TransPennine overcrowding.

[pemma]

Take Cleethorpes, Northern operate the Barton-On-Humber service but since the split it is a lot more expensive to run because of ECS, not depot etc. That is why it is often said move the to EMT.

I don't think re-creating regional railways would be a bad thing, IC and rural operators co-exist nicely at EMT, FGW and Anglia. If anything EMT is really the odd ball with Lincolnshire as East Coast has more influence on its travel then MML.

The EMT operating area is all over the place as well, like TPE. For instance 1tph between Sheffield and Liverpool, having some infrequent branch line services, occasional Yorkshire services north of Leeds and having an operating area extending down to London. However, it does perform better financially than TPE - not having the fuel thirsty 185s will help as well as EMT having a mix of local, regional and intercity.

 

[swt_passenger]

With Southern needing extra capacity and the 313s being towards the end of their life.

There is no real evidence yet that the extra 377s will replace the 313s, is there?

Also, the 377/5s currently with FCC are already earmarked for the WLL 8 car and 2 tph service - so I don't think there are sufficent units to replace the 313s as well. OTOH the 313 refurb was pretty extensive - I reckon it was designed to keep them in use for a good few years yet...

 

[pemma]

There is no real evidence yet that the extra 377s will replace the 313s, is there?

Also, the 377/5s currently with FCC are already earmarked for the WLL 8 car and 2 tph service - so I don't think there are sufficent units to replace the 313s as well. OTOH the 313 refurb was pretty extensive - I reckon it was designed to keep them in use for a good few years yet...

Yeah I reckon they'll be in service until they are over 40 years old. I wasn't meaning the 313s will replaced in the next couple of years just that we don't need to worry about a large number newer EMUs being surplus to requirements because if that happens the 313s can be withdrawn.

I realise in saying that some of the newer 317s are spare but I imagine they'll be back in service by May 2014 either with Anglia or filling in at Northern until the 319s are cascaded.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This sums up everything that is wrong with the modern railway system. Why the hell is there so little stock available?
How can anyone in their right mind have decided that tiny 3-car units, with no back up, are fit for purpose?
BUILD MORE AND LARGER TRAINS.

I suspect you are not an economist.
The franchises you are talking about consume vast amounts of subsidy and there has been no business case to build more trains - you would just increase the required subsidy.
Both NR/TP franchises are doing better than expected when the franchises were let, so there is hope that the replacement franchises will be able to get more stock on the strength of a better business case.
The TP 350s are the start of that.

On top of which, they are almost exclusively DMU franchises and they are very poor value for money (because the suppliers mostly build EMUs for European railways).
Hence electrification and all that to get into cheaper EMUs.
The south gets more/better trains because the business case is better (and there are technical reasons why Crossrail/Thameslink both demand new trains).
London commuters will pay a great deal more than the regions for a ticket, and the subsidy per passenger-mile is much less.
New stock for the south is actually good news for the north because it opens up cheaper cascade options with the older stock, which will mostly be electric (319s etc) - this is what is driving the electrification plans in the north.

 

[pemma]

New stock for the south is actually good news for the north because it opens up cheaper cascade options with the older stock, which will mostly be electric (319s etc) - this is what is driving the electrification plans in the north.

You don't always get the right flexibility though. A 319 is equivalent to a 150+150. Some North West services are already crowded 150+150 or use a larger pair of units e.g. 156+150 or 156+156. 319s can't run in double due to platform lengths and don't have SDO so it could even be the case that we have some 156+156 or 185+185 formations running under the wires because the 319s aren't flexible.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You don't always get the right flexibility though. A 319 is equivalent to a 150+150. Some North West services are already crowded 150+150 or use a larger pair of units e.g. 156+150 or 156+156. 319s can't run in double due to platform lengths and don't have SDO so it could even be the case that we have some 156+156 or 185+185 formations running under the wires because the 319s aren't flexible.

I'm sure Bombardier et al will find a solution once it's clear which stock is available and when.
The point is that it will break the log-jam of stock shortage (as long as the new fleets are ordered soon!).
It's another regional problem that short trains are uneconomic (all those cab/control systems for only 2/3 cars).

