GWR Class 800

[Dave1987]

You're essentially trying to break the news story that "running more carriages is more expensive". The response to that is 'duh'.

That's how the railway works, it costs more money to operate stock you own or lease more intensively, and it costs more money to buy or lease additional stock.

There may be contractual agreements in place for minimum guaranteed usage, but rolling stock is a competitive business, Agility Trains are unlikely to price themselves out of the business of providing additional diagrams at additional cost.

It'll be like a phone call or something, where the first minute is £1, then it's 5p per minute for each additional minute. The contracted diagrams will be expensive, the additional diagrams will be so cheap, because as long as there's some profit available, Agility Trains will want their stock earning them money.

GWR have AT300 units on order through a traditional ROSCO, the pricing for them is competitive, the operating costs for those units will be ferociously competitive. Agility won't want their stock not making any additional profit whilst conventionally leased in AT300 sets do all the extra work.

I understand where you are coming from but I am very sceptical! For example the fact that originally the DFT said that the decision on rolling stock for the new GW and EC franchises would be left to the retrospective TOC, until it was becoming clear that the TOC's wouldn't be going with the option the DFT wanted them to go for. So the DFT took the decision into their own hands. To me that looks like the politicians were all ready to make their big announcements about shiny new trains and a new factory at Newton Aycliffe with all these lovely new jobs and then saw that the TOC's might ruin that. Cue the DFT making the decision. Then of course the MP's could take all the credit knowing fully well the DFT wouldn't be spending a penny on the trains and that the TOC would pick up the bill for those! Hitachi then makes big claims that if the Newton Aycliffe plant is successful then they may put body shell fabrication equipment in and create some more new jobs. So the MP's will want that plant full of orders for years to come no matter what the cost as the DFT won't be paying the leasing costs. So forgive me if I am sceptical, but its all about the politicians looking good, and they love it when someone else is picking up the tab for their decisions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The GWR AT300 order, through Eversholt Rail is valued at £361m for what will be 173 bi-mode vehicles (22 x 5 car, 7 x 9 car). That's an average cost of £2.086m per vehicle at July 2015 prices.

The most recent orders, for Class 387 vehicles, have had a cost of around £1.482m per vehicle, for a 20m EMU only design.

The last diesel powered vehicles to be ordered, the Bombardier 23m Class 172, were ordered by Porterbrook (£92.6m) and Angel Trains (£33m). 93 vehicles were ordered (24 x 2 car and 15 x 3 car), for an average cost of £1.350m per vehicle at January 2008 prices.

The Hitachi Class 395, ordered through HSBC Rail (now Eversholt) was valued at £250m for an initial 168 vehicles (28 x 6 car) representing a cost of £1.488m per vehicle in June 2005 prices.

The combination of 26m bodylength, bi-mode traction and 140mph top speed would make the cost of around £2.1m per vehicle reasonable and realistic.

It's worth mentioning, finally, that the Caledonian Sleeper will be receiving unpowered coaching stock valued at approximately £2m per vehicle.

Yes but that is the AT300's not the SET's. Hitachi have essentially got all their research and development done for free off of the IEP deal. Plus the AT300 deal is not a diagram vehicle agreement and just shows how much of a hash the DFT made of the IEP deal all because Hitachi promised to build a factory and Newton Aycliffe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The DfT have ordered diagrammed vehicles (IIRC a set number of units to be available per day), however there maybe ways around contract changes. As does the contract say when and where they have to run? I would guess not Yes it may take a contract change to alter a 5 coach unit to a 9 coach unit by adding in more (new) coaches.

If the TOC can dictate when and where an IEP unit can run then they can pair up 5 coach sets by ordering more AT300's (either as straight replacements or as a 9 coach set or even if demand requires it as a longer set) to replace the IEP sets required to do so.

Also do you know how much a change in the contract would be? It may well be that (given the extra income that it would generate them rather than someone else in the case of using AT300's) that the companies involved in the IEP contract could price it fairly keenly.



The point I was making was that a the time of the IEP order that it was assumed that it would be IEP, some HST's and the 180's. Now it is known that it will be IEP and AT300's with the AT300's supplementing some services which may have required IEP trains to run (i.e. Cotswold Line services). As such it must be possible for a follow on order to provide extra capacity without altering the contract.

