I.E.P.

[pete_mcfarlane]

In the best traditions of poor journalists the 'rip-off' headline doesn't really match the content of the article. 

 

So basically the report seems to be suggesting that Government is taking on the risk of speculatively ordering more trains than than are currently needed, on the basis that they'll be needed in future. And if this prediction is wrong, the taxpayer will lose out. So basically they are kicking the Government for making plans to avoid future overcrowding.

 

There's no mention that most of the IEP units will be assembled in the UK, just a criticism of ordering them from a foreign company. But then they've been talking to whoever has replaced Bob Crow as the RMT's rent-a-quote spouter of nonsense, who talks about 'the need to defend ... train building capacity in this country' which I take to mean 'order stuff from Bombardier in Derby rather because they all belong to trade unions'.

[Fenman]

... If the Guardian article is a correct interpretation of the report, then this committees findings are fundamentally flawed, based on false statements of the facts. The UK government have NOT spent and WILL NOT be spending £7.7 billion and £2.8 billion on the trains mentioned. ...

 

The first two sentence of the committee's Conclusions [my emphasis added]:

 

The Department awarded two large contracts to private sector consortia to supply, finance and maintain new trains for Intercity Express and Thameslink with a combined cost of around £10.5 billion, which will be paid by train operators. The Department has opted to lead these procurements itself, rather than have rolling stock companies finance the trains and lease them to the train operators, which has been the usual model for train procurement.

 

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

The first two sentence of the committee's Conclusions [my emphasis added]:

 

The Department awarded two large contracts to private sector consortia to supply, finance and maintain new trains for Intercity Express and Thameslink with a combined cost of around £10.5 billion, which will be paid by train operators. The Department has opted to lead these procurements itself, rather than have rolling stock companies finance the trains and lease them to the train operators, which has been the usual model for train procurement.

 

Paul

And the train operators will be paid by the Govt (i.e. us) in effect because these trains will be a lot more expensive than those they are replacing.  Now increased cost could well be the case with any new train - but could the job have been done more cost-effectively/ ( a rhetorical question of course as that argument is long past).  However 'we' will be getting a train that will have to last for several decades and passengers will have to put up with such things as underfloor engines (when they're running) and so on, plus they will be complex machines to maintain.

[woodenhead]

In principle yes, but that's conveniently forgetting that no ROSCO was interested in procuring the new trains at the outset, nor were any of the then resident TOC's.

 

 

A mute point as the IEP was initiated during GNER's 2nd period of tenure.

My point being that with the right length of contract, timing and freedom a Train operator can go out and purchase a good train - the Pendolino might have had smelly toilets but it is perfectly suited to the railway it runs on.  I am sure whoever got the East Coast route could have procured a sensible train with a flat floor to run between London/Edinburgh and Glasgow.  The challenge which the DFT gave itself was to create something that could go anywhere like the HST but be electric, diesel or both and perhaps that was the downfall as they loaded other requirements on top of already complex requirements.

 

Again Virgin was able to procure units for its Cross Country fleet that could have been converted to electric should the opportunity have arisen - lets not go there though on the interiors which admittedly was about cramming in as much as possible.

 

The government didn't need to procure the trains it needed to create the environment where the operator in conjunction with the ROSCOs could do they buying.

[Xerces Fobe2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30504898

 

Even some MP's are concerned about DaFT and IEP!

[Ron Ron Ron]

The first two sentence of the committee's Conclusions [my emphasis added]:

 

The Department awarded two large contracts to private sector consortia to supply, finance and maintain new trains for Intercity Express and Thameslink with a combined cost of around £10.5 billion, which will be paid by train operators. The Department has opted to lead these procurements itself, rather than have rolling stock companies finance the trains and lease them to the train operators, which has been the usual model for train procurement.

 

Paul

 

Indeed rather than the usual ROSCO's financing the trains, the supplier, Agility Trains (of whom the train builder, Hitachi is part of) have arranged the finance for the purchase of the trains, from the HSBC led consortium.

The cost of the trains for the IEP has been reported as between £5.6 billion (BBC News) and £6.7 billion (Wikipedia). Hitachi give it as 5.7 billion.

 

The investors....

 

The European Investment Bank confirmed that it would be loaning £235 million to the scheme. Further financing has already been signed off from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ (BTMU), Development Bank of Japan (DBJ), HSBC, Lloyds, Mitsubishi Trust, Mizuho, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), Société Générale and Crédit Agricole.

