A Train for all Reasons?

I still haven't posted the promised stuff about the independent review of the Government's (insane) InterCity Express Programme (or IEP).


This is the multi-billion pound doo-dah of which the proposed Hitachi Super Express Train is the pinnacle, a programme that started out as a simple project to replace "near-life expired" InterCity 125 trains (the British Rail High Speed Train introduced from 1976 that still forms the backbone of diesel-hauled, long-distance routes across the UK).


The Department for Transport's (DfT) project sprawled, spawning:

• electric versions, to replace the nowhere near life-expired InterCity 225s that serve London-Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh.
  
  
  
• And, even more bizarrely, to replace electric commuter trains London-Peterborough/Cambridge/King's Lynn;
• "bi-mode" versions (a diesel generator at one end and an electric transformer car at the other, to replace trains currently operating both under the wires and beyond them);
• and a "pure" (sic) diesel version (mainly to operate on the Great Western mainline London-Bristol/Cardiff/Plymouth/Penzance).
  
  

The last Government commissioned an independent review from Sir Andrew Foster, which has now reported. There is so much great stuff in it that I've been drafting a blog post for about a fortnight now, and it's still nowhere near ready (and is about 2,000 words long). Which is absurd. So, instead, you get some juicy quotes from the report and you can work it out for yourselves.

"The specification of the train has driven features that have been questioned and may well be unnecessary (eg, the requirement to have a small diesel generator to power the train in the event of a loss of electricity). It should be noted that without these features there are similar broadly acceptable products available in the market from other manufacturers."

"The performance of the [bi-mode] train, when using the diesel power source, is poorer than existing trains... many local and some longer distance journey times [will take] longer than today's trains ... especially in the hillier terrain such as north of Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness, or to Devon and Cornwall."


"It must be questioned whether it is a sensible policy to be investing in IEP-specific diesel generator vehicles that will have a life of 30-40 years given the uncertainty over the future price of oil and the possibility that extended electrification might reduce the need for them after 10-20 years in service."

This is what I think of as a "Bingo!" moment -- he gets it.

"It is technically feasible for electric trains to be hauled by conventional diesel locomotive... and this arrangement could be cost effectively used for some of the services that need to run through onto non-electrified routes. ... The risk of locomotives becoming obsolete after 10-20 years in service is mitigated as there is an active worldwide market for diesel locomotives."


Which is pretty much what everyone else (including, in all modesty, me) has been saying all along.


"An alternative, well-established practice [to distributed power] for similar long-distance services across Europe is to use a high powered electric locomotive fitted with sanding equipment, and conventional coaching stock which allows variable length trains to operate."


"Redeployment of existing trains (eg from Thameslink) is a credible option. These and the existing Class 365 trains could be re-engineered with new traction equipment to improve acceleration and reliability, as well as the enhancement of passenger facilities by the installation of air conditioning equipment (for instance)."


"If additional capacity is needed in the medium term then existing designs for high performing, high capacity commuter trains are both credible and technically acceptable."


"InterCity 125 trains are significantly cheaper to lease than new trains, and such a re-engineering [eg, toilet tanking and new doors] would be cost-effective for many passenger services that are largely operating off the electrified network."


"Whilst the needs of the three markets [long-distance, interurban and commuter] may be met within a single train type, the greatly different mix [of seating types, styles, ancillary facilities, proportion of toilets and luggage space, etc] is more commonly met by a family of trains albeit sometimes from a single manufacturer...


One such example is the Desiro family by Siemens as operated by South West Trains with different internal fit-outs, carriage lengths and door types and locations, but with substantially common components. Other manufacturers have similar families; none promote a single train for all purposes. [emphasis mine]"

"By retaining the highest possible frequency and forming many services from two [Hitachi Super Express] trains coupled together without interconnecting corridors, the number of train crew would be greater than otherwise necessary."


"One credible alternative would be to run fewer but higher capacity trains."

"It has become apparent that the benefits claimed as part of DfT's proposal are not unique to the IEP proposition but could be at least substantially achieved by alternative means at a reduced cost [emphasis mine]."


Since DfT seem incapable of coming up with alternatives, Foster does it for them, proposing:

• not replacing Class 365s to Cambridge and King's Lynn with IEPs but, instead, with the 377s displaced from Thameslink by their new rolling stock, or either re-engineered 365s or a new electric multiple unit.
• Great Western Mainline services Paddington-Bristol/Weston-super-Mare/Cardiff/Swansea, etc, could be replaced with a new interurban EMU (ie, not the all-singing IEP).
• Great Western Mainline services Paddington-Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance replaced by re-engineered IC125s.
• East Coast Mainline services (London-York/Newcastle/Edinburgh should keep the existing IC225s until 2026 when they can be replaced with a new long-distance EMU.
  

"If new trains are confirmed as necessary, it is also clear that the specification for them must be written so as to permit the manufacturers to tender a development of their existing product ranges. This will encourage a more cost-effective outcome than a highly specialised train specification that has no market elsewhere in the world."

"I have been surprised that more attention is not paid by DfT to international comparison and interaction. We should be capitalising on the research and development work carried out elsewhere, examining and improving our ability to use internationally available products and generally taking advantage of the economies driven by competitive railway product markets abroad."



In summary:

"I am not convinced that IEP as currently envisaged can in fact realise its potential for aligning future demand with capacity."

"There are unresolved technical questions."

"I am not convinced that all the credible alternatives to IEP have been identified, worked up and assessed on an equal footing with it."

"More than half the benefit on the East Coast Mainline and around three-quarters of it on the Great Western Mainline [ie, at least 65% of the benefits overall] could be achieved for 40-60% of the cost of IEP."


"The widely welcomed decision to electrify the GWML ... has led to questions about the extent to which these developments interact with IEP, and whether their impact has been fully assessed."

If I were a DfT civil servant with some responsibility for the IEP programme, I might have started looking for a new job.