You're saying "I want better trains"...

[Murph]

So you'd be happy with the crap we're saddled with then?

No, but that in no way equates to a case for brand new trains. Read what I said above. Northern need better and more appropriate trains, but age is utterly irrelevant as long as they are in good condition inside and out.

Pacers are overdue for replacement when they are being used for intensive commuter type services. The oldest Sprinters probably need looking at as well, but a better option for them may well be a deep refurb if the structure is reasonable, due to the general shortage of DMUs. 153s should probably be re-formed back to 155s again. Sprinters should probably be coupled in longer formations in the peaks, as and when cascades make that possible.

If the 319s are properly refurbished (and most other mark 3 or later EMUs), and the underlying structure is still reasonable, new stock gives no real advantage over them. Shiny and new doesn't mean comfortable, or get commuters to/from work any better, or give any other serious advantage, over properly refurbished proven stock which still has plenty of life left in it (assuming that the proven stock was fundamentally good from the start, which the 319s as BREL mark 3-derived stock are).

If stock isn't properly refurbished, or isn't properly maintained, that's a whole other can of worms. It's also no justification for new stock; it's a justification for new management.

 

[northwichcat]

There, I've added to your figures as the 'east' as defined on the wiki page that I used, (I assume you also) counts Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Bedfordshire & Cambridgeshire as part of the region. There are significant commuter flows from all of these counties, which means that rail services are scaled (and priced) accordingly. I've not included Northampton which also has a high number of commuters considering it's distance from London

The lack of knowledge of distances travelled is probably why so many away from the south-east have a jaundiced view of commuter provision. Although the largest numbers of commuters travel from within 20 miles of Central London, a very significant number travel from 50 miles or more away and the inadequacies of the infrastructure require that rolling stock has a level of reliability that doesn't completely shutdown the main transport arteries, e.g. the GEML, ECML, MML, WCML, GWML, SWML. I've left out the BML & the Kent mainlines as they are all pretty well commuter railways now.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Surely most people consider journey time and cost in comparison to their salary when considering whether a rail commute is viable or not. London has express services to cities all around the country, so it means living further away from your place of work is a more viable option if you work in London.

Take Milton Keynes to London - it takes just over half an hour using Virgin and then maybe it'll take you another half-hour to reach your work place which may be 2-3 miles from Euston. So a 1 hour journey for an approx 55 mile commute.

On the other hand an equivalent journey in the North could be Warrington to Leeds (with only 1 direct service per hour) the direct train takes 1 hour 25 minutes, then you might have a 15 minute walk from Leeds station to your place of work. So the person moves rather than commutes. If their partner works in somewhere like Chester/Liverpool/Preston then maybe they move to Manchester rather than in to Yorkshire.

Of course the population totals you've come up with of 15 million and 22.5 million are meaningless, as that would assume no-one from the North Midlands, North Wales or Southern Scotland works in the North of England and also that every rail commuter from Norfolk works in London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If stock isn't properly refurbished, or isn't properly maintained, that's a whole other can of worms. It's also no justification for new stock; it's a justification for new management.

Indeed. Towards the end of the First North Western franchise the 150s had one of the best interiors in the fleet, having had a proper refurbishment a few years earlier while newer trains like 156s and 158s hadn't been done up.

On the other hand the 150s in the Arriva Trains Northern fleet were worse than the 142s in the fleet. With the 150s having the original interiors (including original BR notices) while the 142s had been fitted with new seats, new heaters and new internal lights.

 

[AM9]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Surely most people consider journey time and cost in comparison to their salary when considering whether a rail commute is viable or not. London has express services to cities all around the country, so it means living further away from your place of work is a more viable option if you work in London.

It's really the other way around, - people (generally) cannot afford to live near to their employment in London so are forced to move further away from their work. It's a balance between lower housing costs and higher travelling costs plus the social and actual domestic costs of longer travelling time. The increased route capacities from outer commuting centres have arisen because of the additional demand.