 

A promo video here.

 

 

Contrary to the statement that this is a change in the "usual model", it has been the means by which most of the Desiro fleet and all of the Class 395 fleet have been procured. The only difference is the degree of government underwriting.

 

The DafT have been keen to cut out the ROSCO's from being involved, for quite some time, preferring the manufacturers to arrange the finance.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Now, with diesel engines as part of their prime mover system, to be based in a depot a considerable part of which has a planning restriction on the use of diesel engined rail traction or a depot building which - unless it has been altered (?) has no facility for running-up diesel engines for test purposes as it was designed for electric trains and has no ventilating system.

 

All seems rather amateurish to me.

 

If you are referring to North Pole depot then you are wrong Mike.

It has nothing to do with the DafT. Hitachi are in control over that depot.

 

North Pole has been stripped of much of its fittings and equipment, with new electrical systems, ventilation systems, lifting and other new equipment being installed in preparation for receiving the new trains.

It has all been well documented in the railway press.

The reports state that two building have been demolished in the process.

In other words, the depot has been converted and is being prepared to handle the trains that will be maintained there, including diesel facilities. Far from Amateurish IMHO.

 

The other depots are new.

 

 

.

[Cornish Triang Paul]

North Pole will also do daily stuff on the 57 fleet although heavy work and ownership will be Long a rock.

[The Stationmaster]

If you are referring to North Pole depot then you are wrong Mike.

It has nothing to do with the DafT. Hitachi are in control over that depot.

 

North Pole has been stripped of much of its fittings and equipment, with new electrical systems, ventilation systems, lifting and other new equipment being installed in preparation for receiving the new trains.

It has all been well documented in the railway press.

The reports state that two building have been demolished in the process.

In other words, the depot has been converted and is being prepared to handle the trains that will be maintained there, including diesel facilities. Far from Amateurish IMHO.

 

The other depots are new.

 

 

.

Sorry Ron - I thought that being in a separate sentence it would not imply that DafT chose North Pole (I'm not really sure who did but it does at least have the length for the trains and some modern facilities and buildings).  Provided the former Servicing Shed has been given ventiliation systems (not much sign of that taking place as work has progressed to be honest) then at least they can run up engines in there.  But that does not remove the planning restriction which exists on the east end of the site, i.e. east of the West London Line, which as good as banned diesels except for very occasional shunting moves.

 

As far as I'm aware the only buildings which have been demolished are the former international stores building on the eastern part - which was in the way of the new reception/departure lines - and the former Old Oak Common panel box buildings on the western part of the site which have been removed to facilitate some layout alterations.  There also some quite extensive layout alterations involved on the eastern part but not so much - it appears - on the western part.

North Pole will also do daily stuff on the 57 fleet although heavy work and ownership will be Long a rock.

Interesting - that makes me wonder if there has been a move to get the original Planning Condition quashed?

[HillsideDepot]

Reports in the local press in Bristol suggest the neighbours are far from happy at the idea of IEP diesel engine testing during the night at the new Stoke Gifford CCE Tip (or whatever they call it now) depot. Given their past negative attitude to the prospect Royal Mail flights in and out of Patchway I can't see the railway getting an easy ride on this one, even though the depot is being built.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....Provided the former Servicing Shed has been given ventiliation systems (not much sign of that taking place as work has progressed to be honest) then at least they can run up engines in there. 

 

But that does not remove the planning restriction which exists on the east end of the site, i.e. east of the West London Line, which as good as banned diesels except for very occasional shunting moves......

 

.....Interesting - that makes me wonder if there has been a move to get the original Planning Condition quashed?

 

From what I can see, a completely new series of planning applications covering redevelopment of the depot site were submitted during 2011 and 2012, with further amendments and additions during 2013.

Roof mounted ventilation systems and exhaust facilities were all included.

 

It appears that noise and vibration issues have been covered in great detail.

Effectively the pre-existing noise and vibration conditions (from Eurostar days) have been replaced by a set of new ones, which is entirely logical as they apply to a new set of usage criteria.

 

I note elsewhere in the various submissions, that mention has been made of the overall reduction in railway noise levels in the OOC area, including the main line, as most diesel train movements are being replaced by electric ones.

