West Coast Franchise speculation

[pt_mad]

Page 43 of the stakeholder briefing document* claims that "flexibility will be provided through: (i) setting maximum journey times at levels which enable bidders to improve connectivity [i.e. an implication that longer journey times might be tolerated to permit more stops at intermediate stations]; (ii) a flexible Train Service Requirement (TSR) structure enabling bidders to develop new stopping patterns [elsewhere it being mentioned that skip-stopping is a possibility]".

However, the next paragraph states that "bidders will be required to deliver fast end to end journey times and challenged to work towards aspirational headline journey times in preparation for HS2". That precludes (i), and to a considerable extent precludes (ii). You can't add additional calls to the Liverpool to London trains because they are closely followed by the Manchester to London via Wilmslow trains (which are in turn closely followed by the Glasgow to London non-stop-from-Warrington trains), and skip-stopping doesn't work with the latter two - swapping Crewe with Lichfield on the Manchester trains or Warrington with Nuneaton on the Glasgow trains would be economic suicide.

*https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../694760/wcp-stakeholder-briefing-document.pdf

Regards 'asperational headline journey times' conflicting with 'setting maximum journey times at levels which enable bidders to improve connectivity', headline journey times are surely just that. One or two extra fast trains a day from x to London which allow the operator to advertise Birmingham to London from 90 mins....West Coast Trains (example).

It seems they have left extra stops open to the discretion of the bidder. If they (DFT) are being leaniant with journey times they are basically saying bid with extra stops if you want to and can justify them well, but they aren't essential or necessary.

And I assume as any extra stops would not be in the minimum service requirement, that they wouldn't be set in stone and could be removed if revenue was low. Which would be a bad state of affairs for any town which was given a fast service again but could then potentially have it removed again in a few years.


I presume the spec was similar for the 2012 franchise which First was first awarded. As First seemed to be proposing extra stops .So presumably it was open to bidders choice back then.

 

[All Line Rover]

I don't consider the desire for "aspirational headline journey times" to conflict, but the more general desire for "fast end to end journey times", which implies that things should remain as they are.

 

[pt_mad]

I don't consider the desire for "aspirational headline journey times" to conflict, but the more general desire for "fast end to end journey times", which implies that things should remain as they are.

Or are they saying that bidders can remove an intermediate stop in one place bit add one in another place if they think it will improve connectivity? As long as journey times stay fast?

I.e. bidders could stop only once per 2 hours at Stafford, and stop once every alternate hour at Nuneaton rather than Stafford, if they thought it made connectivity and or business sense.

 

[All Line Rover]

That is what is implied, but the minimum train service requirement of 1 West Coast Partnership tph between Stafford and London precludes it.

 

[WatcherZero]

The service requirement is written a little strange, there is no requirement of Wigan-Preston services though there is Wigan-Crewe and Wigan-Warrington, theres only a requirement of 1tph from Wigan-London all day but theres a requirement for 7 services in the 4 hour evening peak between London and Wigan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wigan-Preston has Northern services so it isn't an essential.

 

[WatcherZero]

No section 54 arrangements will be offered for the franchise (I.e. the government wont guarantee new build stock a home on the franchise beyond the awarded franchise length). Branding rules have been tightened, any brand used is granted in perpetuity to the Dft and available to successors for Nil cost, standard zero cost debranding strategy requirement. Requirement to allow for two future paths between Birmingham and Liverpool for West Midland. Some changes to franchise premiums, a compliant bid is now one which is not forecast to default under the central growth forecast and the Dft will reduce franchise premiums automatically if growth comes in at the low forecast, theres no emphasis on planning to accommodate or even considering the possibility of a high growth scenario.

They are required to provide two stages, pre-HS2 WCML service and HS2 transition plan, post HS2 WCML service and operation plan. Their franchise premiums reset to the post profile on the 1st day of HS2 services.

it is not expected that Bidders will plan in their Bids to purchase assets with useful economic lives extending beyond 31 March 2026

As before, will run HS2 as a separate business unit for the early years.

Otherwise pretty steady state requirements with an emphasis on improving quality and service of existing assets rather than splurging on replacement or enhancement. sadly reminiscent of the first Northern franchise though you can understand it with the heavy risk and uncertainty of what post HS2 demand would be.

