IEP - signed

[Pumbaa]

Position on the board of Hitachi for Mr Baker ?

Only if we can get the very expensive electrification canned in favour of more expensive bi-modes

 

[WatcherZero]

Its been said to be signed before though and I remember the 350's was announced as completed twice by twittering rail pundits before it actually was.

 

[Pumbaa]

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.

I've updated my OP in light of my post above. Does help when not writing at almost 2am... So I'd expect them to be all over it on the 20th.

 

[Failed Unit]

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.

I don't hence the type of smiley I used. I just wanted to give an example of an EMU with a UK safety case that was known to be cheaper than the IEP. I know there are other options.

So no not changing my mind, we could go for another non-tilting Alsthom product, or Trax and a "mk5".

I don't like Pendo's but they are a necessary evil. For example I would welcome an order to replace 221 working on the WCML. In the same way as I would welcome 395s on the east coast London - Newark service.

 

[WatcherZero]

Alstom say they are pushing 6 car pendos for the ECML, not in replacement of IEP but to complement it by finishing the withdrawal of all the locomotives from secondary routes, they think they could manage 140mph, but then they wouldnt be paying the huge cost of installing tilt balises and ERTMS signalling along the line. What may make Bombardier smile though is Siemens say they have no interest in bidding for DMU replacements as they consider themselves an electric company.

 

[Zoe]

Even if Swansea is electrified, I can't see b-mode getting cancelled as it will still be needed for Worcester/Hereford, Cheltenham and Exeter with HSTs only retained for Plymouth/Penzance.

 

[WatcherZero]

Anyway looking at Captain Deltics twitter, no mention of IEP signing.

http://twitter.com/Captain_Deltic

 

[tbtc]

What may make Bombardier smile though is Siemens say they have no interest in bidding for DMU replacements as they consider themselves an electric company

Although sadly any DMU orders will be pretty slim, so they're not surrendering a significant territory

Even if Swansea is electrified, I can't see b-mode getting cancelled as it will still be needed for Worcester/Hereford, Cheltenham and Exeter with HSTs only retained for Plymouth/Penzance.

...and XC (maybe sixty trains worth of Bi-Mode required there, unless the knitting fairies wire up hundreds of miles)?

There will always be diesel lines that want a London/Inter-city service, so a future for bi-mode

 

[Failed Unit]

Even if Swansea is electrified, I can't see b-mode getting cancelled as it will still be needed for Worcester/Hereford, Cheltenham and Exeter with HSTs only retained for Plymouth/Penzance.

Unfortunately you are probably correct,

Unless we get a rolling program which will realease voyagers. But that would involve either or both of MML. (to give us the 222s) or Coventry - Bassingstoke & Derby - Birmingham to free up a lot of the XC fleet. (along with my short pendos for brum - Scotland)

We could of course drag, but then Oxford - Hereford is a long drag.

 

[Zoe]

We could of course drag, but then Oxford - Hereford is a long drag.

Or you could retain HSTs on the route, considering a lot of it won't be under the wires.

 

[Yew]

Kings cross to Edinburgh is a long way to drag a diesel engine under every carriage of an IEP. I wouldn't be suprised if eventually a TOC ripped out the diesel engines and put a loco on the front (maybe even generating electricity for the standard traction motors?)

 

[PhilipW]

Getting back to the original topic, I find this whole post on very shaky grounds based as it seems on nods and winks behind the scenes with various people. Even if true there still seems to be uncertainty as to whether this is an agreement between Hitachi and the banks or Hitachi and the DfT. So I don't feel much better informed now than when I was before this post was written.

The post refers cryptically to RF who we presume to be Roger Ford. It also refers to a Mr Baker and slightly slags him off. Who's he ? Surely you don't mean Norman Baker MP. Although he is a minister in the DfT his brief covers light rail and trams and will not be the one signing off any IEP deal. So slagging him off is totally unjustified.

So what is going on ? I didn't know yesterday and I don't feel I know today either.

 

[HSTEd]

Kings cross to Edinburgh is a long way to drag a diesel engine under every carriage of an IEP. I wouldn't be suprised if eventually a TOC ripped out the diesel engines and put a loco on the front (maybe even generating electricity for the standard traction motors?)

So you trade carrying ~10t of diesel engines under the train for sticking 70-90t of locomotive on the front?

As to the Swansea electrification killing bi-mode IEP..... this would just replace HSTs as Plymouth/Paignton will already be cleared for IEP, so they would just have all Plymouth terminators being IEPs.

 

[swt_passenger]

...It also refers to a Mr Baker and slightly slags him off. Who's he ? Surely you don't mean Norman Baker MP. Although he is a minister in the DfT his brief covers light rail and trams and will not be the one signing off any IEP deal. So slagging him off is totally unjustified.

