Through GWR Bedwyns to be axed from May 2022

[Watershed]

Certificates last 48 hours now. As with many things Hitachi - as Southeastern found out - the terms start very strict and get (very slowly) slightly more reasonable as the impact on customers and clients (i.e the paying passengers) is unreasonably disrupted.

Not for all Hitachi 'clients' yet. And 48 hours still means you're very tight if you combine two long diagrams; plus, at the first hint of disruption you run the risk of running out of hours. It's a nonsensical restriction which doesn't exist on any other fleet AFAIK.

No doubt the DfT will have been relieved of an inordinate sum of money for Hitachi to agree to this change.

 

[Horizon22]

Not for all Hitachi 'clients' yet. And 48 hours still means you're very tight if you combine two long diagrams; plus, at the first hint of disruption you run the risk of running out of hours. It's a nonsensical restriction which doesn't exist on any other fleet AFAIK.

No doubt the DfT will have been relieved of an inordinate sum of money for Hitachi to agree to this change.

There is some compensation for disruption (and there's been a lot recently) but it just knocks onto 1-2 days later and so there's endless diagrams being swapped around. I agree its non-sensical and the contracts that have been negotiated represent a pretty raw deal for taxpayers.

 

[alxndr]

Whether ,pre-Covid, parking (or indeed road) capacity at either would have been sufficient is another matter.

Hungerford has a far larger carpark than Bedwyn does. Bedwyn was often full in my experience, including people parking in one spot that was marked as needing to be left clear for access.

I suggested Trowbridge or Frome as possible termini because these stations have considerably higher usage than Bedwyn despite a pretty poor London service . That would also allow IETs to stop less at Pewsey because it could have an hourly service from the extended Bedwyns. Presume the IETs would continue to serve Westbury in this cases

If you were to extend local services to Pewsey you'd need to find a way of turning them there, and the reversing siding is already in place in Bedwyn.

 

[XAM2175]

I'm not saying this in the hope we cling onto the HST's but why when they've been not long DDA-compliant and must be ok for now?

The major DDA and PRM compliance issues were resolved quite some time ago now. The new "push" to finally retire them is based on running costs, to which will be added questions about their safety in light of the Carmont report.

Yes, and this particular issue is one of the innumerable bungles they committed during the procurement process. What I'm alluding to is that a clause like that should never have been accepted in the negotiations.

Clearly, whichever civil servant or lawyer agreed to its inclusion in the contract had no appreciation of the operational realities of running a railway. Or perhaps they simply thought "it won't be my problem to live with it".

From Hitachi's perspective, it's a prudent response to the fact that they bear a much greater portion of responsibility than they would in a traditional contract - but I expect you're not far off the mark in suggesting that it seemed okay enough on paper.

 

[TheWalrus]

The most sense in what way? Financially I doubt it!

If you work it out it saves a unit.

 

[JonathanH]

If you work it out it saves a unit.

Yes, except that the approach which is actually being taken saves three units.

 

[nw1]

Yep. Whoever signed off on that clause deserves to be fired; it's an absolute stinker. Witness the ludicrous number of ECSs that GWR, LNER etc. run, particularly during engineering works - compared to the other intercity TOCs such as Avanti, GA or EMR. You end up with nonsense like a 3 hour ECS from Leeds to Heaton.

It does seem pretty limiting - and different to 'normal' train leasing in which, from my understanding, the TOC lease the trains long-term and can basically do what they like with them (within reason).

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I don’t think anyone involved (outside of Hitachi) would argue that the IET lease/hire arrangement is satisfactory or in the railways best interests.

 

[nw1]

I don’t think anyone involved (outside of Hitachi) would argue that the IET lease/hire arrangement is satisfactory or in the railways best interests.

Seems quite unusual for the manufacturers to own the trains, certainly; not sure if there are other examples of this.

 

[Watershed]

Seems quite unusual for the manufacturers to own the trains, certainly; not sure if there are other examples of this.

The 800s procured under the original DfT agreement are owned by holding company, with financing from major banks. So there's nothing particularly unusual about that really.

The problem is with the terms of the agreement - it would be like leasing a car but having to bring it back to your local dealer every two weeks.

 

[XAM2175]

Seems quite unusual for the manufacturers to own the trains, certainly; not sure if there are other examples of this.

The problem is with the terms of the agreement - it would be like leasing a car but having to bring it back to your local dealer every two weeks.

The contract requires Agility Trains (the holding company) to supply and maintain the trains, and penalises them if they cannot provide above a certain number of usable units when they're required. They carry a lot more risk than a 'normal' ROSCO.

To use your car leasing analogy, it would be like leasing a car with a guarantee from the lessor that it will be available for use 99.5% (or whatever the actual number is) of the time, and that if it breaks down and can't be fixed on the spot they'll not only replace it but compensate you as well. In return for this guarantee, the contract obliges you to make the car available to the lessor's service centre at certain intervals so that they can inspect it and perform any required maintenance.

To me that sounds awkward, yes, but not unfair.

