GA franchise extension

[Wivenswold]

While the 321s are good workhorses the point made about the stock on the line not being that old rather misses the point from a commuter's perspective. Mile for mile Greater Anglia journeys cost pretty much the same as other commuter lines. However, unlike most other lines into London (Peterborough to KX being the exception) most of our trains don't have air conditioning or wheelchair accessible toilets/spaces.

Another issue is that the Anglia units and 321s being older stock don't have fast acceleration. On a line that is full during peaks that equals wasted capacity.

It's good to see that moves are being made to get a refurb of the 321s underway. I guess that if new units are decided upon in the long-term then a small number of refurbished 321s could head to West Anglia and replace the older 317s.

 

[evergreenadam]

Indeed, gonna be some unhappy people from Colchester and even Manningtree when it is busy on some trains as they won't all get a seat in first. Nice if you have paid £8k+ for an annual season.

On balance it is probably a good idea for some services and not others. Beginning of the week first is heavily loaded, but by Friday reasonably comfortable.

Three sets will still be 5 1/2 standard, not enough long sidings to have all trains the same length.

Where are the sidings and how easy would it be to extend them? Seems like a no brainer to increase the length of the sidings to allow longer trains to run and provide more capacity at peak times.

 

[jon0844]

The refreshed 321s (NOT the demonstrator) look pretty nice inside. I think most people would agree, bar Ginger and a few other AGA haters.

Ultimately, the ROSCO will convert all the 321s to that of the demonstrator (perhaps taking onboard some of the comments from the trial) and likewise with the 317s, 319s etc.

The thing will be that the ROSCO won't want to fund that until it knows how long they will be in use for, or alternatively if they'll come off lease and be taken by someone else. It makes sense to keep trains running as long as possible, but with a short extension there's no security as there might have been had an all new 10 year (or whatever) franchise was being awarded.

So, this extension is going to mean refreshes and little more. Hence, new seat covers, carpets and lighting - which sounds to me like a very basic refresh. Mind you, the addition of power sockets on the Mk3s sounds like a bit more work than I'd have expected.

 

[evergreenadam]

In relation to the Cambridge - Stansted Airport service, these did appear on RTT earlier this year starting in May, but then disappeared. They looked as if they were going to be operated by 317s otherwise spare at Camb inbetween the peaks, and not interworked with Stansted - Liv St services.

Lets see what happens in July, but what showed in RTT before was not very inspiring. Off peak M-F only, and also stopping only at Audley End, being the only one of 6 stations on the route that already has a direct service to Stansted Airport. Ideally the new trains would stop all stations 1. to provide service from intermediate stations to the Airport and 2. improving London journey opportunities from those stations by allowing a connection to the nice, reasonably fast 379 operated stansted express at the airport

Summer timetable showing the new services is now available on Greater Anglia website. A good use for rolling stock that would otherwise be sitting idle during the interpeak period. Hopefully if they are well enough used then a Saturday and Sunday service will be introduced, which are presumably the busiest days for passenger traffic at the airport. The new service will depart Cambridge a few minutes behind the hourly stopping service to Liverpool Street, so would not have been particularly useful for local journeys from Cambridge to the smaller stations even if it had been a stopping service. However it could have been timetabled to call at Whittlesford Parkway (almost 400k passengers in 2012/13) to provide a service to the airport. Perhaps this can be suggested in time for the winter timetable.

 

[387star]

Don't 317s have toilets

 

[Class 170101]

Personally I think it would have been better if either the Stansted service was extended to Ely or forget about Cambridge to Stansted and instead extend one of the Liverpool Street to Cambridge services to Ely.

 

[dk1]

I travelled in First Class on a London to Norwich service a couple of weeks ago which had 2 First Class carriages. There were not enough seats for all First Class passengers, so some had to either stand or find a seat in Standard Class. (There was no disruption so this was not necessarily an abnormal situation.)

In light of this, I remain to be convinced that swapping First Class seats for Standard Class seats on some trains is the best idea.

Off-peak that can be easily overcome by cutting back on the high number of 1st Advance tickets available. Peak usually gets by as TSOB/RFM sets get swapped all the time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where are the sidings and how easy would it be to extend them? Seems like a no brainer to increase the length of the sidings to allow longer trains to run and provide more capacity at peak times.

