4064ReadingAbbey
|
|
« Reply #405 on: July 23, 2014, 11:27:43 » |
|
My solution, cascade the new IEPs▸ off the ECML▸ and onto the newly-electrified MML» . Much cheaper than another new fleet for the MML and new locos for the IC225s to go to Anglia.
I think you've missed the point. The IEP is more expensive than any other option - it will, in short, be unaffordable wherever it is used. Going to a ROSCO» and asking for a 125mph electric train with full maintenance cover will get you a train for less than half the monthly cost of the IEP.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Rhydgaled
|
|
« Reply #406 on: July 23, 2014, 12:17:24 » |
|
The IEP▸ is more expensive than any other option - it will, in short, be unaffordable wherever it is used. Going to a ROSCO» and asking for a 125mph electric train with full maintenance cover will get you a train for less than half the monthly cost of the IEP. Indeed. However, asking said ROSCO for a brand new 125mph electric train, or an IC225 with a new loco or re-geared 91, is going to be more expensive than an IC225 with just the reliability mods and ETCS▸ Eversholt had planned. Given the insane cost of IEP, I feel even more strongly than ever that the 91s need to be retained to avoid purchase of more new stock for the likes of the MML» electrification.
|
|
|
Logged
|
---------------------------- Don't DOO▸ it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #407 on: July 29, 2014, 16:48:20 » |
|
Not a cause for regoicing at all in my view. Mainline services to be downgraded to DMUs▸ , even if these can also use electric power. I stand by my earlier remarks about the likleyhood of bus style seating layout, reduced legroom, minimal catering, and shorter trains. Voyager mark 2 After a couple of years we now know 1) yes, DMUs with under floor engines 2)Mainly bus seating, with only about a third of seats being at tables 3) Legroom, not yet known. 4) Catering reduced to a trolley for steerage 5)Shorter trains, mainly 5 car to replace 8 car HSTs▸
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard. It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc. A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #408 on: July 29, 2014, 19:26:34 » |
|
1) Reduced journey times 2) Increased frequency on many routes (appreciate may not be the case from South Wales) 3) More seats overall 4) Long term reliability that new build brings (yes, there may be teething trouble. Strongly believe the Hitachi product will not be another dog like the Class 180) 5) HSTs▸ can't go on forever in squadron service
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A clear conscience laughs at a false accusation." "Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot." "Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #409 on: July 29, 2014, 19:58:54 » |
|
5) HSTs▸ can't go on forever in squadron service
Probably true, particularly for the power cars. But there were alternatives to IEP▸ which would likely have costed a fair bit less. Of course, the criticisms 2-4 could be equally true whatever rolling stock was chosen.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #410 on: July 30, 2014, 19:55:40 » |
|
5) HSTs▸ can't go on forever in squadron service
Probably true, particularly for the power cars. But there were alternatives to IEP▸ which would likely have costed a fair bit less. Of course, the criticisms 2-4 could be equally true whatever rolling stock was chosen. Look its too late for IEP they are being built now. If the order is cancelled now it will probably cost us (the taxpayer) as much as if we had the trains. The real test will come when TOCS are able to choose what trains they buy for increased capacity or further electrification. Will they buy IEPs or will they buy Pendelino or other offerings that other manufacturers are likely to come up with. Unless IEPs prove so much better than the alternative or the others become more expensive their true value will be seen and perhaps even in a proper free leasing market Hitachi will find it difficult to lease them - or have to reduce the price. Depends on the contract that DfT» have committed us all to.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Rhydgaled
|
|
« Reply #411 on: July 30, 2014, 23:38:15 » |
|
Look its too late for IEP▸ they are being built now. If the order is cancelled now it will probably cost us (the taxpayer) as much as if we had the trains.
The real test will come when TOCS are able to choose what trains they buy for increased capacity or further electrification. Will they buy IEPs or will they buy Pendelino or other offerings that other manufacturers are likely to come up with.
