Rolling stock announcement regarding TPE (updated)

[fulmar]

How's it done with 185s? Single door?

All passenger doors are used at Staveley. The information in the post you were responding to is incorrect. The platform is exactly the same length as a class 185.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Until new trains arrive, if/when the 185s go, I suspect that all Windernere services (shuttles & Airport trains) might be operated by 156s. Four (per day) paths each way operated by 75mph stock is not a major problem - don't forget that many WCML freights are also limited to 75 mph.

The plan is to use a 3 car 156/153 combination until the electrification is delivered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The plan is to use a 3 car 156/153 combination until the electrification is delivered.

More seats than a 185. Sounds good to me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Greybeard33]

I would agree. Of course in the event that such regulation results in a less profitable leasing agreement the ROSCO will wish to be compensated.

There is also a question, which the Courts might then get into, of natural justice - namely how much in advance, so they can seek alternative users, will ROSCOs be advised that a TOC will no longer require the extant stock? As a general principle the Courts are likely to take askance of regulation of privately owned assets in a oneway game of the heads I win, tails you lose variety.

Already exists.

The DfT can designate items of rolling stock as a 'franchise asset'. The designation is intended to ensure that at the end of a franchise the rolling stock is transferred to the new franchisee.

It was said at the time (probably in Modern Railways) that the DfT had agreed the transfer of units to Chiltern.

I think at the moment the pendulum is swinging towards the DfT leaving rolling stock provision to the market, which could give rise to more of this sort of thing in the future.

In the TPE and Northern refranchising competitions, bidders were encouraged (subject to a few restrictions) to propose rival rolling stock strategies. Such situations mean that the outgoing franchisee cannot commit its successor to long term leases for the existing fleet. Indeed, First has since announced it intends release to some of TPE's 185s, while Arriva is not retaining any of Northern's 153s.

When the ROSCOs cannot negotiate long term leases, commensurate with the expected lifetime of the stock, they will try to price into lease rates the future risk that they might have to put off-lease carriages into temporary storage, or offer "fire sale" rates to secure a new lessee. This risk premium tends to increase TOCs' operating costs, which cannot be in the interests of fare-payers or taxpayers.

This system also means that it can be in the commercial interests of a ROSCO to transfer off-lease stock to a different TOC with a later franchise end date, as with Porterbrook and the TPE 170s.

Perhaps there is a case for the DfT to make more use of the 'franchise asset' designation, so as to facilitate longer term leases?

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps there is a case for the DfT to make more use of the 'franchise asset' designation, so as to facilitate longer term leases?

That's quite possible but the snag is that it restricts the flexibility of bidders to offer an alternative. For example if DfT had made the 185s franchise assets to TPE, FirstGroup would have had to keep all of them on and would have reduced the number of new vehicles accordingly. There may also be a competitiveness issues as the ROSCO involved is effectively being protected from competition, and I think this would be a particular problem if it was introduced part way through a leasing contract rather than being part of the negotiation at the start of a lease.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Section 54, Railways Act 1993?

That's one way of doing it, but that process basically guarantees lease payments to a ROSCO for longer than a franchise term.
But a "franchise asset" can be nominated in the franchise spec/ITT to keep rolling stock on the property for the next franchisee, and does not involved financial guarantees.
It's just the DfT playing trains (which it says it does not want to do).
With TPE the problem was the delay in refranchising which put all the existing stock leases at risk.
If DfT had forced 170s to stay at TPE, they might not have got so comprehensive a new train proposal from First.
Similarly, Northern might be pushed with current stock, but it should all be resolved by the arrival of new/cascaded trains by Dec 2017.
The situation is very dependent on timely completion of EGIP and GW electrification.

 

[DunfordBridge]

CALEDONIAN SLEEPER PASSENGER COACHES

No photos or details beyond what we already know.

The sleeper carriages are 22m long, so that 16 of them plus two locomotives can fit in the platforms at Euston.

Thanks to everyone for their input. I shall have to keep an eye on the CAF website. Really hope Transpennine include a buffet car. If passenger numbers continue to increase, they may well need it, along with extra carriages in each consist.