Likewise the continued use of the Intercity 225's would also imply that other trains can be used without impacting on the contract.

This would appear to be confirmed in the response to a freedom of information request found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4888/dft-f0008119.pdf

Which states:


I read that as saying that the TOC can set the services and timetables without it impacting on the contract.

They are still diagrammed vehicles. You cannot run any of the trains more than what the contract states. They can rob Peter to pay Paul i.e take a 5 away from one service to double up another service but if demand grows they will have to renegotiate with Hitachi, any that of course will cost lots more money. I'm willing to bet they won't bother, and they will stick with five cars even if the are crammed with people standing.

 

[The Ham]

They are still diagrammed vehicles. You cannot run any of the trains more than what the contract states. They can rob Peter to pay Paul i.e take a 5 away from one service to double up another service but if demand grows they will have to renegotiate with Hitachi, any that of course will cost lots more money. I'm willing to bet they won't bother, and they will stick with five cars even if the are crammed with people standing.

I wasn't suggesting that they run any more IEP order trains any more than the contract states. Lets for instance say that there are 4 diagrams per day formed of single 5 coach IEP's on a route which at the start are run as 5 coach trains (as there is insufficient demand to justify longer trains).

Once one of these services gets busy enough to justify lengthening a follow on (AT300 style) order is made to replace one of the four so it is now a pair of IEP's, two single IEP's and a new 5 coach train.

Then once one of the other IEP's gets busy there are two options, another new 5 coach train to provide two pairs of IEP's and two new 5 coach trains (run as singles) OR one pair of IEP's, two single IEP's a lengthened (i.e. was 5 now 9) new train.

Then it can become two pairs of IEP's a new 9 coach (or a pair of 5 coach trains) and a new 5 coach train. Finally it becomes two pairs of IEP's and two 9 coach (or pairs of 5 coach) trains.

As such there are still 4 IEP's of 5 coaches running the same milage as they originally were contracted to do, however the TOC now has a train service with double the capacity by ordering new trains in a traditional contract (as per the AT300's).

This is what both GWR and VEC have done with the AT300's and the Intercity 225's respectively. Therefore it is likely that it can be done again and again.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I understand where you are coming from but I am very sceptical!

It's in Hitachi's interested to play fairly and put in sensible pricing for additional diagrams.

They're shareholders in the Agility Trains business, as well as the supplier of the AT300 units.

Hitachi's problem is that Eversholt doesn't need to order AT300 units again, there's nothing stopping them or another ROSCO going to Alstom and asking for a batch of non tiling Pendolino units to lease onto GWR, if they're finding Agility Trains being obstructive and obstreperous.

That's the worst possible outcome for Hitachi - they lose additional revenue from Agility Trains, money effectively for old rope, or they lose additional revenue from ROSCOs ordering more AT300 trains.

I'd also suggest that when additional stock is needed, if Agility Trains have squeezed out every last possible bit of slack from the IEP fleet, by offering GWR really sensible additional diagram pricing, it makes choosing additional AT300 units more sensible, if Agility are awkward and don't utilise the IEP fleet to its absolute maximum potential, it makes it easier to fit a second electric train fleet into the franchise, with a 75/25 split between IEP and Pendolino, say. If the split is more 85/15 or 90/10, it's harder to see why you would want to slot in a new fleet for a handful of services, and make life jolly awkward when a failure occurs.

I'd expect Agility Trains will be squeezing every last penny of revenue and profit out of their fleet, and will be begging GWR to run additional diagrams so they can make more money.

 

[JamesRowden]

They are still diagrammed vehicles. You cannot run any of the trains more than what the contract states. They can rob Peter to pay Paul i.e take a 5 away from one service to double up another service but if demand grows they will have to renegotiate with Hitachi, any that of course will cost lots more money. I'm willing to bet they won't bother, and they will stick with five cars even if the are crammed with people standing.

