Great Western Franchise Extension 2020 to?

swt_passenger · 10 Mar 2020

cactustwirly said:
What are you talking about with 444s? Where's that come from??

I expect he means 444 style 23m vehicles. IIRC Rhydgaled has certain service types defined in his own mind as having to have end doors. He wouldn’t be happy with the prospect of Oxford getting 8 or 12 car 110 mph 387s, with 20m vehicles and existing doors...

RailUK Forums

hwl · 10 Mar 2020

swt_passenger said:
I expect he means 444 style 23m vehicles. IIRC Rhydgaled has certain service types defined in his own mind as having to have end doors. He wouldn’t be happy with the prospect of Oxford getting 8 or 12 car 110 mph 387s, with 20m vehicles and existing doors...

80x are expensive even as just EMUs and waste lots of space for 115mph+ crumple zones. Hence a cost effective railway might look to cascade 80x to other uses. You could reduce stock costs by 20-25% by not having 80x for EMU use. (And that is before you get into the extra seats, standing and luggage capacity on a 12car 387)

Electrifying and speeding up local (stopping) services in places would reduce the crowding on 80x as the fast -vs - stopper difference would be smaller.

The Oxford stoppers and the disjoined change at Didcot encourages far more people to use the 80x to Reading where as an EMU with no changes an journey time reduction through better acceleration might encourage people off XC voyagers / GW 80x

Dwell times on 80x and other end door stock are an issue at some stations e.g. Oxford with a single platform face per direction.

PS to add:
with the current Oxford timings and their paths there is usually very little 110mph + running time

Rhydgaled · 10 Mar 2020

cactustwirly said:
What are you talking about with 444s? Where's that come from??
The 800s are perfectly good, ideally you'd want the Oxford fasts to be 125mph anyway to make better use of the mainline capacity.

The post I was replying to (from user 'hwl') suggested that "If Oxford - Didcot were electrified the best solution to the PAD - Oxford (but not beyond) services is probably some more 110mph EMUs rather than more IETs." I was saying that I felt those services should be 125mph stock unless they spend a fair bit of time on the reliefs (so basically I agree with most of your second sentance).

hwl · 10 Mar 2020

Rhydgaled said:
The post I was replying to (from user 'hwl') suggested that "If Oxford - Didcot were electrified the best solution to the PAD - Oxford (but not beyond) services is probably some more 110mph EMUs rather than more IETs." I was saying that I felt those services should be 125mph stock unless they spend a fair bit of time on the reliefs (so basically I agree with most of your second sentance).

They have the Slough stops and the most disjoined paths (e.g. HEx interaction) so don't do that much 115-125mph (I have the data just not the time to do detailed analysis for few days) and usually longish waits at Reading eastbound. Cholsey - Oxford is usually a crawl...

Average speed for the PAD - OXF fasts is 68mph with 2 stops

The Ham · 10 Mar 2020

Rhydgaled said:
Aren't LNER only doing that with their 9-car sets? I think GWR have only 35 9-car sets while LNER have 43, given the smaller proportion of 9-car sets in the GWR fleet would the modifications (assuming they would only be done on 9-car sets, like LNER) be worthwhile?

LNER received 43 9-car sets to replace a similar number of 2+9 ex-BR trains (IC225 and IC125) with 5-car sets to provide new services.
How many 2+8 IC125 sets did GWR have before IEP? I have 54 sets in my head but that could be incorrect. If 54 IC125s is correct then essentially they and the 5 class 180s have been replaced by a similar number of 5-car sets (58 units) with the 35 9-car sets being fewer in number than the previous full-length HSTs.

Oxford fasts (unless they are using the relief lines, in which case a 110mph 444-alike could work) could probably do with retaining 125mph IC stock. I would hold off any fleet changes on the INTERCITY side until all of Didcot-Oxford, Bristol Parkway - Bristol TM and Swindon - Bath - Bristol TM are electrified. I would then like to see a number of 5-car 800s replaced with a fleet of new 9-car EMUs (to the same basic design as the class 801 for parts commonality but with batteries for hotel power instead of the emergency diesel engine that the 801s have). Ideally I would minimise the number of new vehicles required by using the driving vehicles of some of the replaced 800s for the new EMUs, with the diesel-equiped centre cars used to lengthen the remaining displaced 800s to 8-car (which with six engines and only the two driving trailers should have the required power:weight ratio to replace 22x on XC).

Wiki says 58 (119 class 43's).

If we count the 58 x 5 coach units as 29 full length trains plus the 35 x 9 coach units that's a total of 64 "full length" units.

Even assuming that we reduce that the 58 full length and 12 shorter units then we're just a bit above what was there before.

However there's a few things which muddy the waters, in that there's extra services, shorter journey times, extra capacity (per full length train), and so on.

