IEP - Contract Awarded for 596 Cars

[sprinterguy]

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).

I thought that the designs for the mark 3 would have passed on from BREL to Bombardier, as I have been led to believe that all BREL designs did?

I can understand the progression from Metro-Cammell to Alstom though.

 

[rickerby1]

By the look of it the 21 9 car Electric units will cover the core Electrified Intercity section to Bristol, Cardiff and now Swansea. The 5 car Bi-modes will provide a High Speed commuter service in much the same way the 395s provide in Kent between Oxford/Worcester/Gloucester/Cotswolds whilst HSTs will continue on the West of England Services. That doesnt seem a bad fit to me. It will be a long time before Oxford to Worcester/Hereford will be Electrified if ever. Its hard to see any other way of maintaining a through connection without bimode. Maintaining a Diesel Loco fleet for this would be extremely costly with very low utilisation. Bimodes will allow a fast Electric service over the core section with Diesel support beyond. Dragging Diesel Engines all the way to Edinburgh mind makes far less sense. Surely the 67s that haul Caledonian sleepers will be looking for something to do during the day and could haull East Coasts beyond Edinburgh?

 

[starrymarkb]

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.

You can't rebody a monocoque vehicle as the body and chassis are all in one. The Mark 1 EMUs had a separate lightweight body on a heavy underframe. The Networker Classic was an Electrostar body mounted on top of the underframe.

The last build to have a separate underframe is the Pacer, though even they have a relatively strong monocoque body (compared with the Mk1 but weak by modern standards), the 155 and 153 use the same basic shell but without the underframe.

I thought that the designs for the mark 3 would have passed on from BREL to Bombardier, as I have been led to believe that all BREL designs did?

I suspect they are thinking of the 156, just because it used a lot of the same parts as the Mk3 units. They are completely different construction!

 

[HSTEd]

You can't rebody a monocoque vehicle as the body and chassis are all in one. The Mark 1 EMUs had a separate lightweight body on a heavy underframe. The Networker Classic was an Electrostar body mounted on top of the underframe.

The last build to have a separate underframe is the Pacer, though even they have a relatively strong monocoque body (compared with the Mk1 but weak by modern standards), the 155 and 153 use the same basic shell but without the underframe.

Alright then... they can just stretch the 23m Pendolino body to 26m and Meridianise them, moving all the equipment they can below the sole bar into the space where the tilt system would be.

You get your longer 26m carriages with more capacity and it probably comes out cheaper than the existing Pendolino carriages despite the cost of the extra body sections welded into the middle thanks to no tilting gear.

This minimises your additional construction and design costs additionally since it is effectively a standard body shell with 10ft extra in the middle (and maybe on the ends as well). The vehicles are so overbuilt there should be no significant structural issues.

 

[WatcherZero]

Even a small alteration would require all the tolerances, thicknesses and components to be redesigned. Which would then be a brand new design requiring design, prototyping and testing.

You cant just switch from a aluminium body to a steel body, lengthen it by 3m and move the bulk of equipment under floor and say it would require minimal design work! Theres also the requirement the Pendolino would have to meet newer energy efficency and weight requirements since it would be a new design rather than an old design.

The Dft figures giving 2.2m for IEP electric, 2.7m for 26m lengthened Pendolino and 2.8m for IEP bi-mode carriages are quite interesting. People were saying the Electric would cost as much as the Bi-mode or that the Bi-Mode would cost over 4m per carriage to build, that IEP would be a hugely more expensive design. Those prices are quite competitive with all previous large train orders.

The only thing people have to quibble over is the leasing costs which after you deduct maintenence costs (which are lower than a toc doing the maintenence itself) are still slightly on the high side. However they are asking Hitachi to take all the risk rather than the usual Dft borrowing all the money, underwriting the order then giving them to a ROSCO to look after.

 

[HSTEd]

Even a small alteration would require all the tolerances, thicknesses and components to be redesigned. Which would then be a brand new design requiring design, prototyping and testing.

You cant just switch from a aluminium body to a steel body, lengthen it by 3m and move the bulk of equipment under floor and say it would require minimal design work! Theres also the requirement the Pendolino would have to meet newer energy efficency and weight requirements since it would be a new design rather than an old design.

Why would you use a steel body? What is wrong with the existing aluminium one? And unless you are seriously suggesting it would be heavier than a train with tonnes upon tonnes of diesel engines under the solebar, I doubt it would have trouble with weight restrictions.

And even if you did have to redesign various components, the really expensive part of a design is the electrical systems, and those would be identical to existing Pendolinos, whether 390s or continental ones. Energy efficiency targets would be easily me thanks to drastic reductions in bogie weight since they would be lightweight types rather than tilting ones.

