Rumour of HSTs to operate Cardiff-Portsmouth discounted - probably Class 165/166 instead

[whole diary]

[stuving]

I thought DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) had decided coupling a diesel loco to allow IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to reach places like Hull would take too long, hence the bi-mode idea. Something about it DfT thinking it would take nine minutes to couple the loco, I don't see how it could take that long myself if they had suitable couplers installed for the job, given 158s can couple up much quicker than that at Machynlleth (I think it normally takes less than 3 minutes). However, as a short-term solution I imagine fitting locos with suitable couplers would be too expensive, and DfT are unlikely to want their new trains to make journeys slower than currently.

I think that confuses the design choice - bi-modes or loco-hauled - with what the 801s can do as ordered, after that choice has been made.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), bidders were asked to choose between two options for part-wired routes: loco-hauling or bi-modes. Hitachi (Agility) chose bi-modes, and their tender was accepted. However, the requirement still includes a loco-hauled mode for operational service (there is a separate one for rescue). Unless this has been traded away since, the delivered trains can do it - and it has been paid for (it has a cost).
 
So there are two (well, really three) options for coping with the delayed electrification:

1. Stick with the contract as written, and use the inherent capability of the trains to be loco-hauled. Services will be a bit slower, and there will a lot of managing to do and stuff pay for outside the contract. Not just hiring motive power, but arranging for enough drivers, with training, will be difficult. There may be (realistically,there will be) other factors I haven't thought of.

2. Tear up the contract, and go grovelling to Agility asking for a new one - "and please don't charge the huge stupidity premium we deserve". In addition to that extra payment "for the insult", there a real costs of re-scheduling production, and all those engines to buy. And after a couple of years use, then either they are carried around unused for 25 years, or taken out and put in a shed. Maybe another user can be found, though the NRMM process may restrict that.

3. Do nothing - keep using HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) while the 801s are held in store, built or unbuilt. Everyone seems to think this is impossible due to its cost or embarrassment for DfT, but in reality it is probably a rational choice (I'd rate it second best). Its cash cost is almost nil - its real cost is in the loss of rolling stock elsewhere in the system, borne by passengers on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and elsewhere.

Of course I may not have the history 100% correct, and I'm sure there are other things to consider, but they are going to have to be pretty big and insurmountable to make option 2 best in itself or as value of money.

As I said originally, I'm surprised not to have heard it mentioned.

[stuving]

 ... moreover - my options 1-3 are not exclusive, are they? I practice having a few more (and long) 800s, and delaying the in-service date of some 801s, can be combined with dragging others over some routes - Cardiff-Swansea is an obvious choice.

[ChrisB]

Or converting them to bi-mode.....(yes, at a (one-off) cost.

[Rhydgaled]

I thought DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) had decided coupling a diesel loco to allow IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to reach places like Hull would take too long, hence the bi-mode idea. Something about it DfT thinking it would take nine minutes to couple the loco, I don't see how it could take that long myself if they had suitable couplers installed for the job, given 158s can couple up much quicker than that at Machynlleth (I think it normally takes less than 3 minutes). However, as a short-term solution I imagine fitting locos with suitable couplers would be too expensive, and DfT are unlikely to want their new trains to make journeys slower than currently.

I think that confuses the design choice - bi-modes or loco-hauled - with what the 801s can do as ordered, after that choice has been made.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), bidders were asked to choose between two options for part-wired routes: loco-hauling or bi-modes. Hitachi (Agility) chose bi-modes, and their tender was accepted. However, the requirement still includes a loco-hauled mode for operational service (there is a separate one for rescue). Unless this has been traded away since, the delivered trains can do it - and it has been paid for (it has a cost).

Wells yes, the AT300 series sets can be hauled; a class 66 has been used to move 800s between testing areas I believe. But the 801s presumably weren't designed to be attached/detached where the wires run out day in day out, so loco compatiblity might be an issue (I think the 66 noted above is a specially modified one dedicated to that work), and the train provision/maintenance contract might not allow for that either.
 

2. Tear up the contract, and go grovelling to Agility asking for a new one - "and please don't charge the huge stupidity premium we deserve". In addition to that extra payment "for the insult", there a real costs of re-scheduling production, and all those engines to buy. And after a couple of years use, then either they are carried around unused for 25 years, or taken out and put in a shed.

