Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[Haydn1971]

Whilst the 120 new carriages can't be rebuilt old trains (14x/D78 specifically) I don't see anything preventing the 14x/D78's in the franchise, especially if the 14x's are made compliant with the 2020 regs.

Also, I really can't see 442's being used on the Manchester-Leeds section of TPE network, due to the sheer loading issues at each of the stations TPE arrivals at York, Leeds, Huddersfield & Manchester are very similar to London metro arrivals in my eyes, but I don't see the same madness at Sheffield so could loco hauled 442's work on a Doncaster-Sheffield-Manchester TPE South service ?

Someone said upthread that timings need to maintained on the Glasgow/Edinburgh services, but do we know how much of that route is run at 110mph ? Could timings be improved whilst not exceeding 100mph by missing alternate stations midway ?

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres a clause, from 1st January 2020 rolling stock must... "Is fitted with bogies (and accordingly does not include any vehicles of Class 14x – “Pacers”)." submitting non compliant rolling stock is grounds for immediate dismissal of bid.

 

[northwichcat]

Whilst the 120 new carriages can't be rebuilt old trains (14x/D78 specifically) I don't see anything preventing the 14x/D78's in the franchise, especially if the 14x's are made compliant with the 2020 regs.

Watcherzero has already explained why 14xs can't be used post-2020. The risk with converted D78s is with new services proposed and a requirement to leave paths for other operator's services on some lines, they could probably only be used on lines where they could keep to Sprinter timings.

Someone said upthread that timings need to maintained on the Glasgow/Edinburgh services, but do we know how much of that route is run at 110mph ? Could timings be improved whilst not exceeding 100mph by missing alternate stations midway ?

Currently the route is timed for 100mph electric running. I recall TPE being told they can't use 185s in lieu on one or two of the services because it would hold up other operator's services.

If the option of Liverpool/Blackpool portions is taken up they'll need to be time to join/separate portions at Preston.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The mandatory Pacer scrapping part is quite blatantly designed to win a few more votes in the North - imagine the Tories/Lib Dems didn't insist upon this and Labour did promise to change the ITT to get rid of them soon after the election. They also seem to have learned a lot from the ScotRail franchising process, as it is clearly now possible to specify high-quality regional franchises without breaking the bank.

 

[47802]

The mandatory Pacer scrapping part is quite blatantly designed to win a few more votes in the North - imagine the Tories/Lib Dems didn't insist upon this and Labour did promise to change the ITT to get rid of them soon after the election. They also seem to have learned a lot from the ScotRail franchising process, as it is clearly now possible to specify high-quality regional franchises without breaking the bank.

Well I think that's debatable really, Scotrail for the most part will be using some fairly ancient trains even if they are of a good standard, and they don't have the Pacer issue to deal with.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Well I think that's debatable really, Scotrail for the most part will be using some fairly ancient trains even if they are of a good standard, and they don't have the Pacer issue to deal with.

I was referring more to the focus on quality rather than pure level of subsidy. The new Chilternised HSTs are pretty much as high-quality as you could possibly get for long distance services in Scotland - no underfloor diesel engines rumbling away and no nasty toilet smells either. The ScotRail ITT could have been simply asking for more of the same as we have at the moment with First and it would have worked, but because Transport Scotland pushed for innovation and high quality we've got an even better outcome than I feel a lot of people had predicted. The new Northern ITT could have scraped by with the bare minimum of service improvement, e.g. allowing refurbished Pacers and D-Trains, yet it didn't (for political reasons).

 

[158756]

The new Northern ITT could have scraped by with the bare minimum of service improvement, e.g. allowing refurbished Pacers and D-Trains, yet it didn't (for political reasons).

I agree it's much better than it could have been, but I think it does still allows D-Trains.

 

[Simon11]

I was referring more to the focus on quality rather than pure level of subsidy. The new Chilternised HSTs are pretty much as high-quality as you could possibly get for long distance services in Scotland - no underfloor diesel engines rumbling away and no nasty toilet smells either.

I would disagree with saying the HST were pretty much as you could expect for Scotland's long distance service as another bidder was planning brand new long distance trains. At the end of the day, while Scotrail was more quality focus than other recent franchise bids, money still wins on top.

 

[daniel3982]

There is usually room to spare on EMT services provided you are happy to sit next to a stranger.

