55 5 car 80x could be released according to Modern Railways

[geoffk]

Indeed, but I doubt Agility will be happy to let their trains sit in storage.

They have sway but a contract is still a contract, both parties have to agree to the terms, if the trains are going to be sat around losing Agility money I doubt Agility/Hitachi will be interested in future government contracts anyway.

Remember that the MR piece is an opinion piece, I heavily doubt any 80xs will be released.

What about Grand Central (assuming they are with us in the long term?) They have 10 180s, 20 years old, all of which run many miles under the wires.

 

[Energy]

What about Grand Central (assuming they are with us in the long term?) They have 10 180s, 20 years old, all of which run many miles under the wires.

If HC and ECT gave them up then I doubt GC would be in business.

 

[D365]

What about the length of the platforms are they long enough for a 5 car IET set?

I highly doubt it's a workable suggestion.

 

[paul1609]

What about the length of the platforms are they long enough for a 5 car IET set?

Presumably they have SDO like our existing trains and the similar 395s?

 

[The Ham]

It’s pure speculation, with no foundation; just a different type of media for it than on this forum.



It hasn’t been at that level for months. Rather less than half that now.

According to:

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain.

www.gov.uk

National Rail use had been running between 23-33% for the month of December.

However the point I was making was more to do with the fact that whatever the current usage rate was (and I was using the 35% cited in the article) that it's unlikely to stay that low once we stop having so many restrictions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However the point I was making was more to do with the fact that whatever the current usage rate was (and I was using the 35% cited in the article) that it's unlikely to stay that low once we stop having so many restrictions.

Yes, I think that's fairly clear. While we've moved away from the "avoid public transport" message even in tier 4, we have stuck with a "stay at home unless you have to" message, law in Tier 4, which is clearly going to basically completely wipe out leisure travel and office commuting, both of which will to some extent return once the vaccines have gone round sufficiently.

 

[Aictos]

I have one question, did the author take into account the possibility of passenger usage rising to pre Covid levels and secondly while rail travel is at a all time low doesn't mean that it will always be like that so the article in my view is not well written especially if the TOCs did return the 55 5 car Class 80Xs and it turns out to be the wrong decision even if short term it appeared to be right.

 

[CW2]

I have one question, did the author take into account the possibility of passenger usage rising to pre Covid levels and secondly while rail travel is at a all time low doesn't mean that it will always be like that so the article in my view is not well written especially if the TOCs did return the 55 5 car Class 80Xs and it turns out to be the wrong decision even if short term it appeared to be right.

The author sets out his future growth assumptions, then summarises them as follows:

"A plausible hypothesis is that total passenger journeys will recover to about 80% of pre-Covid levels and (due to the number of short-distance journeys) about 75% of passenger miles. The loss of high value business and long-distance commuter volumes could well mean that total passenger revenue recovers to only about 70% of previous levels. Growth will, no doubt, resume, but from a lower base - the growth curve will move significantly to the right and may well display a flatter angle."

I recommend reading the article in full to get a better understanding of the proposals than can be conveyed on this forum. The final paragraph is worth quoting in full:

"The key to all of this is a revised timetable that provides the right amount of capacity and an attractive service to encourage growth, but at an affordable cost. A resource-led train plan, with diagrammers determining the optimum way of meeting a broad service specification, would enable the number of units and staff required to be established. Now is not too soon to start that exercise."

[Julian Worth, Modern Railways January 2021 edition, pages 82 - 83].

 

[PG]

Does it say how they got to 55 units as that is quite a high number?

Mr Worth suggests that longer distance routes radiating from London should operate no more than half-hourly with other longer distance routes on an hourly frequency.

He then follows on to suggest that somewhere around 40-45 five-car IETs might potentially be freed up from GWR, LNER, TPE. If the OA operators shut up shop then that is suggested to account for the other 10 trains.

Note the bold text, that's quite a few if's, but's, maybe's.

The author has not expanded on how he arrived at this figure beyond the above.
I note that he seems to suggest that the future for new build is bleak and that that is where some of the savings will come from rather than scrapping existing stock. More a case of a fairly huge (for the privatised railway) reshuffle of current stock to run fewer but longer trains overall resulting in savings of staff costs.