I expect that the contract already includes the price for additional diagrams for when the DfT and a TOC come to an agreement to order more. It would make sense for the cost of the additional diagrams to be cheaper per diagram than the original order since the price would not include the product development costs and since maintaining a larger fleet is cheaper per unit.

Once the Class 800/801 design becomes too old to be worth manufacturing, a new design of train would need to be ordered to meet demand as would have been the case without IEP.

GWR are already happier to have people standing on some services at weekends rather than to use more of their fleet.

 

[Dave1987]

It's in Hitachi's interested to play fairly and put in sensible pricing for additional diagrams.

They're shareholders in the Agility Trains business, as well as the supplier of the AT300 units.

Hitachi's problem is that Eversholt doesn't need to order AT300 units again, there's nothing stopping them or another ROSCO going to Alstom and asking for a batch of non tiling Pendolino units to lease onto GWR, if they're finding Agility Trains being obstructive and obstreperous.

That's the worst possible outcome for Hitachi - they lose additional revenue from Agility Trains, money effectively for old rope, or they lose additional revenue from ROSCOs ordering more AT300 trains.

I'd also suggest that when additional stock is needed, if Agility Trains have squeezed out every last possible bit of slack from the IEP fleet, by offering GWR really sensible additional diagram pricing, it makes choosing additional AT300 units more sensible, if Agility are awkward and don't utilise the IEP fleet to its absolute maximum potential, it makes it easier to fit a second electric train fleet into the franchise, with a 75/25 split between IEP and Pendolino, say. If the split is more 85/15 or 90/10, it's harder to see why you would want to slot in a new fleet for a handful of services, and make life jolly awkward when a failure occurs.

I'd expect Agility Trains will be squeezing every last penny of revenue and profit out of their fleet, and will be begging GWR to run additional diagrams so they can make more money.

Well that would put the TOC in an interesting position to negotiate a far far better deal than what the DFT negotiated!

I'm still dead against the bi-modes with the ridiculously high floors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I expect that the contract already includes the price for additional diagrams for when the DfT and a TOC come to an agreement to order more. It would make sense for the cost of the additional diagrams to be cheaper per diagram than the original order since the price would not include the product development costs and since maintaining a larger fleet is cheaper per unit.

Once the Class 800/801 design becomes too old to be worth manufacturing, a new design of train would need to be ordered to meet demand as would have been the case without IEP.

GWR are already happier to have people standing on some services at weekends rather than to use more of their fleet.

And that is totally wrong IMO. If there are regularly people standing on services that can be strengthened then the TOC should be doing so and with a brand new fleet people will rightly ask why they didn't order more trains so people are not standing.

 

[The Ham]

And that is totally wrong IMO. If there are regularly people standing on services that can be strengthened then the TOC should be doing so and with a brand new fleet people will rightly ask why they didn't order more trains so people are not standing.

It maybe wrong, but that observation is at the end of a franchise, it would be interesting to see if the situation changes after the start of the new timetables following from electrification (I.e. when there will be more rolling stock).

 

[NotATrainspott]

And that is totally wrong IMO. If there are regularly people standing on services that can be strengthened then the TOC should be doing so and with a brand new fleet people will rightly ask why they didn't order more trains so people are not standing.

And then your issue is that you can't have arbitrary numbers of carriages in a train, so you can't just add one single carriage to satisfy passenger demands without carting around fresh air.

Of course, the solution to this is to extend a limited number of services and then use yield management to encourage passengers onto this one longer service. Instead of having six carriages' worth of passengers four times an hour, you have five carriages' worth three times an hour plus nine carriages' worth once an hour. People are getting quite accustomed to advance tickets which limit them to a single train service, so there's no real harm in taking advantage of it to sort out minor capacity issues.

 

[The Ham]

And then your issue is that you can't have arbitrary numbers of carriages in a train, so you can't just add one single carriage to satisfy passenger demands without carting around fresh air.

Of course, the solution to this is to extend a limited number of services and then use yield management to encourage passengers onto this one longer service. Instead of having six carriages' worth of passengers four times an hour, you have five carriages' worth three times an hour plus nine carriages' worth once an hour. People are getting quite accustomed to advance tickets which limit them to a single train service, so there's no real harm in taking advantage of it to sort out minor capacity issues.

