• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Porterbrook moans about new franchises ordering new trains

Status
Not open for further replies.

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
FT said:
UK government’s emphasis on putting new trains on to the network is “not sustainable” for the industry, the chief executive of a railway rolling stock company has warned. When the government awards rail franchises, it can reward bids that promise to introduce new fleets.

Mary Grant, who has been in charge of Porterbrook since September 2017, said it was important that new trains were added to fleets to accommodate passenger growth, but added: “That will create a form of surplus in the short term . . . The model is not sustainable if there is a continuous cycle of a new train coming in and seven years later it might be displaced.”

Trains can run for more than 30 years, so the replacement of relatively new stock leaves rolling-stock companies with a surplus of idle off-lease trains. If they cannot find another home, they may have to be scrapped and written off. As an example, Ms Grant pointed to the fleet replacement on South Western Railway last year, when “new displaced new”.

There are 7,200 new trains coming on to the network between 2014 and 2021, equivalent to half the current total stock, the Rail Delivery Group trade body has said. Thanks to these orders, the average age of British trains will fall from 21 years in 2016-17 to 15 years by 2020-21, according to the RDG.

Porterbrook provides servicing and maintenance to trains throughout their lives, the need for which is initially diminished when there is a regular supply of new trains. The company bought one-third of British Rail’s rolling stock in 1994, when the government privatised the network, a move which split control between train operating companies, rolling-stock lease companies and an infrastructure owner. Porterbrook has subsequently had several owners; at present it is owned by a consortium including insurance companies and the investment arm of the energy company EDF.

At first, its main competitors were Angel Trains and Eversholt Rail, which bought the other two-thirds of British Rail’s stock in 1994. However, in recent years “a wall of capital in the infrastructure space” had attracted other players such as pension funds, said Ms Grant. These new players can undercut the rolling-stock companies.

Moreover, the government has been procuring trains for Crossrail and Thameslink directly from manufacturers, instead of via the rolling-stock companies. Porterbrook announced last week it was partnering with Elastacloud, an artificial intelligence company, to gather and analyse data from its trains, enabling predictive maintenance and “the right intervention at the right time”, Ms Grant said, such as replacing bulbs or detanking toilets. Porterbrook had revenue of £477.2m in 2017, down from £487m the year before, although pre-tax profit was up 23 per cent to £91.6m, mostly thanks to lower financing costs.

https://www.ft.com/content/be2c0598-9bec-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d

Or in other words how dare the West Midlands franchise order replacements for the 323s when we wanted to lease more 323s to them. Of course it should also be remembered Porterbrook placed a speculative order for more 387s when they had plenty of off-lease 319s available - they can't have it both ways!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
https://www.ft.com/content/be2c0598-9bec-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d

Or in other words how dare the West Midlands franchise order replacements for the 323s when we wanted to lease more 323s to them. Of course it should also be remembered Porterbrook placed a speculative order for more 387s when they had plenty of off-lease 319s available - they can't have it both ways!
They probably also wanted to sell them 796's and are now throwing a Bombardier style temper tantrum but without the legal action. Maybe you should have let Northern keep their 323's you goons.:lol:
 
Joined
24 Mar 2009
Messages
592
https://www.ft.com/content/be2c0598-9bec-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d

Or in other words how dare the West Midlands franchise order replacements for the 323s when we wanted to lease more 323s to them. Of course it should also be remembered Porterbrook placed a speculative order for more 387s when they had plenty of off-lease 319s available - they can't have it both ways!

Mad Mary said : “That will create a form of surplus in the short term . . . The model is not sustainable if there is a continuous cycle of a new train coming in and seven years later it might be displaced.”

Let me translate that into English : "We're annoyed that we can't get away with gouging the TOC's by over-charging them for leasing old and clapped-out rolling stock. How are we going to keep making the obscene profits we do by making the railway pay over and over again for an ageing and rickety fleet of trains that the passengers are fed up with?"

Porterbrook and the other leasing companies are like the giant vampire squid sucking the lifeblood from the railway. Wake up and smell the coffee chaps, in a free market the TOCs can lease whatever the want, from whoever they choose.
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,373
so it's not rocket science.
use a tiered leasing charge.