The EMT are certainly better than the TPE services which are usually standing room only when I travel (usually off peak).

 

[NotATrainspott]

I would disagree with saying the HST were pretty much as you could expect for Scotland's long distance service as another bidder was planning brand new long distance trains. At the end of the day, while Scotrail was more quality focus than other recent franchise bids, money still wins on top.

National Express were planning new LHCS rakes and needing slightly less subsidy but their bid lost out on the quality aspect, so don't always assume new and quality are one and the same.

 

[Haydn1971]

Cheers for the clarification re bogies/timings

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree it's much better than it could have been, but I think it does still allows D-Trains.

But would a successful bidder who has committed to 120 new trains then also want to lease additional stock that is probably not compatible with any other of their fleet and has only limited use on their network? Surely if there is a shortfall on units it's better to increase the order for new stock, or at least push for cascaded compatible stock?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But would a successful bidder who has committed to 120 new trains then also want to lease additional stock that is probably not compatible with any other of their fleet and has only limited use on their network? Surely if there is a shortfall on units it's better to increase the order for new stock, or at least push for cascaded compatible stock?

That, in the end, will depend on the price.

Neil

 

[Clarence Yard]

If you read 5.4.2.2 of the Northern ITT in conjunction with 5.4.2.26, it looks very much as if D stock is not going to be acceptable. The only extra diesel units that are going to be bid are the surplus 15x or 17x (presumably from both Scotland and GW) and the entirely new stock.

With the requirement to refurb. all the 15x fleet and fit CET to them by 2020, there is going to be some head scratching in the bidders teams to see whether knocking out some 15x by new stock is a better and more deliverable bet. My guess is that there will be some internal bidders discussions about the future of the 153/155 fleet in trying to come up with the optimum number of new vehicles to go for.

The rental cost comparisons for the various options will be only part of the bid equation. There are real bid points to go for on rolling stock quality.

 

[158756]

If you read 5.4.2.2 of the Northern ITT in conjunction with 5.4.2.26, it looks very much as if D stock is not going to be acceptable. The only extra diesel units that are going to be bid are the surplus 15x or 17x (presumably from both Scotland and GW) and the entirely new stock.

With the requirement to refurb. all the 15x fleet and fit CET to them by 2020, there is going to be some head scratching in the bidders teams to see whether knocking out some 15x by new stock is a better and more deliverable bet. My guess is that there will be some internal bidders discussions about the future of the 153/155 fleet in trying to come up with the optimum number of new vehicles to go for.

The rental cost comparisons for the various options will be only part of the bid equation. There are real bid points to go for on rolling stock quality.

I'm thinking that 5.4.2.2 only applies to 120 new carriages. And thus that if a bidder wished to provide more 'new' vehicles above those 120 someone would have to determine separately whether the D-Trains qualify as 'new'.
I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how the bidders interpret it.

They can get round the toilet refurb/tank issue by simply removing them providing they're only used in multiple or on short routes. Whether anyone will go to the bother of having what would probably be quite a small sub-fleet is another question.

 

[BantamMenace]

Do you think the new bidder will go for a more fleet based approach by say everything in the north east out of Heaton being 156s for example, everything out of Allerton being 156s and 319s, Neville Hill 333s, 321s, 158s and 150s, Newton Heath new build dmus and 153/155 conversions.

The above is purely illustrative.

Is there much to gain by having pooled stock, it certainly offers more flexibility each morning if something refuses to start?

 

[Philip]

Still think an idea I had earlier about Northern and Arriva exchanging 158s and 175s would be a good move. North West Express to Barrow would be a route suitable for 175s and so possibly about four 3-car 175s could go to Northern each day but still be maintained at Chester as part of a common pool. Northern could then give ATW the same number of 3-car 158s to use on strengthened Llandudno services.

My guess would be a 2-hourly Manchester Airport to Barrow service going via Bolton, along with the hourly Scotland service. The Blackpool service could go via Wigan with the occasional Windermere service splitting from the Blackpool service at Preston. Only problem I see is the reduction of Bolton to Airport services because the Southport service is likely to go into Victoria instead.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's nothing on the Halton Curve.
The current summer-only Saturday parliamentary Frodsham-Runcorn is retained.
It might still be a fight to get full services restored.

