Electrification & Rolling Stock Cascade Impact Review

[northwichcat]

No but he states they are going for 319s over the offer of 317s, if that's not rejecting an offer I don't know what is.

The 317's were never going to be answer to all Northern's requirements so a single fleet of EMUs make more sense.

The 317s would have been a good interim measure until a sufficient number of 319s were released.

Northern did sublease 3 x 180s to cover the late release of 6 of the LO 150s that were supposed to go to Northern. Once Northern had them and East Coast didn't really want them back DfT decided to let FGW have those 150s and made Northern wait until the LM 150s were available to use on the services that were supposed to get the LO 150s. I imagine that decision was taken before Northern got their crews trained on the 180s given it wasn't until National Express lost the East Coast franchise that a decision was made not to operate a Lincoln-London service using 180s, so I'm not sure what's different this time.

 

[Class377/5]

The 317s would have been a good interim measure until a sufficient number of 319s were released.

If its a little as two to six months then all the extra training would likely make the interim measure wasteful as the 319s would start to be released in greater numbers from the end of the year.

 

[WatcherZero]

Talk was though that it was originally the Dft pushing the 317's to supplement South Manchester services and release diesels to bring forward Burnley Todmorden service introduction.

 

[Class377/5]

Talk was though that it was originally the Dft pushing the 317's to supplement South Manchester services and release diesels to bring forward Burnley Todmorden service introduction.

Was that ever confirmed other than rumor?

The comments I've been talking about over the 317 being rejected was the offer made to Northern/DfT for the Dec 14 timetable change (for newly electrified routes) not other areas hence your comments.

 

[northwichcat]

If its a little as two to six months then all the extra training would likely make the interim measure wasteful as the 319s would start to be released in greater numbers from the end of the year.

It would be difficult for Northern to make timetable alterations as a result of receiving extra units between the December and May timetable changes, so it will be a six month delay if they aren't with Northern before the December timetable change date. Hence when Northern received the LM 150s many of them didn't enter service until the day of the December timetable change - the ones that did directly replaced the 180s and the EMT bound 156s, which both left before the December timetable change.

 

[47802]

Talk was though that it was originally the Dft pushing the 317's to supplement South Manchester services and release diesels to bring forward Burnley Todmorden service introduction.

If Daft was serious about addressing overcrowding they would be looking to do this as well as the 319's.

This scheme I think also sets a precident going forward in that it looks like that electrification scheme's for local services outside London will just get London cast off's in future. That wouldn't be so bad if the trains were given proper heavy refurbishments, but we already appear to be back healing on that with some sort of refurb being left to the TOC's.

 

[HSTEd]

You can have london castoffs or you can have nothing since there is no business case for new rolling stock.

Your choice.

 

[WatcherZero]

Was that ever confirmed other than rumor?

Lot of lobbying by local MP's and the Dft it seems did do the ground work of checking unit availability, condition and pricing. So an attempt seems to be confirmed by the planning detail taken, as opposed to politicians just giving lip service and not bothering to even look.

 

[sprinterguy]

This scheme I think also sets a precident going forward in that it looks like that electrification scheme's for local services outside London will just get London cast off's in future.

This is no new precedent, 'twas ever thus. I recall that tbtc has made a concise posting to this effect in the past, perhaps even earlier in this same thread, but the gist was this:

Old 305s for the North Berwick electrfication.
Old 307s for the Leeds - Doncaster services.
Old 308s for West Yorkshire electrification.

At least the units that Northern will be receiving for the North West electrification are of a comparable age and standard (At least more modern Pacer and Sprinter DMUs are not being replaced by older slam-door EMUs this time round) to the bulk of Northern's diesel fleet.

While the lack of a refurbishment before the units enter service with Northern is regrettable it is hardly unprecedented with such a short term on the direct award franchise, and refurbishments undertaken by other TOCs on their mark 3 based MU fleets have shown that a really good quality refurbishment of the 319s will be possible under the new franchisee that could make them as good as new trains.

