New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[Mikey C]

But why bin the 707s then order more 5-car Desiro Citys?

For losing the 707s to make sense they have to be planning something that isn't from Siemens.

But presumably they aren't binning the 707s because of some deep hatred for Siemens, or because the introduction was a disaster (e.g. SWT switching from Alstom after the 458 problems)

Is it's the type of train that's the issue, then presumably Siemens are just as likely to tender for the replacement as any other manufacturer, especially as this will be a decent sized order.

 

[Mikey C]

Is there any possibility that Alstom could be in a position to offer a replacement for the 707s?

That would certainly be ironic...

If CAF and Stadler can win UK orders, there's no reason why Alstom can't

 

[3141]

So lets look at the possibilities for these trains to replace SWT's existing fleet being introduced in 2019.

Bombardier Aventra (unlikely due to Crossrail/TfL order)
CAF Civity (unlikely due to factory order full with TPE/Northern order).
Hitachi AT100 (Will any European factory have availability?)
Stadler Flirt UK (Busy delivering Greater Anglia fleet.

I thought I read somewhere that Bombardier have some spare capacity at Derby, so I'll guess it's Aventras, 9 cars, each 22.5m., 3 doors per coach, just like those for Crossrail.

But while we amuse ourselves guessing, it's actually already decided and we'll probably know in ten days' time.

 

[D1009]

I struggle to see two trains a day via Salisbury (at not the most convenient of times) with a significantly extended journey time as real 'competition', against a current 2tph and future 4tph service out of Paddington (for which plenty of seats will need filling off-peak)

Well I've just checked fares for tomorrow, and SWT have a day single for £14 each way, where GWR's cheapest offering is £53.50 for an off peak return. I'd call that competition, and there are three trains each way between Waterloo and Bristol by the way.

 

[Feathers44]

[although I can see the Clapham call getting swapped from the Exeter services to the Salisbury locals, at least in the Up direction]

Well, if that's the case I'm glad I'm not doing my weekly run to Templecombe any more. Two changes is more of a pain than one (obviously).


From a complete outside viewpoint this just look like a bizarrely expensive mess to me. Spend £40m retractioning the 455s, umpteen million buying new 707s and even more millions extending the 458s just to can the lot and start again. Even ignoring all of the training costs involved in all of this it's a whole whack of money simply thrown out.

If the 709s (whatever) are going to be cheaper to maintain than 707s fine. In every other business, that ship would have sailed. Once the assets have been bought, you've got to live with them for the duration. How is rail so different?

I suppose this is also a repaint of stations, new uniforms for everyone and yet another paint job for the trains. The franchise system is just a license to spend as far as I can see at the moment.

How is this the most cost effective way to transport passengers where they want to go? Or isn't that what the railway is for?

 

[infobleep]

Why not just use the stoppers and change elsewhere? Still quicker than waiting for a non-existant fast!

There are no stoppers to Clapham Junction from Woking. Here's an example of possible jouneries for someone I know who commutes from Woking to Kew.

I appreciate there are always winners and losers but given the significance of Clapham Junction as an interchange, I think there should be a few more winners from places like Woking.

The person I know catches the 7.05 from Woking as that is the last train to Clapham Junction until 8.43. On this train and it's connections, they can officially do journey in 52m with 2 changes or 59m with 1 change. This involves changing at Clapham Junction.

After the 7.05, the National Rail Enquiries App keeps wanted to route you via Waterloo. The next time they route you via Clapham Junction is at 8.43

Not only is Waterloo more expensive, as you need zone 1 validity on your travel card, it also has adds another 18 minutes to your journey. So your paying more for a poorer service.

They could go via Chertsey but the fastest journeys take 1 hour 18 minutes. So an increase of 26 minutes! At least it doesn't cost any more.

However that is only if you get the 7.07 or 8.02. For other journeys via Chertsey it takes 1 hour 21 minutes or 1 hour 24 minutes. In fact the 8.02 only gets into Kew, 15 minutes before the 8.43!

Going via Clapham Junction via changing at Surbiton, is 1 hour 18 to 1 hour 23 minutes, so much the same but it still avoids the zone 1 surcharge.