 

[pemma]

It's another regional problem that short trains are uneconomic (all those cab/control systems for only 2/3 cars).

A mixture of 6 and 4 car for the North West would do though, there's no need for 2 or 3 cars EMUs if 6 car units are available. The problem is 4 car 319s does not allow for growth on the busiest services in a time when passenger numbers are growing.

If there is any 6 car operation I imagine it will be 2 x 323s, which aren't corridor connected and Northern don't have that many of them so if they are running in pairs they won't stretch very far.

The counter-argument to yours would be when a 6 car unit goes for maintenance that's 6 carriages out-of-service. If it's 3 x 2 car then it means one unit can go for maintenance between the peak periods, leaving the other in service on quieter services.

 

[tbtc]

Why so?

I must admit I'm a bit confused why a few posters here seem to be keen on merging the Northern & TransPennine franchises in the next franchise round. I'm open to persuasion, but I don't recall anyone saying why the current set-up is bad and why merging the two would be good. (It just seems to me that having one TOC that deals with the inter-regional expresses and one that deals with local/regional services is a good split and a good way of focusing management on delivering one service well, rather than two services badly.)

My problem is with the inefficiency of having a separate franchise, creating a three tier level of trains in northern England (Intercity for the profitable routes, TPE for middle distance ones and Northern for "local" routes).

So you have three levels of operation, three sets of bureaucracy, more competing interests, inefficiencies when it comes to stock/staff etc. At least when there was one TOC running the Regional Railways North East area you'd see Pacers or Sprinters deputising for failed 158s - now TPE have no "plan B" when a 185 fails (and no staff knowledge for all potential diversions etc). There's also less scope for things like career progression.

I tend to think that the door layout of the 185s is not a problem, given the crowding. Sure, you lose some seats compared to a 158, but you gain a lot of standing space. Also, given the volume of passengers getting on and off at pretty much every stop, it makes dwell times much shorter. Do you really want all those people trying to fight their way down the aisle of a 158, past standing passengers who are not getting off, and then through a narrow end door? And then have the same in reverse as passengers join the train? I see this a lot on Northern's 158s, and I'd much rather have a 185. It's not the door layout, it's the fact that the trains are too short.

I agree about the doors, given the large volumes boarding/alighting at certain key stops (e.g. Leeds) - it makes sense to have a lot of space at the doors and to be designed for those standing too

 

[John55]

In comparison Southern are getting extra new carriages in lieu of the 377s they are supposed to get from the Thameslink cascade. Why is it one solution for Southern and another for Northern and FGW?

The reason why Southern and other London based TOCs get new trains is summarised in the following table.

Franchise...............Subsidy...........TOC .............Total ..............Total ....
.....................................................................................subsidy per
........................TOC NR..........subsidy........subsidy.....Pass mile..journey
........................p/m... p/m........£ million........£ million......p/m.........£
Northern.............5.4....28.6..........67.96...........427.91.......34.0........4.93
Transpennine.......8.4....12.5..........78.69...........195.78.......20.9........8.23
NXEA.................-4.5.....8.8. ......-108.63...........103.80.........4.3........0.90
Southern............-4.0.....7.4.......-102.68.............87.28.........3.4........0.53
SWT..................-5.2.....7.6.......-178.41.............82.35.........2.4........0.41
Chiltern..............-2.9...13.1.........-16.65.............58.57.......10.2........3.15
c2c....................-1.1.....7.1..........-6.54.............35.69.........6.0........1.01
FCC...................-6.8....5.9........-136.14............-18.02........-0.9.......-0.20

negative numbers are payments to DfT not subsidy.

The data used to create the table is from the DfT document “Rail subsidy per passenger mile” of 13/05/2011 and the “National Rail Trends” report from the ORR for 2010 – 2011.

The TOC subsidy shows how much DfT subsidise the TOCs. For the London area TOCs it is negative i.e. money is flowing to the DfT. For Northern and TPE the TOC is receiving money from the DfT.

The Total Subsidy adds the money paid to Network Rail by the DfT for the infrastructure used by each TOC. As the London area TOCS are paying money into the DfT the total subsidy is relatively small for SWT, Southern etc while the subsidy for Northern and TPE is much larger either on a pence per mile or pounds per journey basis.

