East Midlands Franchise 2019-

[northwichcat]

Was Southern pre GTR that bad? As far as I've seen, it's only since it became GTR that it really went downhill. GWR eventually improved - but the rest were generally shambolic.

Southern pre-GTR didn't have good punctuality and while they generally operated a modern fleet some of the interiors of the modern trains were allowed to get very shabby, although the same could be said about the 350/1s under LM.

First have held a Great Western franchise twice, the first one (originally awarded to Great Western Holdings which got brought out by First Group) ended in 2006, it was that one that was particularly bad.

 

[Kettledrum]

It sounds like you think XC "park up HSTs" for no reason.
Or run short formed trains leaving Voyagers just hanging around for fun?
There will be reasons for this, even if you can't see them.

Yes, it's the former - it relates to the under-utilisation of the HST's until the last year. There were financial reasons for it. Arriva exploited the poorly worded franchise and realised they weren't obliged to use all the HST's and they left them parked up in sidings. Customers were crammed into shorter trains completely unneccesarily.

 

[whhistle]

There were financial reasons for it. Arriva exploited the poorly worded franchise and realised they weren't obliged to use all the HST's and they left them parked up in sidings. Customers were crammed into shorter trains completely unneccesarily.

So there was a reason - financial. Thus, not unneccesarily at all.
I really enjoy that people think companies do things to annoy customers on purpose. Really? Really?!

Please remember to cite your sources for information too, otherwise it comes across as opinion rather than fact.

 

[Robertj21a]

Yes, it's the former - it relates to the under-utilisation of the HST's until the last year. There were financial reasons for it. Arriva exploited the poorly worded franchise and realised they weren't obliged to use all the HST's and they left them parked up in sidings. Customers were crammed into shorter trains completely unneccesarily.

But, if true, that actually sounds like commercial common sense ! - why was the franchise allowed to be so poorly worded ?

 

[Senex]

But, if true, that actually sounds like commercial common sense ! - why was the franchise allowed to be so poorly worded ?

Commercial common sense, but utter contempt for the passengers/customers.

 

[Robertj21a]

Commercial common sense, but utter contempt for the passengers/customers.

But the fault appears to be with the (poor) terms of the franchise.

 

[Senex]

But the fault appears to be with the (poor) terms of the franchise.

If we're stucj with franchising, do we want the sort of franchises where remote civil servants sitting in Whitehall specify down to the last detail what train services should run and how they should be provided, or do we want a little room for the franchisees to innovate, deliver better services, mold things their own way? If the former, then you're absolutely right. If the latter, then the problem is not with the franchise but with a franchisee not being willing to use the capacity it has required to provide in order to ensure that customers are properly accommodated because to do so would give it a worse financial outcome.

 

[paddy1]

Exactly the same happened with First Capital Connect when they had the Thameslink franchise. Sidings crammed with idle rolling stock off peak and shoulder peak during weekdays and passengers crammed into four coach trains. I made endless complaints about this but it just fell on deaf ears and FCC were actually in denial about four coach trains causing overcrowding, insinuating that it was a perception problem on my part and that their 'on train passenger counting systems' (wasn't aware they had these on 319's???) indicated otherwise. In the end, they conceded it was down to money and that it was not financially viable to run eight car trains even when the passenger loadings were more than enough to fill them.

So you see, TOC's can always argue it both ways. Either they haven't got sufficient rolling stock in the first place to run more carriages, which I concede is true with some TOC's in cases where all stock is being fully utilised throughout the day, or where they have surplus stock but choose no to use it to alleviate overcrowding, justify this on the basis that it's not economically viable, as happened with London Midland, FCC and Stagecoach when they ran SWT, and as happens now with XC.

 

[edwin_m]

However much you may wish otherwise the franchises are commercial businesses that aim to make a profit. They will stick rigidly to the franchise specification unless they see a profit in going beyond it. In this case the extra costs of running HSTs instead of Voyagers would have to be outweighed by the extra revenue from getting more passengers. This is particularly complicated if extra HST journeys mean they can no longer be serviced at a single depot or if there is a major mileage element in the leasing/maintenance costs.

Like all commercial businesses bidding for work, if they include some "fat" in their bids to provide "nice to haves" beyond what the specification says, then they will risk losing out on price to the bidder that didn't do that.

