West Midlands Franchise ITT released by DfT

[pemma]

Not had chance to read it al yet, but is there any indication of services transferring from other franchises e.g. the Shrewsbury-Crewe stopper from the Wales and Borders franchise?

No specific mention but there are caveats about future changes "to the routes or stopping patterns of West Midlands’ and other franchise operators’ services to maximise capacity and/or provide new services"

 

[PHILIPE]

Not had chance to read it al yet, but is there any indication of services transferring from other franchises e.g. the Shrewsbury-Crewe stopper from the Wales and Borders franchise?

Nothing can be done until the present ATW boundary map is redrawn (if it is) and ITT issued. Although it has been suggested some routes could go West Midlands they are all speculation at the moment.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

No specific mention but there are caveats about future changes "to the routes or stopping patterns of West Midlands’ and other franchise operators’ services to maximise capacity and/or provide new services"

Nothing can be done until the present ATW boundary map is redrawn (if it is) and ITT issued. Although it has been suggested some routes could go West Midlands they are all speculation at the moment.

Thanks

Just noticed this little nugget in the rolling stock section

5.2.6b) Is fitted with bogies (with the exception of rolling stock that is used exclusively on the Stourbridge Town branch).

No Pacers then

 

[MidnightFlyer]

From working out the confusing spreadsheet names Hartford is getting 2tph from TSR2 (December 2018.)

Already the case southbound isn't it? There and Penkridge gained the extra calls in the December 2015 (I think) change.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nothing can be done until the present ATW boundary map is redrawn (if it is) and ITT issued. Although it has been suggested some routes could go West Midlands they are all speculation at the moment.

As far as I can see the subject of remapping is not mentioned at all.
The extra WM semi-fast from Shrewsbury to Birmingham is the only morsel in the ATW direction, plus a statement that more frequent WM Sunday services will "replace" those of ATW.

Other non-re-mapping includes Birmingham-Manchester and the Water Orton route out of Birmingham.
Both of these had been mooted as ripe for movement of some services into the WM franchise.
I think they have chickened out of more radical changes.
No mention of services to Preston, either.

The consultation response reads better than the ITT, in that proposals for a number of future options/potential new services are invited, including those with infrastructure changes.
North Staffs has reason to be aggrieved at the loss of its direct WM service to London (as well as being bypassed by HS2).
The replacement Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham will also be an extension of the current Wolves-Birmingham stopper, so not exactly an exciting development.

I can't imagine the bidders will proposed an "East Anglia" solution and replace all the stock, because most of it is relatively new.
Why would they replace the 350s and 172s?
Maybe we will see a new/bigger fleet for the WMR services, with the 350s confined to the WCML?
That would replace all the BR-era trains.
You could imagine Abellio bidding some Stadlers into the mix.

So, the next dominos to fall in the area are the ICWC and Wales & Borders ITTs (and the XC Direct Award, which must be imminent).

 

[Bletchleyite]

As the Crewe services are becoming more IC all the time, might a bidder propose some new 23m or 26m, end-doored IC trains for those, allowing 350s to be concentrated on regional services?

 

[Harbornite]

Speaking of extra trains, there's the Northern Class 323s and, although less likely, the TPE 350s, both of which could be sent to the Midlands.

 

[ainsworth74]

Just noticed this little nugget in the rolling stock section



No Pacers then

Actually by my reading Pacers could be used but only the Stourbridge Town branch

 

[MidlandMainlie]

As the Crewe services are becoming more IC all the time, might a bidder propose some new 23m or 26m, end-doored IC trains for those, allowing 350s to be concentrated on regional services?

Would that be necessary though with HS2 likely to free up some Pendolinos in 2026/27?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't imagine the bidders will proposed an "East Anglia" solution and replace all the stock, because most of it is relatively new.
Why would they replace the 350s and 172s?
Maybe we will see a new/bigger fleet for the WMR services, with the 350s confined to the WCML?
That would replace all the BR-era trains.
You could imagine Abellio bidding some Stadlers into the mix.

Agreed, the 350's are already unrated to 110mph and could be given a refurbishment to provide more of an intercity spec for WCML services like adding a first class section on the 350/4's (perhaps reducing 3+2 in the 350/2's?)

On the 323's there should be more than enough for the West Midlands local and cross city line services. Perhaps the ROSCO might be willing to offer a deal after the Easr Anglia franchise.