 

[northwichcat]

You can have london castoffs or you can have nothing since there is no business case for new rolling stock.

Your choice.

That's a very misleading statement.

A viable business case for brand new DMUs for Northern, FGW and TPE and new EMUs for Northern was drawn up and an invitation to tender for the new DMUs was issued. However, to make the Thameslink order viable DfT needed to find a new home for around 80 x non-life expired 4 car EMUs so the reason for the North getting cast offs was to make the Thameslink order viable not because a business case for new stock for the North wasn't viable.

The new DMUs would have allowed 4tph between Manchester and York to start in December 2012 (opposed to May 2014), 4 car trains on Cardiff-Portsmouth and extra capacity on various Northern services at the same time. The new EMUs would have allowed LM to take on the Northern 323s and for Northern to release the 321/9s, as well as providing extra capacity on some electric services.

 

[47802]

That's a very misleading statement.

A viable business case for brand new DMUs for Northern, FGW and TPE and new EMUs for Northern was drawn up and an invitation to tender for the new DMUs was issued. However, to make the Thameslink order viable DfT needed to find a new home for around 80 x non-life expired 4 car EMUs so the reason for the North getting cast offs was to make the Thameslink order viable not because a business case for new stock for the North wasn't viable.

The new DMUs would have allowed 4tph between Manchester and York to start in December 2012 (opposed to May 2014), 4 car trains on Cardiff-Portsmouth and extra capacity on various Northern services at the same time. The new EMUs would have allowed LM to take on the Northern 323s and for Northern to release the 321/9s, as well as providing extra capacity on some electric services.

Indeed plus I seem to recall that the original intention for the Aire valley was new rolling stock and that the 308 were only ever intended to be a short term solution.

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed plus I seem to recall that the original intention for the Aire valley was new rolling stock and that the 308 were only ever intended to be a short term solution.

They were supposed to get 323s but there was a cash flow issue and by the time it was sorted Hunslet had collapsed as a result of a lack of orders for new units.

 

[Class377/5]

That's a very misleading statement.

A viable business case for brand new DMUs for Northern, FGW and TPE and new EMUs for Northern was drawn up and an invitation to tender for the new DMUs was issued. However, to make the Thameslink order viable DfT needed to find a new home for around 80 x non-life expired 4 car EMUs so the reason for the North getting cast offs was to make the Thameslink order viable not because a business case for new stock for the North wasn't viable.

The new DMUs would have allowed 4tph between Manchester and York to start in December 2012 (opposed to May 2014), 4 car trains on Cardiff-Portsmouth and extra capacity on various Northern services at the same time. The new EMUs would have allowed LM to take on the Northern 323s and for Northern to release the 321/9s, as well as providing extra capacity on some electric services.

Actually you've got it wrong. You state for the Thameslink order to be viable they needed to do something with the 86x 319. Sorry but this simply isn't true.

BR did once have plan to keep the 319s for the completed Thameslink Project for 8 car local services but they believed that the things would be better served with a completely new fleet. Especially as 24tph plan developed and the need for ATO meant new stock feasible. This thinking may of happened under Railtrack rather than BR. But by the time that the DfT took charge of the project it was clear the timings required all new build as even the 377/450s couldn't step up to the challenge (and why the Desiro City and Aventra designs came about).

Its the business case for the NW triangle and GW wires that was only viable on using the 319s as buying new stock failed (for better or worse).

The Thameslink stock replacement was part of the business case for the Thameslink Project that was authorised in 2007 so claiming it was other wise is rewriting history. The plan for the 319s was cascade them and let the ROSCOS deploy them as they needed. Adonis plan was to simply use this newly released units to reduce costs of electrification to justify the cost of wires going up.