Take Milton Keynes to London - it takes just over half an hour using Virgin and then maybe it'll take you another half-hour to reach your work place which may be 2-3 miles from Euston. So a 1 hour journey for an approx 55 mile commute.

There aren't any Virgin trains from MK to Euston between 07:14 and 08:47 which means the London office workers can't use them. The LM trains, which are 1/3 2/3 door outer suburban stock just like the 185s and 150s take between 45 and 65 minutes to do the journey. So your 1 hour journey becomes 1:15 to 1:35 minimum.

On the other hand an equivalent journey in the North could be Warrington to Leeds (with only 1 direct service per hour) the direct train takes 1 hour 25 minutes, then you might have a 15 minute walk from Leeds station to your place of work. So the person moves rather than commutes. If their partner works in somewhere like Chester/Liverpool/Preston then maybe they move to Manchester rather than in to Yorkshire.

So the privileged Southerner doesn't get to work any quicker, and the according to your example on reaching Euston, then has to take the crush on the tube or bus in central London. Oh, and by the way, the poor northerner only has to bay £11.30 whereas the privileged Southerner pays either £16.00 or £19.60 plus a TfL fare, (probably Oyster) of at least a couple of pounds more.

Of course the population totals you've come up with of 15 million and 22.5 million are meaningless, as that would assume no-one from the North Midlands, North Wales or Southern Scotland works in the North of England and also that every rail commuter from Norfolk works in London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My original reference to population was in response to anti-pacer's comment "We account for a higher population than London.... ". His assertion needed challenging. I pointed out "The population of London is irrelevant, it's the number of passengers that determines the quantity and type of rolling stock". I also said that the population of London, (as in the administered Greater London area) was only part of the commuting population. I referred to the areas that are affected by travel from them and stated a figure of 20 million that had been previously suggested in another thread.
In your next post you offerd some figures (presumably from the same Wikipedia page that I had used) so my last post added in East Anglia which is a major source of London commuters.
Of course not everybody in Norfolk commutes, but take a look at the morning services from Norwich, Cambridge, Peterborough and Bedford to judge for yourself if they are busy commuter services.
I have not had a response to the above point by anti-pacer.

 

[anti-pacer]

It's really the other way around, - people (generally) cannot afford to live near to their employment in London so are forced to move further away from their work. It's a balance between lower housing costs and higher travelling costs plus the social and actual domestic costs of longer travelling time. The increased route capacities from outer commuting centres have arisen because of the additional demand.


There aren't any Virgin trains from MK to Euston between 07:14 and 08:47 which means the London office workers can't use them. The LM trains, which are 1/3 2/3 door outer suburban stock just like the 185s and 150s take between 45 and 65 minutes to do the journey. So your 1 hour journey becomes 1:15 to 1:35 minimum.

So the privileged Southerner doesn't get to work any quicker, and the according to your example on reaching Euston, then has to take the crush on the tube or bus in central London. Oh, and by the way, the poor northerner only has to bay £11.30 whereas the privileged Southerner pays either £16.00 or £19.60 plus a TfL fare, (probably Oyster) of at least a couple of pounds more.



My original reference to population was in response to anti-pacer's comment "We account for a higher population than London.... ". His assertion needed challenging. I pointed out "The population of London is irrelevant, it's the number of passengers that determines the quantity and type of rolling stock". I also said that the population of London, (as in the administered Greater London area) was only part of the commuting population. I referred to the areas that are affected by travel from them and stated a figure of 20 million that had been previously suggested in another thread.
In your next post you offerd some figures (presumably from the same Wikipedia page that I had used) so my last post added in East Anglia which is a major source of London commuters.
Of course not everybody in Norfolk commutes, but take a look at the morning services from Norwich, Cambridge, Peterborough and Bedford to judge for yourself if they are busy commuter services.
I have not had a response to the above point by anti-pacer.

I appreciate London has the biggest and busiest rail market, but it's not the only one.

Some Northern routes, especially in the peaks are very busy, but we're riding around on crap that I bet our Eastern European arrivals are probably turning their noses up.

I still maintain that the rest of the country should have its fair share of decent stock.