 

[Robertj21a]

If we're stucj with franchising, do we want the sort of franchises where remote civil servants sitting in Whitehall specify down to the last detail what train services should run and how they should be provided, or do we want a little room for the franchisees to innovate, deliver better services, mold things their own way? If the former, then you're absolutely right. If the latter, then the problem is not with the franchise but with a franchisee not being willing to use the capacity it has required to provide in order to ensure that customers are properly accommodated because to do so would give it a worse financial outcome.

If it's a franchise then the TOC is only required to comply with the terms laid down. Assuming that the TOC is answerable to their shareholders then they would be foolish to do otherwise. If the TOC is expected to innovate and take greater risks then that must also be detailed in the franchise documentation - and the pricing adjusted accordingly.

 

[Kneedown]

Withdrawal formally confirmed, in the following statement: https://www.globalrailnews.com/2018...pulls-out-of-east-midlands-franchise-bidding/

“FirstGroup, alongside our bidding partner Trenitalia UK, has decided to withdraw from the East Midlands franchise competition in order to focus on our joint bid for the West Coast Partnership franchise. This is an exciting opportunity to be the first operator of HS2, as well as run conventional West Coast services from London to Glasgow.

“We remain committed to retaining a leading position in the UK rail market.

“We will continue to bid in a disciplined way which is good for our stakeholders, the sector as a whole and above all, passengers.”

I don't personally buy the waffle about wanting to focus on West Coast/HS2.
What with a likely rolling stock crisis of epic proportions (bi mode debacle, No HST compliance planned, local fleet short and falling to bits) along with playing second fiddle to Thameslink South of Bedford (and perhaps Corby) the franchise is becoming a bit of a hot potato.

 

[hooverboy]

However much you may wish otherwise the franchises are commercial businesses that aim to make a profit. They will stick rigidly to the franchise specification unless they see a profit in going beyond it. In this case the extra costs of running HSTs instead of Voyagers would have to be outweighed by the extra revenue from getting more passengers. This is particularly complicated if extra HST journeys mean they can no longer be serviced at a single depot or if there is a major mileage element in the leasing/maintenance costs.

Like all commercial businesses bidding for work, if they include some "fat" in their bids to provide "nice to haves" beyond what the specification says, then they will risk losing out on price to the bidder that didn't do that.

makes a lot more sense running a large uniform fleet of small multiple units times x then as a fleet,that way they can mix and match their runnings/loads to times of day/seasonal variations.
I agree from a train operators point of view it is not a good business plan running 2/3 empty HST sets for 2/3 of the day....but you want to maximise capacity at the same time.
would be much better running a 3*3 car multiple unit at peak, one of which can be redeployed as a rescue/holiday surplus stock as and when location and footfall demand.the TOC's must have figures somewhere to know what routes are busy at what time of year.

the prerequisites to the stock would be able to cope with different duty cycles...if it was possible to programme a unit into individual drive modes for different routes you could chop and change between a 153/156/158 style stopper and a 100mph semi fast regional.
could be do-able with EMU/BEMU/DEMU as the gearing is not necessarily fixed,you can just energise/de-energise poles on a traction motor as and when needed,and have pre-selected traction control in the onboard software.

might need different engines for express operation,but theoretically running gear could be standardised, things like drag play a much greater part at speed, so you'd need to look at aerodynamics and power to weight etc....having said that,drag also plays a part on rural traction if you only have a sparcely populated cabin..you need to get as much mpg as possible.

even a motorcyclist on a 125 can tell you you get better mpg/mph cowered behind a faring at 70mph than sitting upright(realistic 10% improvement in both)..I dread to think just how muchcounter- force a 3m*3m flat face of a sprinter has on fuel economy at those speeds.

 

[43096]

I don't personally buy the waffle about wanting to focus on West Coast/HS2.
What with a likely rolling stock crisis of epic proportions (bi mode debacle, No HST compliance planned, local fleet short and falling to bits) along with playing second fiddle to Thameslink South of Bedford (and perhaps Corby) the franchise is becoming a bit of a hot potato.

You may not "buy the waffle", but it makes sense. Companies have limited resources in terms of bid teams and financial resources (First haven't paid a dividend for five years, so aren't exactly cash rich) so will focus on what they think their priorities are. Bidding is expensive and no company has bottomless pits of money to throw at multiple bids concurrently.

 

[HH]

There's plenty of evidence that owning groups are spending less on bids than they used to - just ask any evaluator!