 

[WatcherZero]

Was already positive business case for new build diesels and since electrics are cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate that would be the case as well. The post pennine electrification TPE services are still to be new build rather than 319's or other cascaded stock and the Scottish services were new build with the expectation they would be replaced after only a few years with even more new build.

There is a difference between the business case requiring and the business case being based upon, for example the Cardiff Metro business case was based on 315's even though there are now concerns the 315's wont be up to it at their age and a new build possibly light rail derived stock would be more suitable.

 

[Class377/5]

Was already positive business case for new build diesels and since electrics are cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate that would be the case as well. The post pennine electrification TPE services are still to be new build rather than 319's or other cascaded stock and the Scottish services were new build with the expectation they would be replaced after only a few years with even more new build.

There is a difference between the business case requiring and the business case being based upon, for example the Cardiff Metro business case was based on 315's even though there are now concerns the 315's wont be up to it at their age and a new build possibly light rail derived stock would be more suitable.

Not sure if you were reply to me but I'm only commenting on the Thameslink/319/NW wires business case and not the diesel one. But your corrected in identifying the costs of EMU over DMU is a factor in electrics favor with the change to EMU bring saving in the long term .

 

[northwichcat]

Actually you've got it wrong. You state for the Thameslink order to be viable they needed to do something with the 86x 319. Sorry but this simply isn't true.

So if I'm wrong then you're saying DfT would happily have ordered the new trains for Thameslink and written off 86 x 4 car EMUs or used them directly or indirectly on existing electrified routes as extra capacity. If not then DfT needed to find a viable option for using the 319s to justify the Thameslink order.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The DMU business case was not viable because it was abandoned in favour of electrification and ex-Thameslink EMUs.
The new DMUs were unaffordable.

 

[northwichcat]

Was already positive business case for new build diesels and since electrics are cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate that would be the case as well.

The problem is electrification programs requires hundreds of millions of upfront cost even if it does save in the long term.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The DMU business case was not viable because it was abandoned in favour of electrification and ex-Thameslink EMUs.
The new DMUs were unaffordable.

No it proved better value for money in the long term rather than the business case failing.

The invitation to tender for the DMUs did include 8 x 4 car trains for FGW and 10 x 4 car trains for TPE. TPE got 10 x 350s in lieu and FGW may get a lot more new or nearly new EMUs so it's not just a case of the 319 cascade replacing the proposed order.

 

[Class377/5]

So if I'm wrong then you're saying DfT would happily have ordered the new trains for Thameslink and written off 86 x 4 car EMUs or used them directly or indirectly on existing electrified routes as extra capacity. If not then DfT needed to find a viable option for using the 319s to justify the Thameslink order.

Yes. The timeline is such

2007 - Thameslink Programme authorised including new trains
2008 - DfT releases ITT for new Thameslink trains
2009 - NW Triangle/GW wires announced

The 319s were not to have been written off as there was demand for more EMU. Fact that its been mentioned on here that Northern could do with more for example. One plan for the 319s was to do a 8tph Blackfriars to Sutton using the 319s with a 4tph either way around the Wimbledon Loop and were going to be allocated to Selhurst depot with Southern.

So the Thameslink order did not depend on the future of the 319s but a stand alone project as the trains were required for the 4bn of infrastructure works.

 

[northwichcat]

2008 - DfT releases ITT for new Thameslink trains

Which wasn't awarded until mid-2011. Between the ITT being issued and the award of the Thameslink order DfT came up with the electrification plans.

Issuing an ITT doesn't mean it has to be awarded. As mentioned the one for new DMUs wasn't, while an LM one for additional EMUs wasn't awarded until a few years after it was originally issued (and had the TPE EMUs added on to it.) Had the TPE EMUs not been added to it then I doubt it would have been awarded.

Although, I accept the cancelling or delaying the Thameslink one too much may have resulted in DfT having to compensate bidders given an 'off the shelf product' wasn't suitable for Thameslink. Maybe that's why the Coalition government didn't decide to cancel the order after stalling for a long while over whether or not to allow it to go ahead when they did a spending review?

