Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[yorksrob]

I agree with the comment from edwin_m about them dodging the difficult decisions (doesn’t seem to be any improvement for Bradford – Leeds or Leeds – Sheffield or Sheffield – Manchester or other flows between large places, but it’s a lot easier to path an extra DMU to pootle along quiet branchlines like Nunthorpe to Whitby, Lancaster to Skipton, Darlington to Bishop Auckland etc than it is to redraw the timetable at busy stations).

I'm not convinced what difficult decisions there are to make on these lines that would require new rolling stock.

Leeds - Sheffield, you already have a stopper and InterCity service on the route via Wakefield Westgate, plus a stopper and two fast trains on the Hallam route. It seems to me that the corridoor would be better improved by having later/earlier services and stopping more trains at some smaller stops than a massive increase in rolling stock provision.

Similarly with Leeds - Bradford, the route via Shipley is already the least busy out of the electric services from North West Leeds, and the frequency between those two places isn't exactly "parliamentary".

 

[northwichcat]

Is the Windermere branch transferring to Northern?

Yes.

Is TPE getting the LIV-NOT half of the current Liv-Norwich EMT service?

Route is staying as is with EMT until at least the end of the EMT franchise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would be interesting to read the equivalent threads from 2003 about the “no growth” franchise that came about in 2004 – see who got what right / wrong in their predictions.

Unfortunately, your aspiration for the above could not shed any light upon it on this particular website, as this particular website was not launched until 2005.

Perhaps there may be other websites who were in operation in the time period that you quote.

 

[northwichcat]

Unfortunately, your aspiration for the above could not shed any light upon it on this particular website, as this particular website was not launched until 2005.

A lot of other rail forums shut down.

There's also the issue that some forums have a limit to how many posts can be held in their database with the oldest ones automatically deleted.

 

[Grimsby town]

http://humbertransport.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/barton-line-to-east-midlands-franchise.html?m=1

The Humber Transport website says the inclusion of the Barton to Cleethorpes line in the East Midlands franchise raises questions:
With only one 153 unit being transfered how will the hourly early morning service run?
Why does the DfT think EMT are better placed when their services terminate at a different station and the nearest depot is Nottingham?
Are Cleethorpes or Lincoln based crew to be used and would this change the timetable?
What will happen to the morning service from Doncaster?
What effect would putting two RailNorth councils and a community rail group which also covers the Yorkshire Coast line in East Midlands have?

I am very concerned that this will be the sole Northern Rail line where services will be cut as a result of this ITT. Anyone have answers?
Any other services facing cuts?

If this is done correctly it could improve the Barton and Grimsby to Lincoln lines. I would hope that East Mildlands Trains could establish a crew base at Cleethorpes. If I was planning it I would have a later service back from Newark or Nottingham to Cleethorpes getting in for around 11 or later. This would stable at Cleethorpes over night and run the 5:49 from Cleethorpes. The first Lincoln to Grimsby service of the day would call additionally at Stallingborough, Healing and Great Coates replacing the Scunthorpe service. The Barton line unit would be stabled at Cleethorpes all week using the fueling facilities there.

It doesn't really solve the problem of the unit breaking down and you still lose the early morning Scunthorpe link but I think it allows East Midlands to run more services between Lincoln and Grimsby (if crews are based there) and increase the stops and develop stations like Habrough, Stallingborough, Healing and Great Coates.

 

[ianhr]

If this is done correctly it could improve the Barton and Grimsby to Lincoln lines. I would hope that East Mildlands Trains could establish a crew base at Cleethorpes. If I was planning it I would have a later service back from Newark or Nottingham to Cleethorpes getting in for around 11 or later. This would stable at Cleethorpes over night and run the 5:49 from Cleethorpes. The first Lincoln to Grimsby service of the day would call additionally at Stallingborough, Healing and Great Coates replacing the Scunthorpe service. The Barton line unit would be stabled at Cleethorpes all week using the fueling facilities there.

It doesn't really solve the problem of the unit breaking down and you still lose the early morning Scunthorpe link but I think it allows East Midlands to run more services between Lincoln and Grimsby (if crews are based there) and increase the stops and develop stations like Habrough, Stallingborough, Healing and Great Coates.