 

[driver_m]

Wigan-Preston has Northern services so it isn't an essential.

Staff relieving point anyway at Preston so it shouldn't be affected.

 

[Carlisle]

Interesting that the current service is near enough immutable. I’d have thought there would be more freedom.

So does that indicate first and foremost that the current timetable works well, pendilinos are extremely reliable, (as good as any U.K. train currently operating or indeed likley to enter service anytime soon) serious infrastructure failures are rare, and there probably won’t be significant benefits between Crewe and Scotland when we’ve finally spent all those billions and the classic compatible stock is eventually introduced up there , rant over .

 

[WatcherZero]

No I think it indicates they don't want to add capacity before HS2 only to end up with too much capacity or the wrong type of capacity later. You've also got the experience of over promising infrastructure improvements that the bidders factor in to their revenue forecasts only for them not to appear on time.

 

[pt_mad]

No section 54 arrangements will be offered for the franchise (I.e. the government wont guarantee new build stock a home on the franchise beyond the awarded franchise length). Branding rules have been tightened, any brand used is granted in perpetuity to the Dft and available to successors for Nil cost, standard zero cost debranding strategy requirement. Requirement to allow for two future paths between Birmingham and Liverpool for West Midland. Some changes to franchise premiums, a compliant bid is now one which is not forecast to default under the central growth forecast and the Dft will reduce franchise premiums automatically if growth comes in at the low forecast, theres no emphasis on planning to accommodate or even considering the possibility of a high growth scenario.

They are required to provide two stages, pre-HS2 WCML service and HS2 transition plan, post HS2 WCML service and operation plan. Their franchise premiums reset to the post profile on the 1st day of HS2 services.



As before, will run HS2 as a separate business unit for the early years.

Otherwise pretty steady state requirements with an emphasis on improving quality and service of existing assets rather than splurging on replacement or enhancement. sadly reminiscent of the first Northern franchise though you can understand it with the heavy risk and uncertainty of what post HS2 demand would be.

So re branding. Does this mean it has to be a generic brand which can be passed on? Such as West Coast Trains? Does this mean simply 'Virgin Trains' would not be permitted?

What about West Coast Trains...operated by Virgin Trains..?

Also, what about the potential replacement of the Voyagers? Are new trains allowed in a bid such as bi-mode or intercity 225s? (225s which could at 110mph be used in one of the two paths an hour which are in theory spare currently (xx33), so long as an overtaking move took place along the route at MKC for example.

Is there any requirement for further smart ticketing options and station key card activation etc?


Oh and the 2 extra paths needed for WMT Liverpool to Birmingham sounds interesting. Does this mean two extra paths in each direction need to be left available for WMT?

Could this be hinting that LNR is planning 4tph Birmingham to Liverpool in the future?

 

[WatcherZero]

I think its generally saying use a generic brand that can hang around for a while after a successor takes over because it will take them some time to fully rebrand, don't do anything that cant be rebranded or put in to a neutral livery and expect your name to be around after your done unless you thoroughly scrub it yourself.

Think things like putting your logo in seat covers or embossed logos that cant be simply stickered over, you might want to go with something neutral like 'West Coast' rather than 'Virgin' in those areas.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Oh and the 2 extra paths needed for WMT Liverpool to Birmingham sounds interesting. Does this mean two extra paths in each direction need to be left available for WMT?
Could this be hinting that LNR is planning 4tph Birmingham to Liverpool in the future?

I don't think it's anything more than the current 2tph.
In fact the specification only covers the service intentions already agreed for the WMT franchise (eg the Crewe-Euston going via Madeley and a Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham replacing a Wolverhampton stopper).
There's really no "vision". We'll see if any of the bidders' ideas get adopted.
It's been obvious since 2012 that the DfT just wants the premiums to roll in to pay for improvements elsewhere (the VTEC debacle doesn't help).
I'm not sure about the 2 spare paths - depends on how disruptive the HS2 works at Euston are going to be.

On the Blackpool service, only 1tpd is in the spec for Poulton and Kirkham - by the current early/late Voyager.
There's not even the prospect of Pendolino calls at those stations.
I also didn't see any reference to Open Access services (ie leaving paths for GNWR).

