IEP - Contract Awarded for 596 Cars

[HSTEd]

One hopes that 140mph running will be included in the design, or be a small modification, especially as lines get re-signalled to ERTMS in cab that would allow 140mph or even 165mph running.

Well being as the DfT cited that it was only capable of 125mph as a reason to buy them compared to non tilt Pendolinos such as shrunken body shell versions of those ordered recently by PKP intercity..... I wouldn't count on it.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

If this was an airline industry site, there would now be dozens of posts like "Congrats to Hitachi and DfT, can't wait to travel on the first one to roll out, what is IEP's fuel economy compared to HST?" etc etc.

Being about Britain's railways, more than two hours has passed and it seems everyone is looking the other way to avoid coming to terms with the most significant train-building project since privatisation.
Is there no joy to be had anywhere!?

I dont think anyone here thinks acquiring new cutting edge intercity rolling stock is a bad idea it is just IEP is crap. Its a bad and expensive concept. Its not Hitachi's fault its the DFT for putting stupid specifications and coming up with the idea of hybrids. it has been taken apart by Roger Ford of Modern Railways and a audit ordered by Adonis said in mandarin speak that it wasnt a good deal. Its been ordered on PFI!

 

[sprinterguy]

Well being as the DfT cited that it was only capable of 125mph as a reason to buy them compared to non tilt Pendolinos such as shrunken body shell versions of those ordered recently by PKP intercity..... I wouldn't count on it.

The IEP trains were originally reported, when the original form of the order was first announced, to be able to be easily "tweaked" to allow 140mph running. However this was quite a long time ago now, and a lot has changed since, so this may no longer ring true.

 

[tbtc]

The 596 is the number in service working daily diagrams.
Hitachi will have to build enough to ensure the necessary availability.

Surprising that they've not announced the bigger number (of trains actually built), especially as it would be "over six hundred".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the GW IEP order has been adapted since the Swansea electrification was announced: The proposed 8-car Bi-mode trains that were described in the Great Western franchise consultation have become additional 9-car electric sets.

TBF I hadn't spotted that

 

[HSTEd]

The IEP trains were originally reported, when the original form of the order was first announced, to be able to be easily "tweaked" to allow 140mph running. However this was quite a long time ago now, and a lot has changed since, so this may no longer ring true.

There is no directly equivalent rolling stock (ETCS equipped, 125mph top speed, 26m intercity vehicles, non-tilt, with a comparable performance regime, etc.) entering into service at a similar time as the IEP, so it is not possible to do a like-for-like cost analysis

It doesn't sound like it to me, since a non tilt shrunken bodyshell Pendo would be an ETCS equipped, 155mph top speed, 26m intercity vehicle, non-tilt train with similar or superior performance regimes, and would be able to enter into service at a similar time to the IEP.

 

[Stats]

The 596 is the number in service working daily diagrams.
Hitachi will have to build enough to ensure the necessary availability.

No, 596 is the number of carriages to be built and available to the franchises. It does not necessarily equal the number of carriages in use each day. That is for the franchisees to decide and they would be a bit foolish to design a timetable that uses all available units and does not provide for contingencies or maintenance work.

In a major boost to the UK’s manufacturing industry, 596 railway carriages will be built at a brand new train factory in the north east of England.

As part of the IEP, Agility Trains’ main supplier Hitachi will provide, service and maintain a total of 596 rail carriages destined to run on the East Coast Main Line and the Great Western Main Line to replace the ageing fleet of Intercity trains.

As part of the contract, Agility Trains’ sub-contractor Hitachi Rail Europe will provide 596 carriages of electric and bi-mode trains for the Great Western Main Line (Phase 1) and the East Coast Main Line (Phase 2). The fleet of 92 trains will be maintained in a number of new-built and upgraded maintenance facilities, including new depots in Swansea, Bristol, west London and Doncaster.

 

[HSTEd]

And it appears that as the Mark 4 was originally going to be extended to 25-26m anyway, but the order never occured, it would seem that there would be no need to shrink the Continental Pendolino loading gauge that much.

Further reducing the cost of alternatives.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No, 596 is the number of carriages to be built and available to the franchises. It does not necessarily equal the number of carriages in use each day. That is for the franchisees to decide and they would be a bit foolish to design a timetable that uses all available units and does not provide for contingencies or maintenance work.