From the table it is not to difficult to work out why the DfT finds it easier to organize with Southern and SWT to lease more trains.

 

[Phil6219]

So you have three levels of operation, three sets of bureaucracy, more competing interests, inefficiencies when it comes to stock/staff etc. At least when there was one TOC running the Regional Railways North East area you'd see Pacers or Sprinters deputising for failed 158s - now TPE have no "plan B" when a 185 fails (and no staff knowledge for all potential diversions etc). There's also less scope for things like career progression.

But that argument could be said for the whole network, when the RR 37s would fail on the Man Vic - Holyhead an RFD 47 would sub in, if a IXC 47 failed a 37 would appear from nearby. The railway worked together to ensure things ran, these-days the railway is just a group of companies all out for themselves to make a tidy profit. (with the exception of rare cases where one company will rescue another, like the Northern 150 that dragged the TPE 170 and the FL66 pushing the IC225 - all seen in another thread)

Phil

 

[pemma]

The reason why Southern and other London based TOCs get new trains is summarised in the following table.

Very selective list of operators serving London. You've missed out London Midland and Southeastern - they both serve London and get a higher subsidy per passenger mile than Northern.

Also, average rolling stock age in 2011 was:
Northern: 21.78 years
Southeastern: 11.19 years
London Midland: 10.85 years

Also you should note from my quote I said Northern and FGW miss out. FGW are a southern TOC who serve London!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that argument could be said for the whole network, when the RR 37s would fail on the Man Vic - Holyhead an RFD 47 would sub in, if a IXC 47 failed a 37 would appear from nearby. The railway worked together to ensure things ran, these-days the railway is just a group of companies all out for themselves to make a tidy profit. (with the exception of rare cases where one company will rescue another, like the Northern 150 that dragged the TPE 170 and the FL66 pushing the IC225 - all seen in another thread)

There was an incident at Chester after the Northern franchise started and the working with ATW crews stopped. A Northern train failed but there was a spare Northern unit that had stabled there which Northern control authorised to be used in it's place. However, it required an ATW unit to be moved out of the way first. Guess what there was no ATW driver available to move the train so the Northern service was cancelled!

 

[Masboroughlad]

To add insult to injury.

On the way home, the 1742 off Manchester was too full to get on! The 1756 was the usual sardine tine - DISGRACEFUL!

 

[pemma]

To add insult to injury.

On the way home, the 1742 off Manchester was too full to get on! The 1756 was the usual sardine tine - DISGRACEFUL!

When I had to do Leeds-Manchester one Friday afternoon (sounds like the other way from what you're doing) the 17:55 was too full to board, the 18:02 had empty seats but terminates at Huddersfield, the 18:08 was busy but the air conditioning had failed and it was a day similar to today!

 

[John55]

Very selective list of operators serving London. You've missed out London Midland and Southeastern - they both serve London and get a higher subsidy per passenger mile than Northern.

Also, average rolling stock age in 2011 was:
Northern: 21.78 years
Southeastern: 11.19 years
London Midland: 10.85 years

Also you should note from my quote I said Northern and FGW miss out. FGW are a southern TOC who serve London!

I left out Southeastern due to its involvement in running the HS service which distorts the numbers for that franchise and London Midland because much of its network is in the Midlands and North. As I was trying to illustrate the difference between "South" and "North" because you raised the Southern and Northern comparison LM didn't seem relevant and for SE was not possible to unscramble the HS disaster from the rest of SE.

The average age of a fleet is not particularly meaningful. Most fleets are replaced on a cyclical basis so for example I can remember 35 years ago when Merseyside had the oldest fleet on the mainland and now surprise, surprise, Merseyrail has once again the oldest fleet on the mainland. I can also remember when Southeastern or Southern probably had the oldest fleet in the country but surprise, surprise, the clock has turned and it is one of the newest.

If in ten years there is a complete new fleet of DMUs with every Pacer and Sprinter replaced in the Northern fleet and you have moved to London will you be complaining that the LO fleet is older than Northern's and it must be replaced?

