the ECML has some 390s then it makes it easy for Alstom to win a tender for additional new units on the ECML, which then has some tagged on for the GWML and so on.

The other manufacturers wouldn't like it but since DfT allowed it in Siemens favour they've created a lot of future potential problems relating to that.

Alstom of course also have a tried and tested intercity electric unit in the UK, which other bidders do not have also giving Alstom an advantage.

 

[Zoe]

Once the ECML has some 390s then it makes it easy for Alstom to win a tender for additional new units on the ECML, which then has some tagged on for the GWML and so on.

Would they be allowed to tag an order for non-tilting trains onto an order for tilting trains though? It was suggested above that the non-tilting version would use similar bodywork to a class 180.

 

[pemma]

Would they be allowed to tag an order for non-tilting trains onto an order for tilting trains though? It was suggested above that the non-tilting version would use similar bodywork to a class 180.

and a new high speed emu with similar bodywork to the class 180 which can be hooked up to a diesel locomotive quickly

To me that sounds like the 180 bodywork option is instead of the DEMU IEP not the EMU IEP.

I think the recent 390 test run on the ECML wouldn't have been done if it wasn't a serious option. If it was just an electric 180, there wouldn't have been any point in a test run considering 180s are used on the ECML and have been used on the GWML.

 

[Zoe]

If they just go for a standard 390 though it will still be the same body profile even if it doesn't actually have the tilt gear. Is it really a great idea for the trains to be narrower than they need to be? I don't see the point in ordering 390s and a new type of EMU with class 180 bodywork. Why not just either haul the 390s off the wires or use this new EMU with class 180 bodywork (and a locomotive for off the wires) for all services?

I think the recent 390 test run on the ECML wouldn't have been done if it wasn't a serious option.

If the 390s are only going to be used under the wires then I doubt they will be used on the intercity ECML services unless the plan is to replace 225s but this isn't part of the curent IEP plan. The HSTs were to be replaced by bi-mode and not electric only IEP.

 

[RobShipway]

East Anglia would beg to differ; the only new stock introduced there during one/NXEA was the 379 fleet. A fair amount of stock cascaded in (especially 321s, but also the 90/mrk 3 fleet) but other than that, the other post-privitisation stock in that area predates NX.

On the other hand: yes, Scotrail's 170s were NX, Gat Exs 460s were NX, Central's 170s were NX and more

You forgot the fact of the Class 360 Desiro's being introduced which was before the 379's.

 

[Woody]

I think if they scrap it now they have time. But much longer and yes i agree it would delay introduction too long.

It is quite clear to me that the Government/Dft have long had their own agenda regards IEP despite the almost universals reservations from both within and outside the rail industry so talk of alternatives at this late stage is pointless.IEP like HS2 has become a "politically " led project and not an engineering led project so its long been a done deal.
As for the Great Western franchise well I would like to see new blood for no other reason than when one organisation or Political Party for that matter is in control of anything for too long the inevitable always seems to happen in that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" as it were.In industry as in politics competition is the only way of keeping the worst excesses of human nature in check.There is no eutopia sadly.
Certainly in my own back yard,Devon and Cornwall there is almost universal discontent among local MPs and Business leaders with FGW and the Government over way we have been effectively "left out" of the Great Western modernisation plan so any change would be welcomed here.

 

[trentside]

You forgot the fact of the Class 360 Desiro's being introduced which was before the 379's.

Which were introduced by First Great Eastern, not NatEx.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It is quite clear to me that the Government/Dft have long had their own agenda regards IEP despite the almost universals reservations from both within and outside the rail industry so talk of alternatives at this late stage is pointless.IEP like HS2 has become a "politically " led project and not an engineering led project so its long been a done deal.

I agree.
You do not run a procurement for 3+ years, have a preferred supplier for 2 years and invest lots of cash and reputation (on both sides) only to cancel the project as "unsuitable".
The only conceivable grounds for cancellation would be "not value for money", in which case the whole procurement would have to start again.
At the very least, Hitachi will get a large contract for new trains for GW (though the electric/bi-mode mix might not be finalised).
Then when you have the programme rolling and infrastructure on the ground the repeat orders become cheaper.

Maybe the later EC trains are up for grabs if procurement is down to the TOC rather than DfT.
The highest risk to IEP is probably finding the (Agility Trains) money to fund it in the current financial climate, rather than the technicalities.
From the moment Philip Hammond stood up a year ago and confirmed the project would go ahead, the technical argument against IEP was lost.