 

[AM9]

I appreciate London has the biggest and busiest rail market, but it's not the only one.

Some Northern routes, especially in the peaks are very busy, but we're riding around on crap that I bet our Eastern European arrivals are probably turning their noses up.

I still maintain that the rest of the country should have its fair share of decent stock.

I have never said in any post that the North (or anywhere) else deserves poor rolling stock, in fact nor have I said that anywhere (including London) deserves new stock. The newness of stock does not determine it's suitability for a particular line or even the majority of passengers. This forum is abound with posts that rue the unsuitability of modern stock for their personal comfort ignoring the plight of the operator trying to provide enough capacity within a framework decreed ultimately by the DfT. London has its fair share of complaints, frequently unjustified about:
upholstery not as soft as was the norm with MkI LHCS that were fitted with leaf springs.
With seat layouts that were totally unacceptable because every seat did not have a perfect panoramic view,
with trains that did not (or did) have air conditioning/opening windows, doors in the wrong place, no tables/trays etc..
These posters are in the minority on this forum and certainly in the total passenger population. Most travellers want a reliable train service first, and the cosmetics are rarely mentioned.

I hope that the current administration's pre-election enthusiasm for boosting the North's infrastructure and giving it a level of autonomy doesn't fade away post election as it won't help anybody. For the autonomy to deliver anything, it is dependent on co-operation between all those within the sphere of 'the North'. Such rivalry that exists between various areas, e.g. east vs west of the Pennines, Liverpool vs Manchester etc. cannot continue; as like it or not, none of those factions has the population, industry and most importantly capital resources to go it alone. Just because London has, doesn't mean that anybody should pretend they have.
Any squabbling between Northern local bodies and politicians about central government funds will inevitably condemn the schemes to failure. London does it because there is one central authority over all transport accountable to the Mayor. The numbers involved would probably mean that Merseyside, Lancashire and Greater Manchester would have to operate as one, a difficult cultural concept to sell.
Instead of complaininng about TfL getting large grants, a lot of which is matched by local taxation, better to look at what they have achieved by defining better standards, controlling contracts and raising service levels, generally to levels that its honest users recognise are better than elsewhere in the UK.
I hope that the North West electrification is carried through and then across the Pennines North to enable better integration of electric services. The 319s are perfectly usable stock and I imagine will be welcomed by Northern passengers as an improvement over even 156s. The benefits of electric trains will increase patronage and require more stock to satisfy demand for future schemes. In the medium term the 319s will meet the need, (maybe with some 315s). Of course, they won't last forever, and when they become life expired (read more expensive to run that acquiring new stock) they will be replaced, just like the 304 and 307 slammers were. Then there will complaints that the seating in the new stock is less comfortable than that in the 319s. It's the way it goes.

 

[47802]

This constant moaning about the north and south is getting tiresome.

Northern don't run all the services in the north, and a fair few routes in the north worked by other companies have had new rolling stock particularly TPX, then you got relatively new 175's working out of Manchester to Chester and North Wales, and both the East and West coast franchises covering a fair few destinations in the north as well as London.

As far northern goes well the quality of the interiors has improved of late, they could still be better mind, the 319's with there moderate refurb should be acceptable to most people for the time being and bring extra capacity.

That leaves the only issues for me which are railbuses turning up on too many long distance services which isn't easily fixed until some are replaced and overcrowding, The electrification scheme's should help fix the overcrowding. Therefore overall I certainly don't think services in the north are really as bad as some people like to make out and its becoming a bit of a tiresome broken record quite frankly. Oh and yes I live in the north and use the trains a fair amount.

'Anti-Pacer' started this thread saying he was sat on the 07-35 Leeds to Huddersfield service via Bradford well for me short runs like that are perfectly acceptable on a Rail Bus in good condition, even though he was actually on a 150. Where it becomes less acceptable is when they turn up on such as Newcastle Carlisle etc, where there is no alternative for end to end passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

That leaves the only issues for me which are railbuses turning up on too many long distance services which isn't easily fixed until some are replaced and overcrowding

A very succinct summary.

