IEP - signed

[junglejames]

We likely will know if the engines can be removed or not some time. If they can then it will certainly not have been a waste of money as it will have provided trains that can immediately benefit from the electrifcation and that has to be better than running a diesel under the wires until the electrification is extended.

Build me a fleet of bi mode 222s, or something similar, and I will partly agree. Howerver, at present, a decent EMU being dragged away from the wires is cheaper than what we are going to get. Thereofre it is not sensible. Why do the most expensive option, when the cheaper option is better.

You are going along with the DFTs train of thought, but not looking at the cost of the IEP.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The benefit is though that the companies now have off the shelf trains ready to build. Something that BREL wouldn't have done as they'd only built when they were asked to.

Only the internal gubbins are off the shelf. The bodies arent.
BREL when building trains quite often got the internal gubbins from elsewhere, like Brush or EE. These werent always be spoke. Therefore the advantages with the likes of Siemens and Bombardier etc may have been exagerated slightly regarding costs. Especially when you realise that Bombardier dont seem to be able to stick to a single design, even for a single class of train.

 

[HSTEd]

Ah, are you now moving away from IEP onto a brand new bi mode that no one has heard of? Well that is different, and as yet, because no costs exist, we cant cost it.

Plenty of people heard of it... it is just a knockoff of Project Thor's product with some of the engines removed.

As for locos being greener. Because 1 large engine is better than 7 small engines. Remember, most of the weight of the loco is doing a job, and so the train isnt dragging around as much unnecessary weight as you claim. Yes, the loco may way more than the extra weight of diesels under the IEP, but a lot of the extra weight is working. Its not like the loco is carrying tonnes of unnecessary diesel engines around inside its body.

If the only goal is to match the performance of a reasonable diesel engine like a Eurolight in terms of power:weight ratio, I only need 4 engines, not 7.

And if I can provide power to the existing traction system with only 12 tonnes, and the locomotive provides the same performance with 70-90t, I'm pretty sure everything but twelve tonnes is effectively wasted.

Thereforew, a loco capable of providing the same amount of power as the 7 smaller engines combined, will be able to do a very similar job, and will use less fuel. Science tells you 1 large is better than 7 small.

You are looking too much at the weights, and less at the actual efficiency of engines.

Uh... you have a diesel engine that will turn out as much power as 7 QSK-19s?
You would need 5250hp to do that....
And since your train is far heavier than this bi-mode you need even more power to keep your p:w ratio up.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don’t understand why some people have a problem with the IEP design. HST’s are old and need replacing but the state doesn’t have sufficient funds to pay for an ambitious electrification program other than what has already been agreed. And locomotives cannot accelerate as quickly as Voyagers so that rules them out. If anything the government should be ordering more IEP’s so that all the HST’s can be replaced. Yes the IEP’s really need to be longer but no doubt more vehicles could be ordered in the future if necessary.

 

[LE Greys]

I don’t understand why some people have a problem with the IEP design. HST’s are old and need replacing but the state doesn’t have sufficient funds to pay for an ambitious electrification program other than what has already been agreed. And locomotives cannot accelerate as quickly as Voyagers so that rules them out. If anything the government should be ordering more IEP’s so that all the HST’s can be replaced. Yes the IEP’s really need to be longer but no doubt more vehicles could be ordered in the future if necessary.

Well, the thing's going to be with us for quite a while. In fact it may be the very last non-HSL design of express passenger train for this country. There will be loads of them as well, and they may be around until the end of the century. It's important that we get it right. We got it very right with the HSTs and a bit wrong with the Voyagers (although they could be far worse). They also seem to have been designed by committee - like the old joke about the Camel. They seem to be too complicated, too long (can we really cope with 85ft coaches) and trying to be all things to all people. Having two versions, one electric and one diesel, is not on for some reason. To many people, it looks like that very British thing, a bodge.

Now, on the grounds that it just might work, I reckon there's no harm in trying, provided the design is fully tested before they start building them. Build one prototype and see if it works. If it meets all the targets, build a lot more.

 

[Zoe]

Having two versions, one electric and one diesel, is not on for some reason.

In 40 years time, diesel may well be very expensive if it's available at all so I don't think it would have been a good idea to order new diesel trains.

 

[fgwrich]

If BI Modes are so much the answer, Why hasn't the likes of OBB / DB / Pretty much every other european country gone in for them then, as apposed to the very smart RailJets - Where the train is, a, Loco Hauled set with DVT coach. They then do something simple called changing the loco over at a certain point en route. This can be done quickly and effectively and realistically, under 4 minutes. The Southern Region did it, other regions have done it, what is soo wrong about that?

