How much influence do DfT have on rolling stock decisions?

[antharro]

Over the years, I've written to SWT, FGW/GWR, Southern and the DfT on a variety of matters including rolling stock. It seems to me that no one wants to take responsibility for the allocation of rolling stock - who gets what stock.

The TOCs have told me that they run what they're given and/or told to run, unless they buy it themselves (with DfT permission), whereas the DfT tell me that all rolling stock decisions are handled by the TOCs, and they only get involved if a TOC wants to order a large quantity of new stock.

They can't both be right - does anyone know what the actual situation is?

 

[deltic]

They are both right to some extent. In some cases such as IEP DfT have procured the rolling stock on behalf of the TOCs whether they want to run it or not. In others DfT specifies the capability of the rolling stock and whether it expects new stock or states what it doesnt want - ie no Pacers please or any of those D78s thank you very much but doesnt say you must run Class XX on the 07.20.

TOCs on the other hand are usually very limited as to the type of rolling stock available when any particular franchise comes up for renewal, as virtually all of it is on long term leases to other operators so to all intents and purposes they have very little say on what rolling stock to use if DfT isnt prepared to pay for new trains.

 

[higthomas]

To a certain extent it varies. For instance with the recent IEP and Thameslink orders, they were run directly by the DfT, with the rolling stock 'forced' on operators. The recent Northern and TPE franchises on the other hand chose what stock to order themselves.

As to who determines whether new stock should be ordered or not, that is on the whole decided by the DfT and how they allocate franchises. (What they look for in the bids.)

 

[fgwrich]

One issue I remember being of was that of the ex Sliverlink / LO 150/1s to FGW. When operated by LO, I remember them running as 2+2. They had to have the third seat reinstated when they transferred to FGW, partly to return the units to their 'original' condition, and because the DfT has done the transfer on the basis of X number of additional seats. As a result, I don't think FGW/GWR were then allowed to re-remove the third seat again, thanks to DfT conditions.

 

[PHILIPE]

One issue I remember being of was that of the ex Sliverlink / LO 150/1s to FGW. When operated by LO, I remember them running as 2+2. They had to have the third seat reinstated when they transferred to FGW, partly to return the units to their 'original' condition, and because the DfT has done the transfer on the basis of X number of additional seats. As a result, I don't think FGW/GWR were then allowed to re-remove the third seat again, thanks to DfT conditions.

Because when they were transferred to GWR, the DFT wanted to spin that there would be xx number of additional seats available.

 

[WatcherZero]

Mostly covered but to add when it comes to quantity if a toc is receiving subsidy then the dft will usually impact negatively by refusing to increase its contribution to cover extra stock even if needed to combat overcrowding. however if its a premium paying franchise they are able to aquire whatever quantity they want so long as they can keep paying their agreed premiums.

 

[ScotGG]

Mostly covered but to add when it comes to quantity if a toc is receiving subsidy then the dft will usually impact negatively by refusing to increase its contribution to cover extra stock even if needed to combat overcrowding. however if its a premium paying franchise they are able to aquire whatever quantity they want so long as they can keep paying their agreed premiums.

This explains why Southeastern has seen no badly needed additional metro stock for 10+ years as the wider franchise requires a subsidy, in large part due to very high HS1 access costs which are nothing to do with London metro routes seeing very high growth?

What a system.