Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
More Pendolinos can't be built, if nothing else because they no longer meet modern standards.
Though a new design based on the New Pendolino no doubt could...at a cost.
More Pendolinos can't be built, if nothing else because they no longer meet modern standards.
More Pendolinos can't be built, if nothing else because they no longer meet modern standards.
I thought the idea was just more carriages, so that all 390s were 11 coaches?
I really hope no scraping is required to fit it in!That would mean scraping one coach per set to fit into Manchester Airport.
I really hope no scraping is required to fit it in!
I would like to think that a really adventurous bid would plan to increase the 9 car sets to 11 by breaking up a couple of the existing 9 car sets and having Alstom reconfigure to all 11 car sets. Of course to do this they need some new trains which could be in the form of bi-mode or just straight electric but they'd need to be tilt capable. How viable all that would be I don't know.
Would it be possible I wonder to configure some Pendolinos as five car trains to operate in pairs and use the remaining coaches to make some of the 9 cars upto 11 cars otherwise you end up with spare driving cars.
Probably money & delivery time issues. Also the 9 car's have their uses.Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?
Probably money & delivery time issues. Also the 9 car's have their uses.
Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?
Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?
"They" at the time was the DfT, who decided how many vehicles to order and negotiated the deal with Alstom.
Virgin just got to roll out the kit when it arrived.
The belief is that Virgin wanted a full 11-car fleet but DfT would not allow.
Since then VT has converted coach G of the remaining 9-car sets from First to Standard, to increase capacity on those sets.
But wouldn't it have been the rolling stock company who decided which of their trains to lengthen, as the owners, rather the DFT instructing them as to what they can do with their own assets?
I get that. But directly to the point the poster raised that it was suposidly the DFT who stipulated how many 390s were to be lengthened in 2012, and that it was not to be the whole fleet, regardless of whether VT preferred that, as someone earlier said they did. The rolling stock company would get the same guarantee on the whole fleet being used as they did the ones which were lengthened. So wasn't that guarantee enough to do it? Why would the DFT be against that?The ROSCO won't spend money on assets that are expected to last 30-50 years if they won't get a decent guarantee that those assets will be leased for that long. Hence the Government needing to be involved. We're not talking standard 26.4m UIC/RIC coaches here, where they can be shifted anywhere - they are no use anywhere other than the WCML, really.
I get that. But directly to the point the poster raised that it was suposidly the DFT who stipulated how many 390s were to be lengthened in 2012, and that it was not to be the whole fleet, regardless of whether VT preferred that, as someone earlier said they did. The rolling stock company would get the same guarantee on the whole fleet being used as they did the ones which were lengthened. So wasn't that guarantee enough to do it? Why would the DFT be against that?
But they were guaranteeing use of the 11 cars they extended. So why wouldn't they guarantee the rest of the 390s? Or were they saying we'll guarantee the use of 9 cars, however if they were lengthened to 11 coaches, they won't be guaranteed for use on the WCML in the next franchise?But the ROSCO wouldn’t get the guarantee, as it is the government that guarantees it beyond the current franchise. Which at that time had only a couple of years left to run.
It’s a brave ROSCO that takes the risk of buying trains with no long term guarantee for their use; ask Angel Trains about the Classs 707s.
But they were guaranteeing use of the 11 cars they extended. So why wouldn't they guarantee the rest of the 390s? Or were they saying we'll guarantee the use of 9 cars, however if they were lengthened to 11 coaches, they won't be guaranteed for use on the WCML in the next franchise?
Ahh I didn't realise that. So even a TOC which was overcrowded and could do with an extra couple of class 170s couldn't approach a ROSCO to lease a couple which had just come off lease with a other operator without DFT approval?They weren’t guaranteeing anything. What they were doing was saying they were prepared to allow the TOC to stump up for the additional lease costs of the additional cars that they saw a need for which, if you are a ROSCO, is a pretty good signal that they will have a future beyond that immediate lease period.
However, if the DfT won’t fund the lease costs for the other cars (because they do not see a need for them) then the ROSCO won’t pick up the tab. They need the certainty of DfT approval before they will supply. In addition, every franchised TOC has to get DfT permission to close a rolling stock deal so the TOC can’t just go it alone, regardless.
If the ROSCO already had them available to lease, and the TOC is willing to pay the extra leasing costs themselves (or believes they'll get extra passengers to offset the cost) then yes, they could. If, on the other hand, the TOC wants a ROSCO to buy/build new stock, or the TOC doesn't want to put its hand into its own pocket, that's where the DfT come into play, as the private companies tend to be reluctant to spend their own money unless they feel confident of getting a return on their investment.Ahh I didn't realise that. So even a TOC which was overcrowded and could do with an extra couple of class 170s couldn't approach a ROSCO to lease a couple which had just come off lease with a other operator without DFT approval?
But they were guaranteeing use of the 11 cars they extended. So why wouldn't they guarantee the rest of the 390s? Or were they saying we'll guarantee the use of 9 cars, however if they were lengthened to 11 coaches, they won't be guaranteed for use on the WCML in the next franchise?
That would certainly be the case if the TOC entered into a lease that would outlast the franchise, but not if it was a short term (year or two) lease, surely? The TOC would just have to be confident they could meet their franchise payments, or risk surrendering their bond.No they couldn’t, because of the potential continuing liability on the franchise of leasing extra stock if your revenue figures are wrong.
The DfT have to say yes, irrespective. So they examine whether your figures stack up before they approve the extra stock. Been there, done it.
Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?
And they were correct. The additional units meant there could be hourly Anglo-Scottish services throughout the day. In my opinion no Pendolinos should have been lengthened until they converted at least one of the four 1st Class carriages to Standard. This has now been done on the 9-cars but only after the additional carriages were ordered.