GBR Fleet flexibility

[vuzzeho]

So, with SWR coming to GBR soon, and LNER, TPE, Northern, and SE, what reshuffling/sharing would GBR enable that would be useful? Maybe a few 80xs shared between LNER and TPE to bolster services etc

 

[irish_rail]

So, with SWR coming to GBR soon, and LNER, TPE, Northern, and SE, what reshuffling/sharing would GBR enable that would be useful? Maybe a few 80xs shared between LNER and TPE to bolster services etc

A common pool eventually of 80xs would in my view be advantageous, more so to help GWR out if anything. Though I suspect lack of ATP on the non GWR would put pay to that.

 

[vuzzeho]

A common pool eventually of 80xs would in my view be advantageous, more so to help GWR out if anything. Though I suspect lack of ATP on the non GWR would put pay to that.

With these different standards on different mainlines, would being able to have a common pool be incentive enough to rollout ETCS on more lines (so trains can run on any line with ETCS)

 

[irish_rail]

With these different standards on different mainlines, would being able to have a common pool be incentive enough to rollout ETCS on more lines (so trains can run on any line with ETCS)

The simpler solution would be to simply remove redundant ATP , which , since the advent of TPWS is not really necessary.

 

[D365]

The simpler solution would be to simply remove redundant ATP , which , since the advent of TPWS is not really necessary.

The idea at one point was that GW ATP would be replaced by ETCS.

 

[Class450/4DES]

So, with SWR coming to GBR soon, and LNER, TPE, Northern, and SE, what reshuffling/sharing would GBR enable that would be useful? Maybe a few 80xs shared between LNER and TPE to bolster services etc

It could make sense for SE along with SWR, c2c and GA's suburban services to become apart of one identity. Either remaining as Southeastern, a new name OR a NSE 2.0 perhaps? And then renaming Northern to Regional or something.

 

[Meerkat]

It could make sense for SE along with SWR, c2c and GA's suburban services to become apart of one identity. Either remaining as Southeastern, a new name OR a NSE 2.0 perhaps? And then renaming Northern to Regional or something.

Why, what does it achieve? I would suggest there would be far more cross route brand contamination than brand benefits.

 

[Class450/4DES]

Why, what does it achieve? I would suggest there would be far more cross route brand contamination than brand benefits.

I just like the concept of sectoriastion. But we just need to wait until the DfT says something.

 

[Meerkat]

I just like the concept of sectoriastion. But we just need to wait until the DfT says something.

If you like splitting the brand why pick such a big level and not stick with the TOCs as they are?
There is also an argument similar to why the Overground lines got names - applicable disruption headlines.

 

[Helvellyn]

I just like the concept of sectoriastion. But we just need to wait until the DfT says something.

Exactly. I think Louise Haigh said that GBR won't exist legally until the end of 2026 at the earliest. All that is happening at the moment is operators are transferring to DfTO (The former DOHL) as an 'owning group', but to all intents and purposes each TOC remains independent.

But to answer the OP you might see LNER push to order more 897s. It's twelve five-car electric Class 801/1s could then be cascaded to GWR, which would need DfT to support a change to the Agility Trains contract.

 

[Transilien]

If you like splitting the brand why pick such a big level and not stick with the TOCs as they are?
There is also an argument similar to why the Overground lines got names - applicable disruption headlines.

Maybe a numbering or a naming system for all lines could address this issue. The TOC names make no sense anyway as they don’t provide any information to the passenger other than in a limited geographical sense.

 

[172007]

Maybe a numbering or a naming system for all lines could address this issue. The TOC names make no sense anyway as they don’t provide any information to the passenger other than in a limited geographical sense.

Toc names make a massive difference to passengers. Difference between having a nice day and having to declare fare evasion to your employer for getting on the wrong Tocs train.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So, with SWR coming to GBR soon, and LNER, TPE, Northern, and SE, what reshuffling/sharing would GBR enable that would be useful? Maybe a few 80xs shared between LNER and TPE to bolster services etc

Contracts will get in the way of that.
800 and 801 trains (covered by the IEP procurement) belong to Agility (Hitachi) and are tied to specific maintenance regimes and depots
802s (procured by FirstGroup) are on more flexible contracts, but still use the Hitachi maintenance depots.
803/5/7/10 (Lumo/Avanti/EMR) are different again.

