• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

FT reporting Government about to reopen rail contracts with Operators: how could this be achieved?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,957
Surely XC know from their management information systems that extra rolling stock is needed to meet passenger demand and they must know at what times and on what days of the week that demand is greatest.
XC know. They run the services they are told to run at the capacity they are told to run with.

Will this be borne in mind at re-selection time?
They have just been reselected for four years with a further 7 Voyagers due to join the fleet - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-updates-not-speculation.254790/#post-6415554
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,388
Location
West Wiltshire
XC know. They run the services they are told to run at the capacity they are told to run with.
Is that actually true, or a myth.

The amount of rolling stock they have to lease is there in contract (starts page 188) and the Train services document shows the minimum quantity of timetabled services to be operated.

But I cannot see anything that says minimum number of coaches that need to be on each timetabled train. Unless there is another (unpublished) associated document, it looks like in theory can leave part of the fleet parked up providing they pay to lease it, and operate shorter than ideal trains.

The XC contract is published by DfT along with the train service contract (although it is contract which expired last month, not the new extension, which hasn't been put on DfT website yet)

 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,733
Is that actually true, or a myth.

The amount of rolling stock they have to lease is there in contract (starts page 188) and the Train services document shows the minimum quantity of timetabled services to be operated.

But I cannot see anything that says minimum number of coaches that need to be on each timetabled train. Unless there is another (unpublished) associated document, it looks like in theory can leave part of the fleet parked up providing they pay to lease it, and operate shorter than ideal trains.

The XC contract is published by DfT along with the train service contract (although it is contract which expired last month, not the new extension, which hasn't been put on DfT website yet)

I think you’d have to provide some evidence for the suggestion that they’re leaving units parked up that could be in service.
https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/s17-xc-trains-limited-tac-decision-letter.pdf is from a few years ago, but both the XC fleet and their services are pretty much identical from then. (Apart from losing their HSTs)
I can’t seem to quite it at the moment, but paragraph 14 says XC’s fleet is highly constrained which prevents strengthening and there are not obvious lulls in demand through the day where units could be borrowed from quieter services to use on busier.
Previously XC have consulted on withdrawing services from some of the extremities of their network to free up stock for the core.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,388
Location
West Wiltshire
I think you’d have to provide some evidence for the suggestion that they’re leaving units parked up that could be in service.
https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/s17-xc-trains-limited-tac-decision-letter.pdf is from a few years ago, but both the XC fleet and their services are pretty much identical from then. (Apart from losing their HSTs)
I can’t seem to quite it at the moment, but paragraph 14 says XC’s fleet is highly constrained which prevents strengthening and there are not obvious lulls in demand through the day where units could be borrowed from quieter services to use on busier.
Previously XC have consulted on withdrawing services from some of the extremities of their network to free up stock for the core.
Maybe not same units parked up all the time.

But the ORR figures clearly show it, taking latest 5.4m train km (table 4.1) and 27.3m vehicle km (table 5.1). Dividing them gives average number of vehicles per train.

Even if you allow for withdrawal of handful of HSTs, you cannot get back to previous year figures, or same info from earlier years, except by concluding units are doing less miles, so more must be parked up.

 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,733
Maybe not same units parked up all the time.

But the ORR figures clearly show it, taking latest 5.4m train km (table 4.1) and 27.3m vehicle km (table 5.1). Dividing them gives average number of vehicles per train.

Even if you allow for withdrawal of handful of HSTs, you cannot get back to previous year figures, or same info from earlier years, except by concluding units are doing less miles, so more must be parked up.

Won’t the average train length dropping be due to XC unwinding their Covid timetable? They were running half their services but with the Voyagers doubled up. Now they’re mostly returned to the previous service they have to go back to single units as they don’t have enough to double up everything.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,054
86%

Although also need to consider the proportion of 4 and 5 car, not so good if most of the other 14% are mainly 5car.
How many of those are on planned maintenamce though? They also used to have a couple of "hot spares" knocking about, though they may not be doing that now.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,356
How many of those are on planned maintenamce though? They also used to have a couple of "hot spares" knocking about, though they may not be doing that now.

Typically (as I understand it) a good rule of thumb is 10% of a fleet would be not in service. An extra 4% from that rule would imply that there's 2 which "could" be in service - however I suspect that sort of number could be explained by circumstances.

Either way hardly a large number sat around for no valid reason.
 

