IEP & Thameslink

[Class377/5]

We've had a bit of a rollercoaster ride on whether IEP is good or not, but besides the supposed disappointment of what they'll look like, are they really such a bad thing for the public?

The important thing now is the interior layout of the trains, so it's not all beyond hope just yet. I'm sure the interior on the video isn't final.

Very true. Public don't care about the ins and outs of it no matter how important that is. To them new = better. More care about getting a seat than what powers it.

 

[jon0844]

And there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of industries spend a lot of time and money on designing things so that they won't be noticed. Outside of here, many people will just see a nice clean environment, nice seats (hopefully), and creature comforts (Wi-Fi, power sockets etc). They'll be far more impressed by the little things than what powers the train - just as it should be.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As Northern already has a well established and logical stabling and maintenance facility at Sheffield, I am certainly inclined to agree with you that it would be a good place to build a larger depot if Northerns’ East side gains a greater quantity of rolling stock. There is definitely enough vacant railway land at the likes of Brightside to allow it.

If the local lines around Leeds and South Yorkshire are ever wired up in their entirety, as a side product of MML and Transpennine electrification, with wiring of all the little bits in-between as a follow up, then I’m of the opinion that Healey Mills would make a good location for an EMU depot.

Healey mills now thats an idea that hadn't crossed my mind. If everything (and i do mean everything) gets wired then i can see that being good, easy access to york wakefield leeds sheffield ECML huddersfield etc etc on a less busy line. Much easier to path ECS than at neville hill!!!!

My thinking was that land is just a waste at the moment, there are loops rarely used still in good condition. The current depot holds like 6 trains, so if we start gettign any 3/4 car formations of DMU/EMU on a more regular basis sheffield wont be able to cope, even with the through roads. This depot could also give EMT, TPE and XC a stabling/fueling point and might allow sheffield to have later long distance trains. Also the wires required for healey mills are a long way off whereas i think sheffield - moorthopre and doncaster and the MML will be done in the next 12 years. I pass it everyday and this just crossed my mind

 

[Chris125]

We've had a bit of a rollercoaster ride on whether IEP is good or not, but besides the supposed disappointment of what they'll look like, are they really such a bad thing for the public?

One of the key issues raised over and over again by passengers, taxpayers and the government is value-for-money.

If, as many suspect, the IEP represents poor value for money then it is is a bad thing, as it adds long term costs to the industry and ultimately the fare/taxpayer, with the PFI element a concern regardless of the design.

Chris

 

[jon0844]

I doubt most passengers are going to be that bothered by a few quid here and there if the trains look great and are comfortable and reliable.

If you read on many newspaper sites, or elsewhere, Joe Public always seem to ask why our trains aren't as reliable or fast as in Japan. We hear that trains are NEVER late and people are almost rioting if a train turns up two minutes late.

Now they'll be getting trains made by Hitachi! I don't know how reliable the 395s have been (bar the rocky ride in the early days) but when I think of what a new fleet of trains made by, say, Bombardier, would probably be like in the reliability stakes - I almost shudder.

The PFI funding is something to be worried about, but that's a different matter as it would have been the case whatever trains were built.

Some papers will 'discuss' the costs and funding options, mostly to score political points, but I really don't think the average person will care at all.

 

[jopsuk]

The 395s aren't in the top ten for reliability. They trail behind (a the very least) an Alstom-built class*, four BREL, three Siemens and two Bombardier.


*note that the table is by subclass where the operator makes a distinction in their fleet.

 

[John55]

The 395s aren't in the top ten for reliability. They trail behind (a the very least) an Alstom-built class*, four BREL, three Siemens and two Bombardier.


*note that the table is by subclass where the operator makes a distinction in their fleet.

From all the tables printed over the past years on train reliability the manufacturer does not appear significant. The significant factor is contained in the second column. That is who specifies the maintenance regime and ensures it delivers.

 

[Class377/5]

I doubt most passengers are going to be that bothered by a few quid here and there if the trains look great and are comfortable and reliable.

If you read on many newspaper sites, or elsewhere, Joe Public always seem to ask why our trains aren't as reliable or fast as in Japan. We hear that trains are NEVER late and people are almost rioting if a train turns up two minutes late.

Now they'll be getting trains made by Hitachi! I don't know how reliable the 395s have been (bar the rocky ride in the early days) but when I think of what a new fleet of trains made by, say, Bombardier, would probably be like in the reliability stakes - I almost shudder.

The PFI funding is something to be worried about, but that's a different matter as it would have been the case whatever trains were built.

Some papers will 'discuss' the costs and funding options, mostly to score political points, but I really don't think the average person will care at all.

Few extra quid? Try an extra £75m per year over 30 years. That money has to come from somewhere and with the Government paying less into the railways only one group will pick up the cost, the farepayer.

Considering the DfT/Government is banging on about the railways need to be better valve for money, why have they forced a more expensive train onto the railway? Not to mention the possible mislead if not lying press release that stated the IEP will save £200m but failed to mention that within three years all these savings would be wiped out Bu the extra £75m a year additional costs compared to off the shelf trains.