It would be good if EMT were to take over the Gainsborough Central-Brigg route. Northern seem to have little interest in providing anything more than a parliamentary Saturdays only service. Perhaps EMT could extend some Nottingham-Worksop trains this way to Cleethorpes providing new journey opportunities Brigg-Gainsborough-Retford-Nottingham and more flexibility in working stock to/from the Barton line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It would be good if EMT were to take over the Gainsborough Central-Brigg route. Northern seem to have little interest in providing anything more than a parliamentary Saturdays only service. Perhaps EMT could extend some Nottingham-Worksop trains this way to Cleethorpes providing new journey opportunities Brigg-Gainsborough-Retford-Nottingham and more flexibility in working stock to/from the Barton line.

Given the proposed improvements to many Northern routes (Sunday services in particular), I'm slightly disappointed that there isn't a firm proposal for some sort of weekday service on the Brigg line. Perhaps that's a route that could make use of the D78s?

 

[Greybeard33]

The ITT says the new trains will be totally new so can't be D78s. However there is scope to take on some D78s as well, and I'm fairly sure at least one bidder will offer them on shorter-distance services where the 60mph top speed doesn't matter. That is unless the prototype isn't finished in time, is a disaster performance-wise, or the interior is awful!

As an alternative to D78s they would have to bring in cascaded stock from somewhere else, as the number of new units is less than the number of Pacers to be replaced and that's before the extra trains needed for the enhanced services. Some of these will be EMUs, almost certainly 319s, but the only short term source of cascaded DMUs is Great Western. Getting some D78s may be less risky than relying on a cascade that depends on completion of GW electrification which is widely reported to be running late. Just imagine what people on here would say if we had a couple of dozen "Todmorden Curve" situations with no trains available to run the promised extra services!

Hmm. Although Vivarail has got the D78 stock at scrap value, the conversion to D-trains will not be cheap, with new diesel generators and electronics to procure and install as well as the new interior and cab ends. And Vivarail will be aiming to recover its design and development costs and make a profit. So I expect the prospective D-train lessor (whoever that may be) would look to agree a lengthy lease for a sizeable number of units, so as to ensure that the conversion programme is viable. Commercial D-train lease rates might be unaffordable if the TOC only wants a few units for a few years as a stopgap.

If the franchisee cannot secure sufficient cascaded DMUs, the most economic solution might be to add to the order for the 120 new carriages (whether these are DMUs, battery IPEMUs or LHCS as permitted by the ITT), thereby enabling a lower unit cost to be negotiated with the manufacturer. One option (particularly for IPEMUs) might be to arrange a swap with another franchise, whereby the other TOC takes the additional new carriages and cascades 15x/17x units to Northern in return.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Northern seem to have little interest in providing anything more than ...

they are contracted to do under their franchise, and why should they, if nobody (such as the Government) will pay them? Ditto the incoming franchisee.

 

[Wolfie]

Off topic, but I had to smile when reading that exchange.

Interesting letter here where the SoS formally instructs the Permanent Secretary to proceed with the requirement for Pacer replacement and new vehicles, overruling the concerns of the Permanent Secretary over costs. This also assumes new vehicles are diesels with no mention of bi-mode, batteries or bionic duckweed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...thdrawal-confirming-the-ministerial-direction

This is in response to the below where the Perm Sec points out the poor BCR of the Pacer replacement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pacer-vehicles-withdrawal-seeking-a-ministerial-direction

Reminded me so much of Yes Minister!

Yes, it really can be like that at times. Just look at Rutnam's comments about the Comprehensive Spending Review... frankly that is Mandarin-speak (as someone just below that level I recognise the sub-text) for "Minister you have just told HMT that we have too much money and can take further cuts..... that's barking so don't try to pin any of the blame on me!"..... If I were a future DfT minister I would be VERY scared to see that...

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.

If it happens you better believe that HMT will be looking to recover that money... and the initial starting point will be the Northern franchise, not DfT!

Can the franchise requirements be changed after publication of the ITT, bearing in mind the upcoming spending review and the practically non existent business case for replacing Pacers? As in are people safe in trumpeting 'the end of the line for the dreaded Pacer' as on the BBC this evening, or may we yet be disappointed?

