London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[Peter Sarf]

You're working on the assumption that all 4 vehicles weigh the same. I suspect the trailers are a fair bit lighter.

Yes the trailers are lighter but not enough of a difference in weight to be insignificant as regards the power to weight ratio. It might be OK on a branch service if the existing layover times were enough to accommodate a longer end to end timing but the existence of some non-standard units would probably not fit in with the overall fleet diagramming.

 

[Wolfie]

But the DfT could tell the franchises they cannot lease the available stock - to influence prices.

They could indeed ... and then face what would almost certainly be a successful application by the ROSCO for judicial review for breach of ECHR property rights and distortion of the market!

As a Whitehall insider methinks you don't appreciate the constraints which Govt operates under, it can't just screw people/firms (well, at least those who are either prosperous enogh to go to Court or able to access legal aid), over....

Would the DfT be able to do that without ending up having to pay for the stock themselves?

In a word NO! ECHR property rights would be infringed by any such attempted action.

 

[The Ham]

They could indeed ... and then face what would almost certainly be a successful application by the ROSCO for judicial review for breach of ECHR property rights and distortion of the market!

As a Whitehall insider methinks you don't appreciate the constraints which Govt operates under, it can't just screw people/firms (well, at least those who are either prosperous enogh to go to Court or able to access legal aid), over....



In a word NO! ECHR property rights would be infringed by any such attempted action.

However, could they not just specify in the ITT something which meant that the existing rolling stock did not meet those requirements. In doing so it would limit the use of those trains. If they can't then Northern could be stuck with Pacers forever!

 

[northwichcat]

However, could they not just specify in the ITT something which meant that the existing rolling stock did not meet those requirements. In doing so it would limit the use of those trains. If they can't then Northern could be stuck with Pacers forever!

DfT have told Northern for non-electrified routes they can only use the following in their rolling stock plan for the December 2019 timetable:

• Sprinters currently used by Northern Rail
• 15xs or 17xs which get released by other operators
• New build
• Loco hauled

So there's quite a few restrictions there, not just no use of Pacers.

 

[Wolfie]

DfT have told Northern for non-electrified routes they can only use the following in their rolling stock plan for the December 2019 timetable:

• Sprinters currently used by Northern Rail
• 15xs or 17xs which get released by other operators
• New build
• Loco hauled

So there's quite a few restrictions there, not just no use of Pacers.

Yup, but all broad brush and not targetted at one ROSCO or type of rolling stock....

 

[Class 170101]

They could indeed ... and then face what would almost certainly be a successful application by the ROSCO for judicial review for breach of ECHR property rights and distortion of the market!

As a Whitehall insider methinks you don't appreciate the constraints which Govt operates under, it can't just screw people/firms (well, at least those who are either prosperous enogh to go to Court or able to access legal aid), over....

Or DfT says you may lease the stock but with no extra subsidy payment or premium payment reduction discussion will be entered into.I doubt the operators would bother on those grounds.

Also any operator taking government to court may find their business model severely impaired. eg NXEA although they met all the criteria for their franchise still lost their franchise as NXEC walked away from franchise and consequently upsetting the government.

 

[Wolfie]

Or DfT says you may lease the stock but with no extra subsidy payment or premium payment reduction discussion will be entered into.I doubt the operators would bother on those grounds.

Also any operator taking government to court may find their business model severely impaired. eg NXEA although they met all the criteria for their franchise still lost their franchise as NXEC walked away from franchise and consequently upsetting the government.

Govt has to operate in a fair and transparent manner. Failure to do so can and does lead to successful litigation - in the last seven years I have headed part of HMG's response to three Public Inquiries, over a hundred applications for judicial review and literally thousands of other legal issues. Either of the options you set out, if directly targetted against one TOC/ROSCO, could and likely would lead to litigation.

Editted to add:
Any evidence of what might be perceived as retaliation by HMG against a company which had the teremity to question its judgement legally would be received extremely badly by the Courts. I am sure that the SofS for Transport really would not want to be hauled in front of a Court to explain an apparent Contempt of Court by his Dept - that would be political kiss of death (and likely to cost £M!).....