InterCity East Coast: Doomed to Fail?

[ainsworth74]

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if "luxuries" like Middlesbrough/ Huddersfield have to be sacrificed due to VTEC being constrained at the southern end of the ECML due to lack of paths.

Though of course if that happens what on earth are VTEC (or whoever) going to do with the thirteen 9-car and ten 5-car bi mode IEPs? I mean if you forget about portion working the 5-car units so they run around as 10-car all the time that's still eighteen trains to replace the HST fleet. And don't forget that there are thirty 9-car and twelve 5-car pure electric IEPs as well!

They kinda need to run these extra services at some point otherwise there's going to be a lot of units sat around...

 

[Domh245]

Though of course if that happens what on earth are VTEC (or whoever) going to do with the thirteen 9-car and ten 5-car bi mode IEPs? I mean if you forget about portion working the 5-car units so they run around as 10-car all the time that's still eighteen trains to replace the HST fleet. And don't forget that there are thirty 9-car and twelve 5-car pure electric IEPs as well!

They kinda need to run these extra services at some point otherwise there's going to be a lot of units sat around...

Perhaps the DfT could rearrange contracts with Agility to bolster the GW fleet, allowing 10 cars past Oxford on all services

 

[tbtc]

Though of course if that happens what on earth are VTEC (or whoever) going to do with the thirteen 9-car and ten 5-car bi mode IEPs? I mean if you forget about portion working the 5-car units so they run around as 10-car all the time that's still eighteen trains to replace the HST fleet. And don't forget that there are thirty 9-car and twelve 5-car pure electric IEPs as well!

They kinda need to run these extra services at some point otherwise there's going to be a lot of units sat around...

I maybe didn't explain myself very well (as usual!).

I was meaning something along the lines of "if the Thameslink changes mean conflicts south of Peterborough and NR aren't providing the additional capacity required to accommodate these... and this slows down VTEC services - using coppercapped's comment about them basing plans on getting Edinburgh services down to 4h duration ... then this could easily cost an extra unit or two ... given that VTEC may be running six trains through Peterborough some hours ... it only takes a few minutes extra until you need to throw an extra diagram into the PVR to maintain timetables ... but VTEC's supply of IETs is fixed ... so that may mean having to trim something from the extremes of the network to cope with the additional time required to do Peterborough - Kings Cross - Peterborough ... "

Or, to look at it another way, due to Thameslink changes, EMT need extra trains just to maintain existing frequencies/ destinations - the HSTs arriving from GC aren't going to be used for anything interesting like extend services to Leeds - they are just there to allow them to meet existing commitments (as services are slowed down at the southern end of the MML...

...due to Thameslink changes (and lack of corresponding infrastructure improvements), VTEC may need extra trains just to maintain existing frequencies/ destinations - the IET order was based on planned increases in destinations happening - so, unless there are more IET being ordered that could mean an extra train or two thrown into diagrams just to provide the planned frequency through Peterborough ... and if supply of trains is finite then something's got to give ... and that may mean shaving off some of the planned return trips from Leeds to Huddersfield/ Bradford/ Harrogate and back - or from York to Middlesbrough.

I hope it's not the case - but it wouldn't take much additional time south of Peterborough to require an additional train to be thrown into the mix to maintain six services per hour on that stretch - and if there aren't any additional trains then you have to look at "where could we remove a train from services further north to find resources at the London end of the route".

Phew!

 

[Starmill]

Mate I don't agree with railway privatisation but if one company can turn a profit in a free market economy and another can't what is your problem?

Because it is evidence of cream-skimming behavior. The results that most people are after with competition is lower prices and higher output. They have lowered prices but only a little bit - better regulation would stop price rises far more effectively. And they are not really succeeding at increasing output with their 5 car trains. They may be profitable but this does not stop the railway from being a natural monopoly.

 

[BantamMenace]

Aren't the proposed network expansions designed to put pressure on the open access operators and probably put them out of business? That'd be one of the problems frequently mentioned on here sorted.

 

[ainsworth74]

Aren't the proposed network expansions designed to put pressure on the open access operators and probably put them out of business?

