New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[infobleep]

They don't have the same capacity as a 12.450, and presumably still won't when modified. But that was a simple train for train comparison. If the new timetable includes more trains running on the full route from Portsmouth then that adds to overall line capacity.

Whatever the final timetable looks like, DfT must be happy with the end result anyway. AFAICS 2+2 442s is only the fast services, perhaps the semifast's will all be 2+3, and the fasts will be non-stop through Guildford or Woking?

I'm sure the DtF are happy. They were happy with the Govia Thameslink Railway bid too of course.

There is one additional train to Portsmouth per hour so that could make use the 442s or another service could with those replacing the other service.

 

[Suraggu]

If it their role to decide whether they like a train or not, or to have a Metro policy? It's only a 7 year franchise, and units are in service for 35/40 years, so surely the DfT/TfL etc would also have a say.

It does seem bizarre to replace a unit not even fully in service yet, surely when the 707 was ordered it matched with DfT thinking?

You would of thought that and yes the 707 fits what the DfT specified but again, this is the DfT.

 

[GW43125]

When engineering work via Richmond causes diversions via Hounslow, trains appear to do it in 30-35 minutes by calling at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Putney, Barnes, and Hounslow (need to double check the exact timings from last time now). I hope they stop at Brentford, the busiest station on the Hounslow Loop (almost 2 million passengers). Maybe Vauxhall and Putney get missed out? (Barnes almost certainly will, unless for pathing, as that stop only appears for connection with buses)

The document in the ITT suggested they would be something like Feltham-Hounslow-Brentford-Putney

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

You could be right. I would have thought though that the most sensible to provide a Guildford-Farnham service would have been to simply route the Ascot-Guildford services via Farnham, calling at Aldershot twice en route.
On the current timetable, the trains typically wait for 13-14 minutes at Aldershot. So if you put in a fairly quick turnaround at Farnham, you could in principle do that without adding more than a few minutes to Camberley/etc. - Guildford journeys. Not sure how paths might fit in between the Alton trains though.

On another topic, would anyone care to speculate on how the proposed 12 minutes-faster Hounslow-London journeys might be achieved? That clearly implies there are going to be trains at Hounslow that skip quite a few other stations on their way to London. My best guess is they are thinking of routing some Windsor, or perhaps some Reading, trains via the Hounslow loop (and therefore that the 12 minute saving will be only for Hounslow itself - not for any other stations along that line).

That is my guess too, the last time they had 4 tph on the Reading line, two went via Hounslow

 

[HH]

If it their role to decide whether they like a train or not, or to have a Metro policy? It's only a 7 year franchise, and units are in service for 35/40 years, so surely the DfT/TfL etc would also have a say.

It does seem bizarre to replace a unit not even fully in service yet, surely when the 707 was ordered it matched with DfT thinking?

It matched Stagecoach thinking and must have satisfied DfT. For whatever reason it doesn't match First's thinking, but the new units must also satisfy DfT. Surely this is the risk that the ROSCOs were always supposed to have to offset those nice, fat profits?

Where does this leave the 707s? Well, there's only one third rail franchise coming up in the near future. Whoever's on risk for the finance is going to have to put together an attractive offer I suggest...

P.S. If people hadn't realised (although I've posted on here about it several times before) DfT no longer issue section 54s, so they are no longer guaranteeing that new RS has a shelf life.

 

[swt_passenger]

It does seem bizarre to replace a unit not even fully in service yet, surely when the 707 was ordered it matched with DfT thinking?

I think it possibly did at one time, but the subsequent ITT introduced a lot of doubt, because it reduced their supposed capacity from 0.25 sq m per person, this was relaxed in the franchise ITT to the more normal 0.35 sq m per person seen on other metro stock such as the modded 455s. DfT want inner suburban trains to have shorter dwell times, which means more standees, even bigger doorways etc. Relevant paragraphs are here:

a) The 0.25m2 allowance will be admissible only for rolling stock whose physical characteristics (e.g. door dimensions) and interior layouts are such that they can realistically accommodate the higher standing density even at high-churn locations, while also providing a good level of passenger comfort and safety;
b) The 0.35m2 allowance will be admissible for rolling stock that offers materially improved conditions for higher-density standing compared to ‘conventional’ 2+2 or 2+3 layouts, but that does not fully meet the conditions required for standing densities of 0.25m2 per standing passenger. Table 5.3 (Capacities of Rolling Stock for Bidding Purposes) above has assumed 0.35m2 per standing passenger in respect of the new Class 707 fleet, as well as the Class 455, Class 456 and Class 458/5 fleets;

My bolding. I think in previous discussions people read this as sounding the death knell for the 455 & 456 but didn't anticipate the 707 and 458/5, but looked at in hindsight the replacement of 707s is already being hinted at...

 

[Mikey C]

It matched Stagecoach thinking and must have satisfied DfT. For whatever reason it doesn't match First's thinking, but the new units must also satisfy DfT. Surely this is the risk that the ROSCOs were always supposed to have to offset those nice, fat profits?

