WCML InterCity Franchise

[Bletchleyite]

More Pendolinos can't be built, if nothing else because they no longer meet modern standards.

Though a new design based on the New Pendolino no doubt could...at a cost.

 

[cactustwirly]

More Pendolinos can't be built, if nothing else because they no longer meet modern standards.

I thought the idea was just more carriages, so that all 390s were 11 coaches?

 

[Chester1]

Don't forget that any plan needs to consider long term demand. In 2026 they could be cascaded to run Manchester Airport-Glasgow/Edinburgh services. They are much older than 397s but with a thorough refit they would be fine, cut journey time by about 15 minutes and increase capacity. That would mean scraping one coach per set to fit into Manchester Airport.

The best bet would simply be to order brand new 11 coach sets and put 9 coaches on least popular services. For instance if Liverpool went from 1tph to 2tph then 2 x 9 coaches would be adequate. 12-14 units would allow half the Voyagers to go and squeeze in an extra 1tph (I doubt the Grand Central service will start). If new tilting fleet was ordered then Bombardier would be able to compete with Alstom.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought the idea was just more carriages, so that all 390s were 11 coaches?

They can't be built either.
The 2012 upgrade order was "the last".
Alstom are still building their new design of Pendolino, but UK TOCs/DfT keep finding reasons not to buy any.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Talking of the extra transformer required for going to 11-car, do you also need it for 10-car or could you split sets to go to 10 without it?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That would mean scraping one coach per set to fit into Manchester Airport.

I really hope no scraping is required to fit it in!

 

[Chester1]

I really hope no scraping is required to fit it in!

Extending the platforms at Manchester Airport to allow 9 coach units would be extremely expensive. By 2026 the oldest will be 25 years old and scraping 12 coaches would provide a supply of spare parts. Potentially it might be possible to extend some 11 coach sets to 12 instead. After HS2 the 11 coach 390s will be fine running WCML services like London-Birmingham-Scotland calling at all major stations. Manchester Airport-Glasgow/Edinburgh would be the best fit for shorter 390s.

My money is still on WCP winner just eeking out the most from the existing units until HS2 opens.

 

[Class 170101]

I would like to think that a really adventurous bid would plan to increase the 9 car sets to 11 by breaking up a couple of the existing 9 car sets and having Alstom reconfigure to all 11 car sets. Of course to do this they need some new trains which could be in the form of bi-mode or just straight electric but they'd need to be tilt capable. How viable all that would be I don't know.

Would it be possible I wonder to configure some Pendolinos as five car trains to operate in pairs and use the remaining coaches to make some of the 9 cars upto 11 cars otherwise you end up with spare driving cars.

 

[Chester1]

Would it be possible I wonder to configure some Pendolinos as five car trains to operate in pairs and use the remaining coaches to make some of the 9 cars upto 11 cars otherwise you end up with spare driving cars.

11 coach sets require a second pantograph and transformer so this is not possible without rebuilding a whole coach.

 

[pt_mad]

Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?

Probably money & delivery time issues. Also the 9 car's have their uses.

 

[Bevan Price]

Probably money & delivery time issues. Also the 9 car's have their uses.

Possibly deactivate the tilt mechanism, reduce the amount of 1st class, and 9 coach 390s would be fine for Edinburgh / Glasgow to Aberdeen when electrification is extended there.

 

[WatcherZero]

Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?

Some stations having platforms too short (since lengthened) and cost.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?

"They" at the time was the DfT, who decided how many vehicles to order and negotiated the deal with Alstom.
Virgin just got to roll out the kit when it arrived.
The belief is that Virgin wanted a full 11-car fleet but DfT would not allow.
Since then VT has converted coach G of the remaining 9-car sets from First to Standard, to increase capacity on those sets.

 

[pt_mad]

"They" at the time was the DfT, who decided how many vehicles to order and negotiated the deal with Alstom.
Virgin just got to roll out the kit when it arrived.
The belief is that Virgin wanted a full 11-car fleet but DfT would not allow.
Since then VT has converted coach G of the remaining 9-car sets from First to Standard, to increase capacity on those sets.