However, I don't share your optimism that the electrification schemes will arrive on time or solve overcrowding.

A big problem seems to be 2 carriage railbuses turning up on trains for which they represent inadequate capacity. Until there is capacity to double up more of these, we will continue to have issues.

And there's the little issue of what the DfT intends to do to with the next franchise.

 

[northwichcat]

There aren't any Virgin trains from MK to Euston between 07:14 and 08:47 which means the London office workers can't use them. The LM trains, which are 1/3 2/3 door outer suburban stock just like the 185s and 150s take between 45 and 65 minutes to do the journey. So your 1 hour journey becomes 1:15 to 1:35 minimum.

That's not correct. The 06:27 Wolverhampton-Euston service stops at MKC and departs at 07:41. The next one after the 07:41 is the 08:47.

I'm also a bit confused why you think a 07:14 departure from MKC is of no use to commuters. Does no-one in London start work at 08:30? 08:30 is a common start time up here.

So the privileged Southerner doesn't get to work any quicker, and the according to your example on reaching Euston, then has to take the crush on the tube or bus in central London. Oh, and by the way, the poor northerner only has to bay £11.30 whereas the privileged Southerner pays either £16.00 or £19.60 plus a TfL fare, (probably Oyster) of at least a couple of pounds more.

I'm a bit confused how you've come up with those figures.

For a 7 day season ticket the price Warrington to Leeds costs £106.80

Milton Keynes Central to London terminals costs £122.20, or to London zones 1-6 it costs £145.30

Using BBC pay grades a grade 4 employee in London is on a minimum of £23,048 while one outside London is on a minimum of £18,760, so I'm sure the Southerner can afford to pay the higher fare to get the Pendolino in and out of London.

As for the 'crush' do you realise TPE has a higher seat occupancy rate than London Overground, despite the very low seat density on LO? Also no Virgin Trains services appear in DfT's list of 10 most overcrowded trains while a morning TPE service does.

My original reference to population was in response to anti-pacer's comment "We account for a higher population than London.... ". His assertion needed challenging. I pointed out "The population of London is irrelevant, it's the number of passengers that determines the quantity and type of rolling stock". I also said that the population of London, (as in the administered Greater London area) was only part of the commuting population. I referred to the areas that are affected by travel from them and stated a figure of 20 million that had been previously suggested in another thread.
In your next post you offerd some figures (presumably from the same Wikipedia page that I had used) so my last post added in East Anglia which is a major source of London commuters.
Of course not everybody in Norfolk commutes, but take a look at the morning services from Norwich, Cambridge, Peterborough and Bedford to judge for yourself if they are busy commuter services.
I have not had a response to the above point by anti-pacer.

Well antipacer originally started the argument saying about how LM had got a load of new trains and Northern had got the cast-offs (post 52.) As the only ex-LM Northern have received are 150s which were used in the West Midlands I think that statement could have been expanded on but the reference to London was a red herring.

 

[anti-pacer]

A very succinct summary.

However, I don't share your optimism that the electrification schemes will arrive on time or solve overcrowding.

A big problem seems to be 2 carriage railbuses turning up on trains for which they represent inadequate capacity. Until there is capacity to double up more of these, we will continue to have issues.

And there's the little issue of what the DfT intends to do to with the next franchise.

Railbuses of any carriage formation for any journey aren't really acceptable on account of the fact they belong in a scrapyard.

Yes I know we haven't got anything to replace them yet, but fair investment in all areas of the country in terms of rail investment is needed.

The "we've got no money" argument wears thin when we magic the cash to bail out every warzone we really shouldn't be having anything to do with.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern don't run all the services in the north, and a fair few routes in the north worked by other companies have had new rolling stock particularly TPX, then you got relatively new 175's working out of Manchester to Chester and North Wales, and both the East and West coast franchises covering a fair few destinations in the north as well as London.

While the 175s still feel like a modern train, it's a bit worrying when a DMU is supposed to have an approx. 25 year shelf life that we class 15 year old trains as 'relatively new.'