The meridian doesn't seem to have required a massively expensive redesign programme, unless they seriously carried one out for a run far smaller than this one would be.

The Dft figures giving 2.2m for IEP electric, 2.7m for lengthened Pendolino and 2.8m for IEP bi-mode carriages are quite interesting.

It raises questions as to why the bi-mode is only slightly more expensive to lease than teh electric, it just looks like another badly designed bloated PFI.

EDIT:

As to the work requirement to lengthen an existing design, if it is so insanely hard why did BR even consider attempting to lengthen the Mark 4 to 25.5m apparently after the order was quite advanced?

And the figure would likely be closer to 6ft than 10ft, thanks largely to the fact that Pendo carriages are already 23.9m long.

 

[WatcherZero]

Your increasing the length by more than 10%, do the maths on the simple mechanics of what 15% increase in length and even no increase in weight does to lever and twisting forces (increases them by over 25%). You would either have to increase the thickness of the aluminium bodyshell surfaces reducing usable space or switch to a stronger material. The mechanical tolerances would be totally different.

Locomotives are also far less efficent than underfloor engines in both weight and power.

 

[HSTEd]

Your increasing the length by more than 10%, do the maths on the simple mechanics of what 15% increase in length and even no increase in weight does to lever and twisting forces (increases them by over 25%). You would either have to increase the thickness of the aluminium bodyshell surfaces reducing usable space or switch to a stronger material. The mechanical tolerances would be totally different.

There is no need to increase the thickness of the bodyshell as most of the current thickness of the bodyshell is empty space, with the two layers of aluminium sandwiching an air space.

Additional aluminium "beams", presumably tubes, could be placed inside the walls without intruding on the cabin.
At that point it would marginally increase the weight but the benefits from the reduced number of lighter bogies would almost certainly offset this.

Locomotives are also far less efficent than underfloor engines in both weight and power.

What locomotives?
These would be pure EMUs.

The terms of this PFI are so unbelievably awful that a scheme funded with state money would be so much cheaper that you could electrify every single line listed in the IEP service pattern suggested in the franchise consultations and still be better off, even before you assign the value of the benefits to other services.

It even holds true if you have to buy a second HOOP train thanks to the insanely low cost of government borrowing at the present time.

 

[WatcherZero]

A Class 70 Locomotive weighs 129 tonnes (Dry), and has 3690bhp
An underfloor engine weighs 1.8 tonnes (wet) and has 750hp

4.92 underfloor engines have the power of one locomotive, they would weigh 9 tonnes, thats a weight saving of 120 tonnes!

 

[HSTEd]

A Class 70 Locomotive weighs 129 tonnes (Dry), and has 3690bhp
An underfloor engine weighs 1.8 tonnes (wet) and has 750hp

4.92 underfloor engines have the power of one locomotive, they would weigh 9 tonnes, thats a weight saving of 120 tonnes!

Yes...I agree with you, but I worked out that this PFI is so awful that it would be cheaper to buy trains outright with state money (and pay for maintenance directly) and then electrify all the lines they wanted to use the IEP on than use the current PFI agreement. (Oh, it would also go to Plymouth and replace five of the HSTs that would be planned to retain, since you get within a few miles of reaching there anyway).

For the record a Class 70 is probably a terrible choice for off wires hauling, most people propose the Eurolight.

 

[WatcherZero]

There is no need to increase the thickness of the bodyshell as most of the current thickness of the bodyshell is empty space, with the two layers of aluminium sandwiching an air space.

Additional aluminium "beams", presumably tubes, could be placed inside the walls without intruding on the cabin.
At that point it would marginally increase the weight but the benefits from the reduced number of lighter bogies would almost certainly offset this.

Aluminium has very little rigidity, about a third of steel, skipping over the fact aluminium welding is far more expensive than steel welding and you cant use rivets in aluminum. Essentially you would have to use 3x the quantity of aluminium to achieve the required stiffness than steel, though the end products would both weigh the same.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes...I agree with you, but I worked out that this PFI is so awful that it would be cheaper to buy trains outright with state money (and pay for maintenance directly) and then electrify all the lines they wanted to use the IEP on than use the current PFI agreement. (Oh, it would also go to Plymouth and replace five of the HSTs that would be planned to retain, since you get within a few miles of reaching there anyway). Track access damage would be vastly more for something with 20tonnes per axle versues 6-9 tonnes per axle.

For the record a Class 70 is probably a terrible choice for off wires hauling, most people propose the Eurolight.

Skipping over the fact the Eurolight hadnt been designed then, the first prototype was in 2010 and the first production model wont be in service till 2013... each one costs £5-6m and it carries no passengers. Thats about equal to a saving only when it replaces 6 bi-mode carriages, meaning it would be more expensive for the 5 car bi modes though cheaper for the 9 car. Thats 77.5 tonnes of locomotive meaning your still 60 tonnes heavier than underfloor engines in a 5 car and 53 tonnes heavier in a 9 car.