And if BI Mode DMUs are soo green, why is Mr Adrian Shooter not ordering a fleet of new DMUs then? Because Loco Haulage works out better - and as already commented on somewhere on here, the smaller the engine is, the more the parts will be moving - increase in maintenance, as well as the case of the size of the engines vs the emissions restrictions - a Large loco can be EU complient, will a 5/6/7/8/9 DMU equally be? Personally i think not.

Overall, im with Jungle James on this one.

 

[HSTEd]

If BI Modes are so much the answer, Why hasn't the likes of OBB / DB / Pretty much every other european country gone in for them then, as apposed to the very smart RailJets - Where the train is, a, Loco Hauled set with DVT coach. They then do something simple called changing the loco over at a certain point en route. This can be done quickly and effectively and realistically, under 4 minutes. The Southern Region did it, other regions have done it, what is soo wrong about that?

SNCF has apparently decided on no more DMUs at all and has declared itself to be delighted with the bi-mode fleet it has recently acquired.
RailJet was a very specific case of OBB having a fleet of 140mph electric locomotives lying idle. It only went for them over EMUs because coaches are cheaper than multiple unit carriages if you assume locomotives are free.

Otherwise why would DB just have committed to abandoning loco hauled intercity trains almost entirely with the ICx programme?

And if BI Mode DMUs are soo green, why is Mr Adrian Shooter not ordering a fleet of new DMUs then? Because Loco Haulage works out better - and as already commented on somewhere on here, the smaller the engine is, the more the parts will be moving - increase in maintenance, as well as the case of the size of the engines vs the emissions restrictions - a Large loco can be EU complient, will a 5/6/7/8/9 DMU equally be? Personally i think not.

Overall, im with Jungle James on this one.

As far as I am aware.... there has not been a single hauled passenger stock order since privatisation.
And that was the Mark 4s.

And there is no reason that a DMU engine cannot be made emissions compliant now that we have things like AdBlue becoming common and cheap.
It is time that people accept that this is the era of the multiple unit.
Even the Irish appear to have abandoned loco hauled operations almost entirely.

Loco haulage is dead for new orders outside of very contrived circumstances
Adrian Shooter has no access to the capital required to purchase new multiple units for Chiltern at the present time, the only available stock was Mark 3s, and thus he had no other choice than to hire them and make them suitable for operations, because the alternative was additional sort formed services to meet DfT economic targets.

Also Chiltern is trying to project some sort of main-line image and thus would probably not like the logical choice for its services (Turbostars/Sprinters) serving its "premier" routes that it peddles in a feeble attempt to be anything other than a commuter company.... but I degress

 

[DjU]

(created new topic to hopefully prevent it getting assimilated by fantasy hype).

Surely you knew that was folly!

 

[fgwrich]

Anyway, moving on and back to IEP - I wonder if, there's a chance that Alstom will kick up a fuss over the EC IEP contract just as theyve done in france with the Eurostar ICEs/SNCF Duplex TGVs, as they seem to be lining themselves up for it. (And at least a Pendo would be more british than some paint slapped, sticker slapped Japanese 'Poo Tube')? If so, perhaps Hitachi could be forgoing a rather hollow victory? Especially with the likelihood of the inclusion of OLE into Swansea and TPE North / Hull..

As for a previous comment about comparing the pendolinos to IEP - One of the reasons as to why im already prefering the Pendo to IEP is the quaility. My only grips with the pendo really were just about the window size and toilet smell - Smell has apparently been solved by Virgin & Alstom engineers, but who can't say that IEP Will end up with the same problem too? Whereas, the only Hitachi product that's in a slightly similar league in this country is the 'Javelin', And having sampled those a few times, i can't say im that impressed with them - Both from an Interior point of view, the interiors rather drab and uninspiring, and i was hardly impressed with the cheap 'chocolate box' plastic interior panels - especially the mock metal cover over the destination screens, which constantly vibrated throught the journey.

 

[sprinterguy]

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?)

There won't be a diesel engine under every carriage of IEP. There will be four diesel engines, and hence powered vehicles, in an 8 or 9-car Bi-mode set.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Indeed, although at this stage the objections against the IEP are being primarily levelled at the comparative high cost and complexity of the project when cheaper, easier to implement, alternatives are available, rather than the expected standard of passenger comfort.