While sorting out overcrowding is clearly an important issue to be managed by the TOCs there are some side issues as well. For the last couple of years at least Northern have persistently failed to strengthen services in accordance with their train plan and their contractual commitments with the PTE/ITAs/DfT. Now if you were the DfT would you give more money to an organisation to lease more carriages when it does not deliver on it's existing commitments?

It may be co-incidence or real but I have noticed the presentation of Northern's trains west of the Pennines seems to have improved since Christmas so perhaps Northern are getting their act together on maintenance. If so it may be easier if they do deliver to negotiate better rolling stock deals with the DfT.

 

[tbtc]

But that argument could be said for the whole network, when the RR 37s would fail on the Man Vic - Holyhead an RFD 47 would sub in, if a IXC 47 failed a 37 would appear from nearby. The railway worked together to ensure things ran, these-days the railway is just a group of companies all out for themselves to make a tidy profit. (with the exception of rare cases where one company will rescue another, like the Northern 150 that dragged the TPE 170 and the FL66 pushing the IC225 - all seen in another thread)

Phil

Yes. which is why I favour one TOC in an area (Greater Anglia, FGW, Scotrail) where possible. Makes it easier to plan services, makes it easier to match resources to demand, makes it easier to have a "plan B" when things go wrong etc.

Having a separate TOC for "transpennine" services complicates things more than they need to be.

 

[142094]

The south gets more/better trains because the business case is better (and there are technical reasons why Crossrail/Thameslink both demand new trains).

The business case system, and cost benefit analysis used by the DfT has been repeatedly shown to be not fit for purpose, which is why investment will always be London-centric under current practices. I also don't think the price of a ticket paid by a person should dictate where investment in rolling stock is located.

 

[Class377/5]

The franchise agreements didn't specify extra stock.

Another DfT document entitled something like "Extra capacity required on the network by 2014" included new stock for Northern, TPE and FGW but wasn't a signed agreement.

So DfT could tear up the second because it didn't breach the first.

The 377s were ordered by and are owned by Porterbrook. Southern may have provided funding towards them out of their own pocket but what you're claiming is wrong.

http://www.porterbrook.com/pages/stock.html

I don't know where the 49 figure has come from as that wouldn't have been enough to run the minimum number of services required in single formation.

Perhaps you should read this link from Poterbrook as it agrees with me.

http://www.porterbrook.com/pages/press_releases/060710.html

The initial 377/5 order were owned by Southern as this link proves so I wasn't wrong, you were. Note the date is 06/07/2010, over a year after FCC had put the first units into service.

Southern's franchise agreement did specify extra trains as they had to provide 10 car trains on Balham routes by December 2013. So I fail to see why you compared a unsigned agreement to a franchise agreement unless to further your own arguement. But an ideas vs a promise is not comparing apples to apples but apples and seeds.

There is no real evidence yet that the extra 377s will replace the 313s, is there?

Also, the 377/5s currently with FCC are already earmarked for the WLL 8 car and 2 tph service - so I don't think there are sufficent units to replace the 313s as well. OTOH the 313 refurb was pretty extensive - I reckon it was designed to keep them in use for a good few years yet...

Don't forget that come 2015-2018 the new class 700's are going to displace quite a few 377's as well as some 375's. The 377 displacement could see the need for the 313's disappear especially with the new 377/6 as well.

The reason why Southern and other London based TOCs get new trains is summarised in the following table.

Franchise...............Subsidy...........TOC .............Total ..............Total ....
.....................................................................................subsidy per
........................TOC NR..........subsidy........subsidy.....Pass mile..journey
........................p/m... p/m........£ million........£ million......p/m.........£
Northern.............5.4....28.6..........67.96...........427.91.......34.0........4.93
Transpennine.......8.4....12.5..........78.69...........195.78.......20.9........8.23
NXEA.................-4.5.....8.8. ......-108.63...........103.80.........4.3........0.90
Southern............-4.0.....7.4.......-102.68.............87.28.........3.4........0.53
SWT..................-5.2.....7.6.......-178.41.............82.35.........2.4........0.41
Chiltern..............-2.9...13.1.........-16.65.............58.57.......10.2........3.15
c2c....................-1.1.....7.1..........-6.54.............35.69.........6.0........1.01
FCC...................-6.8....5.9........-136.14............-18.02........-0.9.......-0.20

negative numbers are payments to DfT not subsidy.