 

[northwichcat]

For example if DfT had made the 185s franchise assets to TPE, FirstGroup would have had to keep all of them on and would have reduced the number of new vehicles accordingly.

The old TPE franchise was actually awarded by the SRA and was transferred to DfT when the SRA was abolished.

If the Voyagers were franchise assets of the XC franchise then the transfer of Manchester-Scotland to the TPE franchise to free up Voyagers for VTWC wouldn't have worked - which might have been a good thing!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Similarly, Northern might be pushed with current stock, but it should all be resolved by the arrival of new/cascaded trains by Dec 2017.
The situation is very dependent on timely completion of EGIP and GW electrification.

I'm under the impression most of the GWR 150/1s will transfer to Northern during 2017 regardless of what's happening in the South West as it's GWR have been looking at interim solutions not Northern.

The new CAF trains and the Scotrail DMUs won't start arriving at Northern until 2018.

 

[WatcherZero]

Word is the locomotive hauled rolling stock and possibly the EMU as well will have one full carriage dedicated to first class seating 25 which will have a small kitchen.
Some services will be pick up only at Bolton and Preston, the services to Scotland via the East Coast will be priced considerably lower to encourage their use to relieve crowding on the West Coast.

 

[thealexweb]

Word is the locomotive hauled rolling stock and possibly the EMU as well will have one full carriage dedicated to first class seating 25 which will have a small kitchen.
Some services will be pick up only at Bolton and Preston, the services to Scotland via the East Coast will be priced considerably lower to encourage their use to relieve crowding on the West Coast.

Pick up only at Preston? Is there any president for this? I would support this from December 2017 as it would push the Manchester to Preston commuters on to Northern's 4tph Manchester to Preston services (two express, one semi-express and one stopper).

 

[northwichcat]

as it would push the Manchester to Preston commuters on to Northern's 4tph Manchester to Preston services (two express, one semi-express and one stopper).

I thought it would be one express (via and calling at Wigan replacing the current TPE Scottish service), one semi-fast (Airport-Blackpool) and two stopping but one making more calls than the other.

 

[thealexweb]

I thought it would be one express (via and calling at Wigan replacing the current TPE Scottish service), one semi-fast (Airport-Blackpool) and two stopping but one making more calls than the other.

I was under the impression the future Northern service (from December 2017 TT) would be the following

Stopper : Blackpool North - Stalybridge
Semi-express: Preston - Stockport* (*final destination unknown as of yet)
Express: Blackpool North - Manchester Airport
Express: Windermere / Barrow-In-Furness - Manchester Airport

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Some services will be pick up only at Bolton and Preston, the services to Scotland via the East Coast will be priced considerably lower to encourage their use to relieve crowding on the West Coast.

What's wrong with more/longer WCML services where the demand is?
Prioritising an additional Newcastle-Edinburgh service (which already has 3tph) seems a very strange policy, especially as one would expect that train for train, a WCML EMU would be cheaper than an ECML AT300.

 

[northwichcat]

I was under the impression the future Northern service (from December 2017 TT) would be the following

Stopper : Blackpool North - Stalybridge
Semi-express: Preston - Stockport* (*final destination unknown as of yet)
Express: Blackpool North - Manchester Airport
Express: Windermere / Barrow-In-Furness - Manchester Airport

Just checked the franchise requirement there will be 4tph between Manchester and Preston (1 via Wigan) and the requirement at stations between Bolton and Preston will be:
Horwich Parkway, Chorley and Buckshaw Parkway - 3tph
Blackrod and Adlington - 1tph

 

[thealexweb]

Just checked the franchise requirement there will be 4tph between Manchester and Preston (1 via Wigan) and the requirement at stations between Bolton and Preston will be:
Horwich Parkway, Chorley and Buckshaw Parkway - 3tph
Blackrod and Adlington - 1tph

Yeah that is roughly what we have now. Why the powers at be chose to give the Wigan stations a 7th service per hour opposed to giving Chorley a 4th service per hour is baffling.