I also follow the general consensus of opinion that the IEP train is not the optimum solution to HST replacement as regards value for money and standardisation of long distance fleets. However, I am not opposing the project outright at the moment and not until after the final layout for the internal arrangement has been decided on and published in detail. We may get a train that is markedly better in terms of interior specification than the often derided Voyagers and Pendolinos.

From the few details that we already know about the formation and internal arrangement of the IEP trains, they would appear to be shaping up to incorporate a number of features that the Voyagers are criticised for lacking: As I said above, on the full length Bi-mode sets only four vehicles will be powered and be fitted with diesel engines which means that on the 9-car sets intended for the East Coast, more than half the carriages in the train will be unpowered trailers, like, you know, loco hauled coaching stock that many forum members avidly support. And as far as the electric only trains are involved, the noise of electric motors on current trains like the 390s is negligible anyway. The two driving cars on the 5-car sets will also be unpowered.

The toilets are also to be located on the far side of the exterior doors to the passenger saloon, which should hopefully help to keep any potential unfortunate odours, which hopefully these trains won't suffer from anyway, out of the saloon.

If the previously stated vehicle capacities for the IEP trains still hold true, then the 26 metre carriages of the IEP trains will also demonstrate a dramatic increase in seating capacity and efficient utilisation of the available space compared to Bombardiers’ 22X classes, and to an extent the HSTs, too.

Finally, I am glad to see the IEP contract signed as if the project was dropped altogether then an awful lot of money has already been invested in design and development of the IEP, which would all have been for nothing. No doubt delivery times for alternative replacement rolling stock would be even more protracted than the present expected IEP delivery dates, as the convoluted procurement process would have to be embarked on all over again. Given that the proposed service entry dates for the first IEP trains have slipped back four years from 2013 (Or was it even late 2012 as originally proposed?) to 2017, it is good to see some forward movement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the same way as I would welcome 395s on the east coast London - Newark service.

I should imagine that the electric IEP sets, particularly the 5-car ones, will be in essence a "stretched" version of the 395. All the promotional material that has been previously published points towards something that is at least visually similar. Although hopefully with enhanced seating of course, more befitting of Intercity rolling stock. The seating presently fitted to the 395s is amply comfortable and suitable for blasting down to the South East on journeys of 60 – 90 minutes, but would probably be found wanting for longer distance travel.

 

[jon0844]

Just another little pointer, not all underfloor engines are a good idea as this 108 just west of Totnes proves.

Chuck some new seats on that and I'm sure it would still make a good replacement for a Pacer even in that condition.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's the point of committing to a new fleet of diesels that would have a lifespan of at least 40 years when fossil fuels may be in the history books before that time?

Why can't you build a diesel train now that can be easily be converted to electric in the next 20-30 years, as we extend electrification?

Make sure it's ready for a pantograph and that the engines are simply swapped out? Who knows - the space set aside for fuel tanks could even be replaced with batteries if we crack battery technology by then and can have trains drawing less current in operation (or even operating in some areas without wires at all).

 

[Zoe]

Why can't you build a diesel train now that can be easily be converted to electric in the next 20-30 years, as we extend electrification?

Then you lose the benefit of having the ability to use electric power when under the wires. With bi-mode the trains will have this ability immediately and you won't have the situation where you are having to run diesel engines under the wires for the electrified part of the route.

 

[Donny Dave]

Then you lose the benefit of having the ability to use electric power when under the wires. With bi-mode the trains will have this ability immediately and you won't have the situation where you are having to run diesel engines under the wires for the electrified part of the route.

However, if you buy EMUs and use them under the wires, your are carting less weight around, trains require less maintanence, less energy is required to get the train to 125mph and keep it there and diesel locos can be bolted on for the parts that are not under the wires. for the Leeds - Aberdeen - London - Leeds diagram (providing Leeds - York gets wired), your looking at roughly 260 miles of diesel haulage out of a diagram length of roughly 1060 miles.

 

[Zoe]

However, if you buy EMUs and use them under the wires, your are carting less weight around, trains require less maintanence, less energy is required to get the train to 125mph and keep it there and diesel locos can be bolted on for the parts that are not under the wires. for the Leeds - Aberdeen - London - Leeds diagram (providing Leeds - York gets wired), your looking at roughly 260 miles of diesel haulage out of a diagram length of roughly 1060 miles.