Also within the North Pole depot, the "last mile" feature allows the all-electric SET's to shunt themselves, reducing the need for shunters.

The application states that the depot will make use of shore supplies to reduce the amount of diesel idling.

 

I'm really surprised that you've assumed that Hitachi and Laing have gone into this multi-million £ venture without considering these issues?

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

From what I can see, a completely new series of planning applications covering redevelopment of the depot site were submitted during 2011 and 2012, with further amendments and additions during 2013.

Roof mounted ventilation systems and exhaust facilities were all included.

 

It appears that noise and vibration issues have been covered in great detail.

Effectively the pre-existing noise and vibration conditions (from Eurostar days) have been replaced by a set of new ones, which is entirely logical as they apply to a new set of usage criteria.

 

I note elsewhere in the various submissions, that mention has been made of the overall reduction in railway noise levels in the OOC area, including the main line, as most diesel train movements are being replaced by electric ones.

Also within the North Pole depot, the "last mile" feature allows the all-electric SET's to shunt themselves, reducing the need for shunters.

The application states that the depot will make use of shore supplies to reduce the amount of diesel idling.

 

I'm really surprised that you've assumed that Hitachi and Laing have gone into this multi-million £ venture without considering these issues?

 

 

.

Having seen other projects fail to do such things Ron I'm interested to learn that they have although I'm surprised that they have apparently got greater approval for any sort of diesel presence at the east end as there was in the past an extremely vociferous group of residents well supported by local council people - which is why diesels were always kept west of the West London Line overbridge and only occasional shunting took place with diesels at the east end (basically only when sets were split for lifting).

 

Come what may they are going to have to run up the diesel power for testing, and probably during preparation, on the bi-power sets so there will be a lot more engine noise within the totality of the site than was previously the case although that never reached its planned maximum of course due to the ENS services not happening.  However most of that will presumably be at the west end and any at the east end will be shielded by buildings.

 

I would honestly have thought that except in the immediate vicinity of the Barlby Road entrance, and possibly near to the Little Scrubs end of the residential area, the amount of noise would change very little - the electric trains will obviously lack exhaust noise (now much better anyway on HSTs) but instead there will be more depot activity than was the case in Eurostar days as very little happened at that end in terms of train movements.  Time will I think tell on that one but presumably the FGW diesels will be dealt with at that end unless fuelling will be available at the west end

[Xerces Fobe2]

With money constraints I can see the future that all IEP's will run on electric only, a bit like the Class 91's  after they were introduced into regular service rarely running flat cab leading!

 

XF

[Oakydoke]

I can see the future that all IEP's will run on electric only,

"All IEP's" ? There's only one isn't there?

[Xerces Fobe2]

"All IEP's" ? There's only one isn't there?

if I recall correctly, different length trains and some only electric.

 

XF

[Oakydoke]

Whoosh.........!

[Ron Ron Ron]

[andy stroud]

They do look like nice trains. I just hope that the resulting passenger accomodation offers some degree of comfort and hopefully a little bit of space, otherwise if we are all crammed in like sardines, then the whole project will have been a complete waste.

[Corbs]

They do look like nice trains. I just hope that the resulting passenger accomodation offers some degree of comfort and hopefully a little bit of space, otherwise if we are all crammed in like sardines, then the whole project will have been a complete waste.

Nah, we'll just refurbish the HSTs again

[Ron Ron Ron]

........if we are all crammed in like sardines, then the whole project will have been a complete waste.

 

It won't be a waste if that's what the DafT want, even if it's less than ideal for the passengers.

They'll get what they ordered.

 

If they do end up being cramped, blame the DafT and TOC's, it won't be Hitachi fault or the fault of the train itself.

 

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

It won't be a waste if that's what the DafT want, even if it's less than ideal for the passengers.

They'll get what they ordered.

 

If they do end up being cramped, blame the DafT and TOC's, it won't be Hitachi fault or the fault of the train itself.

 

 

 

.

Whispers are emerging that Hitachi are not so enamoured of DafT as they once were - perhaps something to do with earlier 'promises' allegedly now being seen as rather hollow?

[Xerces Fobe2]

Oh dear they didn't drop this one!

[Corbs]

Are we going to have to find another name for these rather than IEP? as the 'P' stands for 'Project'?

 

Any suggestions?

[Southernman46]

NIP's............................ ???

 

Sorry..........  

[Corbs]

 

Moving along.....