Think about it. The issue is not Crossrail, but services into and out of the Paddington train shed.

Of course Crossrail can run on two tracks - if only Crossrail use them as is the case in the central London tunnels. However there will be residual services from further west of Reading as well as, possibly, one or two remaining through trains from Henley and Bourne End which will use the Relief Lines and run into the Paddington train shed. Westwards from the East and West Junctions at Acton freights are added to the mix which can have knock-on effects on the timekeeping of the Crossrail trains so a certain flexibility is needed.

It is already planned that Crossrail takes over the two tracks on the northern side of the layout from Ladbroke Grove eastwards and these will be connected to the Crossrail tunnels at Royal Oak. Near Portobello Junction there will be a single lead making a flat junction with the Relief Lines forming a line which will feed the higher number platforms in the Paddington train shed. Essentially Paddington will be served by four tracks, the two Main Lines, one parallel track off the Up Main from Ladbroke Grove and the single line from the Reliefs.

The layout I have described will probably just about work as long as half the westbound Crossrail trains terminate at Royal Oak. If Crossrail is extended to Tring then there will be no spare capacity on the Relief Lines at all. Paddington train shed will be serviced only from the Main Lines - there will be no flexibility as the Reliefs will be full of Crossrail trains so if anything untoward happens on the two track section of the Mains, Paddington will stop.

To make the Tring extension work reliably there will need to be two grade separated junctions - one where the two Crossrail routes separate at or near Old Oak Common and the other to separate the Western Crossrail services from the Relief lines somewhere west of the Old Oak Junction mentioned above. I would think this junction would have to be somewhere near Acton Main Line and the Crossrail tracks would be tunnelled under Old Oak to the Junction for Tring. There will have to be six tracks inwards from the 'Acton' junction, two for Crossrail and four serving the Paddington train shed. If this is not done then any hope of using the capacity made available in the Paddington train shed by the diversion of the suburban services, and possibly HEx, into the Crossrail tunnels for use by trains from further out will die. The Mains can support 20 trains an hour, possibly 21, and that's it.

Essentially, if Crossrail simply takes over the Relief Lines as far as Old Oak the choke point on the Western will move from Reading, which has just been expensively extended, to the Paddington throat.

fGW employs around 5,000 staff. As I understand it those directly affected by the introduction of the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) on the London - Bristol - Swansea services will be those concerned with the maintenance and cleaning of the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) at Old Oak, St. Philip's Marsh and Landore. I have no information about the staffing levels at each depot, but I guess the total would be around 150 at each site including support staff. I imagine that these staff would transfer to Agility Trains at its sites at Old Oak, Stoke Gifford and Swansea. There may be changes in the traction control headquarters functions but I would expect the introduction of the SETs to reduce fGW's headcount by less than 10 per cent.

The magnitude of the franchise payments (or subsidies) depends, as you suggest on a whole raft of questions and predictions on the way things will develop. However, one should not lose sight of the core issue - the new trains will be much more expensive than the existing ones and the questions all come down to the same basic issue - how will the excess cost be divided between fare-payers and tax-payers?

To get a feel for the size of the problem - the predicted annual rent for the SETs (^300 million) is about one third of fGW's total annual turnover...

If the extra money comes from fare-payers, then the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has procured too many SETs.   If it comes from tax-payers then re-doubling Thingley Junction has moved well out into the future...

That is, essentially, the choice which has to be made.

Absolutely not - as a passenger I'm all for it. But...one has to realise that these things come with a price and one wonders whether people are aware of what that price is?

Somewhere I read an analysis of the predicted availability of the SETs on the Western. I seem to remember that the conclusion was that it was quite low by modern standards, partially due to the variety of sub-categories of SETs, meaning that, for example, one couldn't expect an electric set to be used as a hot standby for a Cotswold line train and a five-coach bi-mode might be too small for a Bristol service.

Another other knock-on effect is that, at the moment, an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) failure at Paddington can be covered, to a certain extent, by using a set planned for a later service but as the SETs aren't planned to go to the West of England, a dedicated HST would probably be needed at Paddington for these trains. This would increase the number of standby trains in London by at least one unless the HST could be used to substitute for a failed SET.

