Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry

[tbtc]

In theory the train leasing companies should be in competition for business, it appears the market is looking more and more rigged.

about time a not for profit government owned firm was set up to look after new rolling stock.

There's nothing stopping another company from joining the market, if these profits are as big as people suggest. In almost twenty years, nobody seems to be interested though.

 

[Dolive22]

There's nothing stopping another company from joining the market, if these profits are as big as people suggest. In almost twenty years, nobody seems to be interested though.

You've got to enter with a large order placed years ahead, because they take a long time to be built, and you need to supply all or a large chunk of a TOCs trains otherwise they will be a nightmare to maintain. No one's going to enter that market until there is huge supernormal profit being made already.

 

[HSTEd]

There's nothing stopping another company from joining the market, if these profits are as big as people suggest. In almost twenty years, nobody seems to be interested though.

Rolling stock management appears to have the characteristics of a natural monopoly.
Once you have trains you can charge what you like because its really expensive to enter the market in the first place, and because there are large regulatory and other overheads which amortise to nothing if you haev a large fleet.

That further increases the entry barrier because you can't enter with half a dozen vehicles and still compete.

 

[Surreyman]

A reasonable chunk of Chiltern is going to be electrified in CP5 as part of the electric spine or EWR (could EWR become part of the Chiltern franchise?) so an easy and efficient way of releasing lots of cascadeable DMUs would be to electrify the rest in CP6 thus releasing 164 cars of 165/168/172s (in a mix of 2/3/4 car combinations). So presumably 165s to FGW or is it successor (also assuming the south Wales lines being ex GWR could also take them?) and 168 /172s to existing operators XC, GA, Scotrail, LM or Southern to make maintenance and compatibility issues easier i.e. avoid adding yet more DMU types to Northern "Zoo" unless all the pacers are scrapped first. Lots of sprinters would be released which could be concentrated with Northern on the routes that don't get electrified in CP5/6.

Agree with you, in fact the Chiltern routes are in the Electrification 2009 document, only issue might be how you deal with LU 660V DC electrification on common sections of route, anyone know if you can have Ac overhead and 4th rail DC on same tracks? How does it impact on signalling?

 

[HSTEd]

The obvious solution to Chiltern electrification is to rig the Metropolitan lines electrification to 750V third rail with a fourth rail that is bonded to the running rails, and then run dual voltage units up the line to Amersham, then electrify the line from Amersham to Aylesbury as overhead.

The other solution is to extend the Met to Aylesbury and abandon mainline service along the Met line, serving Aylesbury via that branch line.

 

[Class377/5]

Agree with you, in fact the Chiltern routes are in the Electrification 2009 document, only issue might be how you deal with LU 660V DC electrification on common sections of route, anyone know if you can have Ac overhead and 4th rail DC on same tracks? How does it impact on signalling?

The obvious solution to Chiltern electrification is to rig the Metropolitan lines electrification to 750V third rail with a fourth rail that is bonded to the running rails, and then run dual voltage units up the line to Amersham, then electrify the line from Amersham to Aylesbury as overhead.

The other solution is to extend the Met to Aylesbury and abandon mainline service along the Met line, serving Aylesbury via that branch line.

Chiltern is expected to be wired in CP6.

You can't have long sections of dual voltage as it only works over short distance. For example in Thameslink Core it's not actually dual voltage but one switched off while others in use. Been detailed technical discussion on this recently.

Chiltern may get dual voltage stock as a solution as the S Stock is designed to work on 750v and SSL is being upgraded to 750v once its all S Stock.

 

[tbtc]

You've got to enter with a large order placed years ahead, because they take a long time to be built, and you need to supply all or a large chunk of a TOCs trains otherwise they will be a nightmare to maintain. No one's going to enter that market until there is huge supernormal profit being made already.

True, but a new company could offer to "get into bed" with a TOC or a train manufacturer and secure a contract.

For example, we know that the 507/508s will need replacing in the next few years. I could be knocking on the door of the big train manufacturers, knocking on the door of the PTE, knocking on the door of the current TOC (or whoever is bidding for the next contract)...