But wouldn't it have been the rolling stock company who decided which of their trains to lengthen, as the owners, rather the DFT instructing them as to what they can do with their own assets?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But wouldn't it have been the rolling stock company who decided which of their trains to lengthen, as the owners, rather the DFT instructing them as to what they can do with their own assets?

The ROSCO won't spend money on assets that are expected to last 30-50 years if they won't get a decent guarantee that those assets will be leased for that long. Hence the Government needing to be involved. We're not talking standard 26.4m UIC/RIC coaches here, where they can be shifted anywhere - they are no use anywhere other than the WCML, really.

 

[pt_mad]

The ROSCO won't spend money on assets that are expected to last 30-50 years if they won't get a decent guarantee that those assets will be leased for that long. Hence the Government needing to be involved. We're not talking standard 26.4m UIC/RIC coaches here, where they can be shifted anywhere - they are no use anywhere other than the WCML, really.

I get that. But directly to the point the poster raised that it was suposidly the DFT who stipulated how many 390s were to be lengthened in 2012, and that it was not to be the whole fleet, regardless of whether VT preferred that, as someone earlier said they did. The rolling stock company would get the same guarantee on the whole fleet being used as they did the ones which were lengthened. So wasn't that guarantee enough to do it? Why would the DFT be against that?

 

[Bald Rick]

I get that. But directly to the point the poster raised that it was suposidly the DFT who stipulated how many 390s were to be lengthened in 2012, and that it was not to be the whole fleet, regardless of whether VT preferred that, as someone earlier said they did. The rolling stock company would get the same guarantee on the whole fleet being used as they did the ones which were lengthened. So wasn't that guarantee enough to do it? Why would the DFT be against that?

But the ROSCO wouldn’t get the guarantee, as only the government provides that guarantee beyond the current franchise. Which at that time had only a couple of years left to run.

It’s a brave ROSCO that takes the risk of buying trains with no long term guarantee for their use; ask Angel Trains about the Classs 707s.

 

[pt_mad]

But the ROSCO wouldn’t get the guarantee, as it is the government that guarantees it beyond the current franchise. Which at that time had only a couple of years left to run.

It’s a brave ROSCO that takes the risk of buying trains with no long term guarantee for their use; ask Angel Trains about the Classs 707s.

But they were guaranteeing use of the 11 cars they extended. So why wouldn't they guarantee the rest of the 390s? Or were they saying we'll guarantee the use of 9 cars, however if they were lengthened to 11 coaches, they won't be guaranteed for use on the WCML in the next franchise?

 

[Clarence Yard]

They weren’t guaranteeing anything. What they were doing was saying they were prepared to allow the TOC to stump up for the additional lease costs of the additional cars that they saw a need for which, if you are a ROSCO, is a pretty good signal that they will have a future beyond that immediate lease period.

However, if the DfT won’t fund the lease costs for the other cars (because they do not see a need for them) then the ROSCO won’t pick up the tab. They need the certainty of DfT approval before they will supply. In addition, every franchised TOC has to get DfT permission to close a rolling stock deal so the TOC can’t just go it alone, regardless.

 

[Bald Rick]

But they were guaranteeing use of the 11 cars they extended. So why wouldn't they guarantee the rest of the 390s? Or were they saying we'll guarantee the use of 9 cars, however if they were lengthened to 11 coaches, they won't be guaranteed for use on the WCML in the next franchise?

Because to guarantee all of the fleet would be more than just part of the fleet.

 

[pt_mad]

They weren’t guaranteeing anything. What they were doing was saying they were prepared to allow the TOC to stump up for the additional lease costs of the additional cars that they saw a need for which, if you are a ROSCO, is a pretty good signal that they will have a future beyond that immediate lease period.

However, if the DfT won’t fund the lease costs for the other cars (because they do not see a need for them) then the ROSCO won’t pick up the tab. They need the certainty of DfT approval before they will supply. In addition, every franchised TOC has to get DfT permission to close a rolling stock deal so the TOC can’t just go it alone, regardless.