Anyway, this is really all academic! There shouldn't be so many train failures with these brand-new, state-of-the-art trains compared to the current fleet. They are electric, right? And everyone tells me that electrics are more reliable...

As I wrote before, I am not suggesting that the Government buys out all the contract - only that part of it concerned with the financing. I am sure that Agility Trains'/Hitachi's costs for designing, building and testing a train will not be far out of line with anybody else's. The part of the contract that costs the money are those payments to cover the risks involved - operational and financial - as the Government is not prepared to accept any risk. (No train - no pay. This means, for a start, that there will probably be two or three SETs on hot standby each and every day. At ^2.5 million per coach that's about ^40 million in capital earning nothing. Someone has to pay for that). In the financial part of the contract Agility Trains is taking a punt on the cost of money up to 27.5 years away - insurance for this sort of time frame (even if the deal is re-financed every five or seven years out to the full term) is eye-wateringly expensive.

It would be interesting to find out how the train rents would be affected if the Government said, in effect, we will take over the financing of the programme. Governments can borrow money more cheaply than commercial companies, even if the rent for the trains is guaranteed by the Government, and a percentage point or two in interest rates can make a huge difference over a period of a quarter of a century. The Government would obviously have to make some sort of payment to the banks financing Agility Trains to cover lost profits, but as none of the rents have yet been paid (and won't be until the train enters service) I would have thought that the banks could re-deploy those funds earmarked for the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s operation quite quickly. (I am assuming that Agility Trains will still need the banks' funding for the design and manufacturing stages and the construction of the depots). The 'loss' of profits from 2018 onwards are more apparent than real as they would be discounted to the time of termination.

I would hazard a guess that, under such an arrangement the rent for the SET would not be far away from those paid by Virgin for the Class 390s. These trains are comparable, both are recent designs, both have similar performance and while the Pendolino has all the tilting gear, the SET has all those diesel engines. Under such circumstances the train would be more affordable and then, and only then, could more coaches be purchased.

If the deal remains unchanged and the DfT follows its stated policy of stepping back from train procurement (which admittedly it seems to find hard to do) then the beneficiaries will be Siemens, Bombardier and CAF and others unless Agility Trains can place further SET builds using a more conventional (TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)/ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)/bank) deal where the TOC and the ROSCO carry some of the risk.

I can fill in some of the figures. Your are quite right that the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) payments include maintenance and cleaning and the running of the depots - but crucially it also includes the financing costs.

Virgin West Coast also has a 'Total Train Service Provision' deal with Alstom for 140mph tilting trains, the Class 390s. However in this case the finance for the fleet was provided by a ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) which is prepared to carry some of the risk, including the 'end of franchise' risk. As a result Virgin pay less than half per diagrammed coach per month (in 2012 prices) than fGW will do for the Super Express Train. The figures are ^32,400 for the Class 390 and are predicted to be around ^75,000 for the SET.

The ORR has published some quite detailed figures of railway costs. Using the document I mentioned earlier, there is a heading 'Other operating expenditure' which for fGW amounts to ^177 million which includes these, and many other, expenses. It would be reasonable to assume a total charge of some ^80 to ^90 million, tops ^100 million, for the current fleet on the same basis as the IEP calculations - with the exception of the financing charges. This is the basis of my estimation that the IEP will cost three times the total for all the current fleet.

Even if all the ^177 million were to be allocated to maintenance and cleaning, the total for operating all of fGW's rolling stock still only comes to ^245 million - ^55 million less than the IEP payments alone.


None of the other incomes and expenditures for fGW are a function of the type of rolling stock, except for the Variable Track Access charges which do vary, and so these will remain essentially the same. As the SET will be heavier (all those under-floor diesel engines!) than a Mk 3 coach, rest assured that the Variable Track Access Charges will also increase. That part of fGW's staff bill for rolling stock maintenance which can be allocated to the replaced HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) can be reduced, but as all the other trains, and some of the HSTs, will remain with fGW it won't be a huge change.