 

[Watershed]

The contract requires Agility Trains (the holding company) to supply and maintain the trains, and penalises them if they cannot provide above a certain number of usable units when they're required. They carry a lot more risk than a 'normal' ROSCO.

But the penalty isn't anything beyond the leasing charges not being payable. In other words, the lessee only pays when the asset is provided in working order.

Now of course, that is different to how most conventional train leases work - but the availability isn't really any higher under conventional leases. The reduction in payments on the handful of occasions that working trains aren't provided by Agility Trains, is more than outweighed by the ludicrously expensive leasing charges.

To use your car leasing analogy, it would be like leasing a car with a guarantee from the lessor that it will be available for use 99.5% (or whatever the actual number is) of the time, and that if it breaks down and can't be fixed on the spot they'll not only replace it but compensate you as well. In return for this guarantee, the contract obliges you to make the car available to the lessor's service centre at certain intervals so that they can inspect it and perform any required maintenance.

Well not quite - firstly because the availability is more like 85%, and secondly because the 'compensation' is limited to a discount off the bill that would otherwise be payable. So more like a refund in reality.

Now, of course, that sort of guarantee probably warrants tighter terms around the rotation of units and how often they return to a depot capable of undertaking repairs. But the terms that the DfT agreed to mean that this box is 'ticked' so long as the units are returned to an approved depot every 24-48 hours, even if that depot only has servicing facilities, but no maintenance capabilities (on the 80x fleet).

Clearly, this term has little to do with ensuring the reliability of trains (and minimising leasing fee 'refunds'), and more to do with guaranteeing a future ability to extract £££ in exchange for a contractual variation.

 

[TheWalrus]

Yes, except that the approach which is actually being taken saves three units.

No because you then need an additional turbo unless it’s a unit that works peak times already? If not then it’s a net save of 2 units. You may also need an additional 387 or two depending on what their plan is for the Newbury-London section.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

No because you then need an additional turbo unless it’s a unit that works peak times already? If not then it’s a net save of 2 units. You may also need an additional 387 or two depending on what their plan is for the Newbury-London section

It looks like the times are being shown on realtime trains.

 

[Acton1991]

Do we know if Newbury - London is staying the same or does that have updates too?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Do we know if Newbury - London is staying the same or does that have updates too?

That looks like it's to be run with Class 387's, hopefully 8 coaches during the day at least.

If IET's are being sent to Plymouth / Bristol area to replace Castle HST's then that's a very clever way of increasing capacity. For example...

An 8-coach 387 has 448 seats vs 326 on a 5-car IET. 290 on a 5-car are Standard Class.

A 5-car IET has around 23 more seats than a 4-coach Castle HST.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

No because you then need an additional turbo unless it’s a unit that works peak times already? If not then it’s a net save of 2 units. You may also need an additional 387 or two depending on what their plan is for the Newbury-London section.

it is the existing peak only Newbury/Bedwyn turbo which now runs all day. No extra turbo needed.

 

[Weekender]

I think we all hope that. Question is what does the Treasury want? It could very want a permanently slimmed down railway with passenger demand tempered through high fares and infrequent services, BR-style.

Unfortunately I think that is very much what the treasury want and I don’t think Grant Schapps would fight them on it.

 

[nw1]

That looks like it's to be run with Class 387's, hopefully 8 coaches during the day at least.

If IET's are being sent to Plymouth / Bristol area to replace Castle HST's then that's a very clever way of increasing capacity. For example...

An 8-coach 387 has 448 seats vs 326 on a 5-car IET. 290 on a 5-car are Standard Class.

A 5-car IET has around 23 more seats than a 4-coach Castle HST.

On a related point, given IETs are more 'express' stock than Turbos, one idea could be to send the IETs to work some Cardiff-Portsmouth services and use Turbos thus displaced to work the Bristol/Cardiff/Plymouth stopping services currently worked by Castle HSTs.

Rationale being that Cardiff-Portsmouth is a 'fast' service, even bordering on inter-city, while the Castle HST services are semi-fast at best and always have a fast alternative available on the same route (i.e. Cardiff-Portsmouth between Cardiff and Bristol; XC services between Bristol and Exeter; Paddington and XC services Exeter-Plymouth).

There is obviously a reason why that cannot be done, but would be interesting to know why.

 

[BayPaul]

On a related point, given IETs are more 'express' stock than Turbos, one idea could be to send the IETs to work some Cardiff-Portsmouth services and use Turbos thus displaced to work the Bristol/Cardiff/Plymouth stopping services currently worked by Castle HSTs.

Rationale being that Cardiff-Portsmouth is a 'fast' service, even bordering on inter-city, while the Castle HST services are semi-fast at best and always have a fast alternative available on the same route (i.e. Cardiff-Portsmouth between Cardiff and Bristol; XC services between Bristol and Exeter; Paddington and XC services Exeter-Plymouth).

There is obviously a reason why that cannot be done, but would be interesting to know why.