 

[pemma]

Actually by my reading Pacers could be used but only the Stourbridge Town branch

There's a refurbished 144 which can go somewhere in 2019 and remain in service past the 31st December 2019 deadline. Although, I think the Cardiff Bay shuttle would be a more likely option.

Agreed, the 350's are already unrated to 110mph and could be given a refurbishment to provide more of an intercity spec for WCML services like adding a first class section on the 350/4's (perhaps reducing 3+2 in the 350/2's?)

On the 323's there should be more than enough for the West Midlands local and cross city line services. Perhaps the ROSCO might be willing to offer a deal after the East Anglia franchise.

With the suggestion that a train full of 3+2 seating is not ideal for busy commuter services it'll be interesting to see what LM bidders propose. With Northern Arriva are replacing 321/2/3s with 3+2 seating with 331s with 2+2 seating and are changing the internal configuration of the 333s so that only half the carriages have 3+2 seating.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As the Crewe services are becoming more IC all the time, might a bidder propose some new 23m or 26m, end-doored IC trains for those, allowing 350s to be concentrated on regional services?

Maybe an option bidders might consider is ordering trains like the ones TPE are acquiring for Manchester Airport/Liverpool to Birmingham services and then they could use those for pseudo-Intercity services, 350/1s, /3s and /4s for regional services and 323s for commuter services? As Angel own the 350/1s, /3s and /4s but not the /2s I can't see them objecting to agree a lease for all their 350s but not the ones belonging to another ROSCO.

 

[ainsworth74]

There's a refurbished 144 which can go somewhere in 2019 and remain in service past the 31st December 2019 deadline. Although, I think the Cardiff Bay shuttle would be a more likely option.

I was being a bit silly to be honest ) ) but that's true there is that e144 floating around that could probably do with a home but it would seem like overkill for the branch!

That being said what is the life expectancy of a PPM?

 

[pemma]

Would that be necessary though with HS2 likely to free up some Pendolinos in 2026/27?

Won't be that many if it's just some Birmingham services which are cut back. They might not even leave the West Coast franchise if more destinations get added to the franchise or if they are used to replace Voyagers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was being a bit silly to be honest ) ) but that's true there is that e144 floating around that could probably do with a home but it would seem like overkill for the branch!

Yes I realised that. I imagine the PPMs will remain on that branch until it's life expired unless it can no longer cope with passenger numbers.

 

[Class 170101]

It seems bidders can propose using any EMUs which will become available such as the Northern 323s and TPE 350s but for DMUs it's a case of what they'll be left with by the current franchise unless DfT tell bidders otherwise or bidders propose using new stock.

I notice they've asked for bidders to consider alternatives to 3+2 seating on the Cross City line.

What about the DMUs released by Anglia? Would they not be able to be snapped up by the bidders?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

West Midlands ITT limits services

30.08.16
West Midlands ITT puts limits on frequency of commuter services

Services from key towns in the West Midlands will be cut under the new franchise despite fears that this will make commuting harder.

The DfT published the invitation to tender (ITT) for the new franchise today. In its response to the consultation on the new franchise, the West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority said that proposals to cut the number of trains stopping at towns on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) would make commuting ‘almost impossible’.

However, the newly published ITT contains a number of limitations on the number of services that can be operated on the WCML.

For example, bidders cannot operate more than six trains an hour in each direction between Birmingham New Street and Wolverhampton and seven between 8.00am and 8.59am on weekdays, compared to the nine services an hour running now.

There will be an additional train between Birmingham New Street and Bushbury Junction, but this is not required to call at Wolverhampton.

The number of trains between London Euston and Milton Keynes is also limited to five an hour during the morning commute, four during the evening commute and three at other times.

Services are also limited to two an hour between Crewe and Weaver Junction and one an hour between Rugby and Crewe and between Stafford and Crewe.

However, there will be an additional extension of one train an hour from Birmingham New Street to Weaver Junction, calling at Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton, Stafford and Crewe.

In addition, the ITT says that a minimum of 95% of passenger services each week must wholly operate on electrified services.

The ITT also warns that the DfT “has particular concerns regarding the merger control implications of the same operating group winning both the franchise and the InterCity West Coast rail operations”.