Liverpool-Man Airport via Newton le Willows is retained.
The Northern replacement for the diverted TPE Scarborough service via Warrington Central seems to run only to "central Manchester" (Oxford Road?).

The cost of the "new trains" proposal for Northern is put at £250m over the franchise lifetime.
DfT will be looking to recover that cost elsewhere.

 

[BantamMenace]

There's nothing on the Halton Curve.
The current summer-only Saturday parliamentary Frodsham-Runcorn is retained.
It might still be a fight to get full services restored.

Liverpool-Man Airport via Newton le Willows is retained.
The Northern replacement for the diverted TPE Scarborough service via Warrington Central seems to run only to "central Manchester" (Oxford Road?).

The cost of the "new trains" proposal for Northern is put at £250m over the franchise lifetime.
DfT will be looking to recover that cost elsewhere.

That cost comes close to being covered by the estimated £30m or so per annum lost to fare evasion.

Not to mention the 'sparks effect' and uptake in usage.

 

[WatcherZero]

Im dubious on that, the PS says he believes retiring Pacers in 2020 is wrong as 120 brand new vehicles would cost £250m over the lifetime of the franchise (I assume hes thinking 12 year asset repayment and with a 10 year franchise they are likely slightly more than £2m each, probably around £2.3m but we will go with the £250m figure). However he doesn't account for the cost of refurbishment or address the Governments legal responsibility to PRM-TSI. Converting 120 Pacer carriages to meet the requirement would cost over £42m, add in the leasing premium and that's likely around £50m, say the repayment of the Pacer conversion was 10 years and the replacement lasted a standard 30 years. The difference then is just £30m over the lifetime of the replacements, small change and extremely high political capital to real capital ratio.

 

[158756]

My guess would be a 2-hourly Manchester Airport to Barrow service going via Bolton, along with the hourly Scotland service. The Blackpool service could go via Wigan with the occasional Windermere service splitting from the Blackpool service at Preston. Only problem I see is the reduction of Bolton to Airport services because the Southport service is likely to go into Victoria instead.

'Eighteen services departing from Bolton to Manchester shall also call at Manchester Airport',(Northern TSR Table MCR 4A)

In other words if they run the Blackpool trains via Wigan they have to provide an alternative at Bolton in the hours the Barrow service doesn't run.

The Barrow services also may not call more than twice between Preston and Oxford Road, so they couldn't call at all of Buckshaw, Chorley and Horwich as the Blackpool trains currently do (those stations being required to maintain current frequencies).

 

[WatcherZero]

The 2019 minimum requirement is 60 services a day Manchester-Bolton-Wigan, so shouldn't be too hard. Means 1/3rd of Wigan-Bolton trains have to go on to the airport.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Noticed in the ticket-less travel report it implies only 1 in 5 Northern services chosen for a representative sample had a full ticket inspection carried out by the on board guard, while 2 in 5 services chosen had a train too congested for a full ticket inspection to be carried out. Also over 5% of passengers didn't have a ticket and stated the reason for it was no opportunity to buy a ticket. No wonder a change has been proposed.

1 in 5? that I personally don't believe (At least around manchester) Many Colleagues Careers are in jeopardy, as mentioned on many many DOO topics the Majority of drivers do not want to have RPI's on board they want Guards. The next 5 years will be interesting as you can pretty much guarantee there will be a lot of industrial action throughout Northernland as people like myself fight for our jobs.

 

[yorksrob]

Porterbrook came up with a plan for making 143s and 144s 'accessible' although apparently a minor exemption order would still have to be granted by the Secretary of State for Transport to keep them in service post-2019. However, the plan (which also fulfils the requirement of all on board train toilets needing to be retention toilets post-2019) reduces the capacity of an already small train further.

Realistically though, even with a smaller individual capacity, pairs of 144's and 143's could still be useful to soak up some expected passenger growth (and that's without considering the 3-carriage 144's which have a capacity more equivalent to a sprinter).

 

[ivanhoe]

1 in 5? that I personally don't believe (At least around manchester) Many Colleagues Careers are in jeopardy, as mentioned on many many DOO topics the Majority of drivers do not want to have RPI's on board they want Guards. The next 5 years will be interesting as you can pretty much guarantee there will be a lot of industrial action throughout Northernland as people like myself fight for our jobs.