Where does this leave the 707s? Well, there's only one third rail franchise coming up in the near future. Whoever's on risk for the finance is going to have to put together an attractive offer I suggest...

P.S. If people hadn't realised (although I've posted on here about it several times before) DfT no longer issue section 54s, so they are no longer guaranteeing that new RS has a shelf life.

Whatever you might think about ROSCOs, if new trains can be rendered redundant before they are even all in service, surely this will just result in a massive rise in financing costs for all operators, as they have to make a return as well?

 

[Mikey C]

I think it possibly did at one time, but the subsequent ITT introduced a lot of doubt, because it reduced their supposed capacity from 0.25 sq m per person, this was relaxed in the franchise ITT to the more normal 0.35 sq m per person seen on other metro stock such as the modded 455s. DfT want inner suburban trains to have shorter dwell times, which means more standees, even bigger doorways etc. Relevant paragraphs are here:



My bolding. I think in previous discussions people read this as sounding the death knell for the 455 & 456 but didn't anticipate the 707 and 458/5, but looked at in hindsight the replacement of 707s is already being hinted at...

I thought the 707s were designed to reduce dwell times? If they're not good enough for South Western, then surely the same would apply to the other 3rd rail franchises, all of which have similar pressures?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So Stagecoach's bluff didn't work.
They refused a direct award because of the terms offered, so triggered a franchise competition, expecting to improve the terms.
They failed.
Somebody said Chiltern was now the longest franchise, but they are not.
Chiltern has had several owners along the way, and is now an Arriva franchise.
Virgin West Coast will become the longest-serving franchise in 2018.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought the 707s were designed to reduce dwell times?

Presumably it depends what you compare them with. Better than the 450s? I'd emphasise that DfT seem to have moved the goalposts while the 707s were in build.

 

[Muzer]

So Stagecoach's bluff didn't work.
They refused a direct award because of the terms offered, so triggered a franchise competition, expecting to improve the terms.
They failed.
Somebody said Chiltern was now the longest franchise, but they are not.
Chiltern has had several owners along the way, and is now an Arriva franchise.
Virgin West Coast will become the longest-serving franchise in 2018.

How is Virgin West Coast any different? They didn't originally have Stagecoach involvement but now they do.

 

[HH]

Whatever you might think about ROSCOs, if new trains can be rendered redundant before they are even all in service, surely this will just result in a massive rise in financing costs for all operators, as they have to make a return as well?

You are right of course. Which is why the sort of deal that was done on ScotRail makes more sense - but that wasn't done with a ROSCO OR the DfT.

 

[HH]

So Stagecoach's bluff didn't work.
They refused a direct award because of the terms offered, so triggered a franchise competition, expecting to improve the terms.
They failed.

Indeed they did. However, I don't expect that the DfT did particularly well out of this competition financially either, as we discussed some time ago. I feel sure they went for the best offer, not to spite Stagecoach.

 

[59CosG95]

The first 2 units are being delivered with pantographs and tested on AC, so shouldn't be too difficult. Looks likely the 458s are off too, surely they will have much more trouble finding a new home.

Only 8531-6 will have that spot of bother; 8501-30 still have their pantograph wells IIRC, while 8531-6, being all ex-460 trailers, were never built with them.

 

[Muzer]

Only 8531-6 will have that spot of bother; 8501-30 still have their pantograph wells IIRC, while 8531-6, being all ex-460 trailers, were never built with them.

Being fitted with pantograph wells doesn't mean that any company has the equipment or expertise to fit pantographs that comply with modern standards. That may well require making a bespoke run of equipment that was discontinued long ago.

 

[Mikey C]

Presumably it depends what you compare them with. Better than the 450s? I'd emphasise that DfT seem to have moved the goalposts while the 707s were in build.

Well if the 707s aren't good enough, surely the same would apply to the TL 700s?

 

[HH]

Well if the 707s aren't good enough, surely the same would apply to the TL 700s?

Good enough for what? I don't believe that DfT have said that they're not good enough. It has said that their internal layout means that their 'allowed' capacity is lower than that of the units First is ordering. I'm not sure that is actually relevant to either the result or First's RS choice though.

 

[Qwerty133]

Good to see the 158/9s being kept on about the only route they are suitablr for

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How is Virgin West Coast any different? They didn't originally have Stagecoach involvement but now they do.

I'm pretty sure Chiltern began as a BR management buy-out, supported by John Laing plc.
They eventually took control, before selling on to DB Regio.
DB then transferred it to Arriva.
So 3 changes of control (and a franchise rebid).
VWC has had 51% Virgin Group ownership throughout.

Stagecoach may be taking the National Express view of losing the SWT franchise.
ie not worth it without a decent return.

 

[northwichcat]

You can argue that point but on the other hand SWT isn't a highly subsidised franchise like Northern and the Exeter route is a major long distance route, and even Northern are getting new trains for its longer distance services.