'Anti-Pacer' started this thread saying he was sat on the 07-35 Leeds to Huddersfield service via Bradford well for me short runs like that are perfectly acceptable on a Rail Bus in good condition, even though he was actually on a 150. Where it becomes less acceptable is when they turn up on such as Newcastle Carlisle etc, where there is no alternative for end to end passengers.

The problem Northern face is 2 car Pacers are smaller than 2 car Sprinters, so if Northern have a 142 and a 150 and have 2 services to operate:
Service A is 30 minutes in length and will get a maximum of 200 passengers
Service B is 75 minutes in length and will get a maximum of 100 passengers

If service A gets the Sprinter, people on service B complain about getting the Pacer for a longer journey. If service B gets the Sprinter, Northern get complaints that the train on service A was so full they couldn't get on. So whichever service gets the Pacer it's a square peg to go in to a round hole.

 

[Oswyntail]

....
The "we've got no money" argument wears thin when we magic the cash to bail out every warzone we really shouldn't be having anything to do with.

Although I agree with the sentiment, it should be pointed out that, once money is allocated to particular Departments by Parliament, it is quite a palaver, though not impossible, to get it transferred elsewhere. Of course it is quite possible for a Department to reallocate its "own" designated funds.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Railbuses of any carriage formation for any journey aren't really acceptable on account of the fact they belong in a scrapyard.
Yes I know we haven't got anything to replace them yet, but fair investment in all areas of the country in terms of rail investment is needed.
The "we've got no money" argument wears thin when we magic the cash to bail out every warzone we really shouldn't be having anything to do with.

To get the money for new/better/more trains you need a business case that the DfT and Treasury will accept.
That means limitations on the amount of money you can throw at a particular franchise like Northern.
You may have noticed that we are cutting public funds significantly and it is at the subsidy level that this impacts seriously.
You can probably choose between modern trains or more trains but not both, or not at the same time anyway.
New trains means there will be fewer of them.
Do you want 20 refurbished existing Pacers, 12 cascaded 150s, or 8 new DMUs which will take 3 years to arrive?
Will you pay higher fares for better trains? Can Northern cut costs to improve the equation?
Those are the sorts of choices which face the DfT, unless the Treasury opens the coffers, which is very unlikely.

 

[yorksrob]

To get the money for new/better/more trains you need a business case that the DfT and Treasury will accept.
That means limitations on the amount of money you can throw at a particular franchise like Northern.
You may have noticed that we are cutting public funds significantly and it is at the subsidy level that this impacts seriously.
You can probably choose between modern trains or more trains but not both, or not at the same time anyway.
New trains means there will be fewer of them.
Do you want 20 refurbished existing Pacers, 12 cascaded 150s, or 8 new DMUs which will take 3 years to arrive?
Will you pay higher fares for better trains? Can Northern cut costs to improve the equation?
Those are the sorts of choices which face the DfT, unless the Treasury opens the coffers, which is very unlikely.

They certainly ought to be able to provide some new trains for Northern otherwise, I will ask what I always ask on these threads, what have Northern railway users been paying rolling stock leasing costs on already bought trains for the past twenty years for ?

 

[Starmill]

Wait a second - wasn't the effective doubling of many fares within PTE areas, and our 2.2% rise on top of that now, plus larger increases in most PTE day tickets supposed to be paying for all of this?

 

[EM2]

They certainly ought to be able to provide some new trains for Northern otherwise, I will ask what I always ask on these threads, what have Northern railway users been paying rolling stock leasing costs on already bought trains for the past twenty years for ?

Well, what have GA been paying leasing costs on 315s and 321s, and Great Northern on 313s for?

 

[Murph]

They certainly ought to be able to provide some new trains for Northern otherwise, I will ask what I always ask on these threads, what have Northern railway users been paying rolling stock leasing costs on already bought trains for the past twenty years for ?

That's easy — dividends to ROSCO shareholders.