Overall probably better overall.

jimm · 10 Mar 2020

hwl said:
80x are expensive even as just EMUs and waste lots of space for 115mph+ crumple zones. Hence a cost effective railway might look to cascade 80x to other uses. You could reduce stock costs by 20-25% by not having 80x for EMU use. (And that is before you get into the extra seats, standing and luggage capacity on a 12car 387)

Electrifying and speeding up local (stopping) services in places would reduce the crowding on 80x as the fast -vs - stopper difference would be smaller.

The Oxford stoppers and the disjoined change at Didcot encourages far more people to use the 80x to Reading where as an EMU with no changes an journey time reduction through better acceleration might encourage people off XC voyagers / GW 80x

Dwell times on 80x and other end door stock are an issue at some stations e.g. Oxford with a single platform face per direction.

PS to add:
with the current Oxford timings and their paths there is usually very little 110mph + running time

No one wanting to get between Oxford and Reading would ever use a stopper unless there was no other option, such as a failed/delayed fast service. It has nothing to do with the current need to change at Didcot. They didn't use the Turbos pre-electrification (or the handful that still run through now) and they won't do it were a through run to become possible with 387s either. The call at Didcot and the low speed on the curve past the sidings there puts a lot of extra time into the journey, never mind making up to seven other intermediate stops, depending on the calling pattern.

Just because the timetable doesn't call for the IETs to run like bats out of hell all the way between Paddington and Didcot all the time doesn't mean that the ability to run at 125mph is wasted - without it, the entire GWML timetable probably wouldn't work, due to the limited number of paths on the main lines, and the possibility of recovering from delays would be seriously compromised if 110mph was the top speed of so many services. The timetable is already fiddled enough to accommodate Heathrow Express services out to Airport Junction without making it even worse.

Mintona · 18 Mar 2020

I know there is a lot going on at the moment, but is there any news on this yet?

pdeaves · 18 Mar 2020

Mintona said:
I know there is a lot going on at the moment, but is there any news on this yet?

Still in discussions (yes, with just a fortnight to go).

Chris M · 19 Mar 2020

What happens if no agreement is reached before the current one expires?

Snow1964 · 19 Mar 2020

Chris M said:
What happens if no agreement is reached before the current one expires?

In simple terms, if current Operator doesn’t get extension (or a new contract), and current contract ends, then they have no obligation to continue. Don’t need to spend money to operate a service, no entitlement to revenue.

In practical terms (rather than legal), becomes a quagmire, as no-one to TUPE staff to, the lease Cos might not have siding space to park their unleased trains.

In reality an Operator of last resort will take over, as discontinuing service is extremely unlikely

Brissle Girl · 19 Mar 2020

Not only would they have no obligation to continue but I suspect legally they would not be able to, eg, operating licences, insurance, contracts with leasing companies, Network Rail, etc. It isn't going to happen - it wouldn't surprise me if it is rolled over on the existing terms for a short period of, say, six months, with something in there to cover off the current shortfall in traffic. Government has too much on its plate at the moment.

Clarence Yard · 19 Mar 2020

Negotiations are done - it's ready to sign but in the next few days the DfT is going to be fully focused on the Covid-19 situation and what happens to rail services in the short term.

Expect some news on DA3 within 10 days.

Snow1964 · 19 Mar 2020

Clarence Yard said:
Negotiations are done - it's ready to sign but in the next few days the DfT is going to be fully focused on the Covid-19 situation and what happens to rail services in the short term.

Expect some news on DA3 within 10 days.

This is quite a dangerous tactic by the DfT.
The longer they leave it unsigned, the more cornered they are if Operator changes its mind, no longer wants it, or wants late amendment for more money.

Covid-19 might mean Operator sees it as loss making for next few months, so why bother to have a short term extension during troublesome period, unless get paid huge amount.

How far an Operator would push this is a commercial decision, are they worried about a long term renewal, or should they at last minute demand £10m per day and rake it in, but expect no further franchises. Extreme example but you get idea.

Meerkat · 19 Mar 2020

How long does it take to transfer to OLR and how many people do they need (how many managers can the head company take out the TOC?)?

Kingham West · 19 Mar 2020

I don’t think First Group PLC, are exactly in a position not to co-operate with the Dft and Treasury.
They are effectively on financial life support, as as such are not a normal company.
They will not be walking anywhere.

JonathanH · 19 Mar 2020

Kingham West said:
I don’t think First Group PLC, are exactly in a position not to co-operate with the Dft and Treasury.
They are effectively on financial life support, as as such are not a normal company.
They will not be walking anywhere.

What if they go bust?

Kingham West · 19 Mar 2020

No bus services, for large parts of the country, no school buses, operator of last resort being mobilised at at 19.00 hours the night before for rail.

Dislocation of 20per cent of transport system in UK.
Diplomatic issues due to US business if HMG nationalises it .
It’s better to keep on paying.
The old saying if you owe the bank £1 it’s your problem , if you owe them 1 billion it’s their problem , I fear applies here.
It’s a bit awfull.