 

[6Gman]

The author sets out his future growth assumptions, then summarises them as follows:

"A plausible hypothesis is that total passenger journeys will recover to about 80% of pre-Covid levels and (due to the number of short-distance journeys) about 75% of passenger miles. The loss of high value business and long-distance commuter volumes could well mean that total passenger revenue recovers to only about 70% of previous levels. Growth will, no doubt, resume, but from a lower base - the growth curve will move significantly to the right and may well display a flatter angle."

I recommend reading the article in full to get a better understanding of the proposals than can be conveyed on this forum. The final paragraph is worth quoting in full:

"The key to all of this is a revised timetable that provides the right amount of capacity and an attractive service to encourage growth, but at an affordable cost. A resource-led train plan, with diagrammers determining the optimum way of meeting a broad service specification, would enable the number of units and staff required to be established. Now is not too soon to start that exercise."

[Julian Worth, Modern Railways January 2021 edition, pages 82 - 83].

Surely the problems here are:

1. Any changes could not be put into the timetable before December 2021.
2. If you're going to move rolling stock around on a large scale you're also likely to have a big training requirement. (And training is a difficult area at the moment, to put it mildly, given the need for social distancing etc.)
3. Suggestions that vaccination of the vulnerable could be complete by summer 2021, and to all of the eligible populace by - say - November 2021; and that an awful lot of suppressed demand could emerge in response.
4. Just in time for the December 2021 timetable . . .

 

[Bald Rick]

Any changes could not be put into the timetable before December 2021.

Not so. Next opportunity is May 21.

 

[The Planner]

Not so. Next opportunity is May 21.

Errrr....hope.that is a typo.

 

[The Ham]

Not so. Next opportunity is May 21.

Whilst that could be the case, what demand do you cater for?

The current 23-33%?

50% to allow for some rebound once restrictions start to be lifted?

70% to assume that the author of the article is correct?

100% but with services omitted so that demand can be matched as restrictions are removed?

 

[35B]

They are, but in practice...



The game is different when the customer is the Government.

You’d be surprised. Government contracts can be much more respectful of law than private. And for IEP, I’d expect Agility Trains to be very robust about the cost of being bought out.

 

[Bald Rick]

Errrr....hope.that is a typo.

Nope! Although changes to the bids already made will need to be limited.

Whilst that could be the case, what demand do you cater for?

The current 23-33%?

50% to allow for some rebound once restrictions start to be lifted?

70% to assume that the author of the article is correct?

100% but with services omitted so that demand can be matched as restrictions are removed?

Well that’s the killer question isn’t it. As that decision needs taking very soon.

 

[The Planner]

Nope! Although changes to the bids already made will need to be limited.




Well that’s the killer question isn’t it. As that decision needs taking very soon.

As you say, no one is going to be allowed to make major changes even in the reopener in Feb. Especially when its about a week after offer response!

 

[The Ham]

Well that’s the killer question isn’t it. As that decision needs taking very soon.

Indeed, I'd like to see a higher level of capacity planned for, even if that means some extra resources not used for a few months.

Probably staffing for something like 70%, with rolling stock for 85% (mostly aimed at using those 70% staff but just with longer trains), but with the May timetable set for 50%, but with some extra paths which can be added back as restrictions are eased and use increases.

Although that would ask be averages, so SE to London commuting would likely be able to go lower than that and stay lower, whilst long distance travel could be lower initially, but with capacity to be closer to 100% for the December timetable change.

To help keep the costs down, it would be possible to furlough some staff until the end of April (although that doesn't reduce government costs it doesn't get counted as DfT spending and so it meets the rules set by the treasury - even if not in the spirit of the rules and it could be argued that it would be better value not to do that and use the money to provide rail services, even if that costs a bit more).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure furloughing of staff from any Government funded body makes sense. You might as well pay 100% and get them to do something.

 

[6Gman]

I'm not sure furloughing of staff from any Government funded body makes sense. You might as well pay 100% and get them to do something.

And, currently, public sector financed staff cannot be furloughed (AIUI).

 

[Bletchleyite]

And, currently, public sector financed staff cannot be furloughed (AIUI).

Which makes sense, as it's a pointless money go round. Even if their normal job isn't viable, they might as well do something for the money. To use one example, I understand Lancaster's leisure centre is still directly Council-run, so their staff were redeployed to putting together food parcels for shielders back in March rather than just being sent home to watch daytime telly.