Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (TSGN) Invitation to Tender issued

[tbtc]

A few comments:

Firstly, I'm really enjoying this thread and seeing the data being picked apart by some excellent comments - the detail on this thread is a great example of when this Forum works well (no petty trolling etc).

Secondly, personally disapointing to see reference to "premium airport services" to Gatwick (at a time when there's a big disparity between the spare capacity on the Gatwick Express services and the other services on the East Croydon route. Appreciate that that's an argument for another day though.

Other than the "fast" London Victoria - Brighton services, I'm struggling to see a route suited to the 442s or much long term future for them.

The story about the 458s vs 442s (in terms of leasing costs) opened my eyes to a whole alternative reality where TOCs force suppliers (i.e. ROSCOs) to compete against each other to provide the best deal - if only there were more of this on the "privatised" railway! Sadly too many TOCs are lumbered with what they have with no other ROSCO competing for the business.

Does anyone think the 387s will run in full "TSGN" livery (with them ony being around for the short term)?

The ultimate home for the 387s (Thames Valley or TransPennine) is the biggest unanswered question for me at the moment - wonder when we'll find out?

 

[Martin222002]

The ultimate home for the 387s (Thames Valley or TransPennine) is the biggest unanswered question for me at the moment - wonder when we'll find out?

Not forgetting the Corby services on the MML. Though with the case of the Thames Valley and Corby/Leicester MML stoppers there will be the 115mph Desiro Express Siemens are now offering for the 387s to compete with. Personally in can see them ending up on the electric TPE routes, as the 5 mph will be of help on the GWML main lines and MML fasts.

 

[hwl]

So almost no chance of being replaced by any existing or confirmed Electrostar builds then.

There is the option for the additional 35x 4car 387s that hasn't been taken up yet...
[The initial order is 29 units.]

Elsewhere in the ITT improvements to rolling stock in general are rewarded for example new traction packages.

Realisticly the 442 would need new traction package, Chiltern style door upgrade and more luggage racks and fewer seats (which doesn't fit with the peak extensions to Brighton well - whether they continue is another matter).
New rolling stock with better accessibility might reduce the station dwell times so fewer units might be needed overall or more paths might be available through Gatwick (the new platform will help but will it solve all the issues)?
Does anyone have any idea if the existing door openings are wide enough to meet the DDA requirements in 2020?

313 will probably stay and be sorted in the next TSGN refranchising in the early 2020s at which point the Moorgate services might be transferred to TfL Overground. (The 313s would be 45 when the new stock would arrive)

 

[tbtc]

313 will probably stay and be sorted in the next TSGN refranchising in the early 2020s at which point the Moorgate services might be transferred to TfL Overground. (The 313s would be 45 when the new stock would arrive)

Would the Southern 313s be enough to cover the proposed capacity increase on Moorgate services (six coaches, eight trains per hour off-peak?), or would there be some spare?

(not sure how the numbers stack up)

 

[hwl]

A few comments:

Firstly, I'm really enjoying this thread and seeing the data being picked apart by some excellent comments - the detail on this thread is a great example of when this Forum works well (no petty trolling etc).

Secondly, personally disapointing to see reference to "premium airport services" to Gatwick (at a time when there's a big disparity between the spare capacity on the Gatwick Express services and the other services on the East Croydon route. Appreciate that that's an argument for another day though.

Other than the "fast" London Victoria - Brighton services, I'm struggling to see a route suited to the 442s or much long term future for them.

The story about the 458s vs 442s (in terms of leasing costs) opened my eyes to a whole alternative reality where TOCs force suppliers (i.e. ROSCOs) to compete against each other to provide the best deal - if only there were more of this on the "privatised" railway! Sadly too many TOCs are lumbered with what they have with no other ROSCO competing for the business.

Does anyone think the 387s will run in full "TSGN" livery (with them ony being around for the short term)?

The ultimate home for the 387s (Thames Valley or TransPennine) is the biggest unanswered question for me at the moment - wonder when we'll find out?

Agree completely on point 1.

Premium may mean wifi and mobile services even in tunnels like the HEx services and no stops between Gatwick and Victoria, the possibility of remaining the peak extensions remaining. With new Rolling Stock you could easily lock the first 4 cars of 12 out of use until Gatwick on the extended peak services if those continued.

