Go-Op developments...

[tbtc]

You miss the point. If someone operated thus, then yes Northern would need to operate their franchise commitment, but it would be a simple matter for DfT to change the franchise spec, as it wouldn't involve going through a closure procedure.

It may be "a simple matter", but my understanding of the situation is that the DfT wouldn't allow the TOC to wash their hands of the need to meet this part of the franchise commitment just because an Open Access operator currently provided an equivalent service.

I'm not saying they ought to allow it or not, I'm saying that its received wisdom that the DfT won't allow it (right or wrong)

 

[IanXC]

Just like numerous 180s were either stuck in sidings or hired out short term by Northern.

It is a massive risk to speculatively order rolling stock for a TOC that will probably never run a service.

What services would these 100 or 125 mph trains, that probably won't be compatible with anything else on the network, operate? Paths on main lines don't just appear by magic.

I think 90 or 100 mph stock would quickly find a home. There would surely be a location which could sensibly use the fleet size available.

125mph stock probably depends on whether the 180s could be extracted from the Open Access Operators, as it seems FGW would take on further 180s.

 

[Wath Yard]

If there was a market for speculatively ordered trains, whatever the max speed, then ROSCOs would have ordered them. They haven't. There have only been a very small number of speculative orders since privatisation and those were in the glory days when large numbers of trains were being ordered and a significant number of new or increased frequency services were being introduced. That is not the current climate.

 

[34D]

It may be "a simple matter", but my understanding of the situation is that the DfT wouldn't allow the TOC to wash their hands of the need to meet this part of the franchise commitment just because an Open Access operator currently provided an equivalent service.

I'm not saying they ought to allow it or not, I'm saying that its received wisdom that the DfT won't allow it (right or wrong)

Well the precedents are the way that Reading-Kensington Olympia-Brighton was just left out of the XC franchise, and there was also something that was transferred from SE to southern or vice versa.

 

[IanXC]

If there was a market for speculatively ordered trains, whatever the max speed, then ROSCOs would have ordered them. They haven't. There have only been a very small number of speculative orders since privatisation and those were in the glory days when large numbers of trains were being ordered and a significant number of new or increased frequency services were being introduced. That is not the current climate.

Theres one thing to speculatively order trains, but the situation here is a bit different. Any ROSCO ordering stock to lease to a high risk start up OAO will price that risk into the deal. If the new OAO were to fail the business of finding an operator to use the, now surplus, stock is quite different. The ROSCO at this point has a choice between leasing the stock at some return (even if it does not cover costs) and leaving it laid up in store earning no return.

My thoughts are that there would be more political pressure for 172 esk stock to be brought into use than for 125mph stock to be so used.

 

[tbtc]

Well the precedents are the way that Reading-Kensington Olympia-Brighton was just left out of the XC franchise, and there was also something that was transferred from SE to southern or vice versa.

...but you are talking about requirements passed between existing franchised TOCs.

I'm saying that TOCs aren't allowed to pass responsibilities to Open Access companies (e.g. Chiltern were fined for dumping part of their responsibilities to serve Banbury onto WSMR).

Whole different thing.

 

[Wath Yard]

Theres one thing to speculatively order trains, but the situation here is a bit different. Any ROSCO ordering stock to lease to a high risk start up OAO will price that risk into the deal. If the new OAO were to fail the business of finding an operator to use the, now surplus, stock is quite different. The ROSCO at this point has a choice between leasing the stock at some return (even if it does not cover costs) and leaving it laid up in store earning no return.

My thoughts are that there would be more political pressure for 172 esk stock to be brought into use than for 125mph stock to be so used.

Two points:

1. GO-Co or whatever they call themselves today have only raised a very small % of the money they think they need, and what they think they need may very well be a lot less than what they actually need and therefore this order would be speculative.

2. TOCs can't just introduce new stock to their franchises. They need DfT approval, and in many cases when additional stock is introduced it is partly funded by the DfT so it is not just a case of simply finding someone who may want it, as they don't have the final say in the matter.

 

[Schnellzug]

The phrase "We shall see" comes to mind.
Not sure I'd relish a journey from Weymouth to Birmingham in some cheapo Chinese DMU, mind. Mightn't leasing hauled stock be more cost effective, and arguably more user-friendly than some cheapo DMU, even if they are New Trains?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A 141?! Are they mad?

Where would they find such a thing? Chappel? Keith? IRAN?!

Weardale Railway would probably have one or two spare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To quote..


Doesn't mention where from. Wonder why they rejected the PPM...

i don't suppose it could get up the hill to Medstead ..

 

[Ivo]

If they can use a 141 to Medstead, why not Weymouth to Birmingham?