You may well be right.
DfT seem to have wiped the older IEP documents from their web site.
What is in the announcement is:

•The contract structure passes the responsibility for constructing depots and maintaining trains to Agility Trains.
The Train Operating Company will pay Agility Trains “Set Availability Payments” for each train that reports for duty each day and remains reliable during the operational period.
The Department is providing a “Usage Guarantee” to Agility that a Train Operating Company will be in place to make use of the new trains.

This seems to be a "pay by the available set" deal within the overall build.
I take this as meaning Hitachi take a hit if sets are unavailable, but are not taking the entire risk because the fleet size has been agreed.

 

[WatcherZero]

140mph capability was indeed in the original spec with the belief that the GWML linespeed could be raised to 140mph in the future.

 

[BananaRepublic]

You may well be right.
DfT seem to have wiped the older IEP documents from their web site.

They are still "out there" on the web, so to speak.

This seems to be a "pay by the available set" deal within the overall build.
I take this as meaning Hitachi take a hit if sets are unavailable, but are not taking the entire risk because the fleet size has been agreed.

A fairly standard arrangement for the supply of new rolling stock these days.
These are very similar arrangements to those used between Siemens and the TOC's leasing their Desiro's and between Hitachi and SouthEastern for the supply of Class 395's.


.

 

[swt_passenger]

You may well be right.
DfT seem to have wiped the older IEP documents from their web site.
What is in the announcement is:

•The contract structure passes the responsibility for constructing depots and maintaining trains to Agility Trains.
The Train Operating Company will pay Agility Trains “Set Availability Payments” for each train that reports for duty each day and remains reliable during the operational period.
The Department is providing a “Usage Guarantee” to Agility that a Train Operating Company will be in place to make use of the new trains.

This seems to be a "pay by the available set" deal within the overall build.
I take this as meaning Hitachi take a hit if sets are unavailable, but are not taking the entire risk because the fleet size has been agreed.

Not quite 'wiped' but archived. Try here (I've explained below how to find this stuff if anyone is interested):

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/

It is correct that all the original tender documentation is expressed in terms of numbers of daily diagram to be provided.

Evidence that this might have changed can also be seen by comparing the numbers of IEP declared this week with the figures in the recent ECML consultation - where the three types of IEP proposed are all slightly smaller than now.

All the IEP specification stuff is archived, but can be found if you go via http://www.dft.gov.uk/site/sitemap and follow the link on the right hand side to the 'uk government web archive'. In the red banner at the top of the page you'll see a link to 'see all dates available' - and you just look for a probable date when the IEP stuff would be present.

 

[BananaRepublic]

140mph capability was indeed in the original spec with the belief that the GWML linespeed could be raised to 140mph in the future.

The IEP spec. had an "essential requirement" for a minimum of 125 mph max. speed, with a "desirable requirement that IEP trains under electric power shall be capable of higher speeds than 125mph to allow for possible line speed upgrades or new lines with higher speed limits being available".

IIRC, Agility trains winning SET design is designed for 125mph running, but is capable of a max. of 140 mph under electric power without modification (subject to the installation of signalling systems etc.), with the possibility of modification to enable an increase to 150/155 mph.

 

[D365]

The IEP spec. had an "essential requirement" for a minimum of 125 mph max. speed, with a "desirable requirement that IEP trains under electric power shall be capable of higher speeds than 125mph to allow for possible line speed upgrades or new lines with higher speed limits being available".

IIRC, Agility trains winning SET design is designed for 125mph running, but is capable of a max. of 140 mph under electric power without modification (subject to the installation of signalling systems etc.), with the possibility of modification to enable an increase to 150/155 mph.

Thought so, good.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/deborahmcgurran/2011/02/norfolks_fen_line_-_the_next_t.html

This news article is old, but I have rediscovered it, and I don't entirely agree. King's Lynn will be getting their 5-car 'commuter' IEPs as replacements for the 365s, won't they? Or is there something DfT is not telling us...

UPDATE: 5-car commuter, electric only IEPs for London-Cambridge-King's Lynn are an option, implying that the 365s will stay put until then. If the aforementioned units are ordered, I believe that the service will transfer to the East Coast franchise.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Going back up the thread....

I dont think anyone here thinks acquiring new cutting edge intercity rolling stock is a bad idea it is just IEP is crap.

How could you possibly know it's "crap". They haven't been built yet!

Its not Hitachi's fault its the DFT for putting stupid specifications and coming up with the idea of hybrids.

In the context of the IEP, Hybrid refers to the original proposal from Hitachi, that used a Hybrid diesel/battery generator driving vehicles for the (now not required) all-diesel and the diesel half of the original Bi-Mode proposal.
(n.b. as tested on the Hayabusa HST demonstrator).