 

[AM9]

That's not correct. The 06:27 Wolverhampton-Euston service stops at MKC and departs at 07:41. The next one after the 07:41 is the 08:47.

You need to check your timetable again, the ex WVH 06:27 (SX) to EUS calls at MK to set down only.

I'm also a bit confused why you think a 07:14 departure from MKC is of no use to commuters. Does no-one in London start work at 08:30? 08:30 is a common start time up here.

Read what I said again: "There aren't any Virgin trains from MK to Euston between 07:14 and 08:47" which was true when I looked at the timetable on both NRE & VT websites ten minutes ago.

I'm a bit confused how you've come up with those figures.

For a 7 day season ticket the price Warrington to Leeds costs £106.80

Milton Keynes Central to London terminals costs £122.20, or to London zones 1-6 it costs £145.30

I quoted the anytime single fares from NRE. OK so using your comparison figures, it still costs 36% more for a journey on an LM outer suburban stock train.

Using BBC pay grades a grade 4 employee in London is on a minimum of £23,048 while one outside London is on a minimum of £18,760, so I'm sure the Southerner can afford to pay the higher fare to get the Pendolino in and out of London.

That £4288 differential comes down to £2915 if we compare what they actually take home. So the difference drops from 23% to under 19%. The houses in MK are only slightly more expensive than Warrington but of course any services required (electrician, carpet fitting, hairdresser, garage repairs costs etc.) will be at southern rates so the pay difference doesn't necessarily cover all of those things as well as the 36% higher fare. And as far as Pendolinos go, if the one train available (07:14) doesn't suit, then all they can do is take the 390 stock numbers as they go sailing by (or stops in the case of the 07:41, but they can't get on that as explained above).

As for the 'crush' do you realise TPE has a higher seat occupancy rate than London Overground, despite the very low seat density on LO? Also no Virgin Trains services appear in DfT's list of 10 most overcrowded trains while a morning TPE service does.

I didn't mention the Overground, I said the tube or bus in central London. They would only use the Overground if they were going back out of the centre (against the peak flow), or changing down from a slow to Euston to the Overground at Watford, probably making the journey well over 2 hours. Seat density is also low on the tube, but there's no denying that it is a crush on those small loading gauge cars.

Well antipacer originally started the argument saying about how LM had got a load of new trains and Northern had got the cast-offs (post 52.) As the only ex-LM Northern have received are 150s which were used in the West Midlands I think that statement could have been expanded on but the reference to London was a red herring.

At least we agreed on something.

 

[anti-pacer]

You need to check your timetable again, the ex WVH 06:27 (SX) to EUS calls at MK to set down only.



Read what I said again: "There aren't any Virgin trains from MK to Euston between 07:14 and 08:47" which was true when I looked at the timetable on both NRE & VT websites ten minutes ago.



I quoted the anytime single fares from NRE. OK so using your comparison figures, it still costs 36% more for a journey on an LM outer suburban stock train.



That £4288 differential comes down to £2915 if we compare what they actually take home. So the difference drops from 23% to under 19%. The houses in MK are only slightly more expensive than Warrington but of course any services required (electrician, carpet fitting, hairdresser, garage repairs costs etc.) will be at southern rates so the pay difference doesn't necessarily cover all of those things as well as the 36% higher fare. And as far as Pendolinos go, if the one train available (07:14) doesn't suit, then all they can do is take the 390 stock numbers as they go sailing by (or stops in the case of the 07:41, but they can't get on that as explained above).



I didn't mention the Overground, I said the tube or bus in central London. They would only use the Overground if they were going back out of the centre (against the peak flow), or changing down from a slow to Euston to the Overground at Watford, probably making the journey well over 2 hours. Seat density is also low on the tube, but there's no denying that it is a crush on those small loading gauge cars.



At least we agreed on something.

Well forgive me for not having my TOC stock cascade list to hand!

Perhaps I should have worded it slightly better.

 

[AM9]

Well forgive me for not having my TOC stock cascade list to hand!

Perhaps I should have worded it slightly better.

I don't understand your comment on my post that you have just quoted. Please explain.