It says this could “increase the risk” of intervention by a competition authority, which could delay the franchise awarding process and make it less likely that the winning bidder will be able to operate one or both franchises.

The integration of the Arriva and Northern franchises was halted by the Competition and Markets Authority over competition concerns.

The DfT said the new franchise would provide capacity for an additional 20,000 passengers at peak times. It added that it requires a franchisee who will, by the end of 2021, refurbish all pre-1995 rolling stock that will form part of the train fleet after the end of 2022. Additionally, if a franchisee proposes to procure new trains as part of their fleet strategy it must ensure that those trains are designed in such a way as to minimise the future costs of fitting ETCS equipment, and can be operated under Driver Controlled Operation (DCO).

The Department also requires a franchisee’s fleet strategy to provide sufficient suitable rolling stock to enable it to deploy electric rolling stock to operate a minimum of 95% of passenger services each week that operate wholly on electrified routes.

Paul Maynard MP, the minister for rail, said: “We are making the biggest investment in the railways since the Victorian era and today marks a key step forward in giving passengers better journeys across the West Midlands and beyond.

“This franchise serves both commuters and long distance passengers and these benefits will deliver extra and smoother journeys for customers using these services.”

Cllr Mark Winnington, chair of West Midlands Rail and Staffordshire county council’s cabinet member for economic growth, said: “Today’s announcement is a game changer in that it is the first time the West Midlands has had this level of involvement in shaping what a train company has to deliver for local passengers.

“The region has come together to grab this devolution opportunity with both hands and we believe that together with the Department for Transport we have set out a railway that brings real benefits not only for passengers but also for local businesses, supporting economic growth and jobs.

“The authorities of the West Midlands are united in this and believe the region better understands what it needs from its railway and that having greater responsibility for its management is good for passengers, good for the economy and good for taxpayers.”

The West Midlands franchise competition is between the existing operator London Midland, owned by Govia, and West Midlands Trains, owned by Abellio with East Japan Railway Company and Mitsui & Co Ltd as minority partners.

MTR Corporation West Midlands was originally shortlisted to submit a bid, but unexpectedly announced that it was withdrawing in June.

The companies now have until 29 November to submit a bid, with the new operator due to take over in October 2017.

Interestingly has anyone seen anything in the ITT to back up this story? Can't be good for commuters if its true.

 

[pemma]

^ Perhaps the ITT wasn't updated following the Anglia announcement or perhaps DfT want to reserve them for other franchises. Presumably as they invited bidders to propose using 185s they won't invite bidders of other franchises to use them until the franchise award
is made.

 

[SF-02]

Here we go again:
ITT page 71

The local fare dodgers will soon twig. Then many who do pay will see the free riders and join in.

 

[ChrisHogan]

What about the DMUs released by Anglia? Would they not be able to be snapped up by the bidders?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

West Midlands ITT limits services



Interestingly has anyone seen anything in the ITT to back up this story? Can't be good for commuters if its true.

A misreading of the ITT: all operators provide 9 services an hour between Birmingham and Wolves (1 VWC, 2 XC, 1 ATW, 2 LM Liverpool, 2 stoppers, one LM Shrewsbury). The limitation is on the new WM franchise, not the total.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The local fare dodgers will soon twig. Then many who do pay will see the free riders and join in.

Also published by the DfT today is the Halcrow study on fare evasion that shows very high levels of ticketless travel across the West Midlands. In the ITT the two bidders are required to come up with a fares strategy for the franchise. As we hardly ever see on-train ticket checks (and the gates are usually open outside the peaks at the three Birmingham stations), fare dodgers are already travelling on LM services.

 

[Polarbear]

One wonders whether some (or all) of the 379s could be taken on by the new West Midland franchise? Could be used on those faster Crewe-Euston services.

 

[All Line Rover]

As the Crewe services are becoming more IC all the time, might a bidder propose some new 23m or 26m, end-doored IC trains for those, allowing 350s to be concentrated on regional services?

I'm very pleased that the DfT has finally decided to end the Trent Valley detour via Stoke-on-Trent. Non-stop running from Stafford to Crewe will greatly benefit Trent Valley passengers needing to travel to destinations north of Crewe.

The SBD stipulates that the Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham stoppers will connect conveniently with the Trent Valley services at Stafford. Therefore, Stoke-on-Trent passengers will continue to be able to use the Trent Valley services by connecting at Stafford, if they value the lower fares.