What is anyone's interpretation of whether D78s can be used? They appear to be specifically ruled out as the 120 new carriages, but could they be classed as new build in addition to those? Or alternatively are LU a 'relevant operator' for them to be classed as existing EMUs? (Considering section 5.4.2.26)

Well, the Rutnam letter, which he is legally obliged to write, does two things:
a It means he, as the Principal Accounting Officer for the Dept, is off the hook if and when the PAC come calling;
b By suggesting that the economic justification is weak, and indeed that the ends of getting rid of Pacers could be achieved by other means (eg quality criteria) it provides significant grounds for anyone wishing to legally challenge the decision...

Don't be completely surprised if Porterbrook chose to do so and the DfT back down on the grounds that banning the vehicles is not a rational exercise of ministerial discretion... all after May's General Election of course...

One would expect the Permanent Secretary to have been "leant upon" by those in the Treasury to make such a comment.

Yup... and it provides, in the event of a tough financial settlement for DfT, the necessary grounds to get out of the commitment even if that means scrapping the ITT and starting again...

 

[yorksrob]

Well, the Rutnam letter, which he is legally obliged to write, does two things:
a It means he, as the Principal Accounting Officer for the Dept, is off the hook if and when the PAC come calling;
b By suggesting that the economic justification is weak, and indeed that the ends of getting rid of Pacers could be achieved by other means (eg quality criteria) it provides significant grounds for anyone wishing to legally challenge the decision...

Don't be completely surprised if Porterbrook chose to do so and the DfT back down on the grounds that banning the vehicles is not a rational exercise of ministerial discretion... all after May's General Election of course...

Is the SoS actually "banning" pacers though ?, or is he merely specifying that the new tender should include 120 new build diesel carriages, as is his right. Then presumably it is up to Porterbrook to decide whether it would be worth their while updating some of the 144's for use beyond 2019 or not, in which case they would fall foul of the pre-existing restrictions due to come in.

From a personal point of view, I'd be more than happy for the 144's to continue in some form or another, but something else needs to be built to form the backbone of Northern services and cater for growth.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the SoS actually "banning" pacers though ?,

Yes he is, definitely. The way it is phrased is that all rolling stock in use on a certain date must have bogies, and therefore must not include Pacers.

5.4.2.1 The Department requires a Franchisee who will deliver the transformation of the Train Fleet that is necessary to meet the NRPS benchmarks for passenger satisfaction with trains specified in Schedule 7.2 of the Franchise Agreement, and who will (as a minimum) ensure that from 1 January 2020 onwards all rolling stock that forms part of the Train Fleet:

[sections i-iv deal with other points]

v. Is fitted with bogies (and accordingly does not include any vehicles of Class 14x – “Pacers”).

Elsewhere it is stated that proposing trains without bogies is an 'elimination event' (from the franchise process).

 

[Greybeard33]

• As someone who’s argued consistently that the distribution of services to Manchester Airport have strangled capacity at Piccadilly (trying to get direct services from lots of different places meaning services reversing in the main shed, wasted platform capacity as you try to co-ordinate a path from Guide Bridge into a path to the Airport – and shut down the Stockport line four times an hour as services reverse from the Guide Bridge side to the Airport side), I can appreciate that the Ordsall Chord is going to allow some extra paths at Piccadilly, but I’m surprised that we are talking two or three extra services an hour in each direction over the Stockport Viaduct. Maybe if we’d restricted Airport services to only those on the Oxford Road corridor before then we could have had improved services to Cheshire etc years ago? (i.e. if all Airport services ran through 13/14 towards Oxford Road then we’d eliminate the conflicting movements and create more paths years before needing the Ordsall Chord )
  
  [*]But, if you can get one extra service from Cheshire into Piccadilly for every “Airport reversal” in the main train shed that you eliminate (i.e. the Middlesbrough and York – Airport services moving to the Ordsall Chord meaning they don’t have to reverse in the main shed meaning spare capacity to introduce these extra Cheshire services) then it’s frustrating that the Cleethorpes service is still going to reverse in the main shed en route to the Airport. I’d cope if they terminated it at Piccadilly.