Are you trying to say 25 year old trains designed for longer distance services should be moved to shorter distance routes before they get any older while it's OK for local DMUs to be used on shorter distance routes until they are over 40 years old?

Northern will be using 158s alongside 195s on longer distance services. The Northern ITT was written in a way which expected bidders to take on any spare non-Pacer DMUs which they could get hold of (including 150s which will be almost 35 years old when they get them.)

SWT bidders weren't required to replace the 158s and 159s but they also weren't required to keep them on so the end result is what the winning bidder decided was best to do.

 

[ainsworth74]

For discussion of the future of the 707s please see the new thread here in the Traction & Rolling Stock section. It'd be nice to avoid this thread descending into a 'My idea for the 707s..' type speculative discussion! Lets keep the focus on the franchise award please

Many thanks!!

 

[Domh245]

VWC has had 51% Virgin Group ownership throughout.

The 49% was only sold to Stagecoach in October 1998, unless there was a previous owner of the 49%

 

[HH]

SWT bidders weren't required to replace the 158s and 159s but they also weren't required to keep them on so the end result is what the winning bidder decided was best to do.

And the other bidder might have had an entirely different viewpoint on these trains.

 

[DY444]

The 707s are out because their leasing costs are very high.

 

[3141]

It will interesting when we get more details about the new rolling stock. To be compatible with the majority of existing stock it would have to come from Siemens, unless some other manufacturer can do a deal with Siemens to get the necessary information. If it’s not compatible with 444s and 450s First /MTR will still have three different systems: the new stock, 444/450, and the re-tractioned 442s (unless they are made compatible with one of the first two).
If I was running a ROSCO, I think I’d be feeling a little nervous about buying 750 new carriages for a franchise that’s only seven years long (with a possible short extension), bearing in mind what appears to be going to happen to the 707s. I’d hope that the new trains for this franchise could also be used on Crossrail 2, but Crossrail 1’s trains have three doors per carriage. Should I insist that the new trains for First/MTR should have three doors? If not, I could be looking for a new home for several hundred carriages in less than eight years’ time.
The franchise award raises the question whether there’s any advantage in being the incumbent operator when bidding. On the face of it, there should be: the incumbent knows many things that nobody else does. On the other hand, perhaps being the incumbent limits your vision. For example, First/MTR are proposing four trains per hour to Portsmouth. Someone in an earlier post said that had been tried under Stagecoach and it hadn’t worked. I wonder if the Stagecoach bidding team considered 4 tph to Portsmouth and decided, from experience, that it wouldn’t work. An outside bidder may be more likely to say “Let’s look into that”. We’ll discover later whether it actually will work, having been told repeatedly that there’s no room on the main line for any extra services. Combining it with reduced journey times may be “brave” as they say.

 

[Oliver]

Good to see the 158/9s being kept on about the only route they are suitable for

The problem on the Waterloo - Exeter line isn't the stock. 159's are OK for the route. The problem is that the existing loops west of Salisbury determine the frequency, and works on the basis that all trains will stop at virtually all stations, and the last train west of Yeovil leaves Waterloo at 8:20 pm.

 

[TEW]

Desiro City is not compatible with Desiro UK anyway, so even Siemens won't be offering a fleet that is compatible with the old. I'd argue it's irrelevant anyway, at 750 carriages the new fleet will be the single largest fleet the franchise has, it's more than the current 444/450 fleets combined.

 

[Clip]

It will interesting when we get more details about the new rolling stock. To be compatible with the majority of existing stock it would have to come from Siemens, unless some other manufacturer can do a deal with Siemens to get the necessary information. If it’s not compatible with 444s and 450s First /MTR will still have three different systems: the new stock, 444/450, and the re-tractioned 442s (unless they are made compatible with one of the first two).
If I was running a ROSCO, I think I’d be feeling a little nervous about buying 750 new carriages for a franchise that’s only seven years long (with a possible short extension), bearing in mind what appears to be going to happen to the 707s. I’d hope that the new trains for this franchise could also be used on Crossrail 2, but Crossrail 1’s trains have three doors per carriage. Should I insist that the new trains for First/MTR should have three doors? If not, I could be looking for a new home for several hundred carriages in less than eight years’ time.
.

Im quite unsure as to why you think that the franchise after this First/MTR one would not want these trains and would be lying around someqhere out of use. Strange view

 

[HH]

It will interesting when we get more details about the new rolling stock. To be compatible with the majority of existing stock it would have to come from Siemens, unless some other manufacturer can do a deal with Siemens to get the necessary information. If it’s not compatible with 444s and 450s First /MTR will still have three different systems: the new stock, 444/450, and the re-tractioned 442s (unless they are made compatible with one of the first two).

One fleet on the Suburbans; no need for Siemens compatibility.

 

[Malcolmffc]

Are the 455s definitely going? Desperate to see this back of those sweatboxes.