 

[HSTEd]

Aluminium has very little rigidity, about a third of steel, skipping over the fact aluminium welding is far more expensive than steel welding and you cant use rivets in aluminum. Essentially you would have to use 3x the quantity of aluminium to achieve the required stiffness than steel, though the end products would both weigh the same.

As I understand it the aluminium product still ends up lighter due to its reduced weight, but the effect is not that large.
Which is what you would expect, as otherwise noone would use aluminium.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Skipping over the fact the Eurolight hadnt been designed then, the first prototype was in 2010 and the first production model wont be in service till 2013... each one costs £80m, thats 28 bi-mode coaches each!

I thought the contract was 70 million euros for the entirity of the fifteen unit order posted by DRS?

 

[WatcherZero]

Edited maths.

 

[sprinterguy]

As I understand it the aluminium product still ends up lighter due to its reduced weight, but the effect is not that large.
Which is what you would expect, as otherwise noone would use aluminium.

When BR were designing the mark 4 coach, they chose a steel bodyshell as, in order to achieve the the 10Hz natural vibrational frequency that was selected as optimal (It is the natural vibrational frequency of a mark 3 carriage), they discovered that an aluminium coach meeting the same specification would actually be heavier than the steel variant. I confidently assume that this difference would be even more pronounced for 26 metre vehicles, in combination with the poignant points on body flex and twisting forces pointed out by WatcherZero.

Additionally, according to Wikipedia, which is the only source from which I can glean mention of the proposed 25.5 metre length for the mark 4s (If you have a link to something more official then it would be welcomed ), BR did not consider this conversion an easy task at all, particularly within the limited timescales they had to play with:

Indeed in 1987 British Rail had considered increasing the length of the Mark 4 to 25.5 m but the in-service date of 1989 and complexity of changing the design to suit caused the variation order to be shelved.

 

[HSTEd]

I think I will run my numbers again using these stated prices for the IEP electric and see what sort of value I come out with.... will be difficult to locate accurate figures on EMU maintenance costs though.

Must show just how terrible this PFI is.

 

[WatcherZero]

Best I can offer is Arup 2011 study which says the whole life cost of rolling stock is 31% initial purchase price, 44% Maintenence and 25% Operating costs (Fuel/electricity). Compared to other countries our rolling stock maintenence costs were broadly equivalent and hadnt changed (up or down) since BR days.

Working through;
initial cost of Electric IEP £2.2m per carriage, maintenence cost £3.1m
Initial cost of Bi-mode IEP £2.8m per carriage, maintence cost £3.97m

The Whole life of IEP was agreed to be 27.5 years.

 

[jopsuk]

When BR were designing the mark 4 coach, they chose a steel bodyshell as, in order to achieve the the 10Hz natural vibrational frequency that was selected as optimal (It is the natural vibrational frequency of a mark 3 carriage), they discovered that an aluminium coach meeting the same specification would actually be heavier than the steel variant.

With newer alloys, modern construction techniques and improved welding aluminium should be superior. Interesting would be to go for a composite construction, like the Boeing 787 or Airbus A350

As for "aluminium can't be riveted" that I saw further up, what idiocy is this? Aluminium aircraft are of largely riveted construction and have been since the 1940s

 

[HSTEd]

Best I can offer is Arup 2011 study which says the whole life cost of rolling stock is 31% initial purchase price, 44% Maintenence and 25% Operating costs (Fuel/electricity). Compared to other countries our rolling stock maintenence costs were broadly equivalent and hadnt changed (up or down) since BR days.

Working through;
initial cost of Electric IEP £2.2m per carriage, maintenence cost £3.1m
Initial cost of Bi-mode IEP £2.8m per carriage, maintence cost £3.97m

The Whole life of IEP was agreed to be 27.5 years.

If the capital is defrayed over 24 years (288 months), and the maintenance cost is in today's money and stays the same in real terms over the life of the train, assumed to be 27.5 years (330 months), and that the capital cost is paid using Inflation Index Linked 24 year gilts (yield currently -0.46%) we get a value for the electric IEP of:

~£9600/carriage for maintenance
~£6840/carriage for capital costs for the first 24 years.
So a total cost of roughly £16440/month, or roughly £82,200/month for a five car set.

That is pretty much a similar price to the calculated value I came up with for off the shell Pendos, it allows all the projected IEP routes and the route to Plymouth to be electrified and still leaves you ahead.

 

[WatcherZero]

According to the current market rate, debt issued by the UK government today for redemption in 30 years would have a coupon rate of 4.5% and a yield of 2.94%, 20 year would be 4.25% with a yield of 2.56%.