 

[anti-pacer]

I don't understand your comment on my post that you have just quoted. Please explain.

Your agreement that my post was a "red herring" because I incorrectly stated that LM got new stock and we got their cast-offs, accompanied with my references to London.

I wasn't aware that our 150's came from Birmingham, although in hindsight this would seem logical. However, they did run said units on the GOBLIN.

 

[AM9]

Your agreement that my post was a "red herring" because I incorrectly stated that LM got new stock and we got their cast-offs, accompanied with my references to London.

I wasn't aware that our 150's came from Birmingham, although in hindsight this would seem logical. However, they did run said units on the GOBLIN.

You made an assertion about London population in post no. 52 that I felt needed challenging. After some research, I produced figures that made the point as far as I was concerned. jcollins and I had a dialogue over seveeral posts where anybody reading it could see that we had differing opinions. He also commented on my response to your population assertion. I then debated further with him on that point.
In post no. 63 I explained why I posted about population and jcollins responded in post no. 68 that he thought your refernce to London in post no. 52 was a red herring.
In my post no. 77, I responded to all the points raised by jcollins in that post (68) and I said that (unlike all the other points in his post), I agreed with the last one giving his explanation for your erroneous reference to London. If you have a problem with his comment, you should take that up with him yourself. If you have a problem with me agreeing with somebody else, then I think that is something that only you can deal with.
Maybe you should have explained the comment a bit more fully as you quoted my entire text from post no. 77 which answered jcollins. I had no idea where LM/Silverlink 150s came from or went to, nor do I care, they are just MKIII bodied multiple units like the 319s.

 

[anti-pacer]

You made an assertion about London population in post no. 52 that I felt needed challenging. After some research, I produced figures that made the point as far as I was concerned. jcollins and I had a dialogue over seveeral posts where anybody reading it could see that we had differing opinions. He also commented on my response to your population assertion. I then debated further with him on that point.
In post no. 63 I explained why I posted about population and jcollins responded in post no. 68 that he thought your refernce to London in post no. 52 was a red herring.
In my post no. 77, I responded to all the points raised by jcollins in that post (68) and I said that (unlike all the other points in his post), I agreed with the last one giving his explanation for your erroneous reference to London. If you have a problem with his comment, you should take that up with him yourself. If you have a problem with me agreeing with somebody else, then I think that is something that only you can deal with.
Maybe you should have explained the comment a bit more fully as you quoted my entire text from post no. 77 which answered jcollins. I had no idea where LM/Silverlink 150s came from or went to, nor do I care, they are just MKIII bodied multiple units like the 319s.

Fair comment.

 

[Starmill]

If service A gets the Sprinter, people on service B complain about getting the Pacer for a longer journey. If service B gets the Sprinter, Northern get complaints that the train on service A was so full they couldn't get on. So whichever service gets the Pacer it's a square peg to go in to a round hole.

This is quite true. A pacer is useful for literally almost nothing on today's railway.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They certainly ought to be able to provide some new trains for Northern otherwise, I will ask what I always ask on these threads, what have Northern railway users been paying rolling stock leasing costs on already bought trains for the past twenty years for ?

A Rosco doesn't provide a new train when the old one wears out.
Leasing charges do not include replacement costs, only wear and tear, routine maintenance and the capital investment.
Refurbs, upgrades and anything new are extras.

 

[yorksrob]

A Rosco doesn't provide a new train when the old one wears out.
Leasing charges do not include replacement costs, only wear and tear, routine maintenance and the capital investment.
Refurbs, upgrades and anything new are extras.

Hmm, since the Rosco's didn't provide the capital investment for the legacy fleet in the first place, and TOC's are required to maintain the trains and patch up any wear and tear, I find your answer a little unconvincing.

 

[Murph]

Hmm, since the Rosco's didn't provide the capital investment for the legacy fleet in the first place, and TOC's are required to maintain the trains and patch up any wear and tear, I find your answer a little unconvincing.