That maybe the case mate but the franchise subsidy will probably reflect the amount of current loss revenue. If the change over to DOO is handled sensitively and there are opportunities for former Guards to take on new roles, then it's a start. DOO will happen. Negotiate a decent settlement.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Like the first and now-closed thread on this matter, will we now see hundreds of postings on this thread that will "put right all perceived wrongs" until the award of the new franchises, then this thread can be locked and a new thread of hundreds of posting appear with full and descriptive reasons of why these franchises were granted without due consideration of the most carefully thought out RailUK forum members logical suggestions....:roll:

Vivarail will then begin to source as many redundant space shuttles as still available of great age and begin a programme of restoration upon them, ready for the soon to be announced DfT service to Mars and call these "new-build" spacecraft....

 

[ANorthernGuard]

That maybe the case mate but the franchise subsidy will probably reflect the amount of current loss revenue. If the change over to DOO is handled sensitively and there are opportunities for former Guards to take on new roles, then it's a start. DOO will happen. Negotiate a decent settlement.

When they came round doing these "surveys" on there tablets a couple asked me at 10pm why I wasnt out doing tickets (this was a Friday night) So I replied why Are you not carrying out your surveys? Too many drunks we don't feel safe to ask was the reply. Welcome to our world I said.

 

[northwichcat]

Do you think the new bidder will go for a more fleet based approach by say everything in the north east out of Heaton being 156s for example, everything out of Allerton being 156s and 319s, Neville Hill 333s, 321s, 158s and 150s, Newton Heath new build dmus and 153/155 conversions.

The above is purely illustrative.

Is there much to gain by having pooled stock, it certainly offers more flexibility each morning if something refuses to start?

Ideally you need 1 type of local DMU and 1 type of regional DMU in each area. 150s, Turbostars or similar would be much better for the CLC stoppers than 156s or 158s. While Northern are expected to operate a semi-fast Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly service using regional style stock.

The 2019 minimum requirement is 60 services a day Manchester-Bolton-Wigan, so shouldn't be too hard. Means 1/3rd of Wigan-Bolton trains have to go on to the airport.

I notice the ITT states TPE are allowed one path an hour and only one path through Bolton. It also seems to allow the flexibility for Northern bidders to say regional services to Blackpool/Cumbria will not run via Bolton.

1 in 5? that I personally don't believe (At least around manchester) Many Colleagues Careers are in jeopardy, as mentioned on many many DOO topics the Majority of drivers do not want to have RPI's on board they want Guards. The next 5 years will be interesting as you can pretty much guarantee there will be a lot of industrial action throughout Northernland as people like myself fight for our jobs.

I'd like to see a breakdown of how many extra services Northern will run by December 2019 compared to how many DOO services Northern will run by December 2019 and the usual staff turnover level. Only being seeing all three of those will it give an idea if any job loses are likely.

Realistically though, even with a smaller individual capacity, pairs of 144's and 143's could still be useful to soak up some expected passenger growth (and that's without considering the 3-carriage 144's which have a capacity more equivalent to a sprinter).

I think someone's made a sensible decision regarding Pacers - they can be refurbished much quicker than a new order can be procured. So it makes sense to place a new order soon and leave refurbished Pacers as a potential option for franchises being renewed at a later date (when we'll also know if growth estimates have been accurate) than to do it the other way around and then find we're short of carriages come the December 2019 timetable change.

 

[edwin_m]

ITT section 5.4.2.26 appears at first sight to rule out using D-trains, but note the getout at the end of the clause which says other existing rolling stock is acceptable if one or more of three conditions are met. Condition 3 is for the bidder to have an unconditional offer that the stock in question won't be offered to TPE. Vivarail should be able to offer such an undertaking, given that the TPE ITT appears to rule out use of D78s anyway.

 

[Captain Chaos]

If DOO must happen then let's have the Scottish model. The SE model is a failure particularly in terms of staff presence and revenue collection. Then switch us into those roles. DOO if you really must, but people want a staff presence on all trains. Keep us on them. Technology is not a substitute for a person. CCTV is not a deterrent. It cannot intervene like a person can if needed. Keep us on the trains.

I get the impression that OBMs and RPIs are the future. Revenue earning guards like myself probably have the least to fear. It's non revenue earning guards that are going to have the real problems. It's all about the money.