 

[northwichcat]

Yeah that is roughly what we have now. Why the powers at be chose to give the Wigan stations a 7th service per hour opposed to giving Chorley a 4th service per hour is baffling.

I think it was by accident. They wanted a quick way of getting electric trains running between Manchester and Scotland and then realised stopping those trains at Wigan could help towards easing overcrowding on Bolton-Manchester services (as less Wigan passengers would be on the services from Southport.) I think the fast cl.350 operated service has resulted in passenger growth so they don't want to take it away, even if it's no longer a TPE Scottish service.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

How's it done with 185s? Single door? I guess 319s can't do that as they don't have staff door controls in the saloon? How easy to fit a set?

Since nobody has picked up on this; Northern's 319s have indeed been modified with guards' door control panels in the saloons with no door controls in the cabs, effectively the same as the rest of their fleet. This was done at a cost, apparently, of in excess of £10k per unit and presumably will have to be done to all the other 319s which head north to maintain a standard fleet. It also avoided any need for the Serco/Abellio version of Northern to get involved in any DOO wrangles.

 

[WatcherZero]

To be more accurate its reinstating controls that had previously been plated over.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So they can't dispatch from the cab (which has a droplight) and must dispatch from the saloon (which doesn't)?

Reduced safety for political reasons. Madness.

 

[WatcherZero]

What's wrong with more/longer WCML services where the demand is?
Prioritising an additional Newcastle-Edinburgh service (which already has 3tph) seems a very strange policy, especially as one would expect that train for train, a WCML EMU would be cheaper than an ECML AT300.

Yes it is strange to prioritise demand reduction over capacity improvement. But I guess that's the way the metrics roll, they get more money from long distance passengers than carrying commuters to Bolton and Preston, so ensure that's who fill your trains and if theres people after cheap tickets send them the long way round to bulk out demand on a less attractive service.

Increasing margins over increasing revenue.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yeah that is roughly what we have now. Why the powers at be chose to give the Wigan stations a 7th service per hour opposed to giving Chorley a 4th service per hour is baffling.

The fact that Wigan has a population of 97,000 compared to Chorley's 35,000 may have some bearing on the matter. Not to mention connectional opportunities to St Helens (population 102,000).

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Not sure if it has been discussed, but do we know if the proposed LHCS will have DVTs, or are they reverting to old fashion run arounds?

 

[43096]

Not sure if it has been discussed, but do we know if the proposed LHCS will have DVTs, or are they reverting to old fashion run arounds?

They will have driving trailers with seats (so more DBSO than DVT), although the driving trailers will be built last so they will at first be top'n'tailed I believe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me the logic would be driving first open with wheelchair space, a bay of Standard seating for accompanying passengers, and accessible bog at the inner end, then all the rest can be identical TSOs.

 

[Bovverboy]

Could someone tell me what the perceived advantage of LHCS is? I thought that it had been established that dmus were much cheaper to operate.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

Wigan's population is surely over 97,000? i'd be curious where that stat came from?

The population of Wigan Borough is estimated at 317,800 people

 

[WatcherZero]

Its a conglomeration of towns and villages a lot like Stoke. The 97,000 figure refers to the sum of the wards usally considered Wigan proper.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Could someone tell me what the perceived advantage of LHCS is? I thought that it had been established that dmus were much cheaper to operate.

Production of new DMUs has been curtailed due to environment/emmissions regulations. Small underfloor engines are not as efficient.

 

[swt_passenger]

Production of new DMUs has been curtailed due to environment/emmissions regulations. Small underfloor engines are not as efficient.

No it hasn't, Northern are getting 55 brand new CAF DMUs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Production of new DMUs has been curtailed due to environment/emmissions regulations. Small underfloor engines are not as efficient.

Like those under all the bi-mode IEP/80x series recently ordered?
Actually, once the TP north route is wired in time for the next franchise, it will be interesting if LHCS continues.
There should be several more-economic EMU/bi-mode solutions available by then.