GW ITT Published

[D365]

No point increasing the speed on older units, 110mph would be pushing it... It's probably not worth it installing new parts and the like, compared to buying new trains designed for those speeds from the outset.

 

[The Planner]

125 is interesting as even 110 is pushing it in my opinion as with the mix of traffic it is going to need a pretty much fixed timetable to take advantage of it.

 

[WatcherZero]

More than a rumour, the published ITT refers to the reliefs being 125 mph between Reading and Didcot:



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



Can't see that being possible under EU procurement rules, to be honest.

The TPE/LM 350 order will probably be cited as the exception, but supposedly that was OK'd because the TPE units are a small add on number thought to be headed to LM in the future anyway.

The 350 addons were exercised contract 'options', typically when ordering rolling stock or aircraft you agree to purchases X quantity at Y price however you may recognise that you may need more unexpectedly or that you would like more if you can find some more cash. It would be a pain to negotiate a second order from scratch as you may lose your bulk buy discount or be unable to order units that are exactly the same as the ones in the first order so you agree 'options' with the manufacturer which are the rights to buy more at the same price for a certain time period, usually until the production line servicing your order closes or shortly after.

Similar options exist in the IEP contract signed recently for example.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

More ITT nuggets:

No Extension of Crossrail to Reading
The implications of Crossrail roll-out on the GW franchise are listed in the ITT.
However it makes no mention even of possible extension from Maidenhead to Reading, at least within the franchise (up to 2028).
Looks like this is now on the back burner.

No Catering Mandated
It's up to the bidders.
But they have to improve on-board communications.

Bristol TM and Reading to become NR-Managed
By 2014.

New Trans-Wilts and Devon Services Next Year
6 extra daily services Swindon-Melksham-Westbury.
2tph Newton Abbot-Paignton
Both targetted for Dec 2013, subject to finding rolling stock.
Plus other priced options for service improvements around Bristol and in the south west.

Electrification Designed for 140mph
OHLE tensioned for 140mph Airport Jn-Bristol Parkway
Power supplies "sized for possible 140mph running"

Overall, the ITT seems a very intelligent document, much more interesting and comprehensive than last year's ICWC equivalent, where almost no bidder options were invited for a virtually static infrastructure.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of the Exeter area, I wonder if it would be possible to make the Barnstaple service a true hourly service? I don't understand why its normally an hourly service yet there is then a 2 hour 3 minute gap between the 18.57 service and the 21.00 service.

Also, I hope the Cardiff Central - Portsmouth Harbour service isn't split at Bristol (or if it is I hope there the Cardiff - Bristol service that would replace it could be extended to Bath). I don't use the service from Bath an awful lot (usually get a local service and change at Bristol anyway), but would still make it a bit of a pain for the times I do use the through service.

 

[richw]

THE st Ives services to extend to penzance will mean a requirement for either extra rolling stock or a reduction in frequency on the branchline.

 

[DuncanD]

Electrification Designed for 140mph
OHLE tensioned for 140mph Airport Jn-Bristol Parkway
Power supplies "sized for possible 140mph running"

Interesting, but isn't the top speed for IEP 125 mph? I remember that 140 mph was a priced option for the IEP but did DfT take this option?

 

[WatcherZero]

It specified trains that could be modified for 140mph as preferable, Hitachi do have experience of high speed trains in the UK from the Javelins so wouldnt be beyond them technically.

 

[fgwrich]

No Catering Mandated
It's up to the bidders.
But they have to improve on-board communications.

Overall, the ITT seems a very intelligent document, much more interesting and comprehensive than last year's ICWC equivalent, where almost no bidder options were invited for a virtually static infrastructure.

It's a shame that any new potential bidder could and probably would remove some of the catering options. Ok, so it may not be seen as that much of a necessitybut ideally i'd like to see services such as the Travelling Chef retained.

As for better on board communications, Well it can be done - FGW were originally planning to include on board LED screens on their HST Refurbishment, whether or not it would have include PA systems or manual announcements im not sure though.

http://shed83a.smugmug.com/Coaching...25547_nq25H5#!i=1411040867&k=5fCWHpn&lb=1&s=A

But overall, a rather good and supprising ITT for the GW. Just hope they pick the right operater for it though!

 

[swt_passenger]

The 350 addons were exercised contract 'options', typically when ordering rolling stock or aircraft you agree to purchases X quantity at Y price however you may recognise that you may need more unexpectedly or that you would like more if you can find some more cash.

Happy with all that - but the suggestion seemed to be to tack what would be a large order for FGW onto a relatively small follow on order for Scotrail 380s.

That seems to turn the process on its head to a certain extent...

The other point was the implication that this would be easier as it was two First TOCs, but I think the LM/TPE 350 order actually shows the opposite...

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

It specified trains that could be modified for 140mph as preferable, Hitachi do have experience of high speed trains in the UK from the Javelins so wouldnt be beyond them technically.

Hitachi's brochure for the IEP, what they call the AT300, says it will be suitable for 200 - 240 km/h.

 

[bnm]

Just hope they pick the right operater for it though!

My tip, and one I got good odds for a few months ago is National Express. Elaine Holt is leading their bid and NatEx is a very different company from the dark days when Richard Bowker was at the helm. A man who left a trail of destruction wherever he went - Operation Princess whilst with Virgin, the Strategic Rail Authority, which, under his leadership was abolished, NXEC handing back the keys. As chairman of British Waterways he's even managed to upset quite a few people who enjoy Britain's inland waterways.

National Express fought off potential takeovers from Souter and Lockhead and have re-structured quite successfully after clearing up the mess left by Bowker.

People worry because of the East Coast fiasco, but NatEx are a very different company now. I've put a fiver on them winning Greater Western....