I'm actually in favour of a longer lease period-say 10 years,that ties into a specific "tier" of train age.
if you know an asset has a lifespan of approx 30 years, then it stacks up to 3 main tiers, then a "kwiksave" version for all out of life stock at bargain basement leases,that maybe open access operators can make a case for.(in present terms that could be good for easytrain that wants to run a couple of HST's on a semi-fast route somewhere!)

new stock should command a higher charge than old.

there will still be TOC's that want to run something,but on a shoestring.
..well,not exactly a shoestring as overall running and maintainance costs should be higher on something 30 years old than something straight off the production line.

from a TOC's point of view,it's good marketing to have a nice shiny new train,but customers will take capacity and reliability over latest release in most cases.
for more important for a commuter to have a train that arrives on time,with seating available than all the bells and whistles like wi-fi.
it is ultimately a tool to get you from A to B,and the main factors are reliability, punctuality,seats on demand and cost

in airline terms this is why easyjet etc have become popular for both business and tourism, and undermines the market for the likes of BA.remember they started out with about half a dozen beaten up 737's in the face of BA's all modern set of A320's-and won.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,947
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Porterbrook and the other leasing companies are like the giant vampire squid sucking the lifeblood from the railway. Wake up and smell the coffee chaps, in a free market the TOCs can lease whatever the want, from whoever they choose.

Until Mr Corbyn arrives in No.10 and starts playing trains at a national level.

Actually too many all-new trains will push up the price for everybody as the Roscos can't guarantee being able to lease them long term.
What happens to the 350/2 and 707 fleets is important for the long-term financing of rolling stock.
Ex-BR stock like 323s are less important as they've already had 20+ years continuous leasing rental from most of them.
There is also a trend for manufacturers to perform the leasing and maintenance functions themselves (as for IEP), cutting out the Roscos.
 

themiller

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,383
Location
Cumbria, UK
Despite what's been written above, it's the DfT who are skewing the market by writing the franchise specification in such a way as to virtually mandate new trains be ordered by the incoming TOCs. This doesn't happen with the FOCs who order new locos when it becomes operationally necessary. It all goes to show that the people in DfT take no heed of possible unintended consequences of their decisions.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Despite what's been written above, it's the DfT who are skewing the market by writing the franchise specification in such a way as to virtually mandate new trains be ordered by the incoming TOCs. This doesn't happen with the FOCs who order new locos when it becomes operationally necessary. It all goes to show that the people in DfT take no heed of possible unintended consequences of their decisions.

DfT didn't mandate new trains for Anglia though and as shown with SWR with the 442s being taken on it can be down to ROSCO pricing.
 

themiller

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,383
Location
Cumbria, UK
DfT didn't mandate new trains for Anglia though and as shown with SWR with the 442s being taken on it can be down to ROSCO pricing.
I didn't say 'mandated'. What I did say was 'virtually mandated'. What DfT did was directed bidders along a route which made it easiest to win by committing to new-build rather than existing stock. Another way of complying with the spec. was possible but bidders opted to 'delight' with new-build.
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,707
I'm not weeping for Porterbrook, but another spin off of all this is the numerous small, incompatible fleets which cannot work together, need clearing for each and every different route and so on.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,373
Location
Yorkshire
Plays world's smallest violin
Joins in.

Your business strategy backfired. This is the private sector which as we all know is more efficient and less wasteful than the State... Yep, the State which you now expect to intervene and save your bacon, and which you've been milking for two decades using assets gifted to you.

[Sarcasm] Oh dear, what a shame. [/sarcasm]
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,530
Location
Plymouth
I agree , too much new stock replacing none life expired stuff , each new train less comfortable than the last.
 

Rail Blues

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2016
Messages
608
I agree , too much new stock replacing none life expired stuff , each new train less comfortable than the last.

Then the onus is on Porterbrook to make their stock more competitive to lease. That is how a functioning free market should work. The TOCs don't and shouldn't care if there are unleashed trains going unleased. Not their circus, not their monkeys.

Also, isn't it interesting how Porterbrook are now crying foul when the class 769 farce is still rumbling on. Distraction technique maybe?
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
https://www.ft.com/content/be2c0598-9bec-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d

Or in other words how dare the West Midlands franchise order replacements for the 323s when we wanted to lease more 323s to them. Of course it should also be remembered Porterbrook placed a speculative order for more 387s when they had plenty of off-lease 319s available - they can't have it both ways!