The East Croydon works and other works on the BML may release a fraction more capacity as will a good number of Thameslink services becoming 12 car.

 

[TrainBoy98]

Would the Southern 313s be enough to cover the proposed capacity increase on Moorgate services (six coaches, eight trains per hour off-peak?), or would there be some spare?

(not sure how the numbers stack up)

Theres only 20 Southern 313 units, so they *should* be able to cover them, with four units spare (if Im right).

(six coaches=2 units, 2X8=16)

 

[cle]

If services using 442s can avoid stopping at Clapham Junction or East Croydon, then 4tph London - Gatwick - Brighton all day could be a good amalgamation of both Gatwick and Brighton expresses?

It'd open paths up for other services, which could stop at CJ and EC. Possibly a Brighton semi-fast.

East Croydon doesn't REALLY need a non-stop service to Brighton after all, and the Thameslink route serves it well too.

 

[Class377/5]

East Croydon doesn't REALLY need a non-stop service to Brighton after all, and the Thameslink route serves it well too.

But Brighton needs its fast service with the current off peak service services that are fairly well loaded en on an 8 car all day long. Thameslink services aren't so well used in comparison, at least from the Brighton end.

A few comments:

Firstly, I'm really enjoying this thread and seeing the data being picked apart by some excellent comments - the detail on this thread is a great example of when this Forum works well (no petty trolling etc).

Very well put.

Secondly, personally disapointing to see reference to "premium airport services" to Gatwick (at a time when there's a big disparity between the spare capacity on the Gatwick Express services and the other services on the East Croydon route. Appreciate that that's an argument for another day though.

Other than the "fast" London Victoria - Brighton services, I'm struggling to see a route suited to the 442s or much long term future for them.

Very true. I've seen lightly loaded at best Gatwick Express pass through Croydon while 12 car arrive and even with limited stops you can be standing to Hayward Heath.

Does anyone think the 387s will run in full "TSGN" livery (with them ony being around for the short term)?

Interesting point. However as the TSGN livery is a rather basic one that don't see why not. After all the final unit will leave in late 2018 meaning there is a good 3 years on the route and with graffiti attacks being common a replacement film is going to be needed anyway so why not add a basic livery. The 377/2 that FCC received were originally livered for an even shorter period (that's now going to last some time).

 

[Fincra5]

Sorry if this is back tracking but in order for the 313s to be on the GN won't all the AC equipment need to re-installed..? I assume Southern left most of it there, just blanked bits off etc...?

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry if this is back tracking but in order for the 313s to be on the GN won't all the AC equipment need to re-installed..? I assume Southern left most of it there, just blanked bits off etc...?

Yes it needs reinstating. £100k / unit apparently.

 

[jon0844]

I hope all the other 313s will be upgraded to a similar layout on or soon after the Southern units come over. Passenger information screens would be really useful for one.

 

[Muzer]

I'm still yet to read these, though I'd quite like to get around to it...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Possibly stupid question - are bids made public?

 

[Manchester77]

Nope think the only bids we ever found out about were Virgins and Firsts for the failed 2012 ICWC

 

[Muzer]

Hmm, the document does imply that the public might be able to obtain the non-confidential parts of bids by FOI requests...

Reading the Essex Thameside ITT, this surprises me (5.6.2):

provide generic branding of their stations, rolling stock and other material, such as timetables, posters, uniforms etc, unless there is a positive business case to provide non-generic branding. Generic branding means branding which does not suggest or imply any affiliation with the franchisee or its affiliates.

 

[WatcherZero]

Tender for East Coast apparently going to be released today.

 

[Class377/5]

Yes it needs reinstating. £100k / unit apparently.

Even at that price is still pocket money compared to a new unit.

 

[jon0844]

I wonder if any company would put new stock in a bid? If it's a management contract, why would anyone suggest anything to increase costs and potentially lose the tender?

 

[A-driver]

313 will probably stay and be sorted in the next TSGN refranchising in the early 2020s at which point the Moorgate services might be transferred to TfL Overground. (The 313s would be 45 when the new stock would arrive)

This myth keeps coming up but I think it's more unlikely now that when it first started. TfL had their bid for southeastern rejected as dartford falls out of London. Their Anglia bid was not successful in terms if Hertford east which was left out if the other lines handed to them. If they are refused control of Hertford east and dartford on grounds of being out of London then they are very unlikely to be allowed control over Stevenage, Hertford north and Welwyn.