Unless IEPs prove so much better than the alternative or the others become more expensive their true value will be seen and perhaps even in a proper free leasing market Hitachi will find it difficult to lease them - or have to reduce the price. Depends on the contract that DfT» have committed us all to. Sure, we can't cancel the contract. The contract DfT has committed us to is a 27.5 year total train service provision, proper 'free market' leasing does not apply. We are stuck with IEP and once they are built that's what we will be stuck with. That's why the real test is right now, making sure they are fit-for-purpose and are used where most benifit can be gained. On the Great Western, 32x 5-car and 18x 9-car diagrams to cover what would currently be 46x 8-car diagrams is not fit-for-purpose. And, I doubt replacing IC225s on the ECML▸ with IEPs would give as much benifit as leaving the IC225s where they are and deploying the 800s/801s as the MML» replacement fleet instead (thus saving the need to procure a seperate new fleet for the MML).
|
|
|
Logged
|
---------------------------- Don't DOO▸ it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
|
|
|
4064ReadingAbbey
|
|
« Reply #412 on: July 31, 2014, 10:02:04 » |
|
Sure, we can't cancel the contract. The contract DfT» has committed us to is a 27.5 year total train service provision, proper 'free market' leasing does not apply. But there might be an opportunity to buy Agility Trains out of the contract. Basically the 'Total Train Service' provision contract passes all the risks, engineering and manufacture, operational and financial, onto the manufacturer. If one is unwilling to take any part of the risk of doing something then one will pay through the nose. The reason these PPI/PPP/Train Service Provision contracts were set up in the first place was that Gordon Brown wanted to keep as much capital expenditure as possible off the country's books. This requirement became 'policy' so it could not be questioned. As the ground rules have now changed, for example Network Rail's debt is now to be included in the National Debt and the Government is now buying the Crossrail trains as a capital expenditure, it should be possible to buy out the long term leasing part of the contract with Agility Trains. As the leasing payments only start in two or three years time their discounted value now may well make such a move a lower-cost choice than the one we are saddled with at the moment. The trains will still not be cheap because they are so fiendishly complex[1], but it might be an improvement. [1] this is one of the reasons for the high leasing costs - these complex trains will not be so reliable as a simple electric train (and even here Hitachi's Class 395s on the South Eastern are only average), so to ensure a train is always available Hitachi will have to build more of them as one might expect.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #413 on: July 31, 2014, 10:15:44 » |
|
1) yes, DMUs▸ with under floor engines
Reading July's Modern Railways with an article by Ian Walmsley showing the seating diagrams one thing was mention was that coaches with underfloor engines have to have a slope down to the vestibule to cater for the door being lower than the main floor height! On the Great Western, 32x 5-car and 18x 9-car diagrams to cover what would currently be 46x 8-car diagrams is not fit-for-purpose.
Agreed 322 IEP▸ coaches against 368 HST▸ coaches, however I've not been able to work out what this means in terms of seats. Also, don't forget DfT» are expecting far better utilisation of the IEP sets which I think means there wil be less tains running more services. With regard to the running costs it will be interesting to see when the TOCs▸ make bids for the fully electrified, resignalled and IEP run GWML▸ franchise whether they will be offering any premium payments!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #414 on: July 31, 2014, 13:14:04 » |
|
Agreed 322 IEP▸ coaches against 368 HST▸ coaches, however I've not been able to work out what this means in terms of seats. Also, don't forget DfT» are expecting far better utilisation of the IEP sets which I think means there wil be less tains running more services.
Don't forger several HST rakes will be retained for the Cornish services, though it's likely we'll lose the Class 180s. BNM and myself did a little bit of guesstimating on what it meant on the Bristol TM‡ to London route earlier on in this thread, which can be found here: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10150.msg140513;topicseen#msg140513
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
|
|
|
Kernow Otter
|
|
« Reply #415 on: July 31, 2014, 18:21:59 » |
|
Don't forger several HST▸ rakes will be retained for the Cornish services, though it's likely we'll lose the Class 180s.