Fact that its been mentioned on here that Northern could do with more for example.

Northern needed a small number of additional EMUs for both West Yorkshire and the Manchester area without further electrification. I understand the option of 319s going to Northern for that purpose was looked at in lieu of the new EMU order proposed in the HLOS but was dismissed as the acceleration on the 319s was poorer than on the 323s meaning pathing issues would occur if the 323s were replaced by 319s unless the 319s were first engineered to have faster acceleration.

 

[Class377/5]

Which wasn't awarded until mid-2011. Between the ITT being issued and the award of the Thameslink order DfT came up with the electrification plans.

And? This doesn't change the fact that the ITT for TRSP (Thameslink Rolling Stock Project) wasn't tied to the fate of the 319s. Your trying to hard to link the 319s to the case for the TRSP where it simply doesn't exist.

Of course if you've followed the story you'll know in 2010 the incoming government suspended the TRSP while it checked for valve for money along with KO2 works (London Bridge works) which caused more delay.

Issuing an ITT doesn't mean it has to be awarded. As mentioned the one for new DMUs wasn't, while an LM one for additional EMUs wasn't awarded until a few years after it was originally issued (and had the TPE EMUs added on to it.) Had the TPE EMUs not been added to it then I doubt it would have been awarded.

No it doesn't but it shows the process for the TRSP/Class 700 was started long before the suggestion of using the 319s for the new electrification plans came into being.

Although, I accept the cancelling or delaying the Thameslink one too much may have resulted in DfT having to compensate bidders given an 'off the shelf product' wasn't suitable for Thameslink.

It would have wasted the potential of 4bn worth of infrastructure works. Delaying Thameslink has happened with three years added to the Programme since things started due to a mix of governmental interference and cost savings (London Bridge had at least 12 months added to make it cheaper and less risky) meaning the delay to the new trains may have worked in the DfT favor or if things had run to the original schedule you'd have had most of the fleet sat around waiting for three years to be worked fully. (Although that would have had the benefit of making stock available for cascade earlier).

Northern needed a small number of additional EMUs for both West Yorkshire and the Manchester area without further electrification. I understand the option of 319s going to Northern for that purpose was looked at in lieu of the new EMU order proposed in the HLOS but was dismissed as the acceleration on the 319s was poorer than on the 323s meaning pathing issues would occur if the 323s were replaced by 319s unless the 319s were first engineered to have faster acceleration.

Porterbrook is looking at the 319 fleet now (as in physically not theory/planning) with an eye for work including faster acceleration.

 

[northwichcat]

delay to the new trains may have worked in the DfT favor or if things had run to the original schedule you'd have had most of the fleet sat around waiting for three years to be worked fully. (Although that would have had the benefit of making stock available for cascade earlier).

North West electrification was also delayed (to a lesser extent) by the spending review and the idea was to fully refurbish the trains before they went North (or to Thames Valley) and to have enough refurbished available to run all the services on the newly electrified routes straight away. How long would a full refurbishment of a large fleet like the 319s have taken?

If the 319s were available fully refurbished early then maybe another operator would have been interested in short term leases to cover refurbishment programs of another type of train?

Porterbrook is looking at the 319 fleet now (as in physically not theory/planning) with an eye for work including faster acceleration.

A consequence of that will mean lowering the top speed to 75mph meaning they would still be unsuitable for some services, especially Manchester to Stoke. Although in the case of Manchester to Stoke maybe if the proposal to extend it to Birmingham via Stone goes ahead then it'll be a class 350 route under the LM franchise.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The business risk for the future leasing of 319s lies with Porterbrook, not DfT.
The NW/GW plans were on the assumption of low (relatively) leasing charges.
If the forward leasing costs are too high the TOC/DfT will go for new trains, which would probably have lower maintenance costs.
It's not their problem if the 319s end up parked earning nothing for the ROSCO.
These sorts of things will determine the size (and cost) of the overall fleet.

