IEP - signed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pumbaa

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
4,916
As it says. IEP officially confirmed 9th July as replacement for HST fleet with first load to be signed off and officially announced 20th July.

Cheers RF for the heads up. Exact numbers to follow - they look to be released on the same day as Greenings announcement, influenced by Swansea electrification...?

A toast to Mr Baker is in order. Thanks Stuart for giving us all a train nobody wanted. Thanks a bunch.


(created new topic to hopefully prevent it getting assimilated by fantasy hype).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
Very surprised there is no press release and it isn't on the breakfast headlines yet with the spin of how it will save UK railways. I guess we will see what is signed hoping no Bi-Modes but I can't see that myself to be honest even if Swansea gets wires.

Yes you could drag the 91s and Mk4 north of Edinburgh, drop Hull and Lincoln from East Coast, but I suspect the Bi-Mode will survive because of the lack of non-electrified diversion routes on the ECML which we don't really have enough HST to cover. Although it would be nice to see 67 drags between Newcastle and Carlisle.

Before anyone says - What about Harrogate? I am sure it will be electrified before 2020.

We will wait and see what is announced as this is batch 1 if the wires go to Swansea maybe we won't need Bi-modes for that batch and the debate will go on for the ECML franchise.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
Government will be sitting on it until the other major announcement this week. Hitachi Chairman in an interview three days ago said they had just secured the financing for 330 coaches for the GWML, it will take them another year to secure the financing for the 270 ECML carriages. Both Hitachi and Siemens have had trouble securing the financing to underwrite their deals in the current economic climate, probably why the Government has decided to underwrite the Crossrail deal itself.
 

Oliver

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2007
Messages
465
Yes there are lots of issues related to IEP, particularly the bi-mode version, but realistically ANY fleet of new trains is better than no order for new trains.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
Yes there are lots of issues related to IEP, particularly the bi-mode version, but realistically ANY fleet of new trains is better than no order for new trains.
I disagree I would rather have no order than the wrong order considering we are going to be paying for them for the next 30 years. Look at the pacer now! Would people have preferred we waited longer for more sprinters?
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
Would people have been happy now if they ordered half as many of the more expensive Sprinters?
Everyone, the first gen DMUs needed replacing by law so the would have got replaced eventually. Anyway bad comparison in this case the IEP is the most expensive option! They could replace the HST with cheaper trains such as the pendo. :-/
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
4,264
Location
Nottingham
Oh yay, the current government fad of Bi-mode MU's kicking real rolling stock off the mainline. Since the government have all the wrong criteria for train selection
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,747
When can we expect the electrification project announcement which presumably decided how many trains of which types to buy?
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,291
Location
South West
Still don't understand why some are only being built as 5-cars. All Intercity trains should be 8-11 coaches, even if they're not all busy now they will be in the future!
Soon it will be "look, we've got these shiny new trains, we're going to run trains to more places and more frequently" - haven't they learnt anything from the Voyagers?!
I hope they have options and a proviso to build extra coaches to take them all up to 9-cars when necessary.
 

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,369
Location
Glasgow
"As it says ......." ?

What is 'it' ?
Is this a made up post ?
I see no evidence of anyone saying anything ?
Is it not the case that the original post is in breach of the Forum Rules?

Relevant

New threads should be given appropriate, descriptive titles and subsequent posts should remain relevant to the original topic.
If posting an article you should put the text in QUOTE tags, provide details of the source and make a relevant comment to promote discussion.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Everyone, the first gen DMUs needed replacing by law so the would have got replaced eventually. Anyway bad comparison in this case the IEP is the most expensive option! They could replace the HST with cheaper trains such as the pendo. :-/
I didn't think you liked the 390s. I'm also not sure much of the GWML would benefit from tilt, the areas where it could be used are to retain HSTs possibily until 2035.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,278
I am now very surprised that it isn't on some news site now.
I checked a few of the OJEU tender sites as well - they normally react pretty quickly with an award decision, but nothing found so far.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Still don't understand why some are only being built as 5-cars.
Splitting and joning for capacity reasons at extremities of routes has always been the plan for the 5 cars, IIRC. The DfT probably think it works really well with multiple Voyagers already... <(

More like Waterloo - Bournemouth - Weymouth type of split than running to two different destinations though. On GW you might get 10 car to Oxford and 5 car continuing up the Cotswolds - no doubt we'll see what they've decided eventually...

In the original plans the ECML was to get 5 car electrics to run Cambridge/Kings Lynn commuter trains as well - I expect that was to allow for power supply issues north of Cambridge?
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,158
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Still don't understand why some are only being built as 5-cars. All Intercity trains should be 8-11 coaches, even if they're not all busy now they will be in the future!
In fairness, the 26m coaches are going to be roughly as long as a six coach train of 23m coachs (esp when you consider that the extra three metres will basically be *all* seating, since the doors/toilets won't take up any more space in a 26m carriage to a 23m one), and they are designed to work in multiple (unlike an HST/ 91, where a nine coach unit is overkill at the far extremes like Skipton, Harrogate, Lincoln etc, even if it is needed closer to London).

They could replace the HST with cheaper trains such as the pendo. :-/
I didn't think you liked the 390s. I'm also not sure much of the GWML would benefit from tilt, the areas where it could be used are to retain HSTs possibily until 2035.
Im not a fan of the Pendos either, but i'd rather have this Alstom 180 / 390 unit which they were proposing...
Its funny how things change, and enthusiasts (not just on here) are now wanting *more* Pendolini built (having been dead against them a couple of years ago). How quickly the pendulum changes...
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Its funny how things change, and enthusiasts (not just on here) are now wanting *more* Pendolini built (having been dead against them a couple of years ago). How quickly the pendulum changes...
Which is quite strange considering no-one has actually been on an IEP yet so can't really compare the journey experience against a 390.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,667
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Roger Ford I'd imagine. Certainly that's who I took it to mean.
Nothing about this on his twitter feed...

Edit: Having read the FT article on May 27 on IEP, I suspect the "signature" being referred to in this thread is that between Agility and the Banks (ie the funding agreement) rather than between Agility and the DfT, which probably has still to come.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top