So what is going on ? I didn't know yesterday and I don't feel I know today either.

They are referring to Stuart Baker, who is a senior DfT civil servant and allegedly the main proponent of bi-mode IEP.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Kings cross to Edinburgh is a long way to drag a diesel engine under every carriage of an IEP. I wouldn't be suprised if eventually a TOC ripped out the diesel engines and put a loco on the front (maybe even generating electricity for the standard traction motors?)

The TOCs won't own the IEPs, Agility will.
They have to supply trains to meet the spec and number of diagrams.
If they don't work it will be up to Agility to find some which do.

It also refers to a Mr Baker and slightly slags him off. Who's he ? Surely you don't mean Norman Baker MP. Although he is a minister in the DfT his brief covers light rail and trams and will not be the one signing off any IEP deal. So slagging him off is totally unjustified.

It's Stuart Baker of the DfT not Norman Baker the minister (although Norman is said to be an IEP supporter now).
Stuart is usually skewered on here as the perpetrator of the IEP design and now its "only supporter".
He used to work for the SRA and was a key player in the WCRM programme, and as an amateur has published a UK rail atlas.
Many more people will have had to sign it off for it to get this far.
Blame Philip Hammond probably, who could have cancelled it but didn't.

 

[Class377/5]

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.

Actually the Government allowing TfL to part the Crossrail trains is because TfL argued the point and stated its cheaper this way and they won. And it's not the Government underwriting but TfL taking the risk.

 

[Zoe]

As to the Swansea electrification killing bi-mode IEP..... this would just replace HSTs as Plymouth/Paignton will already be cleared for IEP, so they would just have all Plymouth terminators being IEPs.

I did read that the IEP wouldn't be able to run west of Newton Abbot though as it would not cope with the Devon banks. I'm not sure how true this is but if this is the case then I would expect HSTs to be retained for Plymouth services.

 

[Drsatan]

I did read that the IEP wouldn't be able to run west of Newton Abbot though as it would not cope with the Devon banks. I'm not sure how true this is but if this is the case then I would expect HSTs to be retained for Plymouth services.

If HSTs are to be retained for Plymouth services, they'll have to undergo another life extension program since their last refurbishment was meant to last until 207-18. When the Midland Mainline is electrified, the Meridians will probably be sent to whoever runs the Greater Western franchise to replace the HSTs.

A much simpler option would be to electrify Exeter St Davids to Plymouth, but that's too simple for DafT

 

[Failed Unit]

I did read that the IEP wouldn't be able to run west of Newton Abbot though as it would not cope with the Devon banks. I'm not sure how true this is but if this is the case then I would expect HSTs to be retained for Plymouth services.

I have seen that as well, makes a bit of a mockery of the whole project to be honest!

 

[Zoe]

If HSTs are to be retained for Plymouth services, they'll have to undergo another life extension program since their last refurbishment was meant to last until 207-18. When the Midland Mainline is electrified, the Meridians will probably be sent to whoever runs the Greater Western franchise to replace the HSTs.

It has been suggested though that HSTs could be life exended to remain in service until 2035. I'm not sure there would be enough 9 car 222s to maintain the current service level to Plymouth/Penzance (I don't think there will be any reductions to this in the new franchise which is Great Western not Greater Western) without a reduction in capacity. That said they could run as 2 x 5 sets.

A much simpler option would be to electrify Exeter St Davids to Plymouth, but that's too simple for DafT

As things stand, there are no plans to electrify to Exeter never mind Plymouth so electrifying from Exeter to Plymouth would be pointless.

 

[swt_passenger]

I did read that the IEP wouldn't be able to run west of Newton Abbot though as it would not cope with the Devon banks. I'm not sure how true this is but if this is the case then I would expect HSTs to be retained for Plymouth services.

It was true for the original 10 car bi-mode IEP only, which was only going to have a power car at one end.

This was overtaken by events because soon after it was decided that there would be no 10 car bi-modes ordered, they would all be 5 car (effectively with twice the diesel power of a 10 car) - by which stage they had changed to underfloor engines anyway.

Roger Ford covered it all in Modern Railways at the time, which is a couple of years ago now - and that particular point, about them being underpowered for the Devon banks is really no longer a valid criticism of IEP.

 

[Zoe]

This was overtaken by events because soon after it was decided that there would be no 10 car bi-modes ordered, they would all be 5 car - by which stage they had changed to underfloor engines anyway.

Roger Ford covered it all in Modern Railways at the time - that particular point, about them being underpowered for the Devon banks is really no longer a valid criticism of IEP.