 

[Qwerty133]

I notice in the opening post the OP expects that 7 156s will be enough to replace 16 153s at EMT, not only will this cause a net reduction in number of coaches operated, there would physically not be enough units to operate the current timetable. Personally I would keep most of the 5 car 222s with EMT, mainly for use on Liverpool to Norwich services, but also to enable weekend only services to Scarborough to continue and for the limited service north of Corby. The 158s would then be cascaded onto routes currently operated by 156s and 153s with all the 153s being scrapped (or cascaded if anyone wants them), and 5 156s being cascaded away. This is based on there currently being 4 158s operating away from Liverpool-Norwich.

 

[northwichcat]

And? This doesn't change the fact that the ITT for TRSP (Thameslink Rolling Stock Project) wasn't tied to the fate of the 319s. Your trying to hard to link the 319s to the case for the TRSP where it simply doesn't exist.

What I was initially trying to say is there is more of a case of saying the 319 cascade was needed to support the Thameslink business case than saying the 319 cascade is needed because there was no business case for new stock (of any description) in the North West as HSTEd had said but got a bit too carried away.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The business risk for the future leasing of 319s lies with Porterbrook, not DfT.

But doesn't initially DfT have to justify financing new units which is difficult to do if there are adequate units already available to lease?

 

[158722]

I notice in the opening post the OP expects that 7 156s will be enough to replace 16 153s at EMT, not only will this cause a net reduction in number of coaches operated, there would physically not be enough units to operate the current timetable. Personally I would keep most of the 5 car 222s with EMT, mainly for use on Liverpool to Norwich services, but also to enable weekend only services to Scarborough to continue and for the limited service north of Corby. The 158s would then be cascaded onto routes currently operated by 156s and 153s with all the 153s being scrapped (or cascaded if anyone wants them), and 5 156s being cascaded away. This is based on there currently being 4 158s operating away from Liverpool-Norwich.

Reading my notes again, I can only see I've suggested that 8 156s ex-SCR replace 17 EMT 153s, so not sure where you picked those numbers from, but either way, the exercise I was trying to run through was to see if there was sufficient like for like replacements available. That appears to be possible. I'm sure we are all agreed that almost all operators will be looking to increase their fleets, given ever increasing demand. Suggestions have been made that the 153s may well live on beyond the 2020 PRM deadline, providing a very useful way of meeting that demand into CP6.

 

[northwichcat]

Suggestions have been made that the 153s may well live on beyond the 2020 PRM deadline, providing a very useful way of meeting that demand into CP6.

Which would likely mean they cease to become single unit trains and would probably mean less operators would have them within their fleets.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But doesn't initially DfT have to justify financing new units which is difficult to do if there are adequate units already available to lease?

As I understand it, it's up to the TOC to make the case it wants.
DfT has to approve any deal, but supposedly they are trying to keep out of micro-managing rolling stock (after IEP and Thameslink).
The trouble is NT, like Virgin last year, only has a 2-year franchise window to deal with.
It will be different for the next 7-10 year franchise.
So Porterbrook and the others are in a strong position just now.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Surely we need a position where the country has more units than demand? Because until we get the the train leasing companies can charge almost what they like? If they have more trains than were required then they would be required to offer competitive terms to lease them?

Although I suspect this might be a Daily Mail argument because I have no idea how the train owning companies calculate the rental price for them.

 

[Class377/5]

What I was initially trying to say is there is more of a case of saying the 319 cascade was needed to support the Thameslink business case than saying the 319 cascade is needed because there was no business case for new stock (of any description) in the North West as HSTEd had said but got a bit too carried away.

Your making assumptions. The Thameslink new fleet had a business case without the future deployment of the 319s. Your point has merit tho, if you add the 319 cascade plan several years after it was authorised strengthening it case but its not dependent on it as you assuming.