What seems more likely is that TFL will run trains from 'somewhere' (possible cannonbury way) to Gordon hill. I say this as we have been told that work is due to start reasonably soon (whatever that means) on laying track around the disused down platform which will become the through road and the current down platform will be dead ended to be used as a turn back platform.

Plus work starts soon on new platform(s) at the leisure park by Stevenage so that the Hertford line has a dedicated turn back there. The bid documents have already stated that Letchworth-Stevenage will be taken out of Moorgate trains during the franchise.

 

[ainsworth74]

In what is rapidly becoming a chain of splits as various franchising documents appear I've split off the news regarding East Coast to this thread. I wonder if in the future people could just start new threads for such significant annoucements

 

[Aictos]

This myth keeps coming up but I think it's more unlikely now that when it first started. TfL had their bid for southeastern rejected as dartford falls out of London. Their Anglia bid was not successful in terms if Hertford east which was left out if the other lines handed to them. If they are refused control of Hertford east and dartford on grounds of being out of London then they are very unlikely to be allowed control over Stevenage, Hertford north and Welwyn.

What seems more likely is that TFL will run trains from 'somewhere' (possible cannonbury way) to Gordon hill. I say this as we have been told that work is due to start reasonably soon (whatever that means) on laying track around the disused down platform which will become the through road and the current down platform will be dead ended to be used as a turn back platform.

Plus work starts soon on new platform(s) at the leisure park by Stevenage so that the Hertford line has a dedicated turn back there. The bid documents have already stated that Letchworth-Stevenage will be taken out of Moorgate trains during the franchise.

1. With regards to Gordon Hill that doesn't make sense at all, surely it would make more sense just to reinstate the bay (Platform 4) and leave the down Hertford (Platform 3) as it is otherwise why not instead of having bay platforms at Gordon Hill why not just convert the bays to though roads and use them as passing points?

Even if you just reinstate the turnback facility on the Down Hertford, that doesn't make economic sense as Platform 1 (Up Hertford Bay) is only used in the peaks and doesn't see use in the off peak so unless there's extra trains running on the Hertford loop like extra Gordon Hill terminators all day I fail to see why we need a extra turnback facility there unless they convert the bays into passing loops.

2. As to regards to Stevenage, nothing has been mentioned locally to non drivers - no station on the Hertford loop has been advised when/if the Stevenage works is going ahead, I guess you have a better idea of the timescales?

Don't get me wrong I think it's great news to terminate all services to/from Hertford at Stevenage but I was under the impression that ALL services for the Cambridge branch line would use the flyover and it would allow the existing Stevenage terminators to be extended to Letchworth?

That said, it be nice to have a separated turnback facility at Stevenage for the Hertfords as it means from Finsbury Park to Stevenage that the Hertfords should be insulated from any delay on the mainline.

I am surprised though that with the recent works at Hertford that no one has thought about having a small extension to the south end of Platform 1 as that is now bi directional to allow 8 car trains to call there.

 

[Chrisgr31]

1. With regards to Gordon Hill that doesn't make sense at all, surely it would make more sense just to reinstate the bay (Platform 4) and leave the down Hertford (Platform 3) as it is otherwise why not instead of having bay platforms at Gordon Hill why not just convert the bays to though roads and use them as passing points?

I don't know the layout at all, and my involvement on railways is as a passenger. However it may make sense to put the turnback in Platform 3 because if it is in Platform 4 the first thing stock that has been turned back has to do on leaving the platform is cross over the other line, therefore restricting use of that line. It must be more efficient to have the turnback between the up and down lines to prevent crossover conflicts.

 

[A-driver]

1. With regards to Gordon Hill that doesn't make sense at all, surely it would make more sense just to reinstate the bay (Platform 4) and leave the down Hertford (Platform 3) as it is otherwise why not instead of having bay platforms at Gordon Hill why not just convert the bays to though roads and use them as passing points?