Now times the additional travel time by 5 and you get 2 hours 10 minutes. Of course going via zone 1 they can reduce this time down to 1 hour 30 minutes.

Of course that's just to get to work. I've not checked getting home again. There would be additional time and / or cost penaltiesq, if they can't catch a train before 17.02 or after 18.27.

Also there are only four trains an hour from Surbtion to Clapham Junction in the morning and they can be packed. Certainly the 8.11 and 8.31 services are. So not only does a longer distance traveller have to change trains, they then have to board a train where they probably can't even get a seat and that is standing at the back of the train. Not sure what it's like towards the front. Maybe is better. I doubt it.

I am sure they are not alone in their journey issues such as this.

I know the infrastructure doesn't allow trains to stop at Clapham Junction but they need to sort it out in my opinion. Adding more coaches isn't going to help passengers needing to interchange.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the 709s (whatever) are going to be cheaper to maintain than 707s fine. In every other business, that ship would have sailed. Once the assets have been bought, you've got to live with them for the duration. How is rail so different?

They haven't been "bought", they have been leased. And if the cost of buying out of a lease plus a new lease is cheaper, you do it in any line of business.

 

[infobleep]

We are going back to the days when the SRA micromanaged franchises.
Part of the scenario was the SRA was short of money after railway finances went out of control because of Railtrack's collapse, WCRM, and all the safety work needed (TPWS etc).
So several franchise deals were cut back, including the "no growth" franchises of Northern, ATW etc.
SWT's share of this was to have its upgrade plans cancelled (infrastructure as well as new trains).
That allowed the SRA to divert the last batch of 450s for SWT to Silverlink/LM (as 350s), to avoid having to buy another fleet of new trains for the WCML.

The DfT was severely criticised by the CMA for "fixing" the rolling stock market, so they have decided to let the TOCs get on with it, except for mega-procurements like IEP, Thameslink and HS2 stock to come.

Meanwhile TfL (LO, Crossrail) and Transport Scotland, also Merseyrail, still do their own procurement separate from the local TOC, who simply run the trains.

Can the DfT please be critised for trying to micromanage staff om franchises please.

Also didn't some of the SWT upgrade work include Clapham Junction, which has never been done since?

 

[infobleep]

Those of us who remember all the previous discussions know all that. The limitations preventing additional Clapham Junction calls have been explained to infobleep a number of times already...

Indeed they have. I know understand the limitations but I also understand that something could be done about it but nothing currently is.

I'm sure someone said on here once that South West Trains had planned to do something years ago but it was cancelled. Well if that is the case, I think it should be done.

It may be that nothing at all is possible but I've never heard South West Trains state that nothing is possible. Only that it's not possible unless their are infrastructure upgrades. That suggests to me that it is possible, with infrastructure upgrades.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed they have. I know understand the limitations but I also understand that something could be done about it but nothing currently is.

I'm sure someone said on here once that South West Trains had planned to do something years ago but it was cancelled. Well if that is the case, I think it should be done.

It may be that nothing at all is possible but I've never heard South West Trains state that nothing is possible. Only that it's not possible unless their are infrastructure upgrades. That suggests to me that it is possible, with infrastructure upgrades.

You are back with Network Rail's budget travails, which can't be fixed in a TOC franchise agreement.
As I understand it, some upgrades are being done (platform extensions for longer trains etc), plus all the Waterloo enhancements.
Crossrail 2 may also come into it (no point in doing work that will not be needed when many suburban services will avoid the Waterloo approaches).

 

[infobleep]

They haven't been "bought", they have been leased. And if the cost of buying out of a lease plus a new lease is cheaper, you do it in any line of business.

I appreciate why they might go for new rolling stock and they are a private company so up to them. It's really because of the Governments involvement in trying to get guards into OBSs to save money, that I have am issue with rolling stock changing so soon. On the face of it it's like they don't mind moneybox being saves in one star but it must be saved in another.

Surely a TOC takes the risk on staffing costs just as much as a RSOC takes a risk in building trains. Anyway I don't want to turn this into another debate on OBSs. I'm only trying to relate costs and savings between the two.