Our submission to the Great Western Consultation proposed retaintion of the 180's for either services between Penzance and Exeter, or dedicated all stations in Cornwall - fast to Paddington services with no pickup at Reading.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Rhydgaled
|
|
« Reply #416 on: August 01, 2014, 10:00:12 » |
|
On the Great Western, 32x 5-car and 18x 9-car diagrams to cover what would currently be 46x 8-car diagrams is not fit-for-purpose.
Agreed 322 IEP▸ coaches against 368 HST▸ coaches, however I've not been able to work out what this means in terms of seats. Also, don't forget DfT» are expecting far better utilisation of the IEP sets which I think means there wil be less tains running more services. To be extra-kind to IEP, I'll use today's low-density IC125 sets with full-buffet. That, I think, provides 474 seats. A 5-car IEP is 315 seats. That's 159 fewer seats on the new 5-car trains, before the capacity of the IC125s is increased by converting first to standard. While the 627 seats on a 9-car set may make the overall seats per day figure similar to today (perhaps even slightly higher) that's no comfort to the poor souls on reduced-capacity services to South Wales and the Cotswolds, who may have an hour to wait for the next train which could also be a 5-car set (almost certainly so in the case of the Cotswolds). Don't forger several HST rakes will be retained for the Cornish services, though it's likely we'll lose the Class 180s. My figure above of 46 diagrams is covering the planned IEP services, it includes the proposed hourly Cheltenhams and Bristol via Parkway services, but nothing west of Westbury towards Plymouth. Actually I made that post rather hastily and include which won't actually be IEP, so it should be 43.
|
|
|
Logged
|
---------------------------- Don't DOO▸ it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #417 on: August 01, 2014, 14:45:45 » |
|
To be extra-kind to IEP▸ , I'll use today's low-density IC125 sets with full-buffet. That, I think, provides 474 seats. A 5-car IEP is 315 seats. That's 159 fewer seats on the new 5-car trains, before the capacity of the IC125s is increased by converting first to standard. While the 627 seats on a 9-car set may make the overall seats per day figure similar to today (perhaps even slightly higher) that's no comfort to the poor souls on reduced-capacity services to South Wales and the Cotswolds, who may have an hour to wait for the next train which could also be a 5-car set (almost certainly so in the case of the Cotswolds).
In terms of seats, I can forsee the 9-Car Electric IEPs being extended to 10-Car length within a few years (Pendolino style), which will give even more of a boost to the seating which will already be, as you state, an increase on anything the HSTs▸ will provide even after refurbishment. Don't forget all the extra trains that will be running as well of course - we'll have to see about how the diagrams are configured for the Swansea/Cardiff services (9-Car Electric, 5-Car Bi-mode, or 10-Car Bi-mode), as demand for them will be reduced with the extra trains running between Bristol Parkway/Swindon/Reading and London, and some of the off-peak Cardiff trains could easily cope with a 5-Car Bi-mode equivalent at the moment - though I have my concerns if there ends up being too many single 5-Car sets running around.
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
|
|
|
Andrew1939 from West Oxon
|
|
« Reply #418 on: August 01, 2014, 16:07:49 » |
|
My understanding is that the existing Cotswold Line peak hour trains, currently normally HST125s will be replaced by double 5-car bi-mode IEPs▸ (or SETs▸ ) with more seating. Off-peak CL services are currently mainly 5 car class 180 Adelantes with similar seating capacity to a 3-car turbo. They will, I understood, be replaced in the main by single 5-car bi-mode IEPs which should also have more seats. Am I wrong? Incidentally, I thought IEP is the abreviation put on by the DfT» for the whole HST▸ train replacement project. Now that Hitach has the contract to provide the trains, should we be using the Hitachi abreviation of SET (Super Express Train)? Many people could be confused by the use of the two terms for the same trains.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6594
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #419 on: August 01, 2014, 18:12:00 » |
|
I think you are right, Andrew1939 - the clue is in the name: Intercity Express Programme, not train. Maybe we forum members should lead the way with Super Express Trains. If they cost much over budget, we could dub them Super Excess Trains...
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
|