3RDGEN

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2023
Messages
259
Location
Hull
So based on 86% availability 6 of the extra 7 ex AWC 221's could be diagrammed daily once they arrive, however they will need cover for units on the refurb program once that starts so in the short term perhaps 4 extra units for service per day.

It's been mentioned in Modern Railways both XC and DfT want a further 5 ex AWC 221's but a business case is need for the Treasury to sign it off, so hopefully that gets approved.
 

SynthD

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
1,175
Location
UK
The article mostly talks about passenger revenue, not count. Is there likely to be funding for more carriages, staff for gate lines? Or is it a change in priorities with no real way to make progress on them. An entrepreneurial operator like Chiltern might take risks, but their actions haven’t nudged others much in the past.
 

WAB

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
712
Location
Middlesex
I travelled on XC today (Friday) between Reading and Birmingham International. On both journeys the four-coach trains were absolutely packed to the extent that some people could not get on and some barely got off before the doors closed, a situation made worse by a large number of pax with airline luggage. Surely XC know from their management information systems that extra rolling stock is needed to meet passenger demand and they must know at what times and on what days of the week that demand is greatest. Judging from other posts on this forum, I imagine XC has been a poor performer for some time. Will this be borne in mind at re-selection time?
It has been known since Operation Princess, but the DfT will not sanction significant increases in fleet. In the interim, the fleet has been worked harder and extensions and routes cut to focus the units on the core routes. OK, there may be double units running around a little on the empty side on occasion but they're not available for use in the right places at the right time. Excessive splitting and joining also causes operational problems when there is disruption, which XC is particularly prone to. Whether it's Arriva, Go Ahead or Dave from the pub running it, the situation will only be improved if the DfT says it should be.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,509
Is that actually true, or a myth.

The amount of rolling stock they have to lease is there in contract (starts page 188) and the Train services document shows the minimum quantity of timetabled services to be operated.

But I cannot see anything that says minimum number of coaches that need to be on each timetabled train. Unless there is another (unpublished) associated document, it looks like in theory can leave part of the fleet parked up providing they pay to lease it, and operate shorter than ideal trains.

The XC contract is published by DfT along with the train service contract (although it is contract which expired last month, not the new extension, which hasn't been put on DfT website yet)


No, it’s not a myth. Each DfT operator has to submit a Train Formation Capacity Plan (TFCP) for each timetable change period that states the train, the formation (by class of vehicle), seating capacity and expected demand. The DfT can demand changes to it, depending on the situation with the franchise. It is allied to the business plan process. If you want to know more, have a look at any recent NRC on the DfT website - it’s a standard clause.

The DfT website is fairly useless if you are looking at XC. The 2020 contract is only the base one. You really need the ERMA to go with it and even then that has now been superseded by the NRC which includes the procedures introduced under the ERMA process.

A word about expected availabilities. For diesel stock, the usual target figure is between 80% and 85%, depending on the duty cycle and the ability to visit home depot during all the diagram cycles. Add on 5% to those figures for pure electric traction. Going over those figures tends to be a bit heroic, especially if you have one out for accident damage.
 

Mike Machin

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2017
Messages
216
There is only so much fare increasing you can do before people abandon trains in count of being stupidly expensive and see driving as a better option. Already for 3 or more people, driving is far cheaper long distance and even mid distance than the train. The train is by default the premium choice on count of being faster than driving. Cost cutting seems more sustainable and if it means freezing fares I'm all for the latter.
Rail is only faster point-to-point. A regular journey for me takes 55 minutes door-to-door by car, but if I use the train it’s a 20-minute drive to the station, ten minutes parking, faffing-around and waiting, followed by one and a quarter hours travelling because of the need to change trains plus ten minutes by taxi to reach my final destination.

The rail option is also much more expensive, £9.50 to park, £32.00 train fare and £14.00 taxi - £55.00 total. I can travel there and back in my electric car charged at home for less than a fiver.

I can also take three passengers for the same cost. £151.50 vs £4.80. 55 minutes vs well over two hours.

Taking the car is a ‘no-brainier.’
 

172007

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2021
Messages
746
Location
West Mids
Rail is only faster point-to-point. A regular journey for me takes 55 minutes door-to-door by car, but if I use the train it’s a 20-minute drive to the station, ten minutes parking, faffing-around and waiting, followed by one and a quarter hours travelling because of the need to change trains plus ten minutes by taxi to reach my final destination.