Some other numbers from the ORR's documents for fGW for year ending 31st March 2013:

Passenger income ^782 million
Other income         ^78 million
      Total income    ^860 million

Fixed access charges to Network Rail       ^79 million
Variable access charges to Network Rail   ^46 million
Other charges to Network Rail                   ^66 million
                                      Total to NR^» (Network Rail - home page)           ^192 million                                     

Other fGW expenditure
Staff costs                                 ^232 million
Diesel fuel                                 ^71 million
Rolling stock charges                ^68 million
Other operating expenditure     ^177 million
plus other headings (which I haven't copied!) for a total of ^704 million.

Franchise premium paid to Govt.                                                      ^435 million
Franchise profit sharing and revenue support received from Govt.  ^270 million
Net franchise payments to Govt.                                                       ^165 million

There are various other incomes and expenditures and balancing items in the ORR's spreadsheet which result in the net premium payments given above.


It doesn't matter how one looks at the figures, this IEP procurement will be a millstone around the railway industry's neck for decades to come unless the Government can find some way to reduce the rents that the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) have to pay. It beggars belief that fGW can increase the income per coach per month by three times - which it will need to do to in order to pay for the train under the existing procurement regime.

The Foster Review into the IEP was published in June 2010. In very polite language it rubbished the programme. The pity of it is that in the last four years none of the senior Civil Servants in the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has had the courage to pull the plug on this procurement nor have any of the various Transport Secretaries and Ministers of State of the Coalition Government taken any effective action on the same lines. A cynic might suggest that the Government are using the passengers from Swindon to subsidise jobs in the North-East - I couldn't possibly comment.

I probably wasn't clear enough. I was trying to suggest that Agility Trains be bought out of the really expensive part of the programme - that of financing the construction of the trains until the rental payments start and the on-going financial risks into the future. If the Government bought the trains, just as they are doing with Crossrail, and made progress payments to Agility Trains, all the costs of raising money on the financial markets would be avoided. Crossrail is being done the way it is because it has become clear that PFI/PPP-type procurements are not affordable. Ask the NHS.

I am sure that Hitachi knows how to build trains and they should carry the design, development and manufacturing risks as in any normal programme. But if you, as a customer, are not prepared to carry any risks, then you WILL pay through the nose.

It's these payments that will cripple future investment in the railway - not buying out that part of the Intercity Express Programme that is concerned with the financing of financial risk. Are you clear that, as the programme now stands, the annual payments for the GW^▸ (Great Western)'s tranche of 'Super Express Trains' will be THREE times the amount that fGW pays the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) for its ENTIRE fleet of trains at the moment? That's the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), Class 143s, Class 150s, Classes 165s and 166s, Class 180s and Uncle Tom Cobley and All.

According to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s website, in the document ^GB^▸ (Great Britain) rail industry financial information for the year ending 31 March 2013^, fGW's annual rolling stock charges currently total ^68 million. Roger Ford's calculation in the August Modern Railways show the annual charge for fGW's tranche of SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) will be around ^300 million.

Do the maths.

I hate to think how the fares will change in order to pay for this civil service cock-up.

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.

It's a management thing. Of the top ten most reliable train fleets in the country, SWT alone run five or six. These include the Class 158 and 159 dmus which are more reliable in terms of miles per technical incident than many more modern electric fleets.

SWT can't afford to have trains sitting down on the approaches to Waterloo in the rush hour - so their maintenance approach is consistent whether the depot is Wimbledon, Salisbury, Bournemouth or the Siemens facility at Northam.

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^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) 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.

The 'missing' trailing crossover between the Up and Down Mains was installed, I think, over this last weekend (19th to 20th July) - at least I first noticed it yesterday afternoon. This is located at the London end of Platforms 9 and 10 and when commissioned (the 'feather' still has a white cross over it) will permit Down trains to halt in Platform 9 and then return eastwards on the Up Main. It's twin, the facing crossover, was put in at the same time as the big changes at Easter last year.