 

[Feathers44]

They haven't been "bought", they have been leased. And if the cost of buying out of a lease plus a new lease is cheaper, you do it in any line of business.

Yes, I understand that but does most of the travelling public? I suspect not.

Equally, with a wider view, someone has bought them to make them available for lease so the point stands. Just because the risk lies outside the TOC doesn't excuse the apparent waste. (And yes, I fully appreciate that they'll be available for lease elsewhere... after a respray and possibly having pantographs fitted and any other number of additional expenses)

 

[BestWestern]

Yes, I understand that but does most of the travelling public? I suspect not.

Equally, with a wider view, someone has bought them to make them available for lease so the point stands. Just because the risk lies outside the TOC doesn't excuse the apparent waste. (And yes, I fully appreciate that they'll be available for lease elsewhere... after a respray and possibly having pantographs fitted and any other number of additional expenses)

Don't forget new seat covers to replace the, err, brand new seat covers! :roll:

 

[Townsend Hook]

To be fair rejecting and reselling new stock isn't a new thing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Railway_River_Class

 

[Dent]

Is it's the type of train that's the issue

What is the actual issue with the type of train?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the actual issue with the type of train?

It's a fairly conventional 20m, 2 doors per side suburban EMU, basically a modern direct replacement for the 455, when I think First/MTR think something more Crossrail or S-stock-esque is needed?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Are the trains going to get the purple livery with pink doors? Then it truly would be a First company. I know it's unpopular but I like it. Then again, I like Class 143 Pacers more than Sprinters...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Dynamic Lines is dead (shame, I too like it), it's more likely to be a local brand.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What do you mean local brand?

 

[D1009]

Are the trains going to get the purple livery with pink doors? Then it truly would be a First company. I know it's unpopular but I like it. Then again, I like Class 143 Pacers more than Sprinters...

If you're referring to the First Group livery which is predominantly dark blue with pink doors, almost certainly not. It is being phased out.

 

[hwl]

But why bin the 707s then order more 5-car Desiro Citys?

For losing the 707s to make sense they have to be planning something that isn't from Siemens.

See my post on the 707 thread here:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2937276&postcount=50

Right I just had very very good look at the official Siemens 707 spec sheet, all I can say is it look like the spec was judged very wrongly...

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mob...ass-707-en.pdf

Desiro Cities:
Each half of an 8 car 700 has a transformer with 4 secondary windings, one for each traction electronics box which has 2 separate sets of electronics each of which powers a traction motor (8 motors per 4car half unit), each 700 traction motor is 207kw (281hp) and an 8 car has 16 and 12 car 24 i.e. 50% powered axles.

Now turning to the 707s. It appears an epic mistake in spec was agreed when ordering the stock leading to it being one of the earliest withdrawls in recent years if the First MTR rumours are true.

707s have all powered axles in driving cars (8 axles) with 3 trailers in-between (including the pantograph /transformer car.) So 40% powered axles but the traction motors are just 150KW (204hp). So performance wise they are equivalent to a 4car networker that has had an extra trailer car added to make 5 car unit!!!
A 5car 707 only has 60% of the tractive power of a 5car 377/6 or /7.

The 707 spec looks cunningly cheap as it has the bare minimum of everything and looks like it assumed the units would stay in 3rd rail land for their whole life and unlike all the other Siemens Desiro and Desiro City unit won’t have needed software throttling of power draw when on 3rd rail DC.
The max acceleration is just 0.85ms^-2 unlike virtually all other current design EMUs of 1.0ms^-2

Hence these units aren't actually high performance metro unit and it is very easy to see why MTR don't want them.
Epic mistake!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Aww, but how come Hull Trains have it still? Sorry, meant dark blue not purple

 

[3141]

Yes, I understand that but does most of the travelling public? I suspect not.

Equally, with a wider view, someone has bought them to make them available for lease so the point stands. Just because the risk lies outside the TOC doesn't excuse the apparent waste. (And yes, I fully appreciate that they'll be available for lease elsewhere... after a respray and possibly having pantographs fitted and any other number of additional expenses)

I think there is a point there which the discussion so far hasn't considered. Everything has to be paid for. The ROSCO has bought the 707s, probably with money from a bank or other finance organisation which it must repay over time. It expected to receive an income from leasing the trains which would cover those outgoings, pay for refurbs at intervals, and produce a profit.