It wouldn't work so well in the peaks, but with 4tph people will (to a lesser amount) self regulate by switching to the service before or after if there is a greater chance of getting a seat.

You just need to look at the number of enquiries on her about what XC services will be run by HST's to see that in action. Commuters are unlikely to ask on here but will learn by trail and error which is the best service to use.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

There is nothing stopping this from happening as well as using 26m stock, I would argue that doing it after getting higher capacity trains would make it better value. As it would provide for more rail capacity meaning that the construction costs are split between more people.

If Paddington could be lengthened to have platforms of circa 315m that could allow for 12 coach trains (2x6 coachs) which could allow for trains of upto 800 passengers. That would mean that one half train could have the capacity of circa 75% of the existing HST's.That would mean that potion working could happen for longer without needing to build more lines (HSx between London and the West/Wales).

Precisely so. At some point it would be a good thing to upgrade the infrastructure so that 26 metre vehicles did not need to have tapered ends.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People are getting quite accustomed to advance tickets which limit them to a single train service, so there's no real harm in taking advantage of it to sort out minor capacity issues.

"Accustomed to" does not mean that advance-book super-bargains are not a poor, and stressful, alternative to ticket with as few restrictions as possible. They also add to journey time as people have to leave earlier to be certain of catching the train they are booked on to. They make the train an unattractive option when people can just get in their cars and travel when they want.

Off peak tickets manage the yield almost as well without the inconvenience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your solution for London – Bristol is to replace the 125mph HSTs with 100mph 377s?

In, what, sixteen coach formation (because we have to apparently base train GWML lengths on what the Royal Scot to Glasgow was fifty years ago)?

Would we have to extend all of the intermediate stations to cope with that (Chippenham etc)?

You really are trolling well, Sir

You should read more carefully. "Something like"... does not mean "exactly the same as". I am surprised you did not add that three of the 377 subclasses do not run on 25kV overhead current supply.

The point about longer platforms was made in relation to another posting that you have butted into. It was a response to a claim that longer trains are not possible. It is your inference that I was arguing for running full length trains all day long.

Haven't you heard of Selective Door Operation?

Who is trolling?

 

[Haydn1971]

How long will this diversion go on for ? IEP is getting ready to deploy trains into service, nothing is going to change that now, can we get back into the reality of what we have rather than the fantasy of running alternatives - it's simply not going to happen.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It depends on what happens with ICWC and if XC franchise gets an extension or not.

If ICWC get rid of all their 221's there would be enough trains to replace all the current XC 220's with 221's (where they run as single units) and then use the remaining fleet to run more services doubled up and potentially have enough spare units to also replace the HST's (as depending on how busy the HST services are a pair of 220's may be enough or a pair of 221's maybe required).

Add to that the possibility of being able to run EMU's between Manchester and the south coast (in which case 110mph probably wouldn't make much difference in journey times but could provide significant seating capacity enhancements) and there may not be a need for any other new trains.

The reason that Voyagers maybe retained is that there are limited places where they would be useful, meaning that the cost to use them would likely be less than that of a new train as Voyager Leasing would potentially struggle to find an alternative use for them. Meaning that as long as the new (or retained) TOC can show lease (including maintenance) costs then Voyager Leasing would probably have to at least match (on a cost per passenger basis) if not beat that price to keep them in use.

There's no new tilting stock on the horizon (of course that doesn't say it can't crop up!). However, since all Voyagers are around the same age, it would be easier to replace with a design of half a decade old than procure a completely new one for the WCML - it would be easier (and probably better use of the stock!) to transfer those Voyagers to the WCML to boost much-needed capacity there, and to use a tried-and-tested design on the XC route.

Since they would necessarily be bimodes, this has the added advantage of not needing new stock as the MML and various XC-relevant in-fills are completed between the early 2020s and the 2040s.

If they could fit a retractable 3rd rail shoe onto the trains doing the diagrams beyond Basingstoke that would be ideal (trimode!), but I'm aware that isn't part of the AT300 specification and may be more complex than I realise.

 

[D365]

Precisely so. At some point it would be a good thing to upgrade the infrastructure so that 26 metre vehicles did not need to have tapered ends.