I thought it was the case that the class 323s were non compliant for the future leaf fall season in that they suffer with adhesion issues resulting in a mandatory reduced timetable on leafy cross city routes, which the DFT want dropped?
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,271
They'll moan for a bit, and then they'll spin it as the private sector advancing the railway when they end up replacing the Northern 319s with 350s :D
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,629
Then the onus is on Porterbrook to make their stock more competitive to lease. That is how a functioning free market should work. The TOCs don't and shouldn't care if there are unleashed trains going unleased. Not their circus, not their monkeys.

Also, isn't it interesting how Porterbrook are now crying foul when the class 769 farce is still rumbling on. Distraction technique maybe?

Certainly a 30 year old train should be available for less than a brand new one. But if that older stock isn't compliant or scores far fewer points in the bidding process no one will lease it whatever the price.

The TOCs don't care what gets scrapped, but we should - if we move from replacing trains every 40 years to every 20 or less costs will inevitably rise, and that will ultimately fall on passengers and taxpayers. The cost of building a train isn't likely to fall to account for a shorter expected life either. Clearly passengers want modern trains, hence the DfT encouraging more to be built, and the rail industry has been left behind by technology, lacking features now common in cars and even buses. But it would require a radical departure from the level of funding the railways have lived on in the past, and with passenger numbers falling affordability will be a growing problem.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,889
The TOCs don't care what gets scrapped, but we should - if we move from replacing trains every 40 years to every 20 or less costs will inevitably rise, and that will ultimately fall on passengers and taxpayers.
Absolutely spot-on.

As for the drivel from others in this thread, the amount of ignorance of commercial realities is just comical.
 

Rail Blues

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2016
Messages
608
Absolutely spot-on.

As for the drivel from others in this thread, the amount of ignorance of commercial realities is just comical.


Back to your charming best I see.

If you disagree with someone, fine, but dismissive sweeping statements are less than unhelpful.
 

jonesy3001

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2009
Messages
3,317
Location
Otley, West Yorkshire
think they shot themselves in the foot with the 323s, which i personally think they should all go to northern with the 350/2s to replace the 319s
 

Confused52

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2018
Messages
306
Absolutely spot-on.

As for the drivel from others in this thread, the amount of ignorance of commercial realities is just comical.

Absolutely right, the majority of commenters are very careless with other peoples money! The depreciation period for Porterbrook is stated as 20-35 years so if they are asked to shorten the depreciation period during the lifetime of the assets they will have to take cuts in the shareholders returns. This doesn't seem to bother the majority of people on here but if they have pensions they should care because the shareholders are effectively pension funds, that is Joe Public.
 

ic31420

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2017
Messages
404
Location
United Kingdom
There is also a trend for manufacturers to perform the leasing and maintenance functions themselves (as for IEP), cutting out the Roscos.

I've been watching this with interest. Clearly the post delivery phase is where the ongoing profitability lies. I think that we will see a couple of spin off companies set up and or the fleets and maintenance sold off to cash in the future monies early. Rather like what had happened with many PFIs, the place in work from must be on its fifth owner since new.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,889
Back to your charming best I see.

If you disagree with someone, fine, but dismissive sweeping statements are less than unhelpful.
You’re an expert on that, I take it.

Most of what has been posted is commercially illiterate nonsense. No matter how many times it is explained some people either can’t or won’t get it.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,889
Absolutely right, the majority of commenters are very careless with other peoples money! The depreciation period for Porterbrook is stated as 20-35 years so if they are asked to shorten the depreciation period during the lifetime of the assets they will have to take cuts in the shareholders returns. This doesn't seem to bother the majority of people on here but if they have pensions they should care because the shareholders are effectively pension funds, that is Joe Public.
The new entrants to the market have previously thought UK train leasing was a nice, easy, risk free game. The situation with the nearly new 707s has caused some sharp intakes of breath around boardroom tables as the new boys realise otherwise. Expect new train leasing costs to rise going forward as risk is properly priced in.
 