Well, that's not the stated aim but it does appear that it might be a side benefit as far as the franchised operator is concerned. I remember thinking when VTEC was announced that the proposed services looked like a near direct attack on Grand Central.

 

[aylesbury]

Who were the other bidders for the franchise with all that's been going on cant remember were the other bids offering new services etc and did the DFT come up with the passenger growth figures ? Obviously Stagecoach / Virgin worked on the figures supplied plus the upgrades by NR played a big part in talks etc so in many ways they were led up the garden path or am I seeing things wrong?

 

[Chrism20]

Who were the other bidders for the franchise with all that's been going on cant remember were the other bids offering new services etc and did the DFT come up with the passenger growth figures ? Obviously Stagecoach / Virgin worked on the figures supplied plus the upgrades by NR played a big part in talks etc so in many ways they were led up the garden path or am I seeing things wrong?

I’m pretty sure it was First, Keolis with someone else (Eurostar?) and Stagecoach/Virgin

 

[DarloRich]

Once again - VTEC has NOT 'handed back the keys'. There is no 'cost to the taxpayer'.

But with respect there is a cost to the tax payer. (Perhaps more accurately there is a potential cost to the tax payer and a gap in public finances that must be filled)

While VTEC may not have handed back the keys this is a bailout if only because it has allowed VTEC ( and their parents) to remove from their liabilities contingency fund and risk register a large sum of money due to the government and free up that money for something more exciting.

While they may be fairly relying upon delayed infrastructure enhancements to justify the renegotiation it is clear that the underlying reason is the inability of VTEC to meet their own growth projections.

The improvements that NR was intended to complete before 2020 was a power supply upgrade between Bawtry and Scotland to enable two Class 80X trains per hour to run to Edinburgh as well as additional electric services from VTEC (as listed in the franchise agreement) and other operators. It was also going to increase capacity, in the south to allow for the additional Thameslink trains not to delay VTEC's services - for example by re-working the Kings Cross throat (the proposals originally published two or three years ago showed an additional track through the disused bore of Gasworks Tunnel, this has now been replaced by a proposal putting two tracks through it), four tracking the stretch between Woodwalton and Huntingdon. There were some other tweaks that I can't be bothered to look up but which were intended to reduce the Kings Cross - Edinburgh time to 4 hours for one of the two hourly trains, and work to improve the reliability of the infrastructure: track, signalling and overhead.

As a result of the Great Western electrification cock-up the 2015 Hendy report pushed the completion dates for all this work out by two or three years.

Is there a schedule of works with detailed plans, specifications, dates,contracts, resources and authorised ring fenced funding attached to these upgrade schemes or did dft just expect, like many here, to make it so?

 

[SamYeager]

Is there a schedule of works with detailed plans, specifications, dates,contracts, resources and authorised ring fenced funding attached to these upgrade schemes or did dft just expect, like many here, to make it so?

I believe this is what's called a rhetorical question and you know the answer as well as the rest of us.

 

[dviner]

I believe this is what's called a rhetorical question and you know the answer as well as the rest of us.

The rhetorical nature of the question does not automatically mean that that it can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant (not implying that's what you're doing).

The Hendy Review may have de-scoped these projects, but the DfT could have objected.

 

[E6007]

The rhetorical nature of the question does not automatically mean that that it can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant (not implying that's what you're doing).

The Hendy Review may have de-scoped these projects, but the DfT could have objected.

But then DfT would have had to give Network Rail more money!

 

[sleepy_hollow]

There are documents on the GOV.UK website claiming to be the franchise agreement. Can the government commitments be found in them? I have not yet succeeded in finding anything that is easily interpreted as a government obligations section, but assume that people with better contract or franchise understanding can point out the relevant parts.

 

[dviner]

But then DfT would have had to give Network Rail more money!

Well, they had three options:

1. Give Network Rail more money
2. Reject the Hendy review's recommendations, and ask for ones that didn't de-scope the ECML projects (robbing Peter to pay Paul)
3. Do nothing