Not possible to do further siding extensions at Crown Point. Previous plans to use Victoria Sidings (Trowse) abandoned as unworkable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even back then an Anglian rake of Mk2's ran in old Intercity livery its entire life, and I think a few DMU's were in old liveries at times.

AR01 i think. It even had the old INTERCITY decor inside as was planned before new contract signed.

 

[samuelmorris]

While the 321s are good workhorses the point made about the stock on the line not being that old rather misses the point from a commuter's perspective. Mile for mile Greater Anglia journeys cost pretty much the same as other commuter lines. However, unlike most other lines into London (Peterborough to KX being the exception) most of our trains don't have air conditioning or wheelchair accessible toilets/spaces.

This is really the issue here - the rolling stock fulfils its primary role which is to get you there with a fairly reliable service, but cost per mile the service and facilities provided by AGA should be at very least the equal of cheaper services, ideally better.

Take for example the most often quoted comparison, Southend - London.
Southend Central - Fenchurch Street takes 50-55 minutes, runs 4tph off-peak and 9tph peak, and costs £17.60 for an anytime return.

Southend Victoria - Liverpool Street takes just over 60 minutes, runs 3tph off-peak and 7tph peak, and costs a fairly substantial £28.20 for an anytime return.

That's already a bad deal even before you consider the load levels and the fact that you're travelling on a 321 which is in summer a sweaty and noisy (windows open) experience, versus the air-conditioned 357.

To those knowledgable about the railways the reasons why this is the case are understood, but from an objective customer standpoint, you can see why people aren't particularly happy with the franchise.

Of course, to destinations north of Shenfield, an alternative provider isn't available, but in peak times, save the relatively few stations served in peak hours by 360s, the same typically applies (and even then, the cost still does).

The thing will be that the ROSCO won't want to fund that until it knows how long they will be in use for, or alternatively if they'll come off lease and be taken by someone else. It makes sense to keep trains running as long as possible, but with a short extension there's no security as there might have been had an all new 10 year (or whatever) franchise was being awarded.

Which is exactly why I'm disappointed by this outcome. Delay/deferment of the refurbishment process was inevitable if another short franchise was awarded.

 

[w0033944]

I seem to recall the local media saying when Abelio were awarded the initial franchise in 2012 that its short nature meant that improvements through to 2014 would obviously be fairly limited, but that, after that, the next franchise would be much longer so that more significant investment could be justified. Now that we are at the end of that initial 2 year period, we are being told that the new franchise is another 2 year one, with the promise that, after that, we'll have a proper franchise to encourage investment etc. Call me cynical, but I find myself wondering whether:

1. We were lied to by someone in 2012

and

2. Whether in 2016 we'll be told that the next franchise is another 2 year extension, but after that...:roll:

 

[jon0844]

Isn't there some EU limit on franchise extensions? I am sure the DfT is pushing its luck as it is, and needs to get the proper franchises done ASAP. It's obvious that there can't be much investment if someone is just being told they have 12-24 months to run things.

 

[w0033944]

Here's a source for my recollection of the promise of a lengthier franchise:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/abellio_outlines_plans_for_east_anglia_s_rail_services_1_1153109

Ruud Haket, Abellio’s transition director who masterminded the successful franchise bid, said the 29-month franchise would certainly lead to a bid to take over the 15-year franchise that is due to start in the middle of 2014.

Mr Haket said: “We will not be able to change the timetable, not until December 2013 anyway, and we cannot bring in new trains during this short franchise.

“But we will be looking to bid for the long franchise and if we succeed with that then we would look for major investment in the long-term.”

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't there some EU limit on franchise extensions? I am sure the DfT is pushing its luck as it is, and needs to get the proper franchises done ASAP. It's obvious that there can't be much investment if someone is just being told they have 12-24 months to run things.

Is it perhaps in the Government's interest to dissuade TOCs from investing, as there would probably be pressure on NR to augment the TOC's rolling stock/timetabling improvements with infrastructure spending?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I seem to recall the local media saying when Abelio were awarded the initial franchise in 2012 that its short nature meant that improvements through to 2014 would obviously be fairly limited, but that, after that, the next franchise would be much longer so that more significant investment could be justified. Now that we are at the end of that initial 2 year period, we are being told that the new franchise is another 2 year one, with the promise that, after that, we'll have a proper franchise to encourage investment etc. Call me cynical, but I find myself wondering whether:

1. We were lied to by someone in 2012
and
2. Whether in 2016 we'll be told that the next franchise is another 2 year extension, but after that...:roll:

Isn't there some EU limit on franchise extensions? I am sure the DfT is pushing its luck as it is, and needs to get the proper franchises done ASAP. It's obvious that there can't be much investment if someone is just being told they have 12-24 months to run things.

