Class 175 to GWR

[Clarence Yard]

I’m not suggesting it’s a P&L expense accrual, but you can move a balance sheet accrual back into the P&L.

The whole point of the MEAV regime is to accrue funds for the replacement stock, which is what the ROSCOs have been doing, thereby reducing the need for external funding.

 

[Xavi]

The balance sheet terminology is retained earnings (or profits) and reserves (for buying new rolling stock in this example).

 

[Meerkat]

I’m not suggesting it’s a P&L expense accrual, but you can move a balance sheet accrual back into the P&L.

The whole point of the MEAV regime is to accrue funds for the replacement stock, which is what the ROSCOs have been doing, thereby reducing the need for external funding.

Is that really true for ROSCO funding? Seems odd to me that the user would be paying the cost of the units and for their replacements. I thought the ROSCOs borrowed specifically for (and against) particular stock - effectively block of assets was a financial island.

 

[Starmill]

Last week ORR passenger figures show there is still a hefty mismatch between train miles run and journeys benchmarked back to 2019 and GWR is one of the outliers although with the most diverse operation of all operators its difficult to benchmark it to others. Lets hope the Passenger in Chief Haigh lives up to all her speeches and doesn't turn into a hatchet SoS which even the Tories shied away from.

To be fair the tories were simply hiding the truth from the public about how much public money is wasted by the railway. Haigh and Reeves are at least facing up to that. If I were them I'd be extremely reluctant to hand over any more without something in return on efficiency.

 

[Meerkat]

To be fair the tories were simply hiding the truth from the public about how much public money is wasted by the railway. Haigh and Reeves are at least facing up to that. If I were them I'd be extremely reluctant to hand over any more without something in return on efficiency.

How much is available on efficiency? I'm not convinced they will find anything like as much as they think by removing privatisation, and much of the rest will involve the workforce and either involve more significant pay offs or taking on the unions - which they are less likely to do than the Tories.

 

[Starmill]

Is that really true for ROSCO funding? Seems odd to me that the user would be paying the cost of the units and for their replacements. I thought the ROSCOs borrowed specifically for (and against) particular stock - effectively block of assets was a financial island.

The Rosco is just a short run profit maximiser. They'll get capital however is cheapest for them to, and lend the asset out at whatever the highest price they can get is. The law allows them a wide latitude to achieve that in whatever way they judge to bring the best return. Most of their investors won't know or care about the actual rolling stock.

How much is available on efficiency? I'm not convinced they will find anything like as much as they think by removing privatisation, and much of the rest will involve the workforce and either involve more significant pay offs or taking on the unions - which they are less likely to do than the Tories.

I doubt there is any saving at all available for "nationalisation" - it will cost money to implement and won't lower costs long run on its own. Northern is as dysfunctional and subsidised as ever. Exactly part of the problem.

 

[irish_rail]

I doubt there is any saving at all available for "nationalisation" - it will cost money to implement and won't lower costs long run on its own. Northern is as dysfunctional and subsidised as ever. Exactly part of the problem.

Yes, precisely because it is still a standalone (albeit government owned operator). The savings from nationalisation would be made by pooling resources, be they physical or human and getting rid of individual standalone operations that require their own staff, HR, trains etc.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, precisely because it is still a standalone (albeit government owned operator). The savings from nationalisation would be made by pooling resources, be they physical or human and getting rid of individual standalone operations that require their own staff, HR, trains etc.

Of course. These kinds of harmonisations could come about in the future absolutely. We just haven't seen that yet, or the blueprint for it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Of course. These kinds of harmonisations could come about in the future absolutely. We just haven't seen that yet, or the blueprint for it.

GBRTT was setup to define the blueprint if not several permutations for the politicians to decide. Haigh im sure will be aware of the outputs but choses not to use them is how im seeing it. Currently shes pinning all her hopes on bringing the operators back in house which will deliver nothing if not actually setup a big issue with the unions over harmonised T&Cs. Anyhow take this threads subject it should be upto an operator to decide how it will resource the broad timetable the DfT wants within the financial framework set by DfT. AIUI there is a need for service expansion by stakeholders and (F)GWR are proposing to take on additional 175 units to deliver that service. Its was unlikely to ever break even initially so if the various stakeholders didn't have the funds they should have never set off on promoting it.

We now may find again a lot of effort and cost expended for no tangible outcome and the industry simply can't afford to keep doing that unless it somehow believe its insulated from the Treasury not putting a cap on subsidies.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The typical management (ie Reeves/Haigh level) task for GBR would be to cap the rail budget at whatever it is now, and demand performance improvements within that budget year-on-year.
Haigh has made many references, since the union pay settlements, to the need for change in working practices.
So the implementation of GBR may be painful at many levels (in terms of careers and salaries).
BR spent much time and effort merging and de-merging departments as it implemented its sectors and OfQ, and I've no doubt that sort of management will return.
We just need to see the GBR template.