 

[Robertj21a]

There's plenty of evidence that owning groups are spending less on bids than they used to - just ask any evaluator!

Quite. They're in a difficult situation when the bidding process is expensive anyway, but the risks of the bid being badly calculated can be very costly or, possibly, fatal for the company.

 

[Senex]

What with a likely rolling stock crisis of epic proportions (bi mode debacle, No HST compliance planned, local fleet short and falling to bits) along with playing second fiddle to Thameslink South of Bedford (and perhaps Corby) the franchise is becoming a bit of a hot potato.

That makes a lot of sense to me — indeed, it could be put even more strongly. And you could add on an inadequate and unexpandable terminus in London and the possibility of chaos coming in Sheffield in due course with electrification/modernisation works for HS2 that will be of no benefit at all to this franchise.

 

[whhistle]

In this case the extra costs of running HSTs instead of Voyagers would have to be outweighed by the extra revenue from getting more passengers.

... of which (the passengers) aren't guaranteed.
It's surprising what people will accept these days. Many accept that standing on trains, crowded and smelly is just how it is.

 

[HH]

Quite. They're in a difficult situation when the bidding process is expensive anyway, but the risks of the bid being badly calculated can be very costly or, possibly, fatal for the company.

Indeed, but when have such considerations ever got in the way of someone trying to cut costs? Some of the errors in recent bids would make your eyes water.

 

[Domh245]

Someone spotted in a different thread an ITT from Arriva that appears to be for the East Midlands franchise looking for:

— Electric Multiple Units for introduction by 2022, (for Corby)

— Bimode Multiple Units for introduction from 2021 onwards, (for HST replacement or Intercity as a whole)

— Self-powered Multiple Units for introduction by 2022. (either local fleet or Liverpool-Norwich replacement)

Which gives us plenty to speculate on about what the ITT wants and what Arriva are proposing. It also means that the ITT is out and in the hands of the bidders, so the public register copy should also be out soon (TM)

 

[whhistle]

Are we able to see a copy of the bid after the contract has been awarded?

 

[Domh245]

We don't see bids, but we do (eventually) see a copy of the franchise agreement, which is based on the winning bid.

 

[paddy1]

I'm really worried about Arriva. Passengers in Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby, Leicester and Nottingham have been able to see first hand how Arriva have run a major intercity service - namely X Country trains. It's very bad. Many who have a choice (such as Derby to Sheffield) have chosen EMT over XC due to chronic overcrowding.

If Arriva were to run EMT in the same way that they run XC, we could see HSTs parked in the sidings whilst services are run by 4 car Merideans - with no doubled up trains at all. 2 x 5 car Merideans would be a thing of the past.

It sounds completely unrealistic, and I can hear cries of "surely that would never happen here", but it has happened on XC.

Stagecoach running EMT already do what you are afraid Arriva might do (and what XC do) if they got the EMT franchise - i.e. ruunning short trains and keeping longer trains in the sidings. The sidings at Cricklewood are full of HST's and five and seven car Meridians for much of the day during weekdays, yet passengers are crammed in to four or five car Meridians on the off peak semi fast St Pancras - Nottingham/Sheffield services, which are often full and standing. It is even worse on a Sunday when there is only one train an hour to Nottingham and Sheffield for much of the day covering all stops and often only formed or four or five car Meridians, resulting in some really appalling overcrowding. So I can't really see how much worse it could get under Arriva (or anyone else). Yes, I know it's all about money and cutting down on leasing costs etc.. but it's terrible customer service and passengers using EMT have been getting a raw deal under Stagecoach for many years. Will be glad to see the back of them.

 

[HH]

We don't see bids, but we do (eventually) see a copy of the franchise agreement, which is based on the winning bid.

However all the numbers, and sometimes other interesting stuff, are redacted.

 

[43096]

Stagecoach running EMT already do what you are afraid Arriva might do (and what XC do) if they got the EMT franchise - i.e. ruunning short trains and keeping longer trains in the sidings. The sidings at Cricklewood are full of HST's and five and seven car Meridians for much of the day during weekdays, yet passengers are crammed in to four or five car Meridians on the off peak semi fast St Pancras - Nottingham/Sheffield services, which are often full and standing. It is even worse on a Sunday when there is only one train an hour to Nottingham and Sheffield for much of the day covering all stops and often only formed or four or five car Meridians, resulting in some really appalling overcrowding. So I can't really see how much worse it could get under Arriva (or anyone else). Yes, I know it's all about money and cutting down on leasing costs etc.. but it's terrible customer service and passengers using EMT have been getting a raw deal under Stagecoach for many years. Will be glad to see the back of them.