They ignore any evidence that didn't support IEP and now we are stuck with them.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Few extra quid? Try an extra £75m per year over 30 years. That money has to come from somewhere and with the Government paying less into the railways only one group will pick up the cost, the farepayer.

Considering the DfT/Government is banging on about the railways need to be better valve for money, why have they forced a more expensive train onto the railway? Not to mention the possible mislead if not lying press release that stated the IEP will save £200m but failed to mention that within three years all these savings would be wiped out Bu the extra £75m a year additional costs compared to off the shelf trains.

They ignore any evidence that didn't support IEP and now we are stuck with them.

And with at least 75 million journeys made each year on GWML thats about a quid per person. So yes it is a few quid in the context he was giving which was farepayer not overall.

I agree its a bad decision but his point was valid.

 

[HSTEd]

This item's sale price is one pound.

You will however pay me one pound five pence because "what is a few quid here and there"

 

[WatcherZero]

The 395s aren't in the top ten for reliability. They trail behind (a the very least) an Alstom-built class*, four BREL, three Siemens and two Bombardier.


*note that the table is by subclass where the operator makes a distinction in their fleet.

Thats a bit disengenious, theyve only been in service 3 years, reliability starts low and builds. In the first year of introduction the Class 357's was 1/15th of the 395 reliability, the 458 was 1/8th and the 377 was 1/5th. It took the 458 seven years to match the off the shelf reliability of the 395 and the 357 and 444 took three years.

The 395's may not currently be the most reliable class but they worked out of the box which is more than can be said for a lot of other classes.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

And with at least 75 million journeys made each year on GWML thats about a quid per person....

A quid per journey, not necessarily a quid per passenger.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Not to mention the possible mislead if not lying press release that stated the IEP will save £200m but failed to mention that within three years all these savings would be wiped out Bu the extra £75m a year additional costs compared to off the shelf trains.

They ignore any evidence that didn't support IEP and now we are stuck with them.

Hasn't everyone who's tried to work out where that £200m NPV difference between bi-mode and loco-hauled EMUs comes from failed? What is NPV anyway, is it based on a similar concept to cost/benifit ratios (in which case that £200m probably comes from X passengers waiting Y minutes Z times a day while the loco is attached, where Y is a value much higher than it needs to be)?

 

[thelem]

The 395s aren't in the top ten for reliability. They trail behind (a the very least) an Alstom-built class*, four BREL, three Siemens and two Bombardier.


*note that the table is by subclass where the operator makes a distinction in their fleet.

That link should be http://railwayeye.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/fleet-reliability-will-be-key-for-iep.html

 

[Class377/5]

And with at least 75 million journeys made each year on GWML thats about a quid per person. So yes it is a few quid in the context he was giving which was farepayer not overall.

I agree its a bad decision but his point was valid.

In an era where every price price is subject to bad press forcing further increases that could have been avoided and allowing the TOC's to get the bad press for something they didn't control is bad for the railways.

The point is valid in the sense most will see minor increases but forcing every ticket up even by a £1 will still see the public turn on the railways.

The point I was making us the DfT is saying one thing that sounds good to the press but reality is they are doing quite the opposite.

Hasn't everyone who's tried to work out where that £200m NPV difference between bi-mode and loco-hauled EMUs comes from failed? What is NPV anyway, is it based on a similar concept to cost/benifit ratios (in which case that £200m probably comes from X passengers waiting Y minutes Z times a day while the loco is attached, where Y is a value much higher than it needs to be)?

God knows, doesn't the N stand for notional anyway?

 

[John55]

Hasn't everyone who's tried to work out where that £200m NPV difference between bi-mode and loco-hauled EMUs comes from failed? What is NPV anyway, is it based on a similar concept to cost/benifit ratios (in which case that £200m probably comes from X passengers waiting Y minutes Z times a day while the loco is attached, where Y is a value much higher than it needs to be)?

Why not google NPV and actually find out what it is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

 

[swt_passenger]

What is NPV anyway, is it based on a similar concept to cost/benifit ratios.

NPV stands for 'Net Present Value', and is basically a way of accounting for inflation and interest factors over a long period, but in today's values.

Best to cross refer for a more thorough explanation, John55 above has linked to a definition of what it is, but the key thing that determines that NPV is Discounted Cash Flow analysis( DCF):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow

 

[Rhydgaled]

I knew it stood for 'Net Present Value' but didn't understand what it actually involves. I think I'm only slightly the wiser from reading the links you have provided, thanks for that by the way.

What I think I've got from those webpages is that NPV is a fancy way of saying 'the lifetime revenue minus the lifetime cost'. In the case of IEP bi-mode, does the 'revenue' and/or 'costs' used to calculate the NPV include putting a price on passengers time while a loco is attached or is it actually just the expected cost of building and operating the bi-modes over building and operating EMUs and locos. If it is just the expected cost of building and operating the bi-modes over building and operating EMUs and locos, it is harder to see where the DfT's mistakes are, but there must be some somewhere (no other Intercity bi-modes exist, so other countries' analysis must have come out in favor of using locos rather than bi-modes).

Mods note: IEP now being discussed here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69040