 

[Meerkat]

Yes, precisely because it is still a standalone (albeit government owned operator). The savings from nationalisation would be made by pooling resources, be they physical or human and getting rid of individual standalone operations that require their own staff, HR, trains etc.

I’m not at all convinced those savings are really there, and any pooling will be used by the DfT to cut to a minimal level with even less predictable, and more widespread, consequences. I think many overlook how franchise commitments have protected services.
To bring it back to 175s the DfT would probably just want to avoid paying for them by robbing stock of some politically less important services somewhere around the country.

 

[co-tr-paul]

Are we going off topic ?

 

[Robski]

GWR is taking all of the Class 175 units: https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/027591-2024

Entry into service May 2025.

 

[Wolfie]

GWR is taking all of the Class 175 units: https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/027591-2024

Entry into service May 2025.

Contract signed at the end of August. So much for some of the angst on here. At a guess the announcement was delayed awaiting a slot on the "Grid" (a cross-HMG business sequencing tool).

 

[Xavi]

Subject to internal governance approvals and receiving no notice of any intention to legally challenge the award of this contract, First Greater Western Limited intends to award the Contract on a date following conclusion of the voluntary standstill period (i.e. no earlier than 10th September 2024).

Has the award of the Contract happened after 10th September?

 

[Jacob Porrett]

GWR is taking all of the Class 175 units: https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/027591-2024

Entry into service May 2025.

Excellent news. Good to see the 175s having a second life.

 

[Wolfie]

Excellent news. Good to see the 175s having a second life.

Third surely? They were in the North West before they went to Wales.

 

[craigybagel]

Third surely? They were in the North West before they went to Wales.

They were in North West England and North Wales under FNW. They stayed in North Wales till the very end at TfW, but lost their North West work in favour of trips into South and West Wales instead.

 

[Robski]

Has the award of the Contract happened after 10th September?

As I understand it, the standstill period is there to allow a legal challenge to be made against the decision to award this contract without an open tender. If no such challenge is made within the 10 days, the contract is confirmed.

 

[Xavi]

If no such challenge is made within the 10 days, the contract is confirmed.

Agreed, though the signing comes after the standstill. Has the signing happened?

 

[Rich McLean]

So according to that, they will receive SDO mods.

 

[Lurcheroo]

So according to that, they will receive SDO mods.

I noticed that it says SDO. Perhaps just having the ability to lock out a 2nd unit is sufficient enough.

 

[Argyle 1980]

So in a nutshell, from the 2025 timetable change, Plymouth/Penzance are losing their direct Bristol and Cardiff services? And a capacity and facilities downgrade.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

So in a nutshell, from the 2025 timetable change, Plymouth/Penzance are losing their direct Bristol and Cardiff services? And a capacity and facilities downgrade.

Just over five years ago, these services were in the hands of 150/2s, 153s, and god forbid (but they very often were) 150/1s.

 

[Russel]

Just over five years ago, these services were in the hands of 150/2s, 153s, and god forbid (but they very often were) 150/1s.

I used said service a few years ago between Newton Abbot and St Austell, my heart sank when a FGW blue 150/1 pulled up at the platform.

 

[Siemens Staines]

Just over five years ago, these services were in the hands of 150/2s, 153s, and god forbid (but they very often were) 150/1s.

They were in the hands of 150/2 yesterday

Realtime Trains | 2U24 1449 Plymouth to Cardiff Central | 24/10/2024

Real-time train running information for 2U24 1449 departure from Plymouth to Cardiff Central on 24/10/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 5C89 1859 Cardiff Central to Bristol Temple Meads | 24/10/2024

Real-time train running information for 5C89 1859 departure from Cardiff Central to Bristol Temple Meads on 24/10/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 2C89 1953 Bristol Temple Meads to Penzance | 24/10/2024

Real-time train running information for 2C89 1953 departure from Bristol Temple Meads to Penzance on 24/10/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[RPI]

So in a nutshell, from the 2025 timetable change, Plymouth/Penzance are losing their direct Bristol and Cardiff services? And a capacity and facilities downgrade.

I'm not sure about facilities downgrade, a 175 is much more comfortable than an IET!

 

[superalbs]

I'm not sure about facilities downgrade, a 175 is much more comfortable than an IET!

Agreed, the only loss is first class, which isn't exactly anything special either.

In return, we get comfy seats, nicer ambience, and a smooth ride.

 

[AlistairCowell]

That’s a plus, at least it’s better than ironboard seating. As they saying goes, you can’t have everything!

The Class 175s will be more flexible than the Castles, they’re similar trains but newer.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'm not sure about facilities downgrade, a 175 is much more comfortable than an IET!

I personally think that yes, but it’s not objective of course.