 

[ainsworth74]

Has anyone else picked up on this rather amusing footnote to the document:

Source

 

[Goldfish62]

I'm very concerned at the possible reduction from 9 to 6 daily services through from London to Penzance. Could be the start of the slippery slope towards "all change at Plymouth" which has been mooted ever since I can remember.

Given that the London are often packed to the gunnels through Cornwall, if three of them terminate at Plymouth, the onward connecting train is going to have be fairly long. Another HST, perhaps? What a farce that would be be!

 

[tbtc]

I'm very concerned at the possible reduction from 9 to 6 daily services through from London to Penzance. Could be the start of the slippery slope towards "all change at Plymouth" which has been mooted ever since I can remember.

Given that the London are often packed to the gunnels through Cornwall, if three of them terminate at Plymouth, the onward connecting train is going to have be fairly long. Another HST, perhaps? What a farce that would be be!

If they are packed then the winner is unlikely to replace them - the ITT only specifies the minimum level of service - as I understand it First already provide more services than they are required to.

IF some London services are replaced by a regular half hourly service on the main line west of Plymouth then that may be more appropriate.

 

[ainsworth74]

IF some London services are replaced by a regular half hourly service on the main line west of Plymouth then that may be more appropriate.

Only if that change is matched by a decent amount of extra capacity, especially as the delivery of a regular half hourly service tends to boost usage. In my using of the non-HST services in that part of the world all of them were well loaded even in the middle of the day. It would not, therefore, be inappropriate to deploy 3 or 4-car trains on that route if you were to remove some of the London services and increase the frequency (we don't want another Operation Princess). The South West might be considered something of a backwater compared to other regions of the railway but everything I saw whilst I was down there suggested that there is a great deal of potential for growth and greater utilisation, if the railway/government was minded to do that.

 

[WatcherZero]

Potential for growth?

Last I heard they were seriously considering closing more lines in the South West again.

 

[ainsworth74]

Fair enough, but that's not what I'd expect from my experience of using them (other than the Looe branch).

 

[richw]

Potential for growth?

Last I heard they were seriously considering closing more lines in the South West again.

Don't know your source but every branch line is increasing growth usage by greater levels than anywhere else in the country. They are looking at opening up old lines such as that to Tavistock. I therefore would assume your source to be largely unreliable

 

[WatcherZero]

McNulty, a lot of the lines in the SW are costly and unprofitable because their only used part of the year.

 

[bnm]

McNulty, a lot of the lines in the SW are costly and unprofitable because their only used part of the year.

Where exactly in the McNulty Report is that stated?

Last I heard they were seriously considering closing more lines in the South West again.

Who are 'they' and where did you hear this?

There are no formal plans in place to close ANY branch lines in the South-West. Neither McNulty or the DfT have said anything close to the dreaded 'closure' word. There are however a few scaremongers out there and it seems you may be another.

In fact we are more likely to see branch line re-openings in the coming years. Both Portishead and Tavistock are likely to soon see trains again.

 

[richw]

McNulty, a lot of the lines in the SW are costly and unprofitable because their only used part of the year.

Total rubbish really! Definitely not the case from personal observations, barring Newquay and st Ives where there is a massive influx of holiday makers in the summer,

 

[The Ham]

McNulty, a lot of the lines in the SW are costly and unprofitable because their only used part of the year.

Was nothing learnt from Beaching? If you cut branch lines you reduce the numer of people who want to use the main line. As if a branch line only has 1000 people a day using it during the winter (and therefore based on the cost of their return tickets from one end to the other is "unprofitable") but 10% use the main line to get there what do you think happens to the number of people using the main line?

Also beacuse you have an unprofitable branch line (based on passenger numbers for the whole year based soley on the branch line ticket prices) it doesn't mean that the branch line is unprofitable because during the summer months such a line may have 2000 long distance passengers rather than having 100 it has in the winter and without the branch line those 2000 passengers are a lot less likely to come by train and the place they are going may well have a lot less people going there.

Therefore, although a branch line in Cornwall may require some support, the cost of doing so is more than made up by the extra income from the long distance ticket prices. Also the economic benefits (extra tax on income, etc.) should offset any government support that is provided, let alone if you have to then pay to improve roads or buses to provide the capacity because of the removal of the line.

 

[Bald Rick]

Was nothing learnt from Beaching? If you cut branch lines you reduce the numer of people who want to use the main line. As if a branch line only has 1000 people a day using it during the winter (and therefore based on the cost of their return tickets from one end to the other is "unprofitable") but 10% use the main line to get there what do you think happens to the number of people using the main line?

It goes down by 100 people. Which even if they are paying £100 for their ticket the industry loses £10,000. Or roughly 1/6th the cost of employing one driver for a year.

 

[The Ham]

It goes down by 100 people. Which even if they are paying £100 for their ticket the industry loses £10,000. Or roughly 1/6th the cost of employing one driver for a year.

I was just using small easy to compare numbers, in reality the Cornish branch lines have much higher numbers:

Passengers made 169,388 journeys on the Tamar Valley Line between April 2010 and March 2011, an increase of 21.8% on the numbers seen during the same period in 2007 and 2008. This gave the line ninth place in the branch line league table. On the Looe Valley Line, 95,446 journeys were made between April 2010 and March 2011, an increase of 23.8% over 2007/8, giving the line eighth place in the table.

An estimated 945,000 journeys have been made on the Maritime Line since the improved service was introduced on 18 May 2009. This is almost two thirds more than the 579,081 journeys made in the previous two years. In 2010, 477,500 journeys were made on the line, more than two and half times the 185,000 recorded in 2001, the earliest year for which figures are available.