It would be nice, but is clearly not achievable. Once GW and MML works are complete, the only upgrades will be as a consequence of modal shift to 'true' high-speed lines.

"Accustomed to" does not mean that advance-book super-bargains are not a poor, and stressful, alternative to ticket with as few restrictions as possible. They also add to journey time as people have to leave earlier to be certain of catching the train they are booked on to. They make the train an unattractive option when people can just get in their cars and travel when they want.

Why should it be a poor and stressful experience? Advance tickets are exactly like booking a flight. The only reason I don't do it is because my ideal train times are the more popular/expensive ones.

I am surprised you did not add that three of the 377 subclasses do not run on 25kV overhead current supply.

Why would you be running an existing Electrostar class (other than the 387s due for transfer) on GW/InterCity?

Haven't you heard of Selective Door Operation?

It's a compromise, not a solution.

There's no new tilting stock on the horizon (of course that doesn't say it can't crop up!).

Yeah there is, Alliance Rail [intend to] have new six-car 'Pendolinos' on order.

 

[Kentish Paul]

Came back from Castle Cary to Ashford last Thursday. Caught the 09:42 (05:41 ex Penzance). Boarded the second standard class coach from the front and found only 6 people in the carriage. A few left and got on at Westbury and Pewsey but the big change was Reading. The whole carriage filled and the majority of seats taken. This was 10:52.
Goes to show that off peak Reading passengers will want the fast service and will not use crossrail.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Haven't you heard of Selective Door Operation?

You're doing to ask people to walk down at least 6 carriages to get off? I bet that'll be popular!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Came back from Castle Cary to Ashford last Thursday. Caught the 09:42 (05:41 ex Penzance). Boarded the second standard class coach from the front and found only 6 people in the carriage. A few left and got on at Westbury and Pewsey but the big change was Reading. The whole carriage filled and the majority of seats taken. This was 10:52.
Goes to show that off peak Reading passengers will want the fast service and will not use crossrail.

I didn't realise that trains ran from Castle Cary to Bond St, Tottenham Court Rd, Canary Wharf etc...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah there is, Alliance Rail have new six-car 'Pendolinos' on order.

My mistake. Odd that this wasn't considered for TPE.

 

[The Ham]

Came back from Castle Cary to Ashford last Thursday. Caught the 09:42 (05:41 ex Penzance). Boarded the second standard class coach from the front and found only 6 people in the carriage. A few left and got on at Westbury and Pewsey but the big change was Reading. The whole carriage filled and the majority of seats taken. This was 10:52.
Goes to show that off peak Reading passengers will want the fast service and will not use crossrail.

Assuming that the other coaches were not rammed, it would also show that not all off peak trains need to be full length for all of their route.

There will be 3 types of trains from Reading:
- Crossrail, which will mostly be not heading to Paddington
- Mid distance EMU commuter trains, which will be higher capacity and not much slower than the Intercity trains. As such people will use them as they could well have a better chance of getting a seat.
- intercity trains, which may or may not have seats depending on their calling pattern

 

[Dent]

There will be 3 types of trains from Reading:
- Crossrail, which will mostly be not heading to Paddington

Where will Crossrail trains be mostly heading if not to Paddington?

 

[Kentish Paul]

You're doing to ask people to walk down at least 6 carriages to get off? I bet that'll be popular!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I didn't realise that trains ran from Castle Cary to Bond St, Tottenham Court Rd, Canary Wharf etc...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


My mistake. Odd that this wasn't considered for TPE.

If you had bothered to read my post correctly I was refering to passengers from Reading to London. I Know very well that trains do not run from Castle Cary onto Crossrail.

 

[The Ham]

Where will Crossrail trains be mostly heading if not to Paddington?

They go through Paddington (from Reading) it's not where they are going to.

 

[D365]

Where will Crossrail trains be mostly heading if not to Paddington?

They go through Paddington (from Reading) it's not where they are going to.

As in (to clarify), Paddington is not the ultimate destination.

 

[455driver]

How long will this diversion go on for ? IEP is getting ready to deploy trains into service, nothing is going to change that now, can we get back into the reality of what we have rather than the fantasy of running alternatives - it's simply not going to happen.