The best outcome would be for the July HLOS to commit Swansea electrification and thus force more electric/fewer bi-mode units out of the Hitachi order.

Did you notice Hitachi's Newton Aycliffe factory figured in PM's Questions before the Budget speech last week (as an example of inward investment)?
It's going to happen, at least on GW.

 

[Safety365]

Great Western has boring bidders very dissapointed. Would have liked someone abit different! National Express better not get it. NO WAY!

Arriva would be nice choice, i loved there their wessex operation!

Boring bidders? Surely its about the content of the bid and not which company is behind the bid?

 

[paul1609]

OK it's not quite the same but if a tender was issue for new electric units for Birmingham-Scotland, new units for the ECML could be added on to that. Once the ECML has some 390s then it makes it easy for Alstom to win a tender for additional new units on the ECML, which then has some tagged on for the GWML and so on.

The other manufacturers wouldn't like it but since DfT allowed it in Siemens favour they've created a lot of future potential problems relating to that.

Alstom of course also have a tried and tested intercity electric unit in the UK, which other bidders do not have also giving Alstom an advantage.

Id guess that Hitachi would have something to say about that, Great Western at least London to Cardiff is these days no more inter-city than St Pancras to East Kent.
I don't think putting first class and a buffet trolley in a 395/2 would tax anybody and the door configuration would probably speed station dwell times at reading, swindon and the like.

 

[AlanFry1]

I feel that now that a lot of franchises are under offer, there should be a merger of franchises

My plan is to reduce the number of franchises from 23 to 10 by merging the reorganising and merging the following franchises

(The names mentioned are the current names as of 22.04.2012, the resulting franchises will be might be renamed where needed)

Arriva Trains Wales will remain unchanged

C2C will remain unchanged

Chiltern Railways will absorb the Snow Hill Lines Services of London Midland City and might also absorb Metropolitan Line services between Baker Street to Watford/Chesham/Amersham (with all remaining services going between Aldgate to Uxbridge)

CrossCountry will absorb London Midland City (apart from Snow Hill Lines Services) and the Birmingham-Liverpool/Preston services of London Midland Express

East Coast will absorb East Midlands Trains (Route 1 Services), First Capital Connect, First Hull Trains, Grand Central, Southeastern and Southern
First Great Western will absorb Greater Anglia, Heathrow Connect and Heathrow Express
London Overground will remain unchanged

Northern Rail will absorb First TransPennine Express (North TransPennine and South TransPennine Services), East Midlands Trains (Route 2, 3 and 4 Services) and Merseyrail

Scotrail will remain unchanged

Virgin Trains will absorb London Midland Express (apart from Birmingham-Liverpool/Preston Services), First TransPennine Express (TransPennine Northwest Services) and South West Trains

Note:

All former London Midland City services will still be linked to Centro and might have a unified and independent brand identity from its parent TOC’s

All former Merseyrail services will still be linked to Merseytravel and might have a unified and independent brand identity from its parent TOC

All other Northern PTE services will still be linked to their respective PTE’S and might have a unified and independent brand identity from its parent TOC

When Crossrail is built in 2018, it will become part of First Great Western

When Crossrail 2 is built (which will remain a plan to link the Epping Branch of the Central Line to the Wimbledon Branch of the District Line via a tunnel under Central London, but now the former Epping Branch will be re-extended from Epping to Ongar) it will become part of South West Trains

When Crossrail 3 (which will link Euston and Waterloo via a tunnel under Central London) is built, only then will South West Trains (Including Crossrail 2services) become part of Virgin Trains

 

[ainsworth74]

Meanwhile in the real world...

Sorry but just about nothing you've proposed there would ever happen and besides some of the mergers seem illogical, ICEC operating Southern and Southeastern? Or ICWC operating SWT and TPE? Why?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What would happen to the Metropolitan line services to Watford / Amersham / Chesham then? You cannot surely expect Chiltern Railways to inherit S stock and run onto LUL's network; or to terminate them all at Harrow.

I also echo ainsworth74's comments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hang on, surely it makes more sense to combine c2c and GA than move the latter to FGW and lave the former? Also, why would you disband EMT to Northern when it would be much more logical to combine it with the Anglian franchise more than anything?

Are you actually being serious?

 

[Aictos]

If anything the only merging franchises I can see is Trans Pennine Express and Northern, South Eastern/Southern with First Capital Connect and finally Greater Anglia with C2C.

That's being realistic,