The rail option is also much more expensive, £9.50 to park, £32.00 train fare and £14.00 taxi - £55.00 total. I can travel there and back in my electric car charged at home for less than a fiver.

I can also take three passengers for the same cost. £151.50 vs £4.80. 55 minutes vs well over two hours.

Taking the car is a ‘no-brainier.’
Many of us would say public transport be it bus or train is a no brained. The stress and displeasure of driving is worth the extra time, cost and hassle. I think it's the same for quite a few others too. Driving is just a bore in most major conurbations these days. And I Wales where I drive a quite a lot, well, getting nowhere fast at 20 mph, if your lucky.
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,358
Location
Cricklewood
Rail is only faster point-to-point. A regular journey for me takes 55 minutes door-to-door by car, but if I use the train it’s a 20-minute drive to the station, ten minutes parking, faffing-around and waiting, followed by one and a quarter hours travelling because of the need to change trains plus ten minutes by taxi to reach my final destination.

The rail option is also much more expensive, £9.50 to park, £32.00 train fare and £14.00 taxi - £55.00 total. I can travel there and back in my electric car charged at home for less than a fiver.

I can also take three passengers for the same cost. £151.50 vs £4.80. 55 minutes vs well over two hours.

Taking the car is a ‘no-brainier.’

The train is never for all journeys. A journey such as yours should be done by a car. If's likely your journey involves rural areas to give such results by public transport. Public transport should be default for all urban-urban journeys outside a viable cycling distance, and taking a bike on board the train, or taxi-train, should be the default for urban-rural journeys.

Many of us would say public transport be it bus or train is a no brained. The stress and displeasure of driving is worth the extra time, cost and hassle. I think it's the same for quite a few others too. Driving is just a bore in most major conurbations these days. And I Wales where I drive a quite a lot, well, getting nowhere fast at 20 mph, if your lucky.

If the cost isn't a factor, I value public transport journeys the same as if the car journey (without congestion) is half of the duration. For example, if public transport takes two hours, I prefer it if the car journey (without congestion) takes one hour or more.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,356
Rail is only faster point-to-point. A regular journey for me takes 55 minutes door-to-door by car, but if I use the train it’s a 20-minute drive to the station, ten minutes parking, faffing-around and waiting, followed by one and a quarter hours travelling because of the need to change trains plus ten minutes by taxi to reach my final destination.

If you live somewhere where it takes 30 minutes to get to the nearest station when using a car (including the parking and walking) then either you're in a rather large town with only one station or you're in a settlement without a station (when I was living with my parents it'd take me that long from leaving the house to getting on the train having cycled 3 miles and locked my bike up).

Either way, you're always going to struggle to get closer to the time taken by car.

In part such issues are likely to be an issue due to the way we build settlements and how many view public transport (i.e. something that their taxes pay for and why should MY taxes pay for it, it doesn't help ME).

The reality is that with better layouts for housing (i.e. most of the things you need day to day, such as schools, local shops, bus stop, community facilities, etc. being within walking distance for a high percentage of people who are likely to use them) and a slightly more rounded view of public transport (i.e. whilst I may not use public transport, the fact that others do means that they're not using the roads that I wish to use as much).

For example,.a lightly loaded bus with just 8 people on board will have removed 5 cars from the roads but only take up the space of two (net benefit -3 fewer cars). However, that's only when they are moving, each car parking space takes up an average of about 23m2 (now whilst multi storey car parks allow you to add more in fur the same land space, they are very costly to build) a car park with 100 cars is 2,300m2 (or about 1/3 of a professional football pitch).

100 cars isn't very many for a car park, and you'd easily find 1,000 car parking spaces within a fairly small area of a town (even if you exclude private driveways - where I live there's a business park which easily achieves.1,000 spaces and the population of the settlement is sub 10,000 people).

As such parked cars need a lot of space, of you could reduce the number which need to park where you wish to drive to then it's going to make it easier for you to find somewhere to park.

If we were to organise a picnic for the whole of the UK, we'd need the same space as a 9 lane (in each direction) motorway from Southampton to Inverness 70m by 1,000km) For everyone to be sit down in a 1m x 1m space, which would be a little crowded, but doable.

To park every car nose to tail you'd need to widen the space needed from 70m to 400m (even though there's only about 1/2 as many cars as people!). That wouldn't even allow you to get any of the cars out other than those at the end as I've allowed 4.8m of space for each car (i.e. the same as a car parking space in a car park).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top