Now it won't receive the income from the 707s once the new stock for First/MTR arrives. In the worst case, though it's unlikely, the 707s would never be used again and the ROSCO would make a big loss on them. More probably they will find another home for them, though not necessarily immediately. (After all, the 442's were in store for a time after SWT stopped using them in 2007 and before they went to GatEx, and there'll be another gap, though shorter, before they re-enter service with First/MTR.) So for a period the ROSCO won't get a leasing income from the 707s, but it will have to repay the entity from which it obtained the finance, and storage costs. If as HH has stated the ROSCO has to offer a lower leasing cost to another TOC to take them on, and if it also has to pay to have them reliveried and perhaps other modifications, that means its planned income stream is affected for several years and perhaps throughout the life of the trains.

I don't suppose many tears will be shed for the ROSCO, but it will look at the situation and, in order to rebalance its financial position, will consider whether it can raise lease rentals generally for its other trains as new franchises come up. If it is able to do that, the costs to future TOCs will be higher. That in turn would lead to those TOCs seeking higher fares to cover those higher costs, and/or lower premiums to the DfT. Those things mean that passengers pay a bit more to travel, and/or that government income is lower, so as passengers or taxpayers the public feel the outcome.

It won't of course make a massive difference to fares or government income, but the decision not to keep the 707s will have the kind of effects I've described.

Maybe, with many other EMUs being replaced and needing new homes, the ROSCO won't be able to increase its charges generally - even though the majority of the EMUs soon to be displaced are at least 20 years older than the 707s. The ROSCO may have to face a long-term squeeze on its profits. In that case the ramifications feed through to investments such as pension funds, or to an increase in the rates at which those institutions that provide money for rolling stock purchases are prepared to lend it.

Things are inter-related, in ways that we may not normally have a reason to think about, and I think that although the decision not to keep the 707s may make financial sense for First/MTR in 2017, it will continue to produce effects for very much longer.

 

[hwl]

Things are inter-related, in ways that we may not normally have a reason to think about, and I think that although the decision not to keep the 707s may make financial sense for First/MTR in 2017, it will continue to produce effects for very much longer.

Agreed - It will also lead to RoSCos specifying features that make units more cascadeable and / or a return to section 54 in some form.

The RoSCos with stock leaving the franchise:
Porterbrook: 455, 456, 458
Angel: 707

The RoSCos with stock arriving at the franchise:
Angel: 442
UNKNOWN: new stock


The RoSCos with stock staying at the franchise:
Angel: 444, 450
Porterbrook: 158, 159

So the question is which RoSCo is financing the new stock?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you mean local brand?

Like "gWr", "TransPennine Express" etc, not "First South West Trains".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aww, but how come Hull Trains have it still? Sorry, meant dark blue not purple

Don't know, but they have abandoned First(f) in favour of the pink heart.

 

[HH]

So lets look at the possibilities for these trains to replace SWT's existing fleet being introduced in 2019.

Bombardier Aventra (unlikely due to Crossrail/TfL order)
CAF Civity (unlikely due to factory order full with TPE/Northern order).
Hitachi AT100 (Will any European factory have availability?)
Stadler Flirt UK (Busy delivering Greater Anglia fleet.

I know that at least two of those submitted offers to one or other of the bidders, so there must be capacity...

 

[HH]

Meanwhile TfL (LO, Crossrail) and Transport Scotland, also Merseyrail, still do their own procurement separate from the local TOC, who simply run the trains.

TfN wanted to as well and probably will next time around. IMO that makes a lot of sense as they can get a good price if they commit to a manufacturer for a decent order and a financier for a decent period. TOCs, on 7 year franchises, shouldn't really be the procurer, although they certainly ought to advise on the procurement.

 

[HH]

My money's on Stadler

I'll take that bet. How much money do you have?

 

[hwl]

I know that at least two of those submitted offers to one or other of the bidders, so there must be capacity...

And so did a 3rd not on the list