I continue to believe that the 350s are perfectly suitable rolling stock for the Trent Valley services. Are Pendolinos really suited to journeys where the majority of passengers are travelling relatively short distances to, for example, Milton Keynes? Replacing the 3+2 seating on the 350/2s with 2+2 seating and replacing the 2+2 first class seating on the 350/1s, 350/2s and 350/3s with 2+1 seating would ensure a pleasant ambience for passengers travelling somewhat longer distances, such as London to Lichfield, without restricting the amount of standing space available.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interestingly has anyone seen anything in the ITT to back up this story? Can't be good for commuters if its true.

Do you mean the para about the same company running WM and ICWC?
That's because of the CMA investigation of Arriva's Northern award.

Ironically, the DfT (well, the SRA), snuffed out dual operators out of Liverpool St and Paddington (the "one operator per London terminal" policy), but apparently do not want the same result out of Euston.
But Govia and Abellio are hardly likely to bid for ICWC.

 

[Class 170101]

Do you mean the para about the same company running WM and ICWC?

No, I was more referring about capacity into Euston which seems to be reduced, presumably for HS2 construction.

I notice also in the ITT that LM are only allowed to run one path via the Weedon per hour. Disappointing if I have read that correctly.

 

[WatcherZero]

Reading through the revenue protection survey.

Overall £16.5m revenue 5.7% evasion upper estimate £5.8m 2.0% evasion lower estimate +£10.7m potential range. They assume 50% of people surveyed without a ticket would buy one later.

The highest irregularity rates at Watford Junction-St Albans Abbey (36.6%) and New Street-Wolverhampton-Wellington/Shrewsbury (26.7%) services. The lowest irregularity rates are on Bedford-Bletchley services (1.6%) and Euston-Milton Keynes-Northampton services (1.7%).

Valid ticket %, Irregularities, Valid excuse assumption, total surveyed
EJ01 Snow Hill-Shirley/Henley-Stratford-U-Avon
86.7% 12.9% 0.4% 698
EJ01 Snow Hill-Dorridge-L Spa-Stratford-U-Avon
82.3% 17.4% 0.3% 1,118
EJ01 Snow Hill-Stourbridge Jct-K'Minster/B'grove-Worcester
86.4% 13.2% 0.4% 2,620
EJ02 Coventry-Nuneaton
88.9% 10.6% 0.5% 324
EJ03 New Street-Wolverhampton
85.3% 14.6% 0.1% 916
EJ03 New Street-Walsall-Hednesford-Rugeley Town
83.1% 16.5% 0.4% 905
EJ03 Lichfield-New Street-Redditch
84.8% 14.8% 0.4% 2,275
EJ03 Hereford-Gt Malvern-Worcester-New Street
89.3% 10.7% 0.1% 868
EJ04 New Street-Wolverhampton-Wellington/Shrewsbury
73.1% 26.6% 0.3% 595
EJ03 New Street-Bhm International-Coventry-Northampton
94.5% 5.3% 0.2% 2,510
EJ04 New Street-Crewe-Liverpool Lime St
96.2% 3.5% 0.3% 3,801
EJ02 Rugby-Nuneaton-Stafford-Stoke-Crewe
96.2% 3.6% 0.3% 757
EJ05 Euston-Milton Keynes-Northampton
97.8% 1.7% 0.4% 2,449
EJ06 Bedford-Bletchley
98.2% 1.6% 0.2% 273
EJ06 Watford Junction-St Albans Abbey
63.1% 36.4% 0.5% 837
Total
89.3% 10.4% 0.3% 20,946

Excuses
No time to buy a ticket 689 3.29%
No ticket machine/booking office at station 390 1.86%
No ticket -Refused to give a reason 355 1.69%
Booking office closed 199 0.95%
Refusal (to participate in the survey) 135 0.64%
Ticket machine not working 120 0.557%
Lost/forgotten ticket 81 0.39%
Child impersonation 29 0.14%
Card-only ticket machine and no credit/debit card available 27 0.13%
Overridding 20 0.10%

 

[tomuk]

New Street-Wolverhampton-Wellington/Shrewsbury (26.7%) services

I travelled on the 14:47 stopper to New Street a few weeks ago from Shrewsbury. I boarded at the front and sat at the first table bay behind the cab.

