IEP postponed

[Chafford1]

Firstly, I would never accuse Roger (God) Ford of being wrong about anything!

Answering your three questions in turn: -

We have always used the original IEP DfT target price of £1M per vehicle as a benchmark, though this might be a bit of a challenge, given that three years has now passed. The more important issue is the cost and availability of finance from China and the cost of maintenance, which, over the life of the trains will overshadow the capital cost. We believe that the configuration we have chosen will offer the best possible life cycle cost.

We have not yet seen the letter to Sir Andrew Foster that Lord Adonis referred to in his statement. However, the statement makes no reference to Sir Andrew consulting with possible alternative suppliers. Nevertheless, I don't see how he can assess whether the Agility offer stacks up against the alternatives, unless he establishes what the alternatives actually are. We will be deciding how best to approach this issue in the coming weeks, but I assure you I am no shrinking violet and will do my best to be heard.

I am not too concerned about corrosion in the Mk IIIs, having had recent esperience of a refurbishment myself. Actually, if Mk III coaches were considered to be acceptable in the short to medium term, a low cost, low risk way to start with Polaris would be to build power cars to top and tail Mk III coaches. It should be borne in mind however that the refurbishment cost of a Mk III coach is between £150k and £600k depending upon spec. and (though it's not directly relevant) a standard 25 metre Chinese Railways coach sells for £106k NEW! What I'm saying therefore is that by the time you've fitted powered doors (around £75k / vehicle) and retention toilets (upwards of £50k / vehicle) to Mk IIIs, it may be better to spend money on new (MK V?) coaches.

Thanks for the answers! I don't think the letter from Lord Adonis to Sir Andrew Foster has been published yet.

 

[Old Timer]

Nobody's dithering, which is why we have continued with the design without having a customer. However, realistically we do need a customer to go much further as it's very difficult to get certification without having an operator on board.

And therein lies the nub of the problem, the perfect catch 22 situation.

 

[The Box Photter]

Kingfisher200262 said "It should be borne in mind however that the refurbishment cost of a Mk III coach is between £150k and £600k depending upon spec. and (though it's not directly relevant) a standard 25 metre Chinese Railways coach sells for £106k NEW! What I'm saying therefore is that by the time you've fitted powered doors (around £75k / vehicle) and retention toilets (upwards of £50k / vehicle) to Mk IIIs, it may be better to spend money on new (MK V?) coaches."

Why does it cost £50k to fit a chemical toilet to a MkIII? Smacks of profiteering to me.

If a new "Chinese" vehicle costs £106k new, how much of this price is subsidised by "employing" people on sub-minimum wage?

I suggest that the builders offer, say 10 fully-specced electric/hybrid trains for free to DfT, who can run them in regular service for say, three years. Then if they haven't fallen apart or proved monumentally unreliable, we can talk about a deal. If the train is that good, give us, the passengers, the opportunity to try them out. Can I just make one request, please let the passengers see out when they are sitting on the train!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I suggest that the builders offer, say 10 fully-specced electric/hybrid trains for free to DfT, who can run them in regular service for say, three years. Then if they haven't fallen apart or proved monumentally unreliable, we can talk about a deal.

Hello Mr Lloyd/Barclay/RBS/NatWest
I've got a great business plan from railforums co uk!
If you give me the millions neccessary to build 10 whole mainline trains, I'll get a factory tooled up and staffed to build them, and then . . . wait for it, bank, I give them to a TOC for free!
Great investment, isn't it?
The best bit is, if they're properly maintainted and not trashed or made redundant (all matters out of my control), then after 3 years I can go back to the customer and ask nicely if they'd like to pay anything for them. So, you might actually get a chance to get some of your, er, loan back.
But maybe not. Who can tell.
Just pay the millions into this account here, please.
--------------
Seriously, its hard to see how this, or any other bider, can win the order purely on the basis of this single order - an unquantified order, with undefined specification, timescale and quantity. A global manufacturer has so much more flexibility.

trying to create a "one size fits all" train is not viable

Quite true, but there's several other ways of anyalysing the prospects that aren't viable too . . . Where is the specification fixed? By the supplier or the customer? If the supplier is also expected to predict which product will give the best fit for a changing environment over which they have no control then they're speculating, not manufacturing.
Is the supplier/designer expected to include the options for supplying locomotive power for existing MkIII's as well, and build in the expenditure profile for later upgrades or replacement at the market conditions which apply at that later date? Too many variables!
Seems the wrong position for any bidding supplier to start from.