As I pointed out in post #115, the Consultation Response document states that:

From December 2017,
TPE’s hourly service that currently operates from Liverpool to Leeds and
beyond via Warrington Central and Manchester Piccadilly will be diverted to
operate via Newton-le-Willows and Manchester Victoria. This will allow TPE
to operate a regular half-hourly service pattern between Liverpool, Leeds
and beyond. It will also avoid the need for TPE trains to weave across the
throat of Manchester Piccadilly station, which in turn frees up capacity for the
package of additional services we are specifying between central and south
Manchester; bringing improvements to Macclesfield, New Mills Newtown and
the mid-Cheshire line.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407939/northern-and-tpe-stakeholder-briefing-document-and-consultation-response.pdf

This implies that it is simply the diversion of the Liverpool to Scarborough service to run via Victoria that frees up Piccadilly capacity for the three new Stockport services, not the Ordsall Chord as such.

The Cleethorpes to Airport service does not cross Piccadilly station throat like the Liverpool to Scarborough - it simply reverses in the main shed. The westbound service uses a high numbered platform and enters and leaves on the Slow lines, while the eastbound uses a middle platform and the Fast lines. This does not block all other moves in and out of the station, any more than other, terminating, services to/from the Airport or Stockport do.

• Re Cheshire - If only 323s can cope with the “fast” services to Macclesfield/ Stoke then what does the fact that the Manchester – Macclesfield stopper is doubled in frequency mean? Does it mean 323s taken off the Airport duties, or maybe it means that a 100mph 319 could cope okay with running on the WCML? After all, they’ve coped with accelerating on the busy Brighton Main Line for many years, London Midland are going to use them on the southern end of the WCML, maybe the “319s can’t accelerate” argument has been overplayed?

The introduction of the extra Macclesfield stopper means that the Stoke stopper becomes semi-fast off-peak, skipping Adlington and Prestbury. This may mean that the lower acceleration of the 319 vis-a-vis the 323 becomes less significant, although the peak Stoke services will still call at Adlington and Prestbury. I guess it all depends on how the 2017 WCML timetable recast pans out.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes he is, definitely. The way it is phrased is that all rolling stock in use on a certain date must have bogies, and therefore must not include Pacers.
.

That is fairly conclusive then !

 

[Boysteve]

As I pointed out in post #115, the Consultation Response document states that:

I guess it all depends on how the 2017 WCML timetable recast pans out.

So what is planned for the 2017 WCML recast? I appreciate this thread is about Northern/TPE but a brief outline may help us understand the whole picture better?
Thanx!

 

[Bevan Price]

Hmm. Although Vivarail has got the D78 stock at scrap value, the conversion to D-trains will not be cheap, with new diesel generators and electronics to procure and install as well as the new interior and cab ends. And Vivarail will be aiming to recover its design and development costs and make a profit. So I expect the prospective D-train lessor (whoever that may be) would look to agree a lengthy lease for a sizeable number of units, so as to ensure that the conversion programme is viable. Commercial D-train lease rates might be unaffordable if the TOC only wants a few units for a few years as a stopgap.

.

Is there anything to stop Vivarail from leasing converted D70s direct to TOCs, rather than going via one of the existing rolling stock companies ?

 

[edwin_m]

Is there anything to stop Vivarail from leasing converted D70s direct to TOCs, rather than going via one of the existing rolling stock companies ?

Nothing whatsoever, and in fact that (or Vivarail forming a separate company for the purpose) is probably the more likely outcome. With something novel like this, the TOCs will need to be confident that the supplier is there in the long term and the necessary expertise is available to sort out any problems. The three ROSCOs know a fair bit about ex-BR and later mainstream designs but don't have any experience with LU stock or with the sort of things Vivarail are doing.

 

[Greybeard33]

So what is planned for the 2017 WCML recast? I appreciate this thread is about Northern/TPE but a brief outline may help us understand the whole picture better?
Thanx!