I had thought the "old WCML" services would be refranchised with WMT after HS2 comes in, but it is to run as a separate accounting unit of WCP.
An end date of 2031 (12 years) is a long franchise period for one operator, longer than any on the current network.
That might encourage something like Voyager replacement.
But it would present a challenge to Labour's nationalisation plans if they came to power after WCP is let.

I'm disappointed nothing is said about the operation of classic-compatible trains on the WCML or infrastructure plans for the northern section.
It must be in the "too hard" category, to be left to WCP, NR and HS2 Ltd after the franchise is let.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Any chance that WCP could pick up spare CrossCountry Super Voyagers if/when they are replaced and re-enable tilt?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any chance that WCP could pick up spare CrossCountry Super Voyagers if/when they are replaced and re-enable tilt?

What for? It really needs some more 125mph EMUs, not DMUs. It has enough Voyagers to run the North Wales service all full-length (10-car) if they were kept off everything else.

 

[pt_mad]

Can anyone remind be who the bidders will be?

Wow 2031. Was expecting only until 2027/8. That is a seriously long franchise considering there's nothing about Voyager replacement/bi-mode or additional tilting EMUs or additional train coaches. Not even a mandatory requirement to make all Pendolinos 11 car. They could have asked bidders to re-jig the fleet, using a couple of 9 car sets to make the whole of the rest of the fleet 11 Cars. Whilst at the same time bringing in a brand new bi-mode tilting fleet to make up the number and replace the Voyagers with possibly a few extras.


Knowing how things are going on other major projects I can well see HS2 phase 1 ending up being late and the service specification being basically the same as now all the way through to the late 2020s, which is very uninspiring and a bit daunting really.

I mean who would have thought the required service would only be that which was near enough provided in 2009 (with odd token additionals) all the way through to potentially the late 2020s?

One has to wonder whether they (DFT) are concerned about current other franchise financial woes and are playing it too cautiously so as not to require major change and investment which may balls up the premiums and send the franchise into the red.


Was also thinking about what was being discussed further up about potential extra intermediate calls.
They say good journey times need to be an aspiration. But that there is flexibility for extra calls if wanted. So basically I take that as there's a few minutes give here and there to slot a Nuneaton, Rugby or Tamworth/Lichfield slot (one of) into a service here and there whether it be just the odd individual train or every other hour on one particular service if it improved connectivity.
I presume revenue share would then have to be recalculated if say a southbound train called at Nuneaton every other hour, and customers were connecting from the north to Leicester and East Anglia. As obviously VT wouldn't get much of a share of that flow at present.


Perhaps we'll see a VT/Stagecoach bid built on a similar calling pattern as now, but another operator who's main USP is slotting in extra intermediate calls say on an alternative hourly basis?

One thing is for sure with the minimum requirement tables, it gives little flexibility with regards the basis of the VHF timetable.
To the degree that at Rugby, Nuneaton Northampton, Tamworth and Lichfield...the times the trains need to call there as a minimum basically force the bidder into calling the exact same trains as now.
Example three trains must leave Euston between 1600 and 1959 to call at Tamworth and Lich I believe (ends up the Glasgow, the Lancaster and 1840 Manc) but only two for Nuneaton within that window (ends up the 1710/1810 Holyheads with the next Nun departure being the 20:07, just outside that window). Leaves the TOC tied on that front for a start off.

 

[hawk1911]

Very disappointing. Let's hope the bidders are a bit more imaginative.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Any chance that WCP could pick up spare CrossCountry Super Voyagers if/when they are replaced and re-enable tilt?

XC stock won't be up for discussion during the WCP bid phase (next 3 months).

 

[Danfilm007]

Well, this will be interesting...

 

[absolutelymilk]

What for? It really needs some more 125mph EMUs, not DMUs. It has enough Voyagers to run the North Wales service all full-length (10-car) if they were kept off everything else.

Sure, but given that there is v little prospect of paying large amounts for a small order of tilting 125mph EMUs which won't be needed post-HS2 then cheap Super Voyagers should be plan B (unless it is unavailable for discussion as LNW has suggested).

 

[sprinterguy]

Can anyone remind be who the bidders will be?