Even if you just reinstate the turnback facility on the Down Hertford, that doesn't make economic sense as Platform 1 (Up Hertford Bay) is only used in the peaks and doesn't see use in the off peak so unless there's extra trains running on the Hertford loop like extra Gordon Hill terminators all day I fail to see why we need a extra turnback facility there unless they convert the bays into passing loops.

2. As to regards to Stevenage, nothing has been mentioned locally to non drivers - no station on the Hertford loop has been advised when/if the Stevenage works is going ahead, I guess you have a better idea of the timescales?

Don't get me wrong I think it's great news to terminate all services to/from Hertford at Stevenage but I was under the impression that ALL services for the Cambridge branch line would use the flyover and it would allow the existing Stevenage terminators to be extended to Letchworth?

That said, it be nice to have a separated turnback facility at Stevenage for the Hertfords as it means from Finsbury Park to Stevenage that the Hertfords should be insulated from any delay on the mainline.

I am surprised though that with the recent works at Hertford that no one has thought about having a small extension to the south end of Platform 1 as that is now bi directional to allow 8 car trains to call there.

As the above poster said, theturnback in the middle road will be better than the existing turn back as it will allow trains to run in and out without conflicting with both lines, probably similar to why the new station at dalston on the ELL was built with through roads on the outside (I think?)

As I said in my post, I believe that the turn back may be used eventually for a new service and guess that a TFL service may be a contender and possibly where these rumours of TFL running the Hertford line come from. You could run Gordon hill to cannonbury for example on the new up goods and down slow 2 without impacting Moorgate or kings x/st pancras trains.

I have no ideas of timescales, have just been told it's due to start in the near future. I believe something is being done at Stevenage at the moment, there have certainly been lots of network rail staff on the down side between Langley and Stevenage lately and the previously cluttered access roadway south of Stevenage has recently been cleared.

I only link this to suspending Letchworth-Moorgate trains as the thameslink route nap lists that service as running for part of the franchise only. I suppose it may be like a weekend service with only the first and last few trains running from Letchworth in order to get stock to the yard and the rest terminating at Stevenage. I highly doubt all the hertfords would run through-I would imagine 2 out of 3 will continue to terminate there.

 

[greatkingrat]

As I said in my post, I believe that the turn back may be used eventually for a new service and guess that a TFL service may be a contender and possibly where these rumours of TFL running the Hertford line come from. You could run Gordon hill to cannonbury for example on the new up goods and down slow 2 without impacting Moorgate or kings x/st pancras trains.

It wouldn't make any sense to have one TOC running Gordon Hill services and another TOC running Hertford services. TfL would need to have either the whole loop, or none of it. Also there is nowhere for that service to go at Canonbury without messing up the whole NLL timetable.

Ultimately, I would expect there to be 6tph off-peak from the Hertford Loop to Moorgate, 2 from Gordon Hill, 2 from Hertford North and 2 from Stevenage.

 

[A-driver]

It wouldn't make any sense to have one TOC running Gordon Hill services and another TOC running Hertford services. TfL would need to have either the whole loop, or none of it. Also there is nowhere for that service to go at Canonbury without messing up the whole NLL timetable.

Ultimately, I would expect there to be 6tph off-peak from the Hertford Loop to Moorgate, 2 from Gordon Hill, 2 from Hertford North and 2 from Stevenage.

I agree they may all run from Moorgate but having a second operator on the Hertford is no different to both southern and lorol running the forest hill line or both southern and FCC running Brighton- Croydon.

As I say, it's very unlikely TFL will get Hertford as it seems their recent bids for other out if London destinations have been unsuccessful.

 

[Class377/5]

The work at Gordon Hill is to allow Moorgate - Gordon Hill peak extras from May 2018, hence the need for additional 313 units.

As to staff not being told, that's to be expected as its not the FCC but NR/DfT doing this, in fact FCC won't exist when the works bring done.

 

[petersi]

The work at Gordon Hill is to allow Moorgate - Gordon Hill peak extras from May 2018, hence the need for additional 313 units.

As to staff not being told, that's to be expected as its not the FCC but NR/DfT doing this, in fact FCC won't exist when the works bring done.

Will they need more 313 as from my very hazy understanding of Thameslink there will be fewer moorgate services to Welwyn garden city

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Aictos]

As the above poster said, theturnback in the middle road will be better than the existing turn back as it will allow trains to run in and out without conflicting with both lines, probably similar to why the new station at dalston on the ELL was built with through roads on the outside (I think?)