The 2012 GA award was before the West Coast omnishambles which destroyed the then franchising process.
The new one is based on a timetable DfT published last year and has just updated, giving direct awards to incumbent TOCs for a defined period until a full rebid.
But EU rules mean that DfT can't "direct award" a contract for more than 23 months unless it gives 12 months notice, which is why the interim VT/FGW franchises were only of that duration - VT comes round again this November.

GA has got 27 months (from July) because that is the interval until the posted rebid in 2016, and we are now beyond the 12 months required notice period.
So the next direct awards can be as long as the timetable shows, up to 5 years for XC for instance (but there's no hurry to award it as it doesn't expire till 2016).
It's a bit of a muddle, but GA has actually got a slightly longer deal than anybody else just now.
Meanwhile, the full rebids (TSGN, ET, EC so far) can be up to 15 years if the DfT wants that.

 

[cle]

Personally I think it would have been better if either the Stansted service was extended to Ely or forget about Cambridge to Stansted and instead extend one of the Liverpool Street to Cambridge services to Ely.

It could possibly run up to Kings Lynn, providing that branch with a second train per hour and allowing local journeys along the whole route. Not sure what school traffic there is, but there may be off peak shopping/student/tourist type demand into Cambridge, as well as to the airport.

Stansted is also most likely a big local employer, so local trains would surely make sense too?

 

[w0033944]

The 2012 GA award was before the West Coast omnishambles which destroyed the then franchising process.
The new one is based on a timetable DfT published last year and has just updated, giving direct awards to incumbent TOCs for a defined period until a full rebid.
But EU rules mean that DfT can't "direct award" a contract for more than 23 months unless it gives 12 months notice, which is why the interim VT/FGW franchises were only of that duration - VT comes round again this November.

GA has got 27 months (from July) because that is the interval until the posted rebid in 2016, and we are now beyond the 12 months required notice period.
So the next direct awards can be as long as the timetable shows, up to 5 years for XC for instance (but there's no hurry to award it as it doesn't expire till 2016).
It's a bit of a muddle, but GA has actually got a slightly longer deal than anybody else just now.
Meanwhile, the full rebids (TSGN, ET, EC so far) can be up to 15 years if the DfT wants that.

Thanks for the information. Trouble is, such nuances won't be understood by the travelling public, who may just see the extension as an excuse on the part of Abellio to avoid investing.

 

[Emyr]

The thing will be that the ROSCO won't want to fund that until it knows how long they will be in use for, or alternatively if they'll come off lease and be taken by someone else. It makes sense to keep trains running as long as possible, but with a short extension there's no security as there might have been had an all new 10 year (or whatever) franchise was being awarded.

Surely it's a relatively safe bet for any ROSCO that if they have a fleet of recently-upgraded EMUs going spare, Northern will probably have electrified diagrams to use them on?

 

[jon0844]

Surely it's a relatively safe bet for any ROSCO that if they have a fleet of recently-upgraded EMUs going spare, Northern will probably have electrified diagrams to use them on?

Yeah, I'd agree - but they probably don't want to bet on anything.

What if a new franchise winner offers to acquire all new stock (assuming they get a suitably long franchise and can actually afford to invest)? That would change everything.

 

[Class 170101]

It could possibly run up to Kings Lynn, providing that branch with a second train per hour and allowing local journeys along the whole route. Not sure what school traffic there is, but there may be off peak shopping/student/tourist type demand into Cambridge, as well as to the airport.

Stansted is also most likely a big local employer, so local trains would surely make sense too?

Early and late trains would be more useful than middle of the day ones given that one could change at Bishops Stortford.

North of Cambridge there is a limit on the number of electric trains allowed. the further you go the more units there are likely to be in section. (I believe the current limit is five units moving).

 

[jopsuk]

Pretty sure there was an upgrade some time back to the power supply north of Cambridge. Eg there's now peak hours 8 car services (limited stops, due to platform lengths) through to Ely and I think even Kings Lynn.

 

[northwichcat]

Surely it's a relatively safe bet for any ROSCO that if they have a fleet of recently-upgraded EMUs going spare, Northern will probably have electrified diagrams to use them on?