There's simply no real incentive by default for the ROSCOs to replace trains. If you want them to invest in new trains, they need to be given a commercial incentive to do so, such as some sort of long contract or other guarantee of return on the huge investment. The way things are setup, ROSCOs don't operate for the public interest, they operate to make a profit for their shareholders. They will only ever take the risk of investing in new trains if they can be confident of getting an acceptable return on their investment.

Either DfT or the TOCs need to give them a commercial incentive (and suitable guarantees), otherwise they will just stick with the status quo and pass dividends to shareholders while debating the best exotic location for their next strategic management meeting.

 

[yorksrob]

There's simply no real incentive by default for the ROSCOs to replace trains. If you want them to invest in new trains, they need to be given a commercial incentive to do so, such as some sort of long contract or other guarantee of return on the huge investment. The way things are setup, ROSCOs don't operate for the public interest, they operate to make a profit for their shareholders. They will only ever take the risk of investing in new trains if they can be confident of getting an acceptable return on their investment.

Either DfT or the TOCs need to give them a commercial incentive (and suitable guarantees), otherwise they will just stick with the status quo and pass dividends to shareholders while debating the best exotic location for their next strategic management meeting.

The curious thing is that they didn't pay for the trains in the first place, they don't buy the replacement trains. They apparently bought them for a knock down price, however, we are effectively paying for this investment through the leasing charges, although the trains were previously paid for anyway. It all seems reminiscent of the Glaziers paying for Manchester United using the clubs own debt.

 

[Starmill]

I agree with everything yorksrob is saying, but I see no way of solving this obvious scandal other than to have the trains publicly owned. And if the government is going to own the train, then why not just...

 

[yorksrob]

I think certainly for local routes in the North, we need something other than a system with does nothing but push up subsidies. In the past, train companies owned the trains, but we can't do that now as franchise holders have a tendency to change every five minutes.

A potential solution - Have the trains owned by a public body linked to the area in which they're used. These could be PTE's or an expanded Rail North. This would give LA's incentive to part fund new stock as it would remain on its patch, barring any sort of mutually agreed swap with another area.

Central Government could then pay for the rest as a grant, which has the double benefit of reducing operating subsidy (which is inherently bad as we all know) through no access charges, whilst becoming capital expenditure, which is of course, good (investment for growth and all that).

Of course, it probably wouldn't happen as it would annoy the City boys too much.

 

[AM9]

I think certainly for local routes in the North, we need something other than a system with does nothing but push up subsidies. In the past, train companies owned the trains, but we can't do that now as franchise holders have a tendency to change every five minutes.

A potential solution - Have the trains owned by a public body linked to the area in which they're used. These could be PTE's or an expanded Rail North. This would give LA's incentive to part fund new stock as it would remain on its patch, barring any sort of mutually agreed swap with another area.

Central Government could then pay for the rest as a grant, which has the double benefit of reducing operating subsidy (which is inherently bad as we all know) through no access charges, whilst becoming capital expenditure, which is of course, good (investment for growth and all that).

Of course, it probably wouldn't happen as it would annoy the City boys too much.

Basically, I agree with the above. Given that the ROSCOs are probably the biggest obstacle to returning the railways to something that could be run for the nation's (i.e. public's) benefit, what you say could be part of the route to achieving that. If all new stock acquisition was funded by the public sector and then leased to TOCs, the ROSCOs would gradually shrink, only holding aged stock. ROSCO lease prices would then be in direct competition with those leased from what would effectively be a state-run ROSCO which wouldn't be siphoning cash off to any shareholders.
In time, the TOCs could be selected from the existing contenders and DOR-type outfits, so eventually, the whole railway could be state-run.
The flaw in the above idea is that the current administration has an idealogical blind-spot for any such revolution, look how determined it was to remove DOR and pretend that TOCs don't fail. They also have the (currently valid) excuse that capital to invest in something that wouldn't visibly give anything more than we already have just doesn't exist. Should Labour, or any other less right-wing party gain power, they would still be strapped for cash, so the likeleyhood of anything like this happening is probably quite slim.