Or the dream of a small follow on order to allow an internal cascade of the existing fleet to increase capacity (no doubt built in Italy rather than NA ), you know just like what happened a few years ago with the V-----r fleet on Cross Country which was supposed to be so much better than the HSTs/47s.
Some people either have short memories or simply were not there!

 

[JamesRowden]

Or the dream of a small follow on order to allow an internal cascade of the existing fleet to increase capacity (no doubt built in Italy rather than NA ), you know just like what happened a few years ago with the V-----r fleet on Cross Country which was supposed to be so much better than the HSTs/47s.
Some people either have short memories or simply were not there!

Perhaps it's more that there isn't a business case for Crosscountry to order extra stock at this time.

 

[The Ham]

Perhaps it's more that there isn't a business case for Crosscountry to order extra stock at this time.

Quite, XC was (until recently) needing government support, while GW has been paying a premium for some time +even allowing for the less profitable routes that they run.

 

[Haydn1971]

Perhaps it's more that there isn't a business case for Crosscountry to order extra stock at this time.

Careful there, your letting facts get in the way of a good rant

 

[455driver]

Quite, XC was (until recently) needing government support, while GW has been paying a premium for some time +even allowing for the less profitable routes that they run.

And you think the Great Western franchise will still be paying a premium when it starts paying for these new trains do you?
I don't!

XC never made a profit (hence the mainly hand me down stock in BR days) so putting expensive new trains on there was always going to end in tears!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps it's more that there isn't a business case for Crosscountry to order extra stock at this time.

There was never a 'business case' for the Voyagers but it was Political decision to provide new trains, helped along by awarding the franchise to Mr Ego!

 

[D365]

And you think the Great Western franchise will still be paying a premium when it starts paying for these new trains do you?
I don't!

The new Northern and TPE franchises are expecting to procure new rolling stock AND convert that into an operating surplus. So apparently it's not impossible...

 

[455driver]

The new Northern and TPE franchises are expecting to procure new rolling stock AND convert that into an operating surplus. So apparently it's not impossible...

On that principal, I expect to win the lottery next Saturday and retire on the following Monday!

Just because the DaFT want that to happen doesnt mean its possible whoever is running it, but then they can always massage the figure to make them read okay cant they!
How many franchises make a profit over and above what they receive in track access payments etc, I mean a 'proper' profit as apposed to an imaginary one!

 

[WatcherZero]

A few close, East Coast and Chiltern both £30m off, Transpennine express £80m off. South Western exceeded it by £130m. Rest of franchises are a couple of hundred million off.

So I guess the answer is just one but several are getting closer and closer to.

 

[455driver]

A few close, East Coast and Chiltern both £30m off, Transpennine express £80m off. South Western exceeded it by £130m. Rest of franchises are a couple of hundred million off.

So I guess the answer is just one but several are getting closer and closer to.

Thank you WatcherZero,

So the only one that makes a clear profit is the franchise that carries the most passengers but over quite a small geographical area, something that cannot be said for most other franchises.

Even when the ones that are close get there, there will still be quite a large deficit overall!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

You're doing to ask people to walk down at least 6 carriages to get off? I bet that'll be popular!

Have you never travelled in a train which splits at some point en route - eg London to Eastbourne and Littlehampton, dividing at Haywards Heath? People travel in the part of the train which goes to their destination. The information is given provided on displays and through announcements. Trains have been run that way for since the start of railways.

 

[jimm]

And you think the Great Western franchise will still be paying a premium when it starts paying for these new trains do you?
I don't!

XC never made a profit (hence the mainly hand me down stock in BR days) so putting expensive new trains on there was always going to end in tears!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was never a 'business case' for the Voyagers but it was Political decision to provide new trains, helped along by awarding the franchise to Mr Ego!

It may have been a political decision but it is one for which GWR and its passengers must be very grateful, given the number of HSTs released from XC which found a new home with FGW, either via leasing companies or in the shape of the sets First Group bought outright. And without which there would have been no way of coping with the growth in traffic on GW services in recent years.