Northern could take on the 317/7s imminently and use them all in service from December. However, for financial reasons they aren't going to take on 317s when long term the 317/7s and 323s won't stretch far enough to cover all the North West electrified services but there should be enough 319s.

A good thing for Anglia is that they've signed a franchise extension which ends after the start date of the new TPE franchise. TPE are in need DMUs to replace the Chiltern bound 170/3s and Anglia having small fleets of DMUs off-lease from later this year which could have easily become an easy target for TPE to acquire. Anglia are now in a position to extend all their leases until 2016.

 

[colchesterken]

I was pleased to see that part of the agreement was to upgrade the Mk 3 s. I think the most important things they need to do is retention toilets and new lights..I went on one of the repaints the other day the lights had different colour tubes and defusers looked drab and tatty

The other thought is IF we get a labour govenment in 2015 will they have the bottle not it issue new franchises..MMMM not sure

 

[jon0844]

If Labour get in, I still can't see them bringing things in house even though they've potentially got loads of franchises they could take over.

 

[dk1]

TPE are in need DMUs to replace the Chiltern bound 170/3s and Anglia having small fleets of DMUs off-lease from later this year which could have easily become an easy target for TPE to acquire. Anglia are now in a position to extend all their leases until 2016.

Which DMUs do AGA have off-lease later this year?

 

[northwichcat]

Which DMUs do AGA have off-lease later this year?

All the Anglia DMUs currently go off-lease from July this year so it put them at risk from another operator nabbing them (as has happened with the TPE 170/3s) but Anglia will now be in a position to end the leases until the end date of the direct award (unless they want to give them up):

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/pages/LeaseEndDates.htm

 

[Class 170101]

But conceivably Northern's DMUs could go the other way now that thier franchise expires first.

 

[northwichcat]

But conceivably Northern's DMUs could go the other way now that thier franchise expires first.

Note the clause about lease extensions for 28 weeks. That'll allow the next Northern operator to keep all the current Northern stock up until August 2016 (unless they choose to not take it on.) Will Anglia be interested in going doing all the paperwork for a 8 week lease?

 

[dk1]

All the Anglia DMUs currently go off-lease from July this year so it put them at risk from another operator nabbing them (as has happened with the TPE 170/3s) but Anglia will now be in a position to end the leases until the end date of the direct award (unless they want to give them up):

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/pages/LeaseEndDates.htm

Oh I see thanks for that. Just dates due to original franchise end dates & quite meaningless really. Automatic transfer of units & not up for grabs.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh I see thanks for that. Just dates due to original franchise end dates & quite meaningless really. Automatic transfer of units & not up for grabs

Before the West Coast franchise letting problems that would have been the case. Now we know that isn't the case following Chiltern signing a deal for the TPE 170/3s starting next year when the TPE franchise needs them until December 2018.

Apparently Chiltern will sublease some of the 170/3s back to TPE until when the next TPE franchise starts in 2016 but 'some' isn't enough and a few 170s and a few 158s wouldn't be a good deal for TPE due to crew training and maintenance issues. With Anglia being the only operator who has a very small fleet of 2 car 170s with a lease expiring this year that could have put them in a prime position for losing 170s. Although, if Anglia had lost 4 x 2 car 170s I would have expected them to receive 4 x 156s from elsewhere.

 

[oliMw]

if Anglia had lost 4 x 2 car 170s I would have expected them to receive 4 x 156s from elsewhere.

Does Anyone have any spare 156s?

 

[northwichcat]

Does Anyone have any spare 156s?

Scotrail are understood to be releasing 156s at some point. Really, a direct or indirect cascade from Scotrail to TPE is the only way of TPE retaining the same service level without short forming services somewhere or postponing planned improvements somewhere.

A DafT idea was for Northern to postpone strengthening services on overcrowded diesel routes and release a few Sprinters when the 319s are introduced but it sounds like that idea has been dismissed for now. DafT were also proposing it would be 158s that Northern would release despite the fact that 158s are used on Yorkshire routes and the types of train used on the North West routes being electrified are 142s, 150s and 156s.

 

[Class 170101]

Problem is the 170s on Anglia are used for over 75mph running and timed as such.

Between Norwich and Cambridge and between Ipswich and Haughley Jn / Norwich.

156s will result a journey time penalty with a mximum speed of 75mph, never mind a lowering in journey quality.