So what was the main reason to retain HSTs on the Plymouth to Penzance route (possibly until 2035) when this route could have been part of the IEP order, allowing a uniform fleet? Do we know for certiain that the underfloor engines will have sufficient power to cope with this route?

 

[swt_passenger]

So what was the main reason to retain HSTs on the Plymouth to Penzance route then when this route could have been part of the IEP order, allowing a uniform fleet? Do we know for certiain that the underfloor engines will have sufficient power to cope with this route?

I believe the original reason was that as they normally run down the B&H, and the majority of this route (ie all the way west of Newbury) would not be wired, then there was not the same need for bi-mode, as the ratio of 'wired to not wired' is not high enough.

Put another way, Padddington to Penzance is so much further than Padd - Newbury that the figures just don't stack up. However Pad to Taunton via Newbury does justify bi-modes apparently.

But in any case we don't really know what the current reasoning is - it might all be different by next week...

 

[HSTEd]

It has been suggested though that HSTs could be life exended to remain in service until 2035. I'm not sure there would be enough 9 car 222s to maintain the current service level to Plymouth/Penzance (I don't think there will be any reductions to this in the new franchise which is Great Western not Greater Western) without a reduction in capacity. That said they could run as 2 x 5 sets.

As things stand, there are no plans to electrify to Exeter never mind Plymouth so electrifying from Exeter to Plymouth would be pointless.

If IEP bi-mode cannot handle the track between Exeter and Plymouth, why does the Greater Western ITT include at least one IEP round trip to Paignton and several to Plymouth?

As I understand it it was the idiots in the stakeholder group going on and on about how underfloor engines are the devil that led to the idea of having the HSTs being retained.

 

[Zoe]

However Pad to Taunton via Newbury does justify bi-modes apparently.

Just looking at the franchise consulation, I can't see any plan for a service via Newbury that would terminate at Taunton but I do see plans for a bi-mode Paddington Exeter service with one of these services each day running through to Paignton and these will not be running under the wires for most of their journeys.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If IEP bi-mode cannot handle the track between Exeter and Plymouth, why does the Greater Western ITT include at least one IEP round trip to Paignton and several to Plymouth?

Where is this Invitation to Tender? As far as I know it hasn't been published and the franchise consultation clearly says that the bi-mode IEP will run to Exeter with one train per day to Paington. It also says that trains between London and Plymouth will likely need to be delivered by alternative stock.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just looking at the franchise consulation, I can't see any plan for a service via Newbury that would terminate at Taunton but I do see plans for a bi-mode Paddington Exeter service with one of these services each day running through to Paignton and these will not be running under the wires for most of their journeys.

That is a proposal in the GWML RUS, for a semifast IEP service down the B&H. Taunton might not be the final destination, it was all a bit woolly. The purpose AIUI was to speed up the long distance HSTs by removing intermediate stops such as Westbury.

As always - it might never happen...

 

[HSTEd]

Where is this Invitation to Tender? As far as I know it hasn't been published and the franchise consultation clearly says that the bi-mode IEP will run to Exeter with one train per day to Paington. It also says that trains between London and Plymouth will likely need to be delivered by alternative stock.

Ooops, not the ITT, the Consultation on the Greater Western Franchise.

 4 trains per hour (tph) London–Bristol Temple Meads; 2 tph running via Bath and 2 tph running via Bristol Parkway. Some of the Parkway trains would extend to Weston-super-Mare and, in the peaks, to Taunton;
 2 tph London–Cardiff, with 1 tph serving Swansea, and 1 train per day extending to Carmarthen;
 1 tph London–Worcester, with some extensions to Great Malvern and Hereford;
 1 tph London–Cheltenham;
 1 tph (most hours) semi-fast to Westbury, with some extensions to Exeter and one mid-day round trip to Paignton.

I also made the mistake of thinking it included a run all the way to Plymouth, but I can't see the cost of clearing the last few miles from the divergence of the Paignton Line to Plymouth being cost-prohibitive.

So yeah.....

 

[Zoe]

I also made the mistake of thinking it included a run all the way to Plymouth, but I can't see the cost of clearing the last few miles from the divergence of the Paignton Line to Plymouth being cost-prohibitive.

As long as the engines have sufficient power to cope with the banks which it seems they may well do now but not seen anything showing that for certain.

 

[swt_passenger]

1 tph (most hours) semi-fast to Westbury, with some extensions to Exeter and one mid-day round trip to Paignton.

Looks like that's the service I referred to as a 'Taunton' semi-fast. Of course if Taunton is considered the average of Exeter and Westbury I'm not that wrong...

 

[Oliver]

It also says that trains between London and Plymouth will likely need to be delivered by alternative stock.

That does not mean that IEP could not be used for Plymouth and beyond. It just means that for the current order it's not planned to use them that far west.