 

[Drsatan]

I suggest that the builders offer, say 10 fully-specced electric/hybrid trains for free to DfT, who can run them in regular service for say, three years. Then if they haven't fallen apart or proved monumentally unreliable, we can talk about a deal. If the train is that good, give us, the passengers, the opportunity to try them out. Can I just make one request, please let the passengers see out when they are sitting on the train!

That seems an excellent and common-sensical idea. Although building prototype classes seems to have fallen out of favour in recent years because computers have become more powerful (which means variables such as aerodynamics, ride quality, top speed etc can be tested and improved without having to build a prototype), you can't test reliability and passenger comfort IMO without having to build a prototype.

No prototype class was built as a precursor to the Voyagers, and so faults inherent in the Voyagers like poor passenger comfort, electrical gear on coach roofs that used to short circuit whenever sea spray hit the train when passing along the Dawlish sea wall, and poor seating alignment weren't discovered before the train went into production. Not forgetting that the Voyagers are still too short for most XC journeys. Hence why the Voyagers IMO are pretty crap trains.

 

[Chafford1]

Kingfisher200262 said "It should be borne in mind however that the refurbishment cost of a Mk III coach is between £150k and £600k depending upon spec. and (though it's not directly relevant) a standard 25 metre Chinese Railways coach sells for £106k NEW! What I'm saying therefore is that by the time you've fitted powered doors (around £75k / vehicle) and retention toilets (upwards of £50k / vehicle) to Mk IIIs, it may be better to spend money on new (MK V?) coaches."

Why does it cost £50k to fit a chemical toilet to a MkIII? Smacks of profiteering to me.

If a new "Chinese" vehicle costs £106k new, how much of this price is subsidised by "employing" people on sub-minimum wage?

I suggest that the builders offer, say 10 fully-specced electric/hybrid trains for free to DfT, who can run them in regular service for say, three years. Then if they haven't fallen apart or proved monumentally unreliable, we can talk about a deal. If the train is that good, give us, the passengers, the opportunity to try them out. Can I just make one request, please let the passengers see out when they are sitting on the train!

I think you're underestimating the ability of the Chinese to turn out a decent product - look at the Chinese produced CRH3 high speed train:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9W26vNofos

 

[WatcherZero]

Most of the technology has been gained from dubious means though, the US just recently banned the import of Chinese train wheels because they discovered they were a straight copy of an american companies design. Transrapid also has accused them of stealing the maglev technology they provided to create a domestically built maglev route.

 

[Old Timer]

I think you're underestimating the ability of the Chinese to turn out a decent product

I am involved in the re-railing of some 400km of track the rail for which was supplied by the Chinese. I am also in discussion with another Railway Administration about the renewal of a fair number of S&C units which are basically wearing out after a couple of years due to the wrong wear-resistant rails having been supplied by the Chinese. This isn't going to be cheap, but I am grateful that this Railway organisation works with, not against its Contractors so we are exploring jointly how we do the job most efficiently for them. Everyone from the Ops guys to the train operating Companies, to the maintenance engineers want us to be successful and are pulling together to give us as much as we need, and we in the meantime are looking at how we can keep their railway runing with minimal disruption.

Sadly this would never happen in the UK, where aggressive and dogmatic attitudes prevail.

 

[Dennis]

re #94

Hello Mr Lloyd/Barclay/RBS/NatWest
I've got a great business plan from railforums co uk!
If you give me the millions neccessary to build 10 whole mainline trains, I'll get a factory tooled up and staffed to build them, and then . . . wait for it, bank, I give them to a TOC for free!

No, lease them in the normal way, after all CSRE is owned by Equishare who also happen to own Sovereign Trains, a ROSCO.

Great investment, isn't it?
The best bit is, if they're properly maintainted and not trashed or made redundant (all matters out of my control), then after 3 years I can go back to the customer and ask nicely if they'd like to pay anything for them. So, you might actually get a chance to get some of your, er, loan back.
But maybe not. Who can tell.