Then you could end up with the situation of a fleet of diesel locomtives ordered with a lifespan of at least 40 years having no use in just 20 - 25 years.

 

[WatcherZero]

The IEP is supposed to be of a modular design where down the line they can just remove the engine tray/raft.

 

[Erniescooper]

The IEP is supposed to be of a modular design where down the line they can just remove the engine tray/raft.

Do you also just remove the cooler group, the fuel tank, the 24v starting batteries, the 24v battery charger, the auto fire supression system, the manual fire supression system and remove the all the expensive fire retardant insulation that had to be fitted to protect the saloon for 30 mins in the event of all the highly flammable liquids underneath going up in flames. Plus I would imagine hundreds of extra wires and dozens of relays that would the intergrated into the trains wiring.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you also just remove the cooler group, the fuel tank, the 24v starting batteries, the 24v battery charger, the auto fire supression system, the manual fire supression system and remove the all the expensive fire retardant insulation that had to be fitted to protect the saloon for 30 mins in the event of all the highly flammable liquids underneath going up in flames. Plus I would imagine hundreds of extra wires and dozens of relays that would the intergrated into the trains wiring.

Well since the cooler group and fuel tank would be removed fairly simply, but the starting batteries would be useful in case of load shedding scenarios if the power system is designed properly to enable the hotel power loads to draw from the starting system.

Fire Surpression systems and fire retardant insulation is not very heavy, so there would be little advantage in removing it.
And thanks to networking systems the extra wiring harnesses will be relatively minor.

 

[Erniescooper]

Then you could end up with the situation of a fleet of diesel locomtives ordered with a lifespan of at least 40 years having no use in just 20 - 25 years.

To put that into perspective DRS are paying £2.7 million for each Eurolight, ONE car of a bi-mode IEP costs £4 million and ONE car of the electric IEP costs £3.8 million. Recently PKP in Poland placed an order for a non tilting version of the ETR600 New Pendolino for just £2.3million a car, IEP is just a ridiculously expensive , over complicated , commitee designed waste of public money.

 

[ainsworth74]

Anyway, moving on and back to IEP - I wonder if, there's a chance that Alstom will kick up a fuss over the EC IEP contract just as theyve done in france with the Eurostar ICEs/SNCF Duplex TGVs, as they seem to be lining themselves up for it.

I think it's interesting that Bombardier/Siemens (who put in a joint bid) haven't raised any objections to the radically changed nature of the project from when preferred bidder status was awarded. They never bid on the IEP as it currently stands. I've been thinking that this might simply be because they're pleased they didn't get it! I wonder if they aren't rather happy that it's Hitachi that's had to deal with the DfTs indecision and goalpost moving and they just sat around bidding on the slightly easier projects.

 

[Zoe]

To put that into perspective DRS are paying £2.7 million for each Eurolight, ONE car of a bi-mode IEP costs £4 million and ONE car of the electric IEP costs £3.8 million. Recently PKP in Poland placed an order for a non tilting version of the ETR600 New Pendolino for just £2.3million a car, IEP is just a ridiculously expensive , over complicated , commitee designed waste of public money.

I don't think the government are actually going to buy the trains though so they won't be built using public money. I believe Agility will own the trains and supply them for use.

 

[Erniescooper]

I don't think the government are actually going to buy the trains though they won't be built using public money. I believe Agility will own the trains and supply them for use.

£40 million pounds has already been spent by the DFT trying to get to a specification that does'nt defy the laws of physics and to top that I was speaking to someone in within the engineering department at FGW who informed me that Hitachi were'nt keen anymore. The whole episode just stinks of typical civil service procurement incompetance.

 

[Zoe]

£40 million pounds has already been spent by the DFT trying to get to a specification that does'nt defy the laws of physics and to top that I was speaking to someone in within the engineering department at FGW who informed me that Hitachi were'nt keen anymore. The whole episode just stinks of typical civil service procurement incompetance.

But given that it has already been spent, I'm not sure any public money would be saved by cancelling it now and it would be seen as even more of a waste as it would have been spent for no result.

 

[Erniescooper]

But given that it has already been spent, I'm not sure any public money would be saved by cancelling it now and it would be seen as even more of a waste as it would have been spent for no result.

If you were to order 500 ETR600 New Pendolino cars verses 500 Bi Mode IEP cars the difference would be £850 million, would you rather waste £850 million to save £40 million.