 

[Wath Yard]

The phrase "We shall see" comes to mind.
Not sure I'd relish a journey from Weymouth to Birmingham in some cheapo Chinese DMU, mind. Mightn't leasing hauled stock be more cost effective, and arguably more user-friendly than some cheapo DMU, even if they are New Trains?

Does Class 50s hauling Mk IIs appeal to you? That was their Plan A! Not surprisingly it didn't get very far, which is one of the reasons people are rather sceptical of this bunch.

 

[IanXC]

Two points:

1. GO-Co or whatever they call themselves today have only raised a very small % of the money they think they need, and what they think they need may very well be a lot less than what they actually need and therefore this order would be speculative.

2. TOCs can't just introduce new stock to their franchises. They need DfT approval, and in many cases when additional stock is introduced it is partly funded by the DfT so it is not just a case of simply finding someone who may want it, as they don't have the final say in the matter.

It could be a case of a ROSCO replacing older stock for which it is having to shell out for ongoing maintenance and forthcoming DDA compliance. I know exactly what you're getting at but it doesn't prevent a ROSCO from making changes.

Any ROSCO pricing a deal for GO-OP will price for risk, if the operator were to later collapse the ROSCO does have options for the stock.

 

[Schnellzug]

Does Class 50s hauling Mk IIs appeal to you? That was their Plan A! Not surprisingly it didn't get very far, which is one of the reasons people are rather sceptical of this bunch.

yes, i thought that was the same crowd. I hear that Plan C was to take Lion out of the Museum of Liverpool and have it crewed by the local vicar and bank manager. But that was scuppered by Sid James and his steamroller.

 

[route:oxford]

Just like numerous 180s were either stuck in sidings or hired out short term by Northern.

I suspect that is more because the 180s were (are) notriously unreliable and as a consequence of their length and girth will never be passed for some of the most useful routes on the network.

It is a massive risk to speculatively order rolling stock for a TOC that will probably never run a service.

It's not a *massive* risk. It's a small risk that can be mitigated by ordering stock that is compatible and in service with existing operators.

What services would these 100 or 125 mph trains, that probably won't be compatible with anything else on the network, operate? Paths on main lines don't just appear by magic.

As mentioned above, as a consequence of risk mitigation techniques common in business, the stock can be pretty much assured to be compatible with existing stock on the network.

So let's go for 10 of:-

Seven car 222 125mph "Pioneers" with mini-buffet.
or
Seven car 172 100mph "Turbostars" with mini-buffet.

Both fully compatible with exisiting units (although 172s would have end-door rather than 1/3 2/3).

And you say, with absolute confidence, that such units (should goop fail) would never find another useful revenue earning home on the network?

 

[Wath Yard]

That is just fantasy on so many levels. 10 * 7 car units for a cowboy OAO? Exactly how much do you think a ROSCO is prepared to risk? How many passengers do you think want to travel from Westbury - Leamington Spa? Do you really think that this route, should it be approved which is unlikely, could support the lease charges on 10 * 7 car 222s?

I could say ScotRail may take them because 3 car 170s aren't really suitable for Glasgow/Edinburgh - Aberdeen services or East Coast might want to replace their HST with them, it doesn't mean they do or would.

You also obviously don't understand the concept of risk, or how risk averse financial insitutions currently are, or how TOCs can't just take any new trains they wish, or even that TOCs are there to make money and not just take some new train that happens to be available and is offered to them.

 

[tbtc]

As mentioned above, as a consequence of risk mitigation techniques common in business, the stock can be pretty much assured to be compatible with existing stock on the network.

So let's go for 10 of:-

Seven car 222 125mph "Pioneers" with mini-buffet.
or
Seven car 172 100mph "Turbostars" with mini-buffet.

Both fully compatible with exisiting units (although 172s would have end-door rather than 1/3 2/3).

And you say, with absolute confidence, that such units (should goop fail) would never find another useful revenue earning home on the network?

Do you just suggest that this Open Access company goes to its bank (in the current recession) to ask for money for ten seven-coach long 125mph trains?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I could say ScotRail may take them because 3 car 170s aren't really suitable for Glasgow/Edinburgh - Aberdeen services or East Coast might want to replace their HST with them, it doesn't mean they do or would

I guess the same could have been said of the seven nine coach 222s that MML ordered that they weren't allowed to use - these were touted round various TOCs but nobody else was interested (hence MML having to chop them down and use the spare coaches to lengthen the four coach 222s that were ordered) - there was even talk of the 222s having to move to Ireland because nobody seemed to want them

 

[Eagle]

Do you just suggest that this Open Access cooperative goes to its bank (in the current recession) to ask for money for ten seven-coach long 125mph trains?

Fixed that for you (and made your argument more compelling) :P

Although I should point out that we are not currently in recession (sustained economic contraction), and haven't been for over two years now.

