New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[SpacePhoenix]

I don't think it's overweight, I think it's clearance issues with parapets.

Have piggies ever run over them?

 

[greaterwest]

Have piggies ever run over them?

They have, last time I believe was the ROG rail tour last year.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It must be something specific about HST power cars that make HSTs banned from there then

 

[43096]

It must be something specific about HST power cars that make HSTs banned from there then

Power car bogie steps are the usual clearance issue - particularly on the Southern - although I don't know if that is the case here.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Think it's the two river bridges that cause the problem, that's the Itchen at Bitterne and Hamble at Bursledon.

I don't think it can be weight as freight goes (or it used to) over those two bridges on its way to either Chichester or Holybourne (recently ceased).

 

[pompeyfan]

The chichester stone went via Botley I believe, the Holybourne oil went via Netley though. We'll see what happens but I don't think no news is good news at the moment.

 

[infobleep]

No they couldn't, because in my explanation of how it used to work the SWT service was coming into Fareham from the Eastleigh direction, and there was no overlap with the FGW service from Southampton.

In my future scenario, both services are competing for the same tracks between Southampton and Fareham, although it remains hypothetical anyway, as we don't know where the new SW service will be positioned on the clock face. Although I raised it as a potential problem, it may not be, so we'll have to wait and see.

Point taken.

 

[swt_passenger]

It must be something specific about HST power cars that make HSTs banned from there then

It is definitely to do with the power cars, it has been discussed and explained in a number of previous threads.

If you look in the gauge clearance section of most of the online (public) sectional appendices you will see immediately that HSTS don't have a combined entry, the Class 43 power cars and the Mk3 coaches are always listed separately, and in this case it is Class 43s that are barred from the route.

However a 442, although made up of 23m Mk3 coaches, has its own entry in the EMU section of the gauge clearance tables.

You cannot draw any inferences about HSTs from the fact that a 442 is already cleared.

 

[Wookiee]

Think it's the two river bridges that cause the problem, that's the Itchen at Bitterne and Hamble at Bursledon.



I don't think it can be weight as freight goes (or it used to) over those two bridges on its way to either Chichester or Holybourne (recently ceased).

My interpretation of the Sectional Appendix is that it's only the Bursledon bridge that's an issue. Could easily be wrong though.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

It is definitely to do with the power cars, it has been discussed and explained in a number of previous threads.

If you look in the gauge clearance section of most of the online (public) sectional appendices you will see immediately that HSTS don't have a combined entry, the Class 43 power cars and the Mk3 coaches are always listed separately, and in this case it is Class 43s that are barred from the route.

However a 442, although made up of 23m Mk3 coaches, has its own entry in the EMU section of the gauge clearance tables.

You cannot draw any inferences about HSTs from the fact that a 442 is already cleared.

Also ALL Mk3 formed trains (HSTs) must only contain Short Swing Link (SSL) vehicles, LSL (Long Swing Link) are banned from 3rd rail areas, as FGW found out to their cost on the last HST foray into Waterloo, when it was picked up on that an HST set heading for Waterloo contained a single LSL vehicle as was stopped at Andover and sent back.

 

[The Ham]

No, pending discussions over a later start to the franchise than was bid.

Has anything progressed on this?

 

[Joe Paxton]

Makes sense. Having the franchise handover during the Waterloo blockade was always an insane idea

Wait till you hear the new date...

That suggests

1) well after the blockade;
2) before it;
3) still within it - perhaps on the very first day.

Nothing seems impossible!

How about Tuesday 29 August, the first day of (what should be) normal operations after the blockade? And when at least some people will be returning to work after summer holidays, the Monday being Bank Holiday.

 

[godfreycomplex]

How about Tuesday 29 August, the first day of (what should be) normal operations after the blockade? And when at least some people will be returning to work after summer holidays, the Monday being Bank Holiday.

I would perhaps say Sunday 3rd September because franchise changes do tend to happen at weekends for a variety of reasons and also to minimise bad PR from any post engineering work "difficulties" that may arise that week.

 

[3141]

I would perhaps say Sunday 3rd September because franchise changes do tend to happen at weekends for a variety of reasons and also to minimise bad PR from any post engineering work "difficulties" that may arise that week.

That does seem very logical.

But when HH said "Wait till you hear the new date..." it seemed to me to suggest that we'd be really surprised. Could First/MTR be ready to take over in July, and would they want to be in the firing line if any problems arise during the blockade (including the people who managed not to notice any of the warnings about it months in advance)?

We'll just have to wait while the DfT mulls over whatever the two companies agreed.

 

[Joe Paxton]

That does seem very logical.

But when HH said "Wait till you hear the new date..." it seemed to me to suggest that we'd be really surprised. [...]

Yes, that's where I was coming from.

There is a precedent for a new franchisee 'buying out' the existing franchisee, as Govia - who in 2000 had been awarded the South Central franchise from May 2003 onwards - took over Connex South Central in a deal that was completed in August 2001 (they branded the operation "South Central" until the start of the new franchise 'proper' in May 2003).

However I think this takeover arrangement was essentially engineered by the Strategic Rail Authority, who were not exactly great fans of Connex (but who was?).

