West Coast Franchise speculation

[absolutelymilk]

There's no point. There aren't enough of them now, and something is going to be needed to run all the services remaining on the classic line.
I suppose that if we only get a half-hearted token offering beyond HS2 there might be some displaced, but it will be a challenge to fit in the number of batteries that you would need to give sufficient megaWatt hours.

According to the latest service pattern (p. 37 and p. 55), the West Coast franchise will only have 5tph from Euston off-peak, compared to 9tph now. That should be easily enough to release Pendolinos to work the other routes using batteries (if that is possible from the engineering side, which is probably the bigger issue!)
https://assets.publishing.service.g...a/file/498234/assumptions_report_PFM_2016.pdf

 

[td97]

York - Edinburgh/Glasgow is more under the wires running for XC than London - Birmingham/Chester. Not even including electric running possible around Leeds/Birmingham/Bristol for XC.
VTWC has a fleet of well kept, reliable and from a passenger perspective very modern fleet (not many people realise the fleet is 15+ years old). XC has tired and under capacity trains (including HSTs) that would suit bi-mode replacement under a new franchise with manufacturer-based maintenance. As well as the fact that tilt is required to maintain capacity on VTWC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The way financing seems to be at the moment for new trains, wouldn't both TOC's be better off getting new fleets and binning Voyagers across the board?!

I was being sarky, but the more I think about it, it probably would actually be what happens. The railway is a bit of a mad place at the moment.

Not necessarily mad. They were the first go at a 125mph DMU and have significant faults. It wouldn’t surprise me to see them scrapped quite early.

 

[Bletchleyite]

According to the latest service pattern (p. 37 and p. 55), the West Coast franchise will only have 5tph from Euston off-peak, compared to 9tph now. That should be easily enough to release Pendolinos to work the other routes using batteries (if that is possible from the engineering side, which is probably the bigger issue!)
https://assets.publishing.service.g...a/file/498234/assumptions_report_PFM_2016.pdf

Some may move to the south WCML commuter franchise to provide 125mph commuter services, though.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Some may move to the south WCML commuter franchise to provide 125mph commuter services, though.

There is already a service to Northampton and a directional peak hour service to Crewe included in there. If they are really at a loss with what to do with the Pendos then they could include more, but if battery technology has progressed enough by 2026 then "790 Battery-Flexes" would be very useful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is already a service to Northampton and a directional peak hour service to Crewe included in there. If they are really at a loss with what to do with the Pendos then they could include more, but if battery technology has progressed enough by 2026 then "790 Battery-Flexes" would be very useful.

I’m not talking 1tph, more like 3, i.e. all the trains that don’t presently stop south of Leighton.

People talk of fast and slow line trains, but the WCML isn’t like that.

 

[driver_m]

I too, fail to see where the batteries could possibly go on a pendo. They're already a very heavy unit. A 9 car is about 440t and unless you could drastically shrink the cubicle cupboard's electronics down, I don't see where you could put them. The modular nature of the solebar level would probably hinder battery banks under there and also create balancing issues The three trailers on a 9 car pendo have equipment under them such as the compressers, so they're not empty either. A 319 from all accounts can't easily lose a coach, as some people tried to keep pushing the idea a while ago, so you imagine trying to mess about with a pendo would be a lot harder.

 

[AndrewE]

According to the latest service pattern (p. 37 and p. 55), the West Coast franchise will only have 5tph from Euston off-peak, compared to 9tph now. That should be easily enough to release Pendolinos to work the other routes using batteries (if that is possible from the engineering side, which is probably the bigger issue!)
https://assets.publishing.service.g...a/file/498234/assumptions_report_PFM_2016.pdf

The WCML is about more than Euston though. There is a need to replace the voyagers currently working Anglo-Scottish trains, plus the Birmingham-Scotland service needs doubling anyway. It is noticeable that there seems to be no consideration being given to improving this service, even though the Crewe stop was removed from the rest of the Euston to Glasgows about 10 years ago to reduce the overcrowding! (Letter from Virgin to my MP.)
I imagine the Scots will soon show us the way forward again, this time with a ban on diesel traction in cities:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-as-smoking-in-increasing-risk-of-miscarriage

 

[absolutelymilk]

I too, fail to see where the batteries could possibly go on a pendo. They're already a very heavy unit. A 9 car is about 440t and unless you could drastically shrink the cubicle cupboard's electronics down, I don't see where you could put them. The modular nature of the solebar level would probably hinder battery banks under there and also create balancing issues The three trailers on a 9 car pendo have equipment under them such as the compressers, so they're not empty either. A 319 from all accounts can't easily lose a coach, as some people tried to keep pushing the idea a while ago, so you imagine trying to mess about with a pendo would be a lot harder.

Could an extra mini car be inserted, as with the Stadler 745s? Admittedly harder to add it to an existing unit and would only be used on North Wales diagrams, but if battery technology keeps improving and the political will to reduce emissions increases, it could be judged cost-effective.