 

[Zoe]

If you were to order 500 ETR600 New Pendolino cars verses 500 Bi Mode IEP cars the difference would be £850 million, would you rather waste £850 million to save £40 million.

But the government isn't going to actually buy the trains so public money will not be used. The public money already spent will have been completely wasted if the project is cancelled and considering the government isn't going to buy the trains, cancelling the order is not going to save the government £850 million.

 

[Erniescooper]

Well since the cooler group and fuel tank would be removed fairly simply, but the starting batteries would be useful in case of load shedding scenarios if the power system is designed properly to enable the hotel power loads to draw from the starting system.

Fire Surpression systems and fire retardant insulation is not very heavy, so there would be little advantage in removing it.
And thanks to networking systems the extra wiring harnesses will be relatively minor.

It can't be as simple as you make out as the final product of all this codging has ended up with a train more expensive than a 200 mph Eurotunnel spec ICE.

 

[junglejames]

I don’t understand why some people have a problem with the IEP design. HST’s are old and need replacing but the state doesn’t have sufficient funds to pay for an ambitious electrification program other than what has already been agreed. And locomotives cannot accelerate as quickly as Voyagers so that rules them out. If anything the government should be ordering more IEP’s so that all the HST’s can be replaced. Yes the IEP’s really need to be longer but no doubt more vehicles could be ordered in the future if necessary.

I love a good laugh. Thanks.
The state doesnt have funds for an ambitious electrification project, but it has funds for something that over not very many years, will be even more expensive?
Just so you all know why people have problems with IEP and Bi modes.
Price
Getting vibrated from here to kingdom come
Not being able to hear the person next to you
Price
Getting vibrated from here to kingsom come
Not being able to hear the person next to you
Oh, and in case i havent mentioned it, Price.


Oh, and just to dispell any myths floating around. No other nations have ordered such bi modes. France has regional bi modes. Not hi speed bi modes. You are all giving the same arguments that the government has been giving out. Unfortunately all the arguments have been shot down by all decent engineers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then you could end up with the situation of a fleet of diesel locomtives ordered with a lifespan of at least 40 years having no use in just 20 - 25 years.

How many times. What about these diesel engines underneath the bimodes? and what of the fact EMU/ locos are cheaper? You have taken neither into account once again.

These diesel engines which we cant be sure can be taken off the train permanently. Which also will have zero life after 20-25yrs (going by your figures).

So if we are to assume neither will have a life after 25yrs due to zero oil around. What is better? The cheaper option (which doesnt vibrate you from here to the moon and back), or the expensive option, which sends shivers down your spine (and not because its cold)?
Surely the cheaper option is better?

You keep on and on about not buying more diesel trains. But thats exactly what bi modes are.
Zoe, are you sure you dont work for Agility? You sound like the person trying to push the Bristol depot through. Telling local media that it would all be ok, as the trains were electric, and no noise would be made. Obviously keeping the fact that some trains are diesel, out of the limelight.

Either HSTEd and Zoe are Mr and Mrs S Baker, or Zoe works for Agility.

 

[Erniescooper]

But the government isn't going to actually buy the trains so public money will not be used. The public money already spent will have been completely wasted if the project is cancelled and considering the government isn't going to buy the trains, cancelling the order is not going to save the government £850 million.

So I take it your happy to pay for the extra costs directly through increased ticket prices?

 

[starrymarkb]

I love a good laugh. Thanks.
The state doesnt have funds for an ambitious electrification project, but it has funds for something that over not very many years, will be even more expensive?
Just so you all know why people have problems with IEP and Bi modes.
Price
Getting vibrated from here to kingdom come
Not being able to hear the person next to you
Price
Getting vibrated from here to kingsom come
Not being able to hear the person next to you
Oh, and in case i havent mentioned it, Price.


Oh, and just to dispell any myths floating around. No other nations have ordered such bi modes. France has regional bi modes. Not hi speed bi modes. You are all giving the same arguments that the government has been giving out. Unfortunately all the arguments have been shot down by all decent engineers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How many times. What about these diesel engines underneath the bimodes? and what of the fact EMU/ locos are cheaper? You have taken neither into account once again.

These diesel engines which we cant be sure can be taken off the train permanently. Which also will have zero life after 20-25yrs (going by your figures).

So if we are to assume neither will have a life after 25yrs due to zero oil around. What is better? The cheaper option (which doesnt vibrate you from here to the moon and back), or the expensive option, which sends shivers down your spine (and not because its cold)?
Surely the cheaper option is better?