Perhaps GC, also owned by Equishare, might like to take them on, replacing their ageing HST fleet.

 

[jopsuk]

I think you're underestimating the ability of the Chinese to turn out a decent product - look at the Chinese produced CRH3 high speed train:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9W26vNofos

It would be odd how much it looks like an ICE3 if it wasn't for them being a varient on the Siemens Velaro (the export version of the ICE3, also found in Spain and Russia), built in a partnership between Siemens and a Chinese firm.

The CRH1 is a varient of the Bombardier Regina product, produced in partnership
The CRH2 is a version of the E2 series Shinkansen, in a partnership agreement
CRH5 is an Alstom-licensed Pendonlino.
China Star was an indigenous High Speed unit that was a bit of a flop.
There's also the Blue Arrow sets, but there's not been many of those built

All the successful High Speed designs so far in China have not been Chinese designs. They've been designs bought in. I think it speaks a lot for confidence of those in charge in China in the indigenous designs. But hey, maybe the Polaris will reverse the trend?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Most of the technology has been gained from dubious means though, the US just recently banned the import of Chinese train wheels because they discovered they were a straight copy of an american companies design. Transrapid also has accused them of stealing the maglev technology they provided to create a domestically built maglev route.

"Has been"? Can you be so certain??? I knew it was a mistake posting here and should have followed my instincts!

Please check your facts before making accusations. Alstom, Siemens and Bombardier entered the Chinese market with their eyes open, knowing that the only way to enter that market would be to share its knowledge.

As for the issue with US cast wheels, I admit that the Chinese manufacturer was naive in not asking whether its US customer had the rights to use the drawings it was asking the Chinese to manufacture against, but I think you'll find the offending party was the Americans, looking for cheaper supply of wheels.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Kingfisher200262 said "It should be borne in mind however that the refurbishment cost of a Mk III coach is between £150k and £600k depending upon spec. and (though it's not directly relevant) a standard 25 metre Chinese Railways coach sells for £106k NEW! What I'm saying therefore is that by the time you've fitted powered doors (around £75k / vehicle) and retention toilets (upwards of £50k / vehicle) to Mk IIIs, it may be better to spend money on new (MK V?) coaches."

Why does it cost £50k to fit a chemical toilet to a MkIII? Smacks of profiteering to me.

If a new "Chinese" vehicle costs £106k new, how much of this price is subsidised by "employing" people on sub-minimum wage?

I suggest that the builders offer, say 10 fully-specced electric/hybrid trains for free to DfT, who can run them in regular service for say, three years. Then if they haven't fallen apart or proved monumentally unreliable, we can talk about a deal. If the train is that good, give us, the passengers, the opportunity to try them out. Can I just make one request, please let the passengers see out when they are sitting on the train!

Chinese companies can supply coaches at £100k each because they're building 15 or so a day and therefore have economy of scale and surety of business, long term. They are also building standard designs that are also being built by other factories on a competitive basis.

"Sub-minimum" is relative. The cost of living in China is much lower than in the UK. A typical worker in a Chinese rolling stock works gets the chance to buy a nice, new apartment for the equivalent of around £15k and is offered low interest rates on the mortage that is needed to buy it.

As for the cost of the vacuum toilet... you'd better ask the UK supplier or the UK vehicle workshops.... or buy one from China for about a fifth of this cost.

 

[Old Timer]

I think, old boy, you rather gloss over some inconvenient truths ?

China is a single-party, bureaucratic, authoritarian state in which capitalism is allowed to flourish but many rights that are considered basic in democracies are denied.

Blending imperial Chinese traditions, Confucianism and China’s unique take on Communism, the ruling regime and party have near complete control over the government. According to the Economist, when it comes to China Orwell's Animal Farm “seems more like reportage than allegory."

Communist governments have has traditionally been regarded as dictatorships of the Proletariat. The first article of the Chinese constitution defines China as a “socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.” Participation in the government is limited to members of the Communist Party and political power is concentrated in the Central Committee of the Communist Party.