The WCML is about more than Euston though. There is a need to replace the voyagers currently working Anglo-Scottish trains, plus the Birmingham-Scotland service needs doubling anyway.

All West Coast franchise services start/end at Euston AFAIK (I'm including the Scotland via Birmingham trains in that). There should be plenty of trains available to run the reduced services necessary after HS2.

 

[driver_m]

Could an extra mini car be inserted, as with the Stadler 745s? Admittedly harder to add it to an existing unit and would only be used on North Wales diagrams, but if battery technology keeps improving and the political will to reduce emissions increases, it could be judged cost-effective.


All West Coast franchise services start/end at Euston AFAIK (I'm including the Scotland via Birmingham trains in that). There should be plenty of trains available to run the reduced services necessary after HS2.

Already was a 9 car maximum on the NW mainline. Trying to stick that tech into a 20 year old design won't be easy either, plus a pendo isn't articulated. You'd be better with a tilt version of those Anglia units what look pretty impressive, it has to be said.

 

[EE Andy b1]

Already was a 9 car maximum on the NW mainline. Trying to stick that tech into a 20 year old design won't be easy either, plus a pendo isn't articulated. You'd be better with a tilt version of those Anglia units what look pretty impressive, it has to be said.

Here's one for you all.

Convert Coach A the DMSO (Driver Motor Second Open) into a full diesel generator vehicle, with two 3000hp power units fitted and all the gubbins to power and control the rest of the set.
Being just a power car might not need tilt on that vehicle to maintain 125mph but only needs to be 110mph on diesel!

Just a thought if someone had the will to do so.

 

[cyclebytrain]

I too, fail to see where the batteries could possibly go on a pendo. They're already a very heavy unit. A 9 car is about 440t and unless you could drastically shrink the cubicle cupboard's electronics down, I don't see where you could put them. The modular nature of the solebar level would probably hinder battery banks under there and also create balancing issues The three trailers on a 9 car pendo have equipment under them such as the compressers, so they're not empty either. A 319 from all accounts can't easily lose a coach, as some people tried to keep pushing the idea a while ago, so you imagine trying to mess about with a pendo would be a lot harder.

Coach E? Neither motors or transformer there and presumably at least at one time no critical equipment, since it wasn't there when 390s were nominally 8 coaches. No idea what's there now though?

 

[AndrewE]

Here's one for you all.

Convert Coach A the DMSO (Driver Motor Second Open) into a full diesel generator vehicle, with two 3000hp power units fitted and all the gubbins to power and control the rest of the set.
Being just a power car might not need tilt on that vehicle to maintain 125mph but only needs to be 110mph on diesel!
Just a thought if someone had the will to do so.

Nice idea... If we are still concerned about capacity (but maybe that's in the HS2 cancelled thread) we could use one of the Driving Motors (from the set withdrawn to strengthen the others) so that we didn't lose a set while it was modified. As capacity is important I would say butcher the 1st class one to avoid losing the standard seats. Move the kitchen into the adjacent 1st class coach.
You would need to have a transformer to step the volts up to 25kV to feed the rest of the train, but why not give it a try? I don't like increasing the use of diesel, but there's no way batteries or hydrogen are ever going to produce the MW-hours needed.
Mind you, we could just stick a diesel loco on the front when it needs to go off the wires, and I have a feeling that has already been sorted out too!

 

[driver_m]

Coach E? Neither motors or transformer there and presumably at least at one time no critical equipment, since it wasn't there when 390s were nominally 8 coaches. No idea what's there now though?

It still shares the same layout though as the rest of the coaches, even though as you point out, it has the least extra equipment. It's the 'easiest' of the coaches to take out given that set 004 once ran as an 8 car following some damage, but I still wouldn't fancy trying to get it to power an entire train under there. Presumably as with Car battery technology. It's better to distribute the battery weight across the vehicle rather than in a larger lump?

 

[cyclebytrain]

It still shares the same layout though as the rest of the coaches, even though as you point out, it has the least extra equipment. It's the 'easiest' of the coaches to take out given that set 004 once ran as an 8 car following some damage, but I still wouldn't fancy trying to get it to power an entire train under there. Presumably as with Car battery technology. It's better to distribute the battery weight across the vehicle rather than in a larger lump?

In general, I'd agree with distributing the weight, unless there's a couple of tons of useless weight in a trailer coach for dynamic stability in which case replacing useless weight with useful weight would be quite appealing (I'm thinking DC Electrostars(?) that supposedly had ballast rather than transformers to keep the weight constant with dual voltage ones. I really doubt that's the case with coach E though). Personally, I can see a self recovery battery module that basically extended coasting range or allowed for the use of an electrically isolated platform being a useful & perhaps viable addition for a 390, but not the sort of battery module that would allow a 390 to reach Holyhead.