While I don't have problems with underfloor engines (beyond the initial take off roll I don't notice them) I must say I agree. Would it not be better to buy something off the shelf (like Alstom's 180 with Pendolino drive) and use the money saved to extend the wires, which would have the knock on of allowing local services to benefit in some areas from going over to EMU operation as well.

I suspect Bombardier & Siemens would be happy to build some ICE-T* derivatives for the UK (without tilt). OK they'd need a custom bodyshell, but the traction pack and components are proven.

If the UK were insist on going down the Bi-Mode route wouldn't it be better to build a batch of Bi-Mode Sprinter type units first - Walk before trying to run...


*With the ICE-T; Herr Bombardier makes the Bodies and Herr Siemens does the Traction. Signor Alstom (ex-Fiat) supplies the Tilt kit...

 

[junglejames]

But the government isn't going to actually buy the trains so public money will not be used. The public money already spent will have been completely wasted if the project is cancelled and considering the government isn't going to buy the trains, cancelling the order is not going to save the government £850 million.

Eh?
Lets just assume FGW keep the GW franchise, just for ease of writing.
If FGW have to take the cost of IEP into account, they are going to either but in a bid with higher subsidy, or with less payments to the DFT. The difference in payments or subsidy will be the extra cost of IEP.
Lets take the £850 million figure, and make a couple of payment scenarios up. With the cheaper 390/180 EMU, they make a payment to the government of £850 million. With IEP they make payments of zilch. Do you really think FGW will put in a bid with IEPs included, but agree to cover the cost of them out of their back pockets? Therefore keeping payments of £850 million to the government? No, they wont. The government, and the railways are going to be paying for this. FGW wont be.

Lets also remember a few more things about IEP and the bi modes.
Being 26m long (the coaches that is), means the coaches will be narrower than a Mk3. They will be anorexic, like the pendys, but without any benefit of tilt. They are also made out of aluminium. Something else which causes problems, as it isnt as strong as steel.
They will not be accelerating like a voyager.
They will have stupendous sized engines underneath (larger than a QSK, as the latest info was that they wouldnt be using QSKs). The engines will have to be more powerful. This will probably be a squeeze underneath, and will probably lead to a raised floor. How much more internal space do you want to lose?
Route clearing them will cost millions upon millions of pounds. Even then, they wont be able to go many places. These will not be the go anywhere train that the HST is. Nowhere near.
Performance on diesel power will be no better than a HST. Possibly worse even.
The leasing costs are astronomical. Combined with the route clearance costs, By keeping HSTs, and scrapping IEP, over not many years you would have saved enough money to electrify virtually all of the extra lines (on top of whats already been agreed) needed to see off Intercity diesel stock. Including Cross Country.
HSTs could then be gradually replaced by decent 23m coach length EMUs as lines were electrified.

HST are not on deaths door, and will easily keep going long enough to save this money. HSTs will provide a much better travelling experience than IEP, and will use less fuel away from the wires. Under the wires wont matter, as they will be replaced by EMUs as wires are electrified.

 

[LE Greys]

Then you could end up with the situation of a fleet of diesel locomtives ordered with a lifespan of at least 40 years having no use in just 20 - 25 years.

25 years is a reasonable lifetime for a passenger diesel loco in intensive use, it's about as long as the Westerns, Deltics and 50s lasted after all. If you think there is still life left in them (especially since they'd probably be geared for a 100mph maximum to improve acceleration) then give them a refurb and sell them off to another company, DRS have done fairly well on used diesels for a long time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

While I don't have problems with underfloor engines (beyond the initial take off roll I don't notice them) I must say I agree. Would it not be better to buy something off the shelf (like Alstom's 180 with Pendolino drive) and use the money saved to extend the wires, which would have the knock on of allowing local services to benefit in some areas from going over to EMU operation as well.

I suspect Bombardier & Siemens would be happy to build some ICE-T* derivatives for the UK (without tilt). OK they'd need a custom bodyshell, but the traction pack and components are proven.

If the UK were insist on going down the Bi-Mode route wouldn't it be better to build a batch of Bi-Mode Sprinter type units first - Walk before trying to run...

*With the ICE-T; Herr Bombardier makes the Bodies and Herr Siemens does the Traction. Signor Alstom (ex-Fiat) supplies the Tilt kit...

I'll back you up on most of that, although I reckon tilt would be very effective on West of England services, possibly meaning Paddington-Penzance in four hours with no speed increases.