whats the plan for that space

I think you need to say tgat you lifted this directly from ukr newsgroup, rarher than from the Sunday Times?

FirstGroup is considering handing back the ^1.1bn First Great Western rail contract three years ahead of schedule as the economic downturn and delays in the introduction of the new generation of intercity trains threaten the viability of the franchise.

A unique break clause in the transport giant's contract allows it to terminate the franchise in 2013, and save ^826.6m in payments to the government over the following three years. FirstGroup is giving this serious consideration because it is already missing revenue targets as the recession hits demand for services that include the London-to-Swansea and London-to-Oxford lines and routes throughout south-west England.

In a further hindrance to FirstGroup, the business case envisaged a modern fleet of trains generating enough revenue to cover the rapid escalation in fees from 2013 to 2016. But the government confirmed this month that the new intercity trains would arrive from 2016, not 2013 as first thought.

FirstGroup must decide by the year end whether it will continue beyond 2013, but a verdict is expected sooner. "We have to make a decision before the end of the year as to whether we are going to exercise our contractual right to extend the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) franchise to March 2016," the company said.

It is understood that FirstGroup is not seeking to renegotiate the contract after National Express's attempts to haggle over the ^1.4bn East Coast franchise in 2009 ended in failure. National Express relinquished the loss-making deal, lost its chief executive and narrowly avoided exile from the passenger rail market.

Douglas McNeill, analyst at Charles Stanley Securities, said FirstGroup had a strong case for requesting revised terms because of the intercity delays and likely disruption from the building of the ^16bn Crossrail line, which includes major work at First Great Western's London Paddington terminus. But he added that the Department for Transport would be confident of recouping almost all of the ^800m it would lose from the early termination. "FirstGroup has the moral high ground in seeking revised terms, but since there would be no shortage of interest if the franchise were retendered, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) may feel it holds the whip hand."

The First Great Western contract demands hefty payments ^ more than ^140m this year alone ^ but it is heavily reliant on government support to meet its targets: it received an extra subsidy of ^133m last year.

This will be one of the first major decisions for Tim O'Toole, the former head of London Underground who is FirstGroup's new chief executive.

The IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is being tightly specified by the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport). The latest re-specification see's the design frozen round 5 car Voyager type trains intended to replace 8 and 9 coach HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train). The DFT see's these trains as their own project and they will specify how they are used, crewed and maintained.

Very few EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) versions will be built under the DFT plans for the old WR. A large number of expensive to buy, expensive to maintain EDMUs will used. HSTs to be rebuilt (again) for services to the South West. The extra cost of these two aspects of the project would electrify many more miles of railway making vastly cheaper pure EMU working possible across more of the region.

The next bit will result in possibly the most stupid aspect of the project. The MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) will be electrified, good. Pantograph cars will be inserted into the 222 fleet, okay, but pricey since Bombardier have cut up the jigs in Bruge. The 222s will then be transferred to OC and Laira to take over services to the South West allowing HST to be withdrawn.

Those expensive pantograph cars being used as far as Newbury, where the diesels take over. In fact the engines will be switched on at Reading as they need time to warm at idle according to Cummins. This now introduces a very mixed fleet operating on the old WR, requiring two new depots. (Hitachi building two to maintain IEP)  ABSOLUTELY BLOODY MAD!!

All this after Bombardier/Siemens and Alstom were forbidden to put variations to the spec. on the bids they submitted, the Japanese, no problem. The offer to build a "flat pack" factory in the North East ignores the threat to British HIGHLY SKILLED jobs in Derby, Stafford,Crewe and other places where we do already take part in multi-national train projects. The IEP orders will see people employed for perhaps 10-12 years building the wrong train for the UK, and very unlikely to win orders elsewhere in the EU^» (European Union - about), who quite rightly look to their own already competitive train industry to supply their needs. NOTE-The Japanese do not buy European built trains.

The IEP hit all sorts of problems quite early on, the sheer cost and complexity of what was being proposed should have killed it off in favour of a properly planned progressive electrification and replacement train programme. At every turn this one small department within the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) headed by this "Hitachi" loving Civil Servant has changed the rules. The Japanese we are now hearing are offering to take on some Eurofighter Typhoons that were destined for the RAF^▸ (Royal Air Force) to allow the MOD to make zero cost defence cuts, and then part pay for the trains.

Any journalist asking awkward questions is then banned from Hitachi/ Civil Service briefings, heads of TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are summarily summoned to the DFT to be told what they will have to do to with regards to the IEP, it is as if Stalin is having a role in replacing the HST!

Rolling electrification is cheaper, creates skilled jobs and allows high quality trains to operate at much lower cost. Whole life costs are much lower. Energy security is also improved, what will the cost of diesel be in 6 weeks, let alone 10 years?

The pure EMU with loco haulage at the "edges" was considered but rejected, the reasons for rejection were not disclosed, but we understand one of them was that there is 'No domestic loco building capability." Really?   HST rebuilding was originally rejected as too expensive, then suddenly became cheaper when the latest option was unveiled. The corrosion issues on the Mk3 coaches has somehow become a non-problem according to the DFT. If that is the case then the low cost rebuilding of those HST power cars to act as EMU haulers (2 power cars with new cabs coupler gear overhauled and coupled back to back) should also be a "non-problem".

The question must be asked,  why is the DFT, or should I say, this person within the DFT going to so much trouble to see that the Japanese get to build the wrong type of train for the UK? A train that we will have to live with for the next 40 odd years.