After a ticket check just after leaving Shrewsbury I didn't see the guard for the rest of the journey.

But at every stop from Wellington onwards somebody/bodies got on and travelled one or two stops without paying.

 

[LowLevel]

The Shrewsbury services have become notorious locally for guards staying in the cab, something which I've certainly noted a few times and which causes no shortage of irritation amongst the locals as there's a massive queue at New Street.

However at the other end of the scale, there are issues with the route. For one the services are far busier than they used to be with most of the local stops nudging 6 figures now. I've seen the guard struggling to move out of one coach on numerous occasions.

For two, the trains are at times formed of non corridor fitted multiple units (170/5 x 2 or 170/5 + 153) which makes revenue protection tricky.

For three, London Midland chose to dispense with the assistant ticket examiners that worked the route, who were very popular with the locals and very active and visible at selling tickets. Since then you find all the issues are exacerbated by this, coupled with the conductors being thoroughly demotivated by the loss of their colleagues (I can certainly vouch for that as the same happened to ours).

 

[the sniper]

For three, London Midland chose to dispense with the assistant ticket examiners that worked the route, who were very popular with the locals and very active and visible at selling tickets. Since then you find all the issues are exacerbated by this, coupled with the conductors being thoroughly demotivated by the loss of their colleagues (I can certainly vouch for that as the same happened to ours).

This. People shouldn't underestimate the impact the whole revenue protection department being made redundant had on moral, particularly when it came to Guards doing revenue. 'If they (the company) don't care about revenue protection, why should we', etc...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I notice also in the ITT that LM are only allowed to run one path via the Weedon per hour. Disappointing if I have read that correctly.

I think that's just the status quo.
It's 7tph VT (9tph peak) and 1tph LM (110mph).
Any more LMs and you will cut a VT path, maybe two.
GNWR have also got a path every 2 hours from 2018 (not the DfT's choice), and I expect they are holding the other half path for ICWC expansion.

All this about the LM TV service running direct to Crewe is being done without reference to ICWC.
I'd like to see how it turns out after we have the ICWC bids (and the GNWR stopping detail).

Reading between the lines of the timetable rules, there is going to be an extra ICWC Birmingham-North West (or maybe XC) which will avoid Wolverhampton.
This is of course part of the promised Norton Bridge extra capacity.

The 95% rule about operating electric trains seems superfluous.
I'm not aware of LM operating any DMUs wholly under the wires.
Birmingham-Walsall perhaps, but all going electric when the Chase line is wired.

 

[pemma]

The local fare dodgers will soon twig. Then many who do pay will see the free riders and join in.

Like I've already said the next LM franchise has to come up with a plan to reduce fare dodging. If they choose to go to DCO (which no-one has said is actually required by the ITT) then they will have to provide staff who focus on revenue duties. It will be harder to fare dodge in the future not easier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like I've already said the next LM franchise has to come up with a plan to reduce fare dodging. If they choose to go to DCO (which no-one has said is actually required by the ITT) then they will have to provide staff who focus on revenue duties. It will be harder to fare dodge in the future not easier.

One way would be to have more staff who can and do issue PFs. At present, there is a PF scheme but it is rather theoretical as almost nobody can actually issue them, and out of those who can almost nobody ever actually does.

As such, we are back to the "pay if challenged" situation.

 

[ChrisHogan]

I think that's just the status quo.




The 95% rule about operating electric trains seems superfluous.
I'm not aware of LM operating any DMUs wholly under the wires.
Birmingham-Walsall perhaps, but all going electric when the Chase line is wired.

There are one or two New Street-Wolves services diagrammed for 170s.

 

[Harbornite]

I don't think this has been shared yet...

http://www.westmidlandsrail.com/about-us/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are one or two New Street-Wolves services diagrammed for 170s.

But they're quite insignificant in all this because the majority of 170s on this route go to and from Shrewsbury, which won't be getting wires for a good few years.

 

[ChrisHogan]

But they're quite insignificant in all this because the majority of 170s on this route go to and from Shrewsbury, which won't be getting wires for a good few years.

0822 ex Wolves to New Street on a Sunday morning is one that appears to be diagrammed for a 170. Perhaps for traction retention purposes? As said previously, the 95% rule appears to be unnecessary assuming WM gets the ex-Northern 323s.