Rail Blues

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2016
Messages
608
Absolutely right, the majority of commenters are very careless with other peoples money! The depreciation period for Porterbrook is stated as 20-35 years so if they are asked to shorten the depreciation period during the lifetime of the assets they will have to take cuts in the shareholders returns. This doesn't seem to bother the majority of people on here but if they have pensions they should care because the shareholders are effectively pension funds, that is Joe Public.

Wind back the clock back a decade when Porterbrook and the other Roscos were charging massively over the odds due to a limited supply of rolling stock, how good was that for Joe Public to see cash siphoned away paying for near life expired assets, because it was a case of 'Hobson's Choice'.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,889
Wind back the clock back a decade when Porterbrook and the other Roscos were charging massively over the odds due to a limited supply of rolling stock, how good was that for Joe Public to see cash siphoned away paying for near life expired assets, because it was a case of 'Hobson's Choice'.
Go and read the Competition Commission inquiry into the ROSCOs. In it, the conclusion was that, although they could have taken advantage of that position, the ROSCOs had not done so.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,050
Absolutely spot-on.

As for the drivel from others in this thread, the amount of ignorance of commercial realities is just comical.

Just because there's been a shift in the way things happen which had resulted in more newer trains at the moment it doesn't mean that it would result in increased costs.

Take for instance the quoted 30% reduction in maintenance costs on the Desiro Cities over the original Desiro fleet. This was achieved by looking at how maintenance was done and looking at ways of designing out wasteful practices.

By doing so the total cost of the original fleet may actually be more that the new fleet, even if the lease costs are lower for the older fleet. If this is the case then the amount of savings could be enough to justify switching when there's still up to 10 years of lease left.

Add in extra costs for things like wi-fi, updated passenger information, internal refits, small increase in fleet size, etc. and you could tip the maths to the point where a new fleet is better value, even when the old fleet may only be 20-25 years old.
 

Rail Blues

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2016
Messages
608
You’re an expert on that, I take it.

Most of what has been posted is commercially illiterate nonsense. No matter how many times it is explained some people either can’t or won’t get it.


I don't come onto the boards with the high and mighty 'I know best attitude' that permiate a lot of your posts.

The fact that you seem reluctant to explain anything, act the big 'I am' but fundamentally contribute nothing of value to the discussion suggests to me that you are bluffing due to a lack of knowledge or are chronically insecure as you feel the need to run people down.
 

Class 170101

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,664
The reason the government may have been subtle in the new trains argument is to drive down leasing cosst after the 'defeat' in the competition commission inquiry a few years back.

However it fails to adequately provide for passengers where overcrowding exists as highlighted every 6 months or so with the 10 busiest trains in the UK. Two of which belong to TPE (EMU Fleet) according to the statistics as I recall. This has not been resolved and seems could easily be so.
 

Rail Blues

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2016
Messages
608
Go and read the Competition Commission inquiry into the ROSCOs. In it, the conclusion was that, although they could have taken advantage of that position, the ROSCOs had not done so.


That's a rather partial reading of the report, the competition report made it clear the market wasn't healthy and there was a fundamental lack of choice and competition in the market. They did comment that at franchise renewal the Roscoe didn't hike the prices, due to fear of DfT action, but the overarching conclusion is that their was a lack of choice for TOCs.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
The new entrants to the market have previously thought UK train leasing was a nice, easy, risk free game. The situation with the nearly new 707s has caused some sharp intakes of breath around boardroom tables as the new boys realise otherwise. Expect new train leasing costs to rise going forward as risk is properly priced in.

No better example of this than Macquarie, who may soon have a fleet of young 379s on their hands without a use.

A 30% reduction in maintenance costs (but no doubt costing more to purchase in the first place) will only offset so much cost. If the maintenance cost of a traditional vehicle is £10000*pa, and an annual lease of £33000 (1 million purchase spread across 30 years, ignoring inflation etc) it's £43k pa. New generation vehicle with 30% saving in maintenance, same purchase cost, but spread across 20 years to ensure that the Rosco has more chance of making their money back and it's now £57k pa

*Value plucked out of thin air

Let's also not forget the effect this will have on the manufacturing plants unless this cycle of replacing super young trains continues. 4/5 factories vying for piecemeal orders is going to end in tears
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top