 

[RichardN]

No, pending discussions over a later start to the franchise than was bid.

Which rather scuppers the start date earlier theory.

 

[3141]

Which rather scuppers the start date earlier theory.

Indeed. Which leaves us with something like September 3rd, or a much later date, e.g. December timetable change. But whenever it is, if all these new trains which are supposed to be in service by the end of 2020 are going to be ordered, they need to sign the franchise contract.

 

[Suraggu]

Indeed. Which leaves us with something like September 3rd, or a much later date, e.g. December timetable change. But whenever it is, if all these new trains which are supposed to be in service by the end of 2020 are going to be ordered, they need to sign the franchise contract.

Leasing company may have all there bits in place ready to go and the manufacturer may already have slots for the builds to commence?

 

[3141]

Leasing company may have all there bits in place ready to go and the manufacturer may already have slots for the builds to commence?

Some of that at least, I would think, because I expect that when you submit a franchise bid you need to be able to convince the DfT that your rolling stock proposals are practicable.

But if these new trains need testing and some kind of certification then the timetable for building and delivering them would need to be under way pretty soon. On the other hand, if they are existing stock (e.g. Siemens), or something that's being tried and tested now (e.g. Aventras), the time pressures will be a bit less.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

My own guess is November or December based on an announcement the other day, which I can't remember where I saw it, that SWT "will be introducing the 707s as planned in a six month operation".

That wording suggests that SWT and not FMTR would be carrying out the full introduction of the 707s.

 

[Joe Paxton]

No, pending discussions over a later start to the franchise than was bid.

Which rather scuppers the start date earlier theory.

Indeed it does. I hadn't seen HH's comment above, posted a few pages back.

 

[Suraggu]

Latest update is they are still in discussions.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also ALL Mk3 formed trains (HSTs) must only contain Short Swing Link (SSL) vehicles...

I intentionally avoided adding that well known point for brevity. It comes up that often you'd hope even the above questioner would already know. I might be expecting too much though.

 

[swt_passenger]

My own guess is November or December based on an announcement the other day, which I can't remember where I saw it, that SWT "will be introducing the 707s as planned in a six month operation".

That wording suggests that SWT and not FMTR would be carrying out the full introduction of the 707s.

Nothing has changed much regarding the 707 introduction period, (although delayed a few weeks) and the incoming franchisee was already warned in the ITT it would be in progress at changeover and they'd be required to continue with it.

In terms of the whole franchise scope it is pretty much a side issue, can't see it being a valid reason for delay at all.

 

[Tio Terry]

One way to clarify the situation of the 707s is for a MP whose Constituency is on the routes affected to ask a formal question (Written or Oral) to DfT in the Commons after the Easter Recess

Chris Grayling lives in Ashtead which is served by SSWT!

 

[30909]

If this ever happens it will now be after 8 June

 

[swt_passenger]

A couple of weeks ago we had a few posts about station paint schemes and the requirements at a change of franchisee, so I was re-assured that SWT intend to "get their money's worth" out of the existing contract, when today I noticed the current paint scheme was being renewed on the canopy support stanchions at Eastleigh...

 

[3141]

A couple of weeks ago we had a few posts about station paint schemes and the requirements at a change of franchisee, so I was re-assured that SWT intend to "get their money's worth" out of the existing contract, when today I noticed the current paint scheme was being renewed on the canopy support stanchions at Eastleigh...

I suppose if there's a contract for repainting, or even an in-house team with a programme of work that was set out some months ago, things tend to go ahead as planned.

 

[Helvellyn]

A couple of weeks ago we had a few posts about station paint schemes and the requirements at a change of franchisee, so I was re-assured that SWT intend to "get their money's worth" out of the existing contract, when today I noticed the current paint scheme was being renewed on the canopy support stanchions at Eastleigh...

Seems Basingstoke might be about to get the grey, white and maroon treatment - bollards at the back of the station have gone from dark blue and white with red/orange stripes to grey and white!

As to the later start of the franchise, could the election have anything to do with this? Purdah can't be far off starting and I wonder if that has any impact on First/MTR getting things agreed with the DfT (i.e. if Ministerial sign-off is required)? Mind you, if there is going to be a later start date that would have to be signed off ASAP due to Purdah, which must be next week I'd have thought once Parliament is Prorogued.

 

[3141]

It's understandable that an announcement that offers improvements (like the return of class 442!!!) shouldn't be made during the period of electioneering, because it might sway the people who will benefit into voting for the party in power from whom the announcement came. But in this case it was announced on 27 March that First/MTR had been awarded the contract. The announcement we're now waiting for is that the starting date won't be 20th August but later. I doubt that many voters would change their minds as a result of hearing that the new management won't be taking over during the Waterloo blockade.

I would guess that both Stagecoach and FMTR will have views about what effect a change of date should have on their premium payments, and the DfT will have a view as well, which may be different. If they can all agree about that, a section of the contract will need to be revised. Maybe, if it takes them until mid-May before they can settle those matters, the DfT will then conclude that no further announcement should be made until after 8 June.