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center before the 2008 Olympics found that 86 percent of the Chinese interviewed were happy with the direction that China was going, up from 48 percent in 2002, and two thirds thought the government was doing a good job.

The survey questioned 3,212 Chinese in 16 dialects across the nation. Approval ratings of the government have increased as the economy has improved but the people surveyed did have issues with corruption, environmental problems and inflation.

The Communist system in China depends on legions of police, local party and government officials to enforce Beijing’s policies and squash dissent.

Historian Francis Fukuyama of Johns Hopkins wrote: “A lack of constraint by either law or elections mens accountability flows only in one direction, upwards towards the Communist Party and central government and not downwards toward the people. There is a whole range of problems in contemporary China regarding issues like corruption, environmental damage, property rights and the like that cannot be properly resolved by the existing political system.”

 

[jon0844]

It has been well known for decades that the Chinese will copy everything (not surprising considering how we give them the designs to build things for us). Look at the counterfeit mobile phone market, or look at cars (and more important, their designs) and other technology products.

But, I did watch a report that said the real risk in the future is that they're also building their own things that are getting good enough to compete in their own right. This is when China will potentially 'take over the world'.

It's great that we can import trains for a fifth of the cost of making them here, but it's also quite sad for our own future - employment for one.

If I have children, I may well be recommending they learn Chinese and emigrate there!

 

[WatcherZero]

Dont worry jon, its an economic blip todo with industrialisation, moving people off the land. When the supply of cheap countryside labour dries up (as its starting to do) wages will have to rise as companies compete for labour, forcing price rises, forcing more wage rises etc. Before you know it they will be another industrially un-competitive first world nation.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

I think personal opinions on China are irrelevant and uneccessary in this situation and, as such, should be kept private.

Two main things have happened in this thread:
1 - IEP has been postponed
2 - A poster has emerged with some incredible insight and information on a product that did enter the bidding process.

Does IEP try to tick too many boxes? I think it has sought only to tick the boxes that it was given. If major changes were made to the network, a lot of the boxes would no longer be applicable. Maybe the government needs to reevaluate the money that it was to spend on IEP and consider how it could be spent more effectively. Whatever changes are then decided upon would have a significant impact on the terms of contract IEP would have to satisfy. A large change (commital to energise the GWML) has already been made - a change that had not been envisaged at the beginning of the IEP project.

The plans, as they stand, would not mean the death of Bi-mode, however. Not all lines would be accesible by electric trains, but would form part of a route that the majority of which would be under wire.

This is where Polaris starts to interest me. Sadly, and I do mean sadly, the man in the know has provided all the information that users of this site clamour for and has then been attacked on a small level as to his business. Fact of the matter is this. Polaris represents a reasonable product that satisfies certain criteria of bi-mode travel but, from what I can gather, does not present a product that tries to reinvent the concept of rail travel. We are at a stage (and have been for some 200 years) where the train cannot be reinvented - it can only be improved upon. Polaris appears to be doing exactly that.

A number of posters have suggested small level entry or prototype to prove the concept. I would tend to agree with this view. However, the two parties (manufacturer and operator) would need to work in tandem to ensure successful entry. The product would then have to prove itself to be better than what it replaced and also be completely candid about its faults and areas for improvement.

The perfect test bed for this technology would be Grand Central Trains. This thread has "reliably" informed me that Grand Central, Sovereign and CSRE are all working under the same parent company. Perfect for a small scale investment and rollout. We would be talking about a maximum of 10 trains which would run between London and Bradford/Sunderland. They would run electric until leaving the ECML at their various points. What's more, they could be rolled in one at a time so that any poor initial reliability could be adressed without too great an operational impact to services.

The success of the project would, no doubt, improve the chances of Polaris becoming a more common sight in Britain, as well as giving the UK a greater, more informed, choice when it comes to future rolling stock procurement, especially if any deficiencies with the initial units were eradicated in later design.