If the profits were as obscene as some enthusiasts suggest that they are then some speculative organisation could have tried to get their foot in the door. I'm not aware of anyone who's even seriously tried.

 

[The Ham]

The problem with sending the 22x's to Salisbury is that they have lower capacity (length for length) than the 158's and 159's that they would be replacing.

Anyway it is likely that Electrification of the Salisbury line would be fairly high up the list of prioritises, if the electrification went as far as Yeovil and included between Salisbury and Southampton then over half the SWT's DMU's could be cascaded elsewhere. If then there was a break in service at Yeovil Junction (an across platform change) then the number of required DMU's could be further limited:

Going back to my orriginal suggestion (electrification to Yeovil Junction from Basingstoke), given the desire to retain a direct service to London west of Yeovile, how about:

1tph DMU stops all shacks Exeter to Salisbury, then semi fast to Waterloo (coupling up with a DMU from Bristol at Salisbury)

1tph DMU stops all shacks Exeter to Westbury via Yeovile

1tph EMU from Yeovile which meets the Westbury service and runs semi fast to Waterloo (coupling up with an EMU from Romsey via Eastliegh at Salisbury)

1tph EMU (Exsension of one of the existing service which stops at all stations between Basingstoke & Woking) service which stops at all stations between Sailsbury & Basingstoke

In doing so it would remove the need for a lot of DMU's from the existing SWT network, whislt maintaining all stations with a direct (but slow) service to London. It would also provide Romsey with a direct service to London and would provide direct connection between the stations in North Hampshire without the need to change at Basingstoke.

From the thread "Difficult routes (train services) to totally electrify ... and possible solutions"
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=74638

 

[mr_jrt]

The obvious solution to Chiltern electrification is to rig the Metropolitan lines electrification to 750V third rail with a fourth rail that is bonded to the running rails, and then run dual voltage units up the line to Amersham, then electrify the line from Amersham to Aylesbury as overhead.

The other solution is to extend the Met to Aylesbury and abandon mainline service along the Met line, serving Aylesbury via that branch line.

I'd say the obvious option isn't those - it's to cut the Met back to Moor Park (aka. Watford Junction) or Ricky and give the fast lines to NR. They then have a segregated set of rails from Neasden Junction they can wire up, and can lengthen the platforms and improve the line speeds whilst they're at it!

 

[DXMachina]

extending platforms at Rickmansworth could be tricky.

Also, Croxley Hall Junction to Ricky is 2-track so you'd have to either dual-electrify it or restrict Met access past Moor Park except on the watford line

 

[The Ham]

There are plenty of "pockets", but a lot of the focus of CP5 electrification was the longer distance stuff (London to Swansea/ Sheffield), rather than the short sections of unelectrified line that could free up DMUs (with the noticeable exception of the Valley Lines).

The Snow Hill route through Birmingham, GOBLIN, the line through Wigan to Southport and the line through Warrington Central are pockets that would free up a lot of DMUs (per mile of electrification)

Even the lengths of electrification for CP5 are not fixed in stone, as there is already tlak that the conversion of 3rd rail to OHEL will not stop at Southampton, but will continue onto Poole, likewise options are being looked at to extend the electrification beyond Newbury, possibly as far as Westbury.

If there can be cost savings made on the electrification projects planned for CP5 then it could be possible for NR to then use this funding to do a few in fill projects to allow the cascading of more DMU's pre 2019.

Also the government has stated:

https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...supporting-pages/accessible-transport-for-all

While the latest fleets of trains are fully compliant with accessibility requirements, there are still trains in service that are not fully compliant. It’s too expensive to withdraw and update these trains, so effort is being concentrated on those non-compliances which truly prevent disabled people from accessing trains.

.....

While an accessible rail fleet will be achieved by 1 January 2020, it is likely that a small number of trains will not fully comply with the PRM TSI or RVAR by that time. It’s inevitable that some exemptions will remain necessary and we are working with the rail industry and DPTAC to keep these to a minimum.

This gives two options, firstly they could refurbish some trains which are currently "too expensive to withdraw and update these trains" when there are some trains which have been released by electrification project (although it is likely that this is unlikely to help due to the age of the trains which would be not