Return to Archive -by date - by topic.
Timescale, quantities and deliveries are becoming clear – but will it be a jack of all trades?
Having spent £1.43 million on consultancy from Mott MacDonald for the InterCity Express Programme (IEP), with another £2.32 million to come and financial cum procurement advisors still to be appointed, the Department for Transport (DfT Rail)has finally issued an OJEU Notice inviting expressions of interest in supplying between 500 and 2000 vehicles.
DfT Rail says that it is ‘initiating the process of procuring train provision and associated services for, and on behalf of, franchised train operating companies(TOC). However, with signs that the Department is already regretting taking on the role of Gresley and Stanier, don't expect the Government to actually buy the new trains. According to the OJEU Notice, ‘the advertised contract is likely to be entered into by the TOCs'.
Bless them, the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) forsook poodle mode for once and in their formal response commented, ‘the Department has done a good job in establishing the requirement for a common design but it will be important to get train operators into the driving seat, working with Network Rail, when it comes to contract and design details and project management'.
Fat chance, I suspect, since TOCs are ephemeral creatures while Marsham Street makes Stonehenge seem impermanent. But it's good to see that all resistance has not been crushed by the Minster House lubyanka.
And it will be the TOCs, presumably, who will catch the public opprobrium and financial downside if bits start falling off. Perhaps a traction and rolling stock version of Tom Winsor 's legendary PUG2 contract would be advisable for operators taking on contractual responsibility for the IEP fleets!
A Negotiated Procedure will be used to select a ‘party' which will supply the fleet of new trains, maintain them for a period of around 30 years and raise the necessary finance. According to DfT Rail, the ‘party' can be ‘one or more organisations, formed as a consortium or “special purpose vehicle” for the purposes of IEP'.
Gosh, that takes me back. The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) was the late, great Sir Alastair Morton's spiffing wheeze for bringing private finance and risk into the railway.
Having sat at the master's feet while he explained the idea on several occasions, I never really understood how the SPV worked. In fact, it was tried a couple of times with 20 year franchises.
Bankers code named the last attempt ‘glass elevator'. After a lot of work, it crashed to the bottom of the lift shaft.
It looks as though DfT Rail is ‘doing a Southern Railway' (SR) and looking to place a single contract for the ‘package' to design, build, maintain and finance the IEP fleet. SR placed a series of exclusive 10 year contracts, starting in 1926 for lineside power supplies and 1936 for electric traction equipment with English electric. The last contract was still running when I joined EE Traction in 1962.
So, no messing about, no parallel procurement of two compatible designs. The quantity is set at between 500 and 2000 vehicles delivered at around 250 vehicles per year.
I foresee massive political problems ahead if DfT Rail's love affair with Hitachi continues. The Japanese rail firm was even asked to comment on the IEP specification. You can't imagine that happening elsewhere in Europe ; Orwell's comments on national self loathing were never truer than among railwaymen.
£1million per vehicle is Captain Deltic's suggested rule of thumb for the likely bill. Well, that would be for a sensible modern train. Given the current price of Unobtainium perhaps £1.5 million is more realistic – or, perhaps, still optimistic.
As you can see later DfT Rail is trying to cover all angles, with ‘self propelled' and ‘dual powered' versions in addition to electric traction.
Personally, I think this is defeatist short-termism. Once we get the diet tweaked to cut down emissions, I reckon hamster wheel traction power looks a winner.
After potential bidders have pre-qualified, DfT Rail ‘may' decide to discuss the best means for achieving the objectives of the IEP programme. I read that as meaning that someone with a bit of whizzo kit or spiffing financial wheeze may suggest that said kit or wheeze should be part of the contract, or even get DfT Rail out of a hole.
DfT Rail ‘may' (again) also seek to include the development of ‘one or more train depots' in the contract. Or the Depots may put out to tender separately. A separate debt funding competition ‘in line with HM Treasury best practice', is another option..
At this point note that the evil Rolling Stock Companies have been let back into the competition. But, according to Informed Sources they must link up with a single manufacturer.
Contract award is ‘anticipated' in ‘early 2009'. As with the Class 91 electric locomotive, there will be a pre-series build for service testing.
These would provide ‘approximately' 10 diagrams on the East Coast Main line ECML) from Summer 2012. This number suggests that they the fleet would be 12 or 13 sets assuming 80% availability. An earlier DfT Rail documents suggests five which could be diagrammed for 80% availability. Trial service running would extend over two ‘summer seasons'.
According to DfT Rail, the Southern end of the ECML provides the best location for testing dual powered trains, or electro-diesels as we used to call them in the olden days, both ‘self powered' and under the 25kV ac electrification.
Full service deployment is ‘currently planned' from 2014. The indicative production rate is 250 vehicles per year.
Indicative dates for IEP procurement(Informed Sources Third Law applies
• Return of Expressions of Interest 18 June 2007 • Select Qualified Candidates Summer 2007 • Issue Invitation to Tender Autumn 2007 • Proposals Received Spring 2008 • Best and Final Offers Summer 2008 • Contract Award Winter 2008/9 • Start of pre-series train running 2012 • Start of fleet introduction 2014 |
Assuming that John Prideaux 's aspiration back in the 1980s for a 26 metre long vehicle is achieved, a nine car IEP formation would have more floor space than a 2+10 IC225. The big question is where you put the hamster wheels – in a power car or under the floor. This is covered in the techie feature below.
Introducing 26m vehicles, plus achieving other desirable features such as lower weight will require some infrastructure changes if IEP objectives are to be fully achieved. According to DfT Rail, Network Rail is ‘helping to clarify the effects of trains on its infrastructure'.
You bet! It was Network Rail which told the then Strategic Rail Authority that if the then nascent Class 395s could not meet group standards they would be limited to 40mile/h.
Improving track quality would allow the use of lighter bogies and bodu structures. Ride would also improve.
OversimplificationDemand for long distance rail has grown significantly in recent years. DfT Rail IEP overview Well, yes and no. InterCity operators are indeed carrying more passengers, but the average distance travelled has fallen since 1994 and continues to fall. This suggests that IEP might be rebranded IUEP, with U for urban. |
IEP key features
• Optimisation of costs, on a whole-life and whole system basis, considering ongoing maintenance, availability and reliability, fuel consumption and the effects of the train on infrastructure and infrastructure on trains; • Standardisation of design, to enable maximum flexibility in deployment across the network while retaining flexibility in terms of fit-out; • High levels of seating capacity optimised in relation to vehicle length and train length, offering higher capacity per train and efficient use of on board space, while still providing a quality environment for passengers; • Reduced energy consumption through a reduction in overall weight per seat. This will probably require low weight but very strong vehicle bodies to be used, as has been done on several modern trains, including the West Coast ‘Pendolinos' and the new ‘Javelin' trains for Kent; • Flexibility in terms of train formation, coupling/uncoupling capability and power supply. This will allow trains to accommodate change in deployment, service pattern, demand patterns and energy source throughout their life and; • Improvements in train performance, resilience, maintenance and energy efficiency characteristics. This will also deliver improvements in journey times for passengers. |