Clearly you do not understand the franchising process. EMT are delivering what is in their contract with the DfT to deliver. It doesn't matter who the operator is*, they would have had to deliver the same service.

* It does in the sense that some are more competent than others at delivering what they are supposed to. It's personal opinion, but I have always though EMT have done a very good job considering the constraints they have.

 

[Robertj21a]

Stagecoach running EMT already do what you are afraid Arriva might do (and what XC do) if they got the EMT franchise - i.e. ruunning short trains and keeping longer trains in the sidings. The sidings at Cricklewood are full of HST's and five and seven car Meridians for much of the day during weekdays, yet passengers are crammed in to four or five car Meridians on the off peak semi fast St Pancras - Nottingham/Sheffield services, which are often full and standing. It is even worse on a Sunday when there is only one train an hour to Nottingham and Sheffield for much of the day covering all stops and often only formed or four or five car Meridians, resulting in some really appalling overcrowding. So I can't really see how much worse it could get under Arriva (or anyone else). Yes, I know it's all about money and cutting down on leasing costs etc.. but it's terrible customer service and passengers using EMT have been getting a raw deal under Stagecoach for many years. Will be glad to see the back of them.

Whoever it is that runs the franchise in future will be obliged to comply with the detailed specification, it's not within their authority to do whatever they want. Personally, I always find that Stagecoach are about the most professional of the operators and their EMT services seem to comply with what is required of them. As mentioned previously, if any TOC is expected to *also* do X, Y or Z then it needs to be specified in the franchise contract, and costed accordingly.

 

[class26]

Whoever it is that runs the franchise in future will be obliged to comply with the detailed specification, it's not within their authority to do whatever they want. Personally, I always find that Stagecoach are about the most professional of the operators and their EMT services seem to comply with what is required of them. As mentioned previously, if any TOC is expected to *also* do X, Y or Z then it needs to be specified in the franchise contract, and costed accordingly.

I will second that. Living on one of the lines of the franchise EMT are a massive improvement over what we had previously (Central Trains) and they seem to do the best they can with the bad hand dealt by the DFT

 

[Failed Unit]

I will second that. Living on one of the lines of the franchise EMT are a massive improvement over what we had previously (Central Trains) and they seem to do the best they can with the bad hand dealt by the DFT

I have noticed the mainline people seem less happy with stagecoach that the former CT people. Yes central trains set the standard low as they were one of the worse operators ever in the uk. But EMTs biggest problem in the rural areas is the lack of trains. Which actually is from the CT days as they put numbers in the tender that were too low.

Sadly franchises have little wiggle room which I suspect is why the Lincolnshire timetable has not got touched despite the upgrade to the joint line. Really hoping the new franchise will open that longer than 8 hours now the line is available.

 

[yorksrob]

Have you actually traveled with EMT?
Stagecoach have done a poor job, that's why I want them to lose it!

Maybe I've got rose tinted spectacles on, but I was hoping First would use their experience with GWR to improve the EM Intercity services.

EMT's InterCity services are some of the best in the country in terms of value and comfort and their Liverpool-Nottingham route is generally the best way to get across the Pennines in my experience.

By the sounds of things their local services need a bit of a step change in provision admittedly.

 

[Failed Unit]

EMT's InterCity services are some of the best in the country in terms of value and comfort and their Liverpool-Nottingham route is generally the best way to get across the Pennines in my experience.

By the sounds of things their local services need a bit of a step change in provision admittedly.

They do. But they considering the stock they have that can’t really happen. But some improvements have taken place as we know Newark - Matlock. As I said in my previous post they try - CT didn’t. I am hoping the new franchise brings a northern style revolution. If it uses 15x I don’t care. Clockface timetables and decent connections is what I want. Be lovely to see Lincoln get a direct service to Birmingham back but I will only believe those rumours when I see them in a bid document.

 

[yorksrob]

Was Southern pre GTR that bad? As far as I've seen, it's only since it became GTR that it really went downhill. GWR eventually improved - but the rest were generally shambolic.

No, they seemed fairly decent to me. Some good pricing. Stations and trains nicely kept. Innovation with the introduction of Ashford - Brighton.

Then again, they did follow Connex which wasn't that good.