The data used to create the table is from the DfT document “Rail subsidy per passenger mile” of 13/05/2011 and the “National Rail Trends” report from the ORR for 2010 – 2011.

The TOC subsidy shows how much DfT subsidise the TOCs. For the London area TOCs it is negative i.e. money is flowing to the DfT. For Northern and TPE the TOC is receiving money from the DfT.

The Total Subsidy adds the money paid to Network Rail by the DfT for the infrastructure used by each TOC. As the London area TOCS are paying money into the DfT the total subsidy is relatively small for SWT, Southern etc while the subsidy for Northern and TPE is much larger either on a pence per mile or pounds per journey basis.

From the table it is not to difficult to work out why the DfT finds it easier to organize with Southern and SWT to lease more trains.

Interesting figures, when you see FCC pays a fair whack compared to the others you understand why the Thameslink Programme is so important.

One point I will make is Northern and SE HS services are political with local politicians pushing for services that has an effect. For example HS1 got built with the promise Kent would get domestic HS services. That affects the set up as the HS services must continue above all lse to say face. Northern serves a lot of areas that don't have alternative means and don't cover their costs. This means it's not a level playing field the arguements on here seem to suggest.

 

[WatcherZero]

Problem with the table is it excludes franchise payments, it only counts subsidy according to the Dft notes. If you exclude network rail infrastruture investment (the £4bn a year Network Rail recives from Government to maintain and expand the railways) all the tocs actually generate a larger return for the Dft than they take in subsidy with the exception of Northern Ireland Railways. You have to do this because things like the £2bn a year spent on Crossrail and the £1bn spent on Thameslink dont show up in the official government support to NR because their Treasury rather than Dft funded.

 

[John55]

Problem with the table is it excludes franchise payments, it only counts subsidy according to the Dft notes. If you exclude network rail infrastruture investment (the £4bn a year Network Rail recives from Government to maintain and expand the railways) all the tocs actually generate a larger return for the Dft than they take in subsidy with the exception of Northern Ireland Railways. You have to do this because things like the £2bn a year spent on Crossrail and the £1bn spent on Thameslink dont show up in the official government support to NR because their Treasury rather than Dft funded.

The notes do say it is inclusive of payments in the franchise agreements. However if you would like to present your alternative numbers I would be interested to see them.

Thinking about the DfT paper and re-reading the notes it does seem to exclude the "cap and collar" payments which I don't have info on. However that will make a tiny difference to Northern (reduce subsidy) and a bigger difference to SWT and FCC but even if they were £100 million/year that would increase subsidy by 3 or 4 p/mile so the effect is small in this comparison.

 

[pemma]

I left out Southeastern due to its involvement in running the HS service which distorts the numbers for that franchise and London Midland because much of its network is in the Midlands and North.

You could say Northern's figures are distorted due to having to run more parliamentaries than other operators.

The average age of a fleet is not particularly meaningful.

You would normally assume the older the unit the higher the maintenance costs.

Although, perhaps a more important point is the track access costs. A pair of 156s provide similar capacity and train length to 3 x 142s joined up but 3 x 142s is a more expensive option for track access and probably for general running costs too.

I accept other trains cost proportionally more to run than Pacers but a common assumption is that Pacers are keeping down the cost of the Northern franchise, when I see little evidence that they actually are.

While sorting out overcrowding is clearly an important issue to be managed by the TOCs there are some side issues as well. For the last couple of years at least Northern have persistently failed to strengthen services in accordance with their train plan and their contractual commitments with the PTE/ITAs/DfT. Now if you were the DfT would you give more money to an organisation to lease more carriages when it does not deliver on it's existing commitments?

Last year there was a much higher level of cancellations and units failing while in service on Manchester based services than in previous years. With many of the diesel units approaching their 30th birthday in the next couple of years I imagine this is partly down to age of rolling stock.

I seem to notice a lot more complaints about FCC than SWT, so the older rolling stock at FCC probably contributes to that as well but at least FCC routes are getting a large number of new carriages.