I have no idea what the details might be. I just meant that the timetable between Piccadilly and Stockport undoubtedly will have to be recast to fit in the three additional Northern off-peak services that the ITT requires to be introduced from December 2017. These have to be pathed without detriment to the timing of other TOCs' services on the line, namely the 3tph West Coast VHF, 2tph Cross Country and 2tph Hope Valley (TPE & EMT). Additionally, the aim will no doubt be to try to achieve reasonably balanced intervals between the 3tph to/from Hazel Grove (one Buxton, one terminator and the new one to New Mills Newtown), also between the 2tph to/from Northwich (one Chester and the new terminator) and between Northern's 2tph to/from Macclesfield (one Stoke and the new terminator).

I imagine this will be quite a challenge for the planners!

 

[BurtonM]

I'm confused about Stalybridge and east Manchester under the new plans - is it going to be that all Manchester-bound services end up going to Victoria, but finally getting something of a clockface service? Or will the Hull service still be going into Piccadilly?
Meanwhile what's going to happen at Ashton-under-Lyne? Are services there going to be between Stalybridge and somewhere such as Wigan? With so many TPEs potentially passing through it could be difficult to fit stops in.
Towards Manchester, Stalybridge currently has 4tph, albeit badly organised. Would this remain, or would it be likely that this would fall to 3tph?

 

[WatcherZero]

Generally if its diesel and coming from the west it will terminate in Rochdale, if its electric it will terminate in Stalybridge, and if its possible to join two or more services together (E.g Stockport-Manchester Manchester-Blackburn via Bolton) they will.

North Transpennine services (and services from the East) will go into Victoria and possibly on to Liverpool with a few swinging round the chord to head to Piccadilly then the airport, south transpennine into Piccadilly/Airport.

Airport will continue to be a hub for the whole North.

In the short term before Transpennine electrification TPE will take over all the services on North TPE adding in a few stops to cover for removal of Northern services. Once electrification is completed the Northern stopper services will be reinstated and the TPE will drop the stops and speed up again/

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

North Transpennine services (and services from the East) will go into Victoria and possibly on to Liverpool with a few swinging round the chord to head to Piccadilly then the airport, South Transpennine into Piccadilly/Airport.

Airport will continue to be a hub for the whole North.

Forgive me if I have misread what you say above about North Transpennine services, but the comment that "a few swinging around the chord to head to Piccadilly then the airport" seems to suggest that the Middlesbrough to Manchester Airport services will also follow those of Newcastle to Manchester Airport services by having the majority of these services running onwards from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool.

York to Manchester Airport, also being a North Transpennine service from the east, though not stated in your posting, also needs clarification of where the majority of those services will terminate.

 

[Bantamzen]

Forgive me if I have misread what you say above about North Transpennine services, but the comment that "a few swinging around the chord to head to Piccadilly then the airport" seems to suggest that the Middlesbrough to Manchester Airport services will also follow those of Newcastle to Manchester Airport services by having the majority of these services running onwards from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool.

York to Manchester Airport, also being a North Transpennine service from the east, though not stated in your posting, also needs clarification of where the majority of those services will terminate.

I was under the impression that 2tph would head via Victoria to Liverpool, 2tph would go through Victoria and round the Ordsall Curve to Piccadilly then onto the airport, with the final 2tph heading straight for Piccadilly via Guide Bridge and terminating there.

 

[Philip]

To be going on with it'll be 2 per hour from Newcastle to Liverpool via Victoria, 2 per hour from York to the Airport via Piccadilly only and 2 per hour from Hull to Piccadilly. I would guess Ashton will be served by trains from Wigan and/or Blackpool. Ideally trains from both the Atherton and the Bolton lines will continue onto Stalybridge and Rochdale.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The consultation response talks about Northern Express services being of higher quality than current stock (either new or refurbished).
The services earmarked for Express branding appear to start with Barrow-Manchester Airport (diesel) and Blackpool-Manchester Airport (electric).
That seems to mean new stock for Barrow (replacing sub-leased 185s), and an upgrade of 319s for Blackpool (at least the Airport services).
I don't see 1st class mentioned but I would suppose the new Northern would want to introduce 1st class on these services.
Anyway, there seems to be a basis for 2 types of 319 configuration - commuter and express.

But other "Express" services are not identified.
You might have thought Newcastle-Carlisle might be one, or Leeds-Carlisle, or the new Chester-Victoria-Leeds.