I'd been wondering about that too. I guess the obvious disadvantages are crew training, and probably route clearance

 

[swt_passenger]

On a related point, given IETs are more 'express' stock than Turbos, one idea could be to send the IETs to work some Cardiff-Portsmouth services and use Turbos thus displaced to work the Bristol/Cardiff/Plymouth stopping services currently worked by Castle HSTs.

Rationale being that Cardiff-Portsmouth is a 'fast' service, even bordering on inter-city, while the Castle HST services are semi-fast at best and always have a fast alternative available on the same route (i.e. Cardiff-Portsmouth between Cardiff and Bristol; XC services between Bristol and Exeter; Paddington and XC services Exeter-Plymouth).

There is obviously a reason why that cannot be done, but would be interesting to know why.

Portsmouth - Cardiff is not really an intercity service, it‘s certainly not fast, line speeds for much of the route are nowhere near even 100, and IETs would be quite firmly in ‘hammer to crack a nut’ territory.

 

[BayPaul]

Portsmouth - Cardiff is not really an intercity service, it‘s certainly not fast, line speeds for much of the route are nowhere near even 100, and IETs would be quite firmly in ‘hammer to crack a nut’ territory.

True, but I think the point was that if IETs are going to be released for regional services, then Cardiff to Portsmouth would be the service that could most make use of their intercityness! I think I agree, but can see the challenges with staffing, depots and route clearance probably make Cardiff - Penzance more appropriate.

 

[Western Sunset]

Seems quite unusual for the manufacturers to own the trains, certainly; not sure if there are other examples of this.

BR originally leased their Class 50s from English Electric back in the late 60s/early 70s.

 

[nw1]

Portsmouth - Cardiff is not really an intercity service, it‘s certainly not fast, line speeds for much of the route are nowhere near even 100, and IETs would be quite firmly in ‘hammer to crack a nut’ territory.

Fair point, bordering on inter-city (in the sense that it links major settlements, i.e. the Solent area with Bristol and South Wales) is how I'd put it, perhaps 'regional express' would be a better term. Comparable perhaps to Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds in 'class' of service.

I wasn't suggesting that IETs should be ordered just for it as that would be unnecessary spending; the point I was trying to make is that, relative to the Cardiff-Bristol-West Country semi-fast/stopping services, it is more of an express route so if the 'Bedwyn' IETs were to go on one of the two, I'd have thought Cardiff-Portsmouth would be the priority.

In relatively recent times (early privatisation) the Cardiff-Portsmouth route got a more 'express' type of unit - the 158 - while the other services mostly got more 'local' type of units - 150s with occasional 153s, IIRC - which seems the way it should be.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

True, but I think the point was that if IETs are going to be released for regional services, then Cardiff to Portsmouth would be the service that could most make use of their intercityness! I think I agree, but can see the challenges with staffing, depots and route clearance probably make Cardiff - Penzance more appropriate.

If I'm honest, they're cleared for Cardiff - Penzance as one was substituting for a Castle HST a while back and don't forget they've been used from Bristol to Penzance on route from London Paddington and when starting early too, plus when on London - Weston-Super-Mare duties too.

 

[irish_rail]

True, but I think the point was that if IETs are going to be released for regional services, then Cardiff to Portsmouth would be the service that could most make use of their intercityness! I think I agree, but can see the challenges with staffing, depots and route clearance probably make Cardiff - Penzance more appropriate.

Disagree.
Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Truro is pretty much the definition of intercity in terms of connecting up all of the south wests cities!
Cardiff to Portsmouth has no greater claim in my opinion.

 

[nw1]

Disagree.
Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Truro is pretty much the definition of intercity in terms of connecting up all of the south wests cities!
Cardiff to Portsmouth has no greater claim in my opinion.

The difference is the Bristol-Plymouth axis already has IC services in the form of XC (or at least it did pre-Covid, and I presume pre-Covid services are coming back soon if they are not here already); these other services seem more like semi-fast services on that axis.

 

[JonathanH]

I wasn't suggesting that IETs should be ordered just for it as that would be unnecessary spending; the point I was trying to make is that, relative to the Cardiff-Bristol-West Country semi-fast/stopping services, it is more of an express route so if the 'Bedwyn' IETs were to go on one of the two, I'd have thought Cardiff-Portsmouth would get the priority.

The priority is reducing costs in whatever means are possible. Introducing new stock to a route adds costs of crew training and clearance. Therefore, more Turbos on the Portsmouth route and IETs on the local service further west achieves minimises extra costs.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Disagree.
Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Truro is pretty much the definition of intercity in terms of connecting up all of the south wests cities!
Cardiff to Portsmouth has no greater claim in my opinion.

Almost the whole route has an InterCity alternative with Bristol to Penzance on XC and Taunton to Penzance on GWR IC as well.

 

[Western Sunset]

Disagree.
Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Truro is pretty much the definition of intercity in terms of connecting up all of the south wests cities!
Cardiff to Portsmouth has no greater claim in my

I'll raise you one!
Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Bath, Salisbury, Southampton and Portsmouth.