There have been a couple of developments recently in this long, on-going saga. I apologise in advance for the length of this post but the topic is important as it affects everybody - whether taxpayers or travellers.

On 9 July 2014 the National Audit Office published its report on the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s handling of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and Thameslink procurements. I think it is fair to say the NAO was not impressed, although dressed up in mandarin-speak, as it states on its website:


The full report is available at http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Procuring-new-trains.pdf

The other part of this story is that Roger Ford, of Modern Railways magazine, has for some years been trying to identify the actual costs to the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) of these new trains - specifically the IEP. He has in the past produced figures showing what appeared to be excessive costs for the IEP compared to equivalent trains. I used these figures, an extra cost of ^20,000 per month per vehicle making a total of some ^80 million per year for the GW^▸ (Great Western), in a letter I wrote to my MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) in 2011. Some time later he my MP copied me a letter which he had received from Theresa Villiers of the MoT which took me to task for calling the Intercity Express Programme a 'PPI procurement' when actually it is a 'total train service provision' contract. My numbers were unchallenged so I can only assume they were correct.

This week, in his e-mailed preview of his Informed Sources column in Modern Railways, he Mr. Ford uses the NAO's figures to update his estimation of the monthly cost per diagrammed coach of the Hitachi's Super Express Train.

He shows that, on average, Super Express Train operators will be paying Agility Trains ^64,000 per diagrammed vehicle per month. In 2012 the Pendolinos were costing Virgin ^32,400 per vehicle per month. This is a valid comparison as in both cases the contracts are total train service provision deals combining finance, maintenance and cleaning.

I appreciate that the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are nearly at the end of their life, but if IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the leasing costs of a Mk3 coach are something like ^8,000 to ^10,000 per coach per month. Allowing for the leasing costs of the power cars puts up the 'per coach' cost and to make the comparison more accurate the maintenance costs should be added which fGW does on its own account but which for the IEPs and Pendolinos are included in the leasing payments. Even so 'per coach' the total cost can't be much more than ^20,000 per month.

The NAO has confirmed earlier estimations that the Great Western and East Coast operators will be paying twice as much for their trains as Virgin does on the West Coast for a faster and more complex (tilting) train. And the IEP will cost around THREE times as much as the HSTs currently in use.

The unavoidable conclusion is that some combination of increased fares, reduced premiums or increased subsidy will be necessary for the operators of these trains as it beggars belief that three times the amount of work will be got out of them compared with the HSTs or IC225s.

Or, possibly, the DfT will find some cunning financial engineering way of indemnifying the TOCs for the excessive charges - which means you will pay anyway as a taxpayer.

Edited for clarity.

This proposal seems to have come back to life again. See

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2014/07/08/101760-plans-for-green-park-station-serving-reading-fcs-madejski-stadium-on-track-after-government-pledges-32m-for-transport-projects-across-reading/

All I can say is that it will be a long walk to the stadium. As the crow flies the shortest distance is about 3/4 mile.

There are various electrification test coaches which can be used as well as borrowing emus and electric locomotives from other places to draw large currents. Lack of stock is, I suggest, the last of their worries.

These answers are nothing to crow about... 

I think you will find that the behaviour of business is more subtle and differentiated than 'A'-Level economics makes out. Whilst the balance of supply and demand certainly is one of the factors affecting prices, it is by no means the whole story. Also while a company's board of directors are legally required to act in the company's interests and not in their own, they are not obliged to maximise profits. In fact no company in its right mind would do so - it would only invite competition by others who can also read a profit and loss account!

If you look around one sees that the most successful companies are the ones who have something unique to offer - and the competition then tries to copy the product or service. Dyson's Airblade hand dryer has now spawned a multitude of competitors, Apple produced a better MP3 player (the iPod) and practically wiped out the opposition, and so on.

A solution to the increased prices demanded for package holidays during the school holidays is to stagger the school holidays. This is done in Germany - each Land has a different school calendar. It helps spread the load on holiday resorts and the transport system.