GBR can't just shuffle the pack like BR might have done.
Existing lease/maintenance contracts will need to be honoured (mostly signed in the franchise pre-Covid era).
There's also very little fleet commonality between the DfT-run TOCs, and adding SWR and c2c next year doesn't help much.

 

[Transilien]

Toc names make a massive difference to passengers. Difference between having a nice day and having to declare fare evasion to your employer for getting on the wrong Tocs train.

Under GBR none of that would matter as it would be one company. I wasn’t talking about the current situation.

 

[irish_rail]

Exactly. I think Louise Haigh said that GBR won't exist legally until the end of 2026 at the earliest. All that is happening at the moment is operators are transferring to DfTO (The former DOHL) as an 'owning group', but to all intents and purposes each TOC remains independent.

But to answer the OP you might see LNER push to order more 897s. It's twelve five-car electric Class 801/1s could then be cascaded to GWR, which would need DfT to support a change to the Agility Trains contract.

Why on earth would GWR take more 5 car 80x? If anything they are now seriously looking at extentions of some 5s to 9s, more 5 car 80x to GWR would not be at all helpful.

 

[172007]

Under GBR none of that would matter as it would be one company. I wasn’t talking about the current situation.

I suspect it will be continued for Intercity vs local services though.

 

[Transilien]

I suspect it will be continued for Intercity vs local services though.

I can imagine it will. Intercity vs regional is a better descriptor however than for example London Northwestern Railway vs Avanti West Coast.

 

[Class15]

Why on earth would GWR take more 5 car 80x? If anything they are now seriously looking at extentions of some 5s to 9s, more 5 car 80x to GWR would not be at all helpful.

Maybe to be doubled up? The Cardiffs could do with 10 cars.

 

[irish_rail]

Maybe to be doubled up? The Cardiffs could do with 10 cars.

Perhaps but there is much wasted space in 2 x 5 cars, and it also requires more crews. Let LNER keep their 5 car sets and new build 9 cars for GWR would be a start!

 

[Meerkat]

Maybe a numbering or a naming system for all lines could address this issue. The TOC names make no sense anyway as they don’t provide any information to the passenger other than in a limited geographical sense.

“SWR services are knackered” is a far more useful headline than “network southeast services are knackered”.
And brand damaged is reduced as there will be fewer such headlines.

 

[vuzzeho]

“SWR services are knackered” is a far more useful headline than “network southeast services are knackered”.
And brand damaged is reduced as there will be fewer such headlines.

Didn't BR have names for the regions on NSE? Could it be 'Network SouthEast South Western (Network SouthWest?) services are knackered'?

 

[Meerkat]

Didn't BR have names for the regions on NSE? Could it be 'Network SouthEast South Western (Network SouthWest?) services are knackered'?

So what's the gain of NSE branding existing?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didn't BR have names for the regions on NSE? Could it be 'Network SouthEast South Western (Network SouthWest?) services are knackered'?

It was South Western Lines, and all the London-radial NSE service groups had their names on their trains.
I don't think any of the other sectors did this, though there were PTE variants within Regional Railways.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking fleet flexibility is a cheap answer to anything, if 2 TOCs have a requirement for 50 trains individually, they still have a requirement for 100 trains combined. The example of LNER and GWR Hitachi 8xx, a part from getting the train from depot to the other operator challenge, it's unlikely either have spares to support each other anyway

 

[JonathanH]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking fleet flexibility is a cheap answer to anything, if 2 TOCs have a requirement for 50 trains individually, they still have a requirement for 100 trains combined.

I think the suggested idea is that they don't need 50 each at the same time, so peaks and troughs in each other's business can allow the fleet of 100 trains to be used more productively. Of course, that might only need 10 of them to be 'common user'.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

DOL (the old OLR/DOHL) already has complete control over LNER and TPE.
Let's see if they combine any of the currently separate operations (trains, staff, stations etc).
Currently their contracts (access, rolling stock, staff) are totally separate.
In the past the DfT/ORR has actively discouraged any sharing of resources since Virgin used to share between VTWC and VTXC in the first round of franchising.
I think it might take a while before a new even partially-integrated GBR regime emerges.