 

[Starmill]

Leeds/Birmingham/Bristol

Around Leeds the AC available is minimal, either Doncaster or South Kirkby Jn to Leeds and that's it. In the Birmingham area it's almost nonexistent for trains on the North East - South West axis, as nearly all trains go via Tamworth (High Level). Bromsgrove to Barnt Green and King's Norton to Birmingham New Street but only via University. Only Westerleigh Jn to Bristol Parkway around Bristol.

 

[KashmireHawker]

The waiting game - if the DfT actually get something done on time for once should be over next month.

Got a feeling it won't be however knowing the record of Grayling and with Stagecoach's legal action (See the existing thread) that a June award happening would be surprising. Hope I am wrong!

 

[EE Andy b1]

20th June, i believe!! (On the grapevine).

 

[Ted172]

Got a feeling it won't be however knowing the record of Grayling and with Stagecoach's legal action (See the existing thread) that a June award happening would be surprising. Hope I am wrong!

Also add the breakup of FirstGroup.

 

[Chester1]

Also add the breakup of FirstGroup.

I don't think that will make a difference. The rail division should stay intact even if the decision is made to sell it as a whole or let it disappear when all the franchises expire. A carve up of its bus division won't stop the DfT awarding the West Coast Partnership.

 

[coppercapped]

I don't think that will make a difference. The rail division should stay intact even if the decision is made to sell it as a whole or let it disappear when all the franchises expire. A carve up of its bus division won't stop the DfT awarding the West Coast Partnership.

The rail division may survive - but in what form? Don't forget that surety/performance/season ticket bonds have to be posted by the owning company of the winning bidder. These can be north of £150 million so the rail division will need deep pockets.

 

[Chester1]

The rail division may survive - but in what form? Don't forget that surety/performance/season ticket bonds have to be posted by the owning company of the winning bidder. These can be north of £150 million so the rail division will need deep pockets.

I doubt First will sell off individual franchises but keep others. They will either sell off none or all, either as a whole or individually. If they are leaving the sector then they can turn down the franchise if they win it. If they are staying in the rail business they should have the money for the bond. The media reports seem to indicate long term structural problems rather than immediate problems.

 

[coppercapped]

I doubt First will sell off individual franchises but keep others. They will either sell off none or all, either as a whole or individually. If they are leaving the sector then they can turn down the franchise if they win it. If they are staying in the rail business they should have the money for the bond. The media reports seem to indicate long term structural problems rather than immediate problems.

I was assuming that First Group would sell its rail division as an entity - either as a trade sale or as a management buyout. Under the current DfT regime it would appear that potential profits would not be sufficient to support a flotation.

This new entity would act as a holding company for the franchised businesses as well as for First's open access operators. It is the new entity that will need the deep pockets for the various bonds. If First Group stays in the rail business then it is First Group that will need the deep pockets. However the bonds are financed it is a cost that First Group could do without at the moment while the activist shareholders - and indeed all the shareholders - are trying to get a return on their holdings.

 

[Chester1]

I was assuming that First Group would sell its rail division as an entity - either as a trade sale or as a management buyout. Under the current DfT regime it would appear that potential profits would not be sufficient to support a flotation.

This new entity would act as a holding company for the franchised businesses as well as for First's open access operators. It is the new entity that will need the deep pockets for the various bonds. If First Group stays in the rail business then it is First Group that will need the deep pockets. However the bonds are financed it is a cost that First Group could do without at the moment while the activist shareholders - and indeed all the shareholders - are trying to get a return on their holdings.

If they win but cannot finance the bond then it will go to MTR and Renefe by default.

 

[coppercapped]

Not necessarily mad. They were the first go at a 125mph DMU and have significant faults. It wouldn’t surprise me to see them scrapped quite early.

What faults? They are the second most reliable intercity-type train in the country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What faults? They are the second most reliable intercity-type train in the country.

Almost all of them refer to the passenger accommodation. They can be as reliable as they like, but they are really not great for the passengers. Seating aside, the Class 800 improves on almost every aspect from a passenger point of view.

 

[coppercapped]

If they win but cannot finance the bond then it will go to MTR and Renefe by default.

But MTR is First's partner in South West Railway. It seems that First is considering taking a £100 million hit and dropping the franchise. If this is comes to pass will MTR be excluded by the DfT if it hands back the keys at SWR? See my post #214.

 

[coppercapped]

Almost all of them refer to the passenger accommodation. They can be as reliable as they like, but they are really not great for the passengers. Seating aside, the Class 800 improves on almost every aspect from a passenger point of view.

I would suggest that an unreliable train is even worse for the passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would suggest that an unreliable train is even worse for the passengers.

What's even better is a reliable train with good passenger accommodation. Once any niggles have been ironed out (and the seat cushions all swapped to the newer type), the Class 80x is probably that train.

 

[Meerkat]

It seems that First is considering taking a £100 million hit and dropping the franchise

That isn’t what they said is it? I thought they were just writing off the £100m profit they were expecting. It would be more than that if they were planning on chucking away the bonds etc?