Liverpool-Man Airport confuses me. There appear to be 2 services, one via Newton le Willows and one via Warrington Central.
Doesn't seem right.

The electrification agenda is badly thought through.
How do you get to the 90% electric on the Chat Moss route when at least 3 services are diesel (2xTPE, 1xATW and 1xNorthern Chester-Leeds).
Barrow, Blackburn and Southport services will all be diesel on the Bolton route.

What do TPE do about new stock?
At first sight they are not obliged to acquire any more stock, but if they do so before TP North is wired they will have to get rid of it soon after.
Is that a prompt to buy IEPs (which could be used on Scottish services too)?
What is the point of the Class 442 references?
I shouldn't think a Class 68 plus 5-car 442 would perform like the 185 fleet.

There is nothing in the ITT set which says "all 319s to Northern, TP buys new electrics".
There are too many 319s, and TP does not need new electrics for possibly 5-6 years - far too long to get a meaningful quote from manufacturers.

Or have I missed something?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The consultation response talks about Northern Express services being of higher quality than current stock (either new or refurbished).
The services earmarked for Express branding appear to start with Barrow-Manchester Airport (diesel) and Blackpool-Manchester Airport (electric).
That seems to mean new stock for Barrow (replacing sub-leased 185s), and an upgrade of 319s for Blackpool (at least the Airport services).
I don't see 1st class mentioned but I would suppose the new Northern would want to introduce 1st class on these services.
Anyway, there seems to be a basis for 2 types of 319 configuration - commuter and express.

But other "Express" services are not identified.

I think it's just the old North West Express routes, which are Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere.

Confusing they are being referred to as "Northern Regional" services throughout the document, when the term "Regional" is mostly understood to mean a local stopping service, not a fast one!

Don't see a lot of point in First Class on these services if there is sufficient and good quality Standard, other than possibly Windermere where the tourists could be caned for extra money - that said, with so few direct services that's probably a dead loss.

Neil

 

[Viscount702]

I think it's just the old North West Express routes, which are Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere.

Confusing they are being referred to as "Northern Regional" services throughout the document, when the term "Regional" is mostly understood to mean a local stopping service, not a fast one!

Don't see a lot of point in First Class on these services if there is sufficient and good quality Standard, other than possibly Windermere where the tourists could be caned for extra money - that said, with so few direct services that's probably a dead loss.

Neil

I also believe the new Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington Central to replace the TPE moved to Chat Moss will also be one. What is not clear is if the Liverpool - Airport ones will be as well but the ITT does refer to them in the context of serving Airports and tourist places.

 

[northwichcat]

I also believe the new Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington Central to replace the TPE moved to Chat Moss will also be one.

Yes. Also the new Chester-Leeds via Bradford service.

 

[po8crg]

I think the franchisee can add other services as Northern Regionals too if they want - and I suspect they will get quality points in the tender process by having more in there.

 

[lejog]

Yes. Also the new Chester-Leeds via Bradford service.

Possibly the new Bradford to Manchester Airport service and of course York - Blackpool too. West Yorkshire Combined Transport Authority (or whatever title WY Metro go under these days) do have a budget to contribute towards improved and extra rolling stock on the Calder Valley line after 2019, but I have seen no further details, just a line item in a plan.

 

[northwichcat]

I think the franchisee can add other services as Northern Regionals too if they want

From the ITT

For the avoidance of doubt, neither this requirement nor the reference in DP2.1 to a ''differentiated'' service offer for Northern Regional Services is intended to prohibit the use of rolling stock meeting this minimum specification from being used to operate services other than Northern Regional Services.

So yes that is correct.

Also I imagine if the franchisee requires (hypothetically) 27 high spec diesel trains to run the regional services and get 30 to that specification, then the franchisee could face penalties if 4 of those trains are out-of-service on a particular day. However, if they have 40 high spec diesel trains then they could usually offer an improved standard of train on routes where they aren't required to offer high spec trains except in the event of a shortage.

The air-conditioning requirement is:

Air conditioning and heating systems that are designed to operate effectively and reliably within the range of ambient temperatures normally experienced across the Franchise geography

So I imagine 158s with their existing air-con system should fail that requirement due to poor reliability.