May I remind everyone that the small scale, highly successful, introduction of the Class 59 with private companies led to the biggest locomotive shake up the country had seen since the end of steam and introduce a class that has not only taken over, but reinvigorated railfreight - a class that has also been built with variations (as with most class of locomotive ever built). With that in mind, would it be so unreasonable to have a few variations in an IEP fleet? It was GM's flexibility and abilty to produce a small fleet that led to a massive (and continued) order. Would Polaris be able to provide what we need? I wouldn't mind finding out personally - regardless of which country it came from. Come on Kingfisher200262, get a small scale trial sorted with your pals over at Grand Central - it might just be the catalyst you are looking for.

Just as an aside, on the wasted space argument, a pendolino offers seating capacity in all vehicles whilst a Mk4 set has two effectively dead areas. However, if having seperate power vehicles provides a more effective alternative than a true EMU, then it shouldn't matter, providing passenger requirements are satisfied.

When it comes to DMU's on Intercity (220/1/2 etc), the underfloor engines really don't bother me personally. I find the above classes a much better alternative to the HST which, IMO, is old news and in serious need of expulsion. Although I would agree that running these units under wires for any length of time is a bit of a waste. I wonder if Bi-mode could be the solution......

 

[WatcherZero]

The Bi-Mode critcisms of IEP seem to come from the fact that even when operating under the wires it would need to top up the power by burning fuel at about 20% the rate of normal diesel only operation. In a sense then it became more of a hybrid like a prius than true bi-mode train.

If IEP is to still be pursued it needs two things in its favour, that a bi-mode option is truly that, not just a hybrid either

*Have some variant extended electric power cars able to provide enough juice on 10 car bi-mode sets or which have powered axles themselves.
*Merging the Electric and Diesel power cars on 5 car sets perhaps by not having passengers making it more of an engine car

Alternatley and perhaps simplest is make them electric only and use the money saved from not producing 5 different versions of a 5/10 car train to do extended in-fill electrification where they intended them to be used such as the GWML branchs. Meanwhile Diesels could be life extended for the routes that run substantially without.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

The Bi-Mode critcisms of IEP seem to come from the fact that even when operating under the wires it would need to top up the power by burning fuel at about 20% the rate of normal diesel only operation. In a sense then it became more of a hybrid like a prius than true bi-mode train.

If IEP is to still be pursued it needs two things in its favour, that a bi-mode option is truly that, not just a hybrid either

*Have some variant extended electric power cars able to provide enough juice on 10 car bi-mode sets or which have powered axles themselves.
*Merging the Electric and Diesel power cars on 5 car sets perhaps by not having passengers making it more of an engine car

Alternatley and perhaps simplest is make them electric only and use the money saved from not producing 5 different versions of a 5/10 car train to do extended in-fill electrification where they intended them to be used such as the GWML branchs. Meanwhile Diesels could be life extended for the routes that run substantially without.

To be clear, Polaris will utilise 3 MW electric traction sets, one in each power car and will therefore not need diesel "top-up" when operating under the wires. Whilst I understand that the Agility spec has recently been amended to remove the top-up aspect, Polaris has always been intended to be this way as running diesels when juice is available is just plain daft.

When standing or running with the pantograph up under the wires, some electrical power will be used to pre-heat the diesel engine cooling water, ensuring that the diesel engines are never started from freezing cold, avoiding the shock and potential damage that this causes (this has always been and continues to be a problem for Valentas, as GC has found - MTU invalidates the warranty on its engines unless the cooling water is maintained at 40 degrees C or more).

When no 25kV is present, and the train is standing, it will either be plugged into a shore supply to provide pre-heating energy or one of the four diesel engines will be run to provide electricity for auxiliaries and engine pre-heating.

 

[Chafford1]

To be clear, Polaris will utilise 3 MW electric traction sets, one in each power car and will therefore not need diesel "top-up" when operating under the wires. Whilst I understand that the Agility spec has recently been amended to remove the top-up aspect, Polaris has always been intended to be this way as running diesels when juice is available is just plain daft.

When standing or running with the pantograph up under the wires, some electrical power will be used to pre-heat the diesel engine cooling water, ensuring that the diesel engines are never started from freezing cold, avoiding the shock and potential damage that this causes (this has always been and continues to be a problem for Valentas, as GC has found - MTU invalidates the warranty on its engines unless the cooling water is maintained at 40 degrees C or more).