 

[Chris M]

Do you just suggest that this Open Access company goes to its bank (in the current recession) to ask for money for ten seven-coach long 125mph trains?

If Go-Op have established a business case for ten seven-coach 125mph trains, then yes they should. In reality I expect the business case is going to be based around 3-4 coach trains, so that is what they'll be asking for.

Note that it says only "new build", not "new design", so they could be something like 172/3s or even something like 158s. I'm sure that part of the track access negotiations will involve getting agreement in principle about the type of stock.

 

[Eagle]

... or even something like 158s.

Highly improbable, as the production line for 158s shut down 20 years ago... New build doesn't imply a new design, but it does at least imply something that is currently in production.

 

[Schnellzug]

Fixed that for you (and made your argument more compelling) :P

Although I should point out that we are not currently in recession (sustained economic contraction), and haven't been for over two years now.

That's a bit like saying "The plane didn't crash; the flight was terminated prematurely", isn't it.

 

[Eagle]

That's a bit like saying "The plane didn't crash; the flight was terminated prematurely", isn't it.

"I'm sorry to announce that this train is short-formed, and will consist of 0 carriages instead of 5."

Yeah yeah, but what we are currently experiencing is a depression, the word recession has a precise meaning in economics (at least the last two quarters have seen negative growth), that the UK only satisfied from the end of 2008 till the end of 2009.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I'd prefer 185 enhancement, as TPE are getting 350s soon anyway.

 

[tbtc]

Fixed that for you (and made your argument more compelling) :P

Although I should point out that we are not currently in recession (sustained economic contraction), and haven't been for over two years now.

You are (of course) right - I should have used a more precise term.

I still can't see the bank lending any organisation the money for the size of new build that was being discussed in this thread

 

[IanXC]

Yeah yeah, but what we are currently experiencing is a depression, the word recession has a precise meaning in economics (at least the last two quarters have seen negative growth), that the UK only satisfied from the end of 2008 till the end of 2009.

Much as a depression doesn't have a universally accepted definition, it's generally accepted as being more severe than a recession.

The best definition I've seen is 8 quarters of negative growth, or a GDP contraction of over 10%.

So all in all I cannot agree we are in a depression.

 

[Schnellzug]

Why not just say "a vague feeling of gloom".

 

[route:oxford]

You also obviously don't understand the concept of risk, or how risk averse financial insitutions currently are...

That's where you are very wrong, over a decade in Corporate risk (£1M-£250M) and fraud in financial institutions and twice that time overall in finacial employment.

I'd love to go into some of the work I've done over the last few years in risk, money laundering and fraud, however the Police (politely) and the FSA (vigorously) have already pointed out to me that the ever powerful FSMA 2000 makes it a criminal offence to go into detail.

So, reasonably well qualified to understand that there is no significant risk in funding which is secured against an asset with a stable value and a life expectancy of over 20 years that is very unlikely to disappear overnight without anybody noticing.

There are indeed cases with the 9-car Meridians where a home "couldn't be found" - but then, let's face it. It was just a stalemate game between the ROSCO, TOC and the government.

Could you imagine the headlines these days if nearly new 7-car sets were being filmed in glorious HD being broken up as unwanted to retrieve the copper?

The biggest "risk" these days is upsetting the press office...

They'd find a home one way or another.

 

[465fan]

Truth be told, considering what we're talking about, I'd suggest a 5 or 6 car Class 185 unit. I think they're the best DMU currently in operation, and are most certainly the sort of train I would be very happy to use on such a route. Considering their proposals, I would not start the train at Westbury. I would run the train from Yeovil Pen Mill, calling at Westbury, Melksham, Chippenham, Swindon, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Warwick, Solihull and Birmingham Moor Street.

As for the Mid Hants, I would most certainly not use a Pacer. Something like the Class 109 unit at the Llangollen, where it has had an exceptional refurbishment and would be likely to be a resounding success for commuters connecting to South West Trains

 

[bnm]

Discussion about GoCo, Go! Cooperative, Go-Op (et seq.) has been ongoing for sometime over at the Fisrt Great Western Coffee Shop:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6509.0

Away from my moderation of that forum; whilst I remain broadly in favour of their aspirations, I remain sceptical....

 

[Eagle]

Truth be told, considering what we're talking about, I'd suggest a 5 or 6 car Class 185 unit.

I think 5/6 car is a bit optimistic for what'll be a reasonably frequent service; I think 3/4-car 186s (yes, 186, a new Desiro) would do the trick.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Maybe a bit lighter to avoid some of the weight issue problems that come with the 185.

 

[Eagle]

Maybe a bit lighter to avoid some of the weight issue problems that come with the 185.

I'm thinking basically a diesel 444, but with fewer cars.