The Hybrid powerplant was dropped when they changed the design to the use of regular underfloor diesels, instead of a power car.

....Its been ordered on PFI!

It's been ordered on a similar basis to the way nearly all new stock has been ordered for many years.
For example, there are similar arrangements for all Desiro's leased by the TOC's and for the Class 395's that Hitachi supply to SouthEastern.

 

[Intercity]

i can't believe the displaced 91s/mk4s are not being considered to take over the cambridge fasts, convert all but one carriage to second class, they could run at 125mph as opposed to the 100mph of the 365s south of hitchin, cutting down on journey times and helping capacity.

 

[sprinterguy]

i can't believe the displaced 91s/mk4s are not being considered to take over the cambridge fasts, convert all but one carriage to second class, they could run at 125mph as opposed to the 100mph of the 365s south of hitchin, cutting down on journey times and helping capacity.

They would have slow acceleration between more regular station stops than are present in their present long distance use, and would certainly be slower in acceleration than 365s, and a 9-carriage 225 formation only has 207 metres of useable passenger space compared to 240 metres of a 12-car 365 formation, despite the total formation being slightly longer than a 12-car 365.

 

[swt_passenger]

The only significant reason I can think of for not leaving the Mk4/91 sets on the ECML until life expiry was that they cannot easily be lengthened, unless X number of sets are broken up as donors. This lengthening could be achievable though, if a small number of electric IEPs were ordered to keep the overall ECML fleet size up to the right size.

The reduced number of longer Mk4/91 sets could then stay on the ECML until life expired - no need to bother with cascades to other routes such as MML and GEML - why can't they just get new stock directly?

 

[D365]

As has been said, there's no point running [shorter] IC225s to King's Lynn; the speed advantage on the ECML is rendered useless by slower acceleration. IIRC, the King's Lynn IEPs will be EMUs, and as such acceleration should be similar to a 365.

Would it be worthwhile converting the DVTs into passenger accomodation? The restriction on not permitting fare-paying passengers in the front carriage of a 125mph train has been removed, I believe.

 

[LE Greys]

The only significant reason I can think of for not leaving the Mk4/91 sets on the ECML until life expiry was that they cannot easily be lengthened, unless X number of sets are broken up as donors. This lengthening could be achievable though, if a small number of electric IEPs were ordered to keep the overall ECML fleet size up to the right size.

The reduced number of longer Mk4/91 sets could then stay on the ECML until life expired - no need to bother with cascades to other routes such as MML and GEML - why can't they just get new stock directly?

Lengthening would be a tricky business, mostly because of platform space at King's Cross limiting it to a 10+DVT length. That would most likely result in three rakes being broken up, with the buffets and DVTs being scavanged for spares. However, I think it's more likely that they will be given an internal refurb and some will go to the GEML, since they can work equally well with 90s as 91s. DDA conversions would be a lot easier thanks to the existing plug doors. A few existing sets might work well on north of Edinburgh services if the ED IEP turns out to be a failure (being able to be hauled by practically any loco helps). Otherwise, the WAG express and various sleepers are possible, replacing the remaining slam-door MkIIIs wherever they are.

I'd like the 91s themselves to be given a heavy rebuild, possibly new electrical equipment (asynchronous motors and so on) to make them accelerate faster. However, that would probably be just as pricey as new locos, so it's probably unlikely. They can't really replace 90s on the GEML without doing something about low-end acceleration. If hauled stock end up on Cambridge/King's Lynn turns, 90s would probably take over (hired from freight operators).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it be worthwhile converting the DVTs into passenger accomodation? The restriction on not permitting fare-paying passengers in the front carriage of a 125mph train has been removed, I believe.

Depends on whether the bodywork could accept having windows cut into it. Assuming it is possible, the front half should continue to have luggage/bike space and a guard's compartment, while retaining one of the big sliding doors.

 

[The Ham]

An intresting artical saying that IEP are better value than Pendolinos:

http://www.rail.co/2012/07/26/ieps-better-value-for-money-than-pendolinos-says-dft/

 

[PhilipW]

An intresting artical saying that IEP are better value than Pendolinos:

http://www.rail.co/2012/07/26/ieps-better-value-for-money-than-pendolinos-says-dft/

It is the DfT who are saying that (they would, wouldn't they), so it is hardly an independent assessment

 

[D6975]

91s to King's Lynn?
Another objection to this surely has to be the track access charges.
A 91 rake is much more expensive than an EMU rake of similar length isn't it?
I can't see an operator choosing to make the switch if it's going to cause a hike in their access charges.