When no 25kV is present, and the train is standing, it will either be plugged into a shore supply to provide pre-heating energy or one of the four diesel engines will be run to provide electricity for auxiliaries and engine pre-heating.

With 6MW of electric power per train (compared with 4MW for the Hitachi Express), the diesels certainly won't be needed under the wires. What's your rationale for providing 6MW of power; wouldn't 4MW suffice?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

With 6MW of electric power per train (compared with 4MW for the Hitachi Express), the diesels certainly won't be needed under the wires. What's your rationale for providing 6MW of power; wouldn't 4MW suffice?

In normal working, one pantograph will be raised, with a 25 kV bus line feeding both traction systems. Actually, each traction inverter will be rated at 2.4 MW (I rounded up to 3 MW for convenience). At baseline, there will be sixteen traction motors in total, each rated at 300 kW, so delivering up to 4800 kW less losses in the system.

When in diesel mode, the generator sets, which will be rated at between 700 kW and 1000 kW each, depending upon the type selected during a procurement process will deliver traction power through the same traction control system as when in electric mode.

Hope this makes sense. I'm trying to write in layman's terms, as I know not all forum members are techy.

 

[Kneedown]

The Bi-Mode critcisms of IEP seem to come from the fact that even when operating under the wires it would need to top up the power by burning fuel at about 20% the rate of normal diesel only operation.

I've not heard that before, where does it say? Seems daft when greater power would come from the wires.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its because of the flawed design, they tried to save weight and space on electrical equipment (and so add more passenger capacity) but their wasnt enough power being distributed from the wires from a single electric car to pull a train with a diesel car deadweight as opposed to two electrical cars. Twin diesel was fine.

 

[Old Timer]

Whoshotjimmi
A well thought out and constructed post if I may say so, without appearing to be patronising.

There is one slight issue however which is to do with "risk".

A small TOC cannot necessarily afford to take too much risk in its early years, otherwise there will be a lack of interest in the UK Banks and Investment houses providing any capital/support.

In addition now that the Governmnet, the Treasury, and in particular, Civil Servants, are involved everything must be risk free. None of these organisations/people have any experience in the world of commerce and and not able to make informed and rational decisions, hence why the IEP had to be all things to all men.

Remember that a camel is a race-horce designed by Civil Servants !

 

[asylumxl]

Kingfisher:

I don't mean to sound harsh, and this is only my personal opinion, but I think the Polaris concept will have a hard time selling due to the prerequisites in Europe regarding the quality of Chinese produce and the ethics of the reverse engineering of other products.

I'm not very well informed, but to me it seems to suceed, an investment would need to be made in the creation of facilities in Britain. I doubt this will happen. Also, unless a prototype Polaris is produced and tested extensively in order to prove the products effectiveness, I think you're throwing money in the fire. Either way, aslong as design continues, you're at a loss, I think a prototype should be produced. Might aswell go out fighting.

Like I said, my ormed opinion.

 

[Kneedown]

A small TOC cannot necessarily afford to take too much risk in its early years, otherwise there will be a lack of interest in the UK Banks and Investment houses providing any capital/support.

I personally believe that open access TOC's should be made to provide their own rolling stock instead of hogging all the trains that the franchised TOC's desperately need.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its because of the flawed design, they tried to save weight and space on electrical equipment (and so add more passenger capacity) but their wasnt enough power being distributed from the wires from a single electric car to pull a train with a diesel car deadweight as opposed to two electrical cars. Twin diesel was fine.

Easily resolved then, just upgrade the electrical equipment. Job done, no hassle, sorted.

 

[royaloak]

I personally believe that open access TOC's should be made to provide their own rolling stock instead of hogging all the trains that the franchised TOC's desperately need.

It isnt up to the TOCs what stock they get, that is decided by the DaFT, honestly anyone would think the railways were privatised :roll:

 

[Kneedown]

It isnt up to the TOCs what stock they get, that is decided by the DaFT, honestly anyone would think the railways were privatised :roll:

I know that, but the bottom line is, whoever decides what goes where, the companies who are "playing trains" are denying resources to those who are contracted to provide a certain level of service.
If someone thinks it would be a nice idea to have a direct service from Weasels Bottom to London then all well and good, but it shouldn't be at the risk of franchised companies potentially getting penalised for poor service.