Clarence Yard · 19 Mar 2020

They are not going to go bust. The government is not going to any of the big four bus/rail groups quoted on the LSE go down at the moment and all four have rebounded today as that word has subtly got out to the market.

FG is actually not the most exposed at the moment but I’m not going to get into that here because that could be used in the market against a particular company and after all, they are fellow railwaymen’s jobs who could be affected by unnecessary speculation. But I would say share price is not the only indicator of a companies health.

Nobody is going to play games with the DfT in the current situation. It won’t be forgotten and when it comes to franchise relief, it will get very sticky for that Owning Group.

James90012 · 19 Mar 2020

It's interesting, the DfT have a legal obligation to procure an operator to run passenger services, if it got this far down the line and the expected operator walked away I have no idea how it would manage that other than pass it to the OLR.

It's all academic though, I'm sure it'll be signed and we'll get a range of half-baked improvements a-la 769s compared to what is really needed out West, and what a longer term agreement would bring!

Kingham West · 19 Mar 2020

James90012 said:
It's interesting, the DfT have a legal obligation to procure an operator to run passenger services, if it got this far down the line and the expected operator walked away I have no idea how it would manage that other than pass it to the OLR.

It's all academic though, I'm sure it'll be signed and we'll get a range of half-baked improvements a-la 769s compared to what is really needed out West, and what a longer term agreement would bring!

The bouce in the share price today, suggests Clarence Yard is spot on, officials in consultation with HMT have made the decision to keep first group plc afloat , and that is the right decision.

F Great Eastern · 29 Mar 2020

What is happening with this now?

I know franchises are going on management contracts for six months and then going back to their normal franchises, but what happens to GWR as there will be no franchise to go back to as it expires in a couple of days.

Or did I read it wrong and actually all franchises have been terminated and new ones will need to commence or new arrangements in six months time?

SamYeager · 29 Mar 2020

F Great Eastern said:
What is happening with this now?

I know franchises are going on management contracts for six months and then going back to their normal franchises, but what happens to GWR as there will be no franchise to go back to as it expires in a couple of days.

Or did I read it wrong and actually all franchises have been terminated and new ones will need to commence or new arrangements in six months time?

My understanding is that current franchises are suspended which means the end of the current GWR franchise will take place following the end of management contract. Effectively the parties involved now have several months more to conclude an agreement. I'm sure someone will be along shortly if I've misunderstood matters.

Clarence Yard · 29 Mar 2020

The problem for the DfT is that all the TOC contracts with suppliers end with the original franchise end period. Moving to an EMA can only take place during a franchise period and cover part or all of that franchise period. It can't extend beyond a franchise period.

So, as I understand it, the DA3 agreement will be signed (parties were at lawyers on Friday so it could already have been done) and it will then immediately move to an EMA.

popeter45 · 29 Mar 2020

Clarence Yard said:
The problem for the DfT is that all the TOC contracts with suppliers end with the original franchise end period. Moving to an EMA can only take place during a franchise period and cover part or all of that franchise period. It can't extend beyond a franchise period.

So, as I understand it, the DA3 agreement will be signed (parties were at lawyers on Friday so it could already have been done) and it will then immediately move to an EMA.

i suspect they may have to scrap DA3 and move to new franchise agreement that would be competed for while under the EMA, that or during EMA the Williams report is released and GWR becomes one of the first to move to whatever it suggests

JonathanH · 29 Mar 2020

popeter45 said:
i suspect they may have to scrap DA3 and move to new franchise agreement that would be competed for while under the EMA, that or during EMA the Williams report is released and GWR becomes one of the first to move to whatever it suggests

Why? If they have reached agreement on DA3, why can that not stand and then immediately move to EMA?

Clarence Yard · 29 Mar 2020

That’s exactly what is meant to be happening.

What happens after the EMA’s is up to the DfT. Don’t forget Williams is just an independent chair of a DfT enquiry.

HamworthyGoods · 29 Mar 2020

popeter45 said:
i suspect they may have to scrap DA3 and move to new franchise agreement that would be competed for while under the EMA, that or during EMA the Williams report is released and GWR becomes one of the first to move to whatever it suggests

Clearance Yard is usually a very reliable source not a suspicion.

Dren Ahmeti · 30 Mar 2020

Rumblings suggesting an 18-month direct award to First Group for the Greater Western - being kept hush-hush, as it really isn’t the time to announce things like this.
Obviously @Clarence Yard cannot comment, but it ties in with what they’ve been saying for a while.

plugwash · 30 Mar 2020

Would anyone in their right mind sign a regular franchise agrement now? Even given that the DFT planned to let them off the first months of it through an emergency management agreement.

Mintona · 30 Mar 2020

Confirmed extension for First Group until 2023. Just had it through on an email. Although on a management contract until September.

Including the introduction of flexi season tickets, which I like the sound of.

Great Western Franchise Extension 2020 to?

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member