 

[LE Greys]

An intresting artical saying that IEP are better value than Pendolinos:

http://www.rail.co/2012/07/26/ieps-better-value-for-money-than-pendolinos-says-dft/

Looking at the comments at the bottom, several people have noticed their slightly dodgy mention of '3m longer'. In practice, that means a 9-car set will be 27m longer than the Pendy equivalent, or more likely a 9-car 390 will actually be equivalent to an IEP 8-car set.

 

[HSTEd]

I love how they use the 23m Pendolino so they can muddy the waters thanks to 23m vehicles being more expensive per metre than 26m ones.

Are they going to do some comparisons with a 26m Pendolino which is likely to be cheaper per vehicle since its closer to standard, especially once the tilt equipment is removed. For instance PKP Intercity paid £520 million for 210 26m carriages, which comes out at £2.4m with 17 years maintenance.

All you would need is a new bodyshell, and that is not a major part of the cost of the train.

Essentially they have fudged it.

 

[mallard]

It is the DfT who are saying that (they would, wouldn't they), so it is hardly an independent assessment

As opposed to Alstom's 100% independent assessment that isn't at all designed to drum up extra sales for them... :roll:

 

[HSTEd]

As opposed to Alstom's 100% independent assessment that isn't at all designed to drum up extra sales for them... :roll:

This is also based upon known reported prices for existing train orders on the continent.

£2.7m per carriage with maintenance for 204 months, which translates to some £7m in rental fees for the IEP.

Even adjusting price of the entire contract for PPP (even though only the maintenance will scale) brings the price up to £4.5m, which still easily beats the IEP.

 

[tbtc]

I love how they use the 23m Pendolino so they can muddy the waters thanks to 23m vehicles being more expensive per metre than 26m ones.

Are they going to do some comparisons with a 26m Pendolino which is likely to be cheaper per vehicle since its closer to standard, especially once the tilt equipment is removed. For instance PKP Intercity paid £520 million for 210 26m carriages, which comes out at £2.4m with 17 years maintenance.

All you would need is a new bodyshell, and that is not a major part of the cost of the train.

Essentially they have fudged it.

But then enthusiasts have used the current Virgin leasing costs for 390s against IEP costs - an "off the shelf" product like a 23m 390 coach is going to be a lot cheaper than a 26m vehicle (which would presumably need new jigs/ new testing etc)?

 

[HSTEd]

But then enthusiasts have used the current Virgin leasing costs for 390s against IEP costs - an "off the shelf" product like a 23m 390 coach is going to be a lot cheaper than a 26m vehicle (which would presumably need new jigs/ new testing etc)?

Well I am not, I am using the demonstrated costs of maintaining said 26m Pendolinos rather than the maintenance costs of Class 390s, but remember the Class 390s have tilt equipment that needs additional maintenance.

Additionally new 26m carriages would only require a new upper bodyshell to be fitted onto the standard equipment put it in all non tilt Pendolinos, the design work should not be that extreme, especially since Alstom already have designs for Mark 3/4 carriages and all they would have to do is stretch that top to 26m. (As the Mark 4 was apparently going to be stretched anyway).

 

[John55]

Well I am not, I am using the demonstrated costs of maintaining said 26m Pendolinos rather than the maintenance costs of Class 390s, but remember the Class 390s have tilt equipment that needs additional maintenance.

Additionally new 26m carriages would only require a new upper bodyshell to be fitted onto the standard equipment put it in all non tilt Pendolinos, the design work should not be that extreme, especially since Alstom already have designs for Mark 3/4 carriages and all they would have to do is stretch that top to 26m. (As the Mark 4 was apparently going to be stretched anyway).

So Alstom use the design of an integral design steel bodied Mk3 or Mk 4 coach to engineer a bodywork transplant onto an integral construction aluminium Pendolino vehicle floor!

 

[HSTEd]

So Alstom use the design of an integral design steel bodied Mk3 or Mk 4 coach to engineer a bodywork transplant onto an integral construction aluminium Pendolino vehicle floor!

Good point, but as numerous studies for rebodying things, including the Networker Classic, have shown, it appears that body modifications are rather cheap, presumably because it basically consists of shaping bits of metal.

The interior would still be made of similar components, and the traction equipment is unchanged, and those things are the expensive bits.