 

[Failed Unit]

I know that, but the bottom line is, whoever decides what goes where, the companies who are "playing trains" are denying resources to those who are contracted to provide a certain level of service.
If someone thinks it would be a nice idea to have a direct service from Weasels Bottom to London then all well and good, but it shouldn't be at the risk of franchised companies potentially getting penalised for poor service.

Does the government not have final say over who can lease the former BR rolling stock. During the period that the 153's / 158's were off lease from FGW before been picked up by EMT, I thought I would have been prevented from leasing the sets to provide a Cleethorpes - Skegness service using a 153 to prevent a franchised operator from having them. My understanding is however modern builds such as the 170's are a free for all. I guess we will find out when the Scotrail 170's come off lease in about 2015 after the electrification. I will start up my Cleethorpes - Skegness service (you want a job driving it )

 

[Kneedown]

I will start up my Cleethorpes - Skegness service (you want a job driving it )

Only if you forget the 170's and get HST's on it, or 56's and stock, i'm passed on both so either will do!

 

[royaloak]

Who could forget that GC wanted to use 67s and mark 3s but were not permitted to by the DaFT who insisted on 125 mph stock so they had to go for the HSTs.

Now they have been given even slower paths :roll:

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Whoshotjimmi
A well thought out and constructed post if I may say so, without appearing to be patronising.

There is one slight issue however which is to do with "risk".

A small TOC cannot necessarily afford to take too much risk in its early years, otherwise there will be a lack of interest in the UK Banks and Investment houses providing any capital/support.

In addition now that the Governmnet, the Treasury, and in particular, Civil Servants, are involved everything must be risk free. None of these organisations/people have any experience in the world of commerce and and not able to make informed and rational decisions, hence why the IEP had to be all things to all men.

Remember that a camel is a race-horce designed by Civil Servants !

Wouldn't the best way to take IEP forward therefore, be to invite the various rolling stock manufacturers each to design and build a prototype train, at their own risk, with the agreement that the one that performed best, against a set of agreed criteria, would be taken forward as the successful contractor for IEP with a minimum order of x vehicles and the possibility of follow-on orders?

Such a trial would reduce the risk for the guarantor (Government), the financier (the ROSCO or bank) and the operator as they would be reasonably certain that the chosen product would perform as required.

If a sensible specification, which were performance based were developed (i.e. thou shalt provide a train that will deliver certain point to point timings, dwell times, reliability, maintenance down times, energy efficiency, CO2 emissions etc) against a stated budget (both in terms of capital cost and predicted whole life cost), the train manufacturers could then build their interpretation of the spec, with the certain knowledge that if their product were to be selected, there would be a substantial order as a reward.

Naive to think that the train builders would go for it? Well, I know one that would.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I personally believe that open access TOC's should be made to provide their own rolling stock instead of hogging all the trains that the franchised TOC's desperately need.

Perhaps you weren't involved in the industry when GC was scrambling around for rolling stock. At that time, it decided to use HSTs because there was nothing else available.

The HSTs had been sitting unloved and unwanted in a Warwickshire field for around two years and there were plants growing out of the power cars (see pic here).

It is to GCs credit that they had the vision and determination to bring this rolling stock asset back into everyday use, when nobody else wanted it. Everybody thought that converting loco hauled Mk III coaches to HST trailers was too difficult, but GC did it and then Arriva followed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Kingfisher:

I'm not very well informed, but to me it seems to suceed, an investment would need to be made in the creation of facilities in Britain. I doubt this will happen.

All of our products for the UK, if selected, will require a UK final assembly facility, so yes, this will happen.

You see, despite the fact that the majority of the metalwork, piping, wiring and interior fit-out will be done in China, there will be large items of packaged equipment that will be procured from the UK and Europe.

Since it makes no sense at all to ship all this very bulky and expensive kit to China, to then ship it back again, it will be fitted in the UK, with commissioning and testing also taking place here.

We will need a location close to a deep sea port and a mainline railway connection, ideally with enhanced gauge so that we can finish and ship products to mainland Europe and we are in discussion with various interested parties in the UK regarding the location of this facility.