As I said in my post, I believe that the turn back may be used eventually for a new service and guess that a TFL service may be a contender and possibly where these rumours of TFL running the Hertford line come from. You could run Gordon hill to cannonbury for example on the new up goods and down slow 2 without impacting Moorgate or kings x/st pancras trains.

I have no ideas of timescales, have just been told it's due to start in the near future. I believe something is being done at Stevenage at the moment, there have certainly been lots of network rail staff on the down side between Langley and Stevenage lately and the previously cluttered access roadway south of Stevenage has recently been cleared.

I only link this to suspending Letchworth-Moorgate trains as the thameslink route nap lists that service as running for part of the franchise only. I suppose it may be like a weekend service with only the first and last few trains running from Letchworth in order to get stock to the yard and the rest terminating at Stevenage. I highly doubt all the hertfords would run through-I would imagine 2 out of 3 will continue to terminate there.

But if you terminate in Platform 3, you still need to crossover on the return leg to go from the former Down Hertford to the Up Hertford so what difference does it make to just using Platform 4 as a bay?

The work at Gordon Hill is to allow Moorgate - Gordon Hill peak extras from May 2018, hence the need for additional 313 units.

As to staff not being told, that's to be expected as its not the FCC but NR/DfT doing this, in fact FCC won't exist when the works bring done.

How will this effect services between Gordon Hill and Hertford? will these services be run semi fast south of Gordon Hill if these extra peak Gordon Hill extras are running?

 

[A-driver]

But if you terminate in Platform 3, you still need to crossover on the return leg to go from the former Down Hertford to the Up Hertford so what difference does it make to just using Platform 4 as a bay?



How will this effect services between Gordon Hill and Hertford? will these services be run semi fast south of Gordon Hill if these extra peak Gordon Hill extras are running?

Terminating in the middle platform means that trains running IN to Gordon hill won't need to block the up line like they currently do. They can run straight in with a Hertford right behind without the current hold up whilst waiting for a gap in up traffic which does cause congestion currently on the mornings.

As for extra trains to Gordon hill effecting Hertford it won't change the Hertford services. Currently we have a mix of stopping patterns in the am and pm peaks- some semi fast in 3 different stopping patterns (roughly) Hertford, Letchworth, Gordon hill and stevenage, some all stations. We currently run some all station Girdon hill-Moorgate and return combined with some semi fast Gordon hill- Moorgate and return. They won't reduce the number of hertfords as those services are stretched as they are.

 

[Aictos]

Terminating in the middle platform means that trains running IN to Gordon hill won't need to block the up line like they currently do. They can run straight in with a Hertford right behind without the current hold up whilst waiting for a gap in up traffic which does cause congestion currently on the mornings.

As for extra trains to Gordon hill effecting Hertford it won't change the Hertford services. Currently we have a mix of stopping patterns in the am and pm peaks- some semi fast in 3 different stopping patterns (roughly) Hertford, Letchworth, Gordon hill and stevenage, some all stations. We currently run some all station Girdon hill-Moorgate and return combined with some semi fast Gordon hill- Moorgate and return. They won't reduce the number of hertfords as those services are stretched as they are.

Ahh see, just wondered as there were extra services if some Hertfords could be made semi fast with their former stops picked up by these extra Gordon Hill services thats all.

If that's not the case then fair dues.

 

[A-driver]

Ahh see, just wondered as there were extra services if some Hertfords could be made semi fast with their former stops picked up by these extra Gordon Hill services thats all.

If that's not the case then fair dues.

I think it's more done to spread the load out evenly, especially in the evening, otherwise Gordon hills would be mobbed as palmers green, winchmoor hill and Enfield are the buisiest stations. We have a few fast Enfield-Bowes park in the morning but nothing misses palmers green and winchmoor hill in the PM.

The big issue on that line in the mornings is that Alexandra palace, Hornsey and harringay get a very poor service as the trains are always full and standing by the time they get there. We regularly leave people behind at those 3 stations. They have discussed shuttles from Bowes park- Moorgate but can't justify such a short distance path as it would need to come at the expense of a longer distance run. Therefore they try to run a varied stopping pattern on trains from all destinations on the branch to evenly distribute the load.