Index linked Gilts for the time period you mention are currently trading slightly higher, a yield of around 3.05%

The 5 year Gilt is currently trading around +0.46% yield if thats what you were looking at.

 

[HSTEd]

According to the current market rate, debt issued by the UK government today for redemption in 30 years would have a coupon rate of 4.5% and a yield of 2.94%, 20 year would be 4.25% with a yield of 2.56%.

Index linked Gilts for the time period you mention are currently trading slightly higher, a yield of around 3.05%

The 5 year Gilt is currently trading around +0.46% yield if thats what you were looking at.

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Bonds

This is the page I have been pulling yields from. As far as I can tell "IL 24" is an index linked 24 year gilt.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ahh yes, your right on their current trading price however they were issued on 30th December 1986. They arent new debt.

GB0008983024

They pay 2.5% interest +inflation, so they cost the government over 5% a year plus capital repayment (they were issued as 50 year bonds) at the moment.

 

[HSTEd]

Ahh yes, your right on their current trading price however they were issued on 30th December 1986. They arent new debt.

GB0008983024

They pay 2.5% interest +inflation, so they cost the government over 5% a year plus capital repayment (they were issued as 50 year bonds) at the moment.

This site seems to suggest that 35 year index linked gilts that were put up for auctino as early as January still had negative real yields.
So it seems reasonable that an auction now for 24 year index linked gilts would also produce negative yields.

I will continue searching for concrete figures.

EDIT:
According to the Debt Management Office, an auction for 38 year gilts on the 10th of July this year produced an effective yield at auction price of 0.110% after index linking was accounted for.
This means a small negative yield for a 24 year gilt is not currently unreasonable.

And since ticket prices tend to rise with, or indeed above, inflation, the cost of repayments in real terms is what is in important.

 

[The Ham]

Does anyone know if the IEP's are able to change mode on the move?

I was wondering, because if they could, would it mean that we could have lengths of cables being put up even though they didn't connect to the rest of the network (for a period of time)?

As this could reduce costs of electrifying a line, as bridge or signal works could then be done as part of their renewal process rather than before the cables go up or cables could be put up for a city's "metro" service without having to put up miles of cables to link the city first.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Does anyone know if the IEP's are able to change mode on the move?

For the Bi-Mode version, changing mode from diesel to electric and v.v., on the move is part of the IEP train specification.
Presumably, Hitachi have incorporated this capability in the design of their SET (Super Express Train).

 

[shaun]

Does anyone know if the IEP's are able to change mode on the move?

Yes they will, although you'll have to ensure you're sat in one of the unpowered coaches if you don't like underfloor engines!

 

[LE Greys]

I just hope the engines start reliably and don't need time to warm up (although some form of pre-heating system might work). Otherwise it might be necessary to start a long time before the wires run out. Deltics would sometimes do 'flying starts' in the past, often because a driver had shut down an engine when in a station to save fuel while still providing ETH, then (for whatever reason) omitted to start it up again. Unlike most twin-engine diesels, it was possible to start up at any time when in neutral, although not recommended when on the move (and probably not allowed either).

 

[Photohunter71]

Rats!! No new diesel or electric locos then!

 

[TheWalrus]

They really need to consider what will replace HSTs on London to the West services. HSTs wont last forever!
The fate of the 222s to be released from the MML hasnt been mentioned yet; maybe these are earmarked for these services? (hopefully!)
Would Meridians with a pantograph be able to keep to IEP timings on the mainlines between Paddington and Reading?
Another major thing which seems to not have been considered at all is the restaurant provision. If two units are operating in multiple with no gangway connections then chances are we will need to double up the amount oF catering staff which will increase costs by a lot.

 

[LE Greys]

They really need to consider what will replace HSTs on London to the West services. HSTs wont last forever!
The fate of the 222s to be released from the MML hasnt been mentioned yet; maybe these are earmarked for these services? (hopefully!)
Would Meridians with a pantograph be able to keep to IEP timings on the mainlines between Paddington and Reading?
Another major thing which seems to not have been considered at all is the restaurant provision. If two units are operating in multiple with no gangway connections then chances are we will need to double up the amount oF catering staff which will increase costs by a lot.

Since 222s used to run in a 9-car formation, there's always the possibility of re-forming the sets to avoid this.

 

[shaun]

They really need to consider what will replace HSTs on London to the West services. HSTs wont last forever!
The fate of the 222s to be released from the MML hasnt been mentioned yet; maybe these are earmarked for these services? (hopefully!)

Underfloor engines all the way from London to Penzance?! No thanks! At least with an IEP you'd have the choice of sitting in an unpowered coach.