 

[Blindtraveler]

having found this thread I shall now post in it what I have posted before. Scratch togeather a few wrakes of 5 car length of MK2 Stock, if needs be liese it from tour or charter opperaters along with any remaining MK3s, stick a 67 or 57 plus DVT on and put them onto Scotland runs and some of the busy ones in the core.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
also whilst the Pendo production line is open order some 6 car mini pendos with micro buffet and small FC compartment and some 9 cars with 1 FC coach and shop. The 6's go on Scotland to Man, the 9s on Scotland birmingham.
Oh and lets have 70 odd voyager panto vehicles too and as Cameron claims to be so good at deat management then lets borrow the 6ney and let him claw it back.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think most people would like to see short Pendo's on Manchester / Birmingham - Scotland. I suggest the 350s are cheaper

Although I guess others will point out the 2x 350 when needed is better than 1x 390.

 

[pemma]

I think most people would like to see short Pendo's on Manchester / Birmingham - Scotland. I suggest the 350s are cheaper

The only reason it 350s is because LM want more units but can't justify enough to set up a new production line. The 380s aren't compatible with the 350s or LM's other EMUs so LM aren't interested in them leaving TPE stuck with the old Siemens semi-regional design.

Although I guess others will point out the 2x 350 when needed is better than 1x 390.

350s won't run in multiple as the proposed new timetable is for a hourly Manchester Airport-Scotland service, so allowing for maintenance that means 1 x 350 on each diagram.

Long term the plan seems to be for the 350s to be cascaded to LM and a new larger fleet to be introduced which will then allow portion working to give Liverpool direct Scottish services.

 

[Failed Unit]

Would make a bit of sense. Maybe order more 350s for LM, cascade the 323s to Northern and then order the mini-pendo for the Manchester - Scotland but transfer to West Coast. Stop the northern pacers running 100% under wires.

 

[tbtc]

Maybe order more 350s for LM

The problem being that the Cross City line is only suitable for six coach operation, so having units with multiples of four would mean a peak time reduction in capacity on a critical Birmingham route.

Stop the northern pacers running 100% under wires

Does this happen that often? I know there are mentions of DMUs having to fill in for 323s from time to time (esp when there was a 323 damaged, plus sly remarks about Manchester United services), but then many TOCs with EMUs have to substitute DMUs from time to time due to stock issues (it even happens on Northern's Yorkshire operations, which appear to be a land of milk and honey to some).

 

[pemma]

Does this happen that often? I know there are mentions of DMUs having to fill in for 323s from time to time (esp when there was a 323 damaged, plus sly remarks about Manchester United services), but then many TOCs with EMUs have to substitute DMUs from time to time due to stock issues (it even happens on Northern's Yorkshire operations, which appear to be a land of milk and honey to some).

Yes. In the morning peak a Macclesfield-Piccadilly service is booked as a 142, a Crewe-Manchester Oxford Road service is booked as 2x142s and a Hazel Grove-Manchester service is booked as 2x150s*. There are a similar number of DMUs under the wires in the evening as well but I'm not 100% sure on the services.

* Comes off a Chester-Stockport service, so lack of EMUs is not the only reason that this service is diesel traction.

 

[Failed Unit]

I see you point about the cross city line, but 3 car 350? Or would this not be possible. Are there any 3 car cross city diagrams in the peak? The extra car would help?

 

[pemma]

A 3 car 350 would be a reduction in capacity over a 3 car 323 as the 350s have shorter carriages.

If a platform can take a 6 car 323 then it's only the doors on the rear carriage of an 8 car 350 that wouldn't fit on the platform. Don't 350s have SDO meaning it's a simple case of not opening the doors on the rear carriage at certain platforms?

 

[Ivo]

I see you point about the cross city line, but 3 car 350? Or would this not be possible. Are there any 3 car cross city diagrams in the peak? The extra car would help?

323s are 23m long as opposed to 20m and have a roughly identical seating capacity to a 350 (inclusive of the latter's First Class section).

Such a plan would not work.

Aww, I actually say something positive about 323s/CrossCity (for once ) and get beaten to it

 

[transmanche]

323s are 23m long as opposed to 20m and have a roughly identical seating capacity to a 350 (inclusive of the latter's First Class section).

Is that with 2+2 seating or 3+2 on the 350?