Ahh I didn't realise that. So even a TOC which was overcrowded and could do with an extra couple of class 170s couldn't approach a ROSCO to lease a couple which had just come off lease with a other operator without DFT approval?

 

[krus_aragon]

Ahh I didn't realise that. So even a TOC which was overcrowded and could do with an extra couple of class 170s couldn't approach a ROSCO to lease a couple which had just come off lease with a other operator without DFT approval?

If the ROSCO already had them available to lease, and the TOC is willing to pay the extra leasing costs themselves (or believes they'll get extra passengers to offset the cost) then yes, they could. If, on the other hand, the TOC wants a ROSCO to buy/build new stock, or the TOC doesn't want to put its hand into its own pocket, that's where the DfT come into play, as the private companies tend to be reluctant to spend their own money unless they feel confident of getting a return on their investment.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No they couldn’t, because of the potential continuing liability on the franchise of leasing extra stock if your revenue figures are wrong.

The DfT have to say yes, irrespective. So they examine whether your figures stack up before they approve the extra stock. Been there, done it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But they were guaranteeing use of the 11 cars they extended. So why wouldn't they guarantee the rest of the 390s? Or were they saying we'll guarantee the use of 9 cars, however if they were lengthened to 11 coaches, they won't be guaranteed for use on the WCML in the next franchise?

This period of planning at DfT came during the "anyone but Virgin" phase of the franchise, after previous disputes.
DfT did not want Virgin taking decisions which constrained options for the new franchise beyond 2012.
Reputedly, Alstom offered Virgin a better lengthening deal more than once, but they were refused by the DfT.
When lengthening became essential DfT themselves took over the project which ended with a 106-vehicle order - 4x11car and 31x2car upgrade.
Of course 2012 actually ended with the cancellation of the new franchise which might have altered things radically with new stock.
But since then DfT, in the repeated 2-year VT extensions, has stuck to a policy of "no new (tilting) stock for the WCML", for good or bad.
And HS2 now dominates planning for the WCML. ​

 

[krus_aragon]

No they couldn’t, because of the potential continuing liability on the franchise of leasing extra stock if your revenue figures are wrong.

The DfT have to say yes, irrespective. So they examine whether your figures stack up before they approve the extra stock. Been there, done it.

That would certainly be the case if the TOC entered into a lease that would outlast the franchise, but not if it was a short term (year or two) lease, surely? The TOC would just have to be confident they could meet their franchise payments, or risk surrendering their bond.

Or would there be concern from central government that if the TOC went to the wall during that short lease, they'd have to cover the remainder of that short lease?

Maybe the DfT's micro-managing has become more far-reaching than I realised...

 

[Clarence Yard]

They are worried about the contingent liability on them, irrespective of the length of term.

It should be in everyone's FA, in the Section on leases - Section 2 in the one I am looking at now. You can't do anything without the say so of the DfT - you will be in breach if you go it alone.

 

[AE]

Why oh why didn't they just lengthen them all to 11 in 2012 when it was still allowed and before HS2 was even off the ground anyway?

As I understand it, 106 vehicles was exactly the right number to extend all existing Pendolinos to 11 cars. At some point however, someone decided more Pendolino sets as a whole were more useful. So the coaches that would have gone into the, what are now the remaining, 9 car Pendolinos were formed into new sets (enough of them having been built as driving cars).

 

[Bertie the bus]

And they were correct. The additional units meant there could be hourly Anglo-Scottish services throughout the day. In my opinion no Pendolinos should have been lengthened until they converted at least one of the four 1st Class carriages to Standard. This has now been done on the 9-cars but only after the additional carriages were ordered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And they were correct. The additional units meant there could be hourly Anglo-Scottish services throughout the day. In my opinion no Pendolinos should have been lengthened until they converted at least one of the four 1st Class carriages to Standard. This has now been done on the 9-cars but only after the additional carriages were ordered.

Both were needed. There may be a case to convert one coach in the 11s as well, of course.