I think 'variation order' is the term rather than 'tear up the contract', but I dread to think what the stupidity premium will be, it was high enough on the original contract. As I noted in my previous post, the 801s would have carried around one (ok Industry Insider, maybe it's two, I never was clear on that but the draft seating layouts from ages ago seem to suggest just one, it isn't entirely clear) engine unused for years anyway, the (only?) silver lining in having more engines is that they might see some use during diversions.

3. Do nothing - keep using HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) while the 801s are held in store, built or unbuilt. Everyone seems to think this is impossible due to its cost or embarrassment for DfT, but in reality it is probably a rational choice (I'd rate it second best). Its cash cost is almost nil - its real cost is in the loss of rolling stock elsewhere in the system, borne by passengers on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and elsewhere.

Aside from the silver lining in getting some 9-car 800s for diversions as a result of the electrification delay, I would probably rate your option 3 quite highly as well, if only the 27.5 years of renting the 801s could be deferred to start when the wires are ready it might have been the best option I think.

As you say though, it might be a combiniation (ie. some 801s converted to 800s, the others left in store until one of the routes from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) or CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) is fully wired).

[drandles]

I notice that the latest plans for redeploying dmus from the Thames Valley after electrification appear to have changed. At least one source is suggesting that the air-conditioned Class 166s are now to remain at Reading for the Gatwick services, and only the Class 165s will now move to Bristol.  I wonder if this means that the Cardiff-Portsmouth service will be covered by the rather unsuitable non-airconditioned Class 165s with 5-a-side seating ?  Definately a step in the wrong direction IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

David

[anthony215]

I notice that the latest plans for redeploying dmus from the Thames Valley after electrification appear to have changed. At least one source is suggesting that the air-conditioned Class 166s are now to remain at Reading for the Gatwick services, and only the Class 165s will now move to Bristol.  I wonder if this means that the Cardiff-Portsmouth service will be covered by the rather unsuitable non-airconditioned Class 165s with 5-a-side seating ?  Definately a step in the wrong direction IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

David

I think it has been changed again now with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) looking to use HST^▸ (High Speed Train) GTI's (aka 4 or 5 carriage hst sets) on the Cardiff/Bristol/Exeter - Plymouth - Penzance route with eth1 58's being used in pairs on the Cardiff - Portsmouth service  like East Midlands do on the Liverpool - Norwich service.  The 165's would also be used on a stopper service along the route allowing the existing Portsmouth service to be sped up.

[ChrisB]

Don't forget that the 166s are also 3x2 seating

[IndustryInsider]

Apart from a small section, and the air-con really is hit-and-miss still.  But, yes, I do believe the current intention is to keep the 166s for the Gatwick's and keep the mojority of the 2-car 165s for the other stuff that'll need covering, with the majority (if not all) of the 3-car 165 heading west.  More sets should then be able to follow post 2019.

[LiskeardRich]

I understand a refurb is due including changing from 2+3 to 2+2 on units coming west.

[IndustryInsider]

I understand a refurb is due including changing from 2+3 to 2+2 on units coming west.

Yes, I've heard the rumour.  Not sure it's true though - there's a lot of equipment positioned under the seats which has stopped them doing it before.  Not sure why it's any different now?

[ellendune]

Are they going to fit the retained HSTS with controlled emission toilets

[Rhydgaled]

I understand a refurb is due including changing from 2+3 to 2+2 on units coming west.

My recolection of what I've read in the past is that the 166s coming west would have at least some of the 2+3 seating replaced by 2+2, but that the 165s were retaining the same 2+3 configuration. I could be wrong though.

[ChrisB]

Are they going to fit the retained HSTS with controlled emission toilets

Retention toilets surely?
Din't think so...as they're not retaining them for long

[ellendune]

Are they going to fit the retained HSTS with controlled emission toilets

Retention toilets surely?
Din't think so...as they're not retaining them for long

So what will replace them and when?

[ChrisB]

I thought 158s were slated for Cardiff-Portsmouths?

The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are simply a (costly) rumour.