From this article:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ted-for-west-coast-partnership-franchise.html

• First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Ltd, a joint venture between FirstGroup’s First Rail Holdings Ltd (70%) and Italian state operator Trenitalia SpA (30%);
• MTR West Coast Partnership Ltd, a joint venture of the MTR Corp (UK) Ltd subsidiary of Hong Kong’s MTR Corp and Guangshen Railway Co which operates the 481 km Shenzhen – Guangzhou – Pingshi Railway in China, with key sub-contractors including consultancy Deloitte MCS Ltd, Panasonic Systems Europe, Swedish travel software company Snowfall, ticket retailer Trainline.com Ltd and engineering consultancy;
• West Coast Partnership Ltd, a joint venture between Stagecoach Group plc (50%), Virgin Holdings Ltd (30%) and the SNCF C3 (20%) subsidiary of the French national railway group

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Chris Grayling says he wants WCP to be a "strong British organisation", so that won't help the MTR bid much.
First's bid is 70% British, and Stagecoach/Virgin is 80%.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sure, but given that there is v little prospect of paying large amounts for a small order of tilting 125mph EMUs which won't be needed post-HS2 then cheap Super Voyagers should be plan B (unless it is unavailable for discussion as LNW has suggested).

Non-tilt 125mph EMUs would probably be fine used on the Euston-Birmingham services not extending to Scotland, to be honest. They wouldn't lose *that* much time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chris Grayling says he wants WCP to be a "strong British organisation", so that won't help the MTR bid much.
First's bid is 70% British, and Stagecoach/Virgin is 80%.

To me it's a real pity there is no DB bid. I vastly prefer DB's high speed rail concept to the Romance concepts, and indeed DB's operational concepts better fit what we are trying to achieve with HS2, at least in the early phases.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Non-tilt 125mph EMUs would probably be fine used on the Euston-Birmingham services not extending to Scotland, to be honest. They wouldn't lose *that* much time.

Quite possibly, but even assuming these arrived in 2021, that would still be only 5 years of use before HS2 opens on that precise stretch. So (I would guess) it would be unlikely to be sanctioned by the ORR/a ROSCO unless there was a clear use for them afterwards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite possibly, but even assuming these arrived in 2021, that would still be only 5 years of use before HS2 opens on that precise stretch. So (I would guess) it would be unlikely to be sanctioned by the ORR/a ROSCO unless there was a clear use for them afterwards.

I can see more 125mph EMUs being needed for TPE in future (their new WCML fleet seems to have relatively limited scope for growth), so there probably is a home for them. It's doors-at-thirds 100mph regional EMUs we presently seem to have somewhat of a glut of.

For instance, if an hourly Liverpool to Scotland service was desired, that might be a good home for them. I doubt HS2 will ever go past Manchester, TBH.

 

[J-2739]

To me it's a real pity there is no DB bid. I vastly prefer DB's high speed rail concept to the Romance concepts, and indeed DB's operational concepts better fit what we are trying to achieve with HS2, at least in the early phases.

You've still got China I guess. Tbh, I still think we'd still get 18tph, even with a trash company like SNCF...

 

[Bletchleyite]

You've still got China I guess. Tbh, I still think we'd still get 18tph, even with a trash company like SNCF...

What I fear is a push towards non-clockface operation, non-integration of fares and compulsory reservations, as feature in all the Romance and Slavic railway operations (and Chinese I think) but not the Germanic ones which promote consistent timetabling, quality connections and walk-up fares.

 

[J-2739]

What I fear is a push towards non-clockface operation, non-integration of fares and compulsory reservations, as feature in all the Romance and Slavic railway operations (and Chinese I think) but not the Germanic ones which promote consistent timetabling, quality connections and walk-up fares.

Ye, that'd be good.

 

[daikilo]

Firstly, Chris Grayling could be considered to be suggesting that bidding evaluation rules could be 'adapted' to favour 'strong UK bids'. Does he want another legal crisis over WCML?

Secondly, I cannot think of any reason to move off a 'clockface' timetable other than the difficulties of harmonising HS2 and WCML departure, stopping times and integration north of Crewe.

Thirdly, I very much doubt or even desire that fares be fully integrated as time has value so a fare via HS2 is likely to be higher than one via the WCML (south of Crewe).

Finally, I am also not against compulsory reservations on one of the operators provided they can be made up to say 4 hours before departure or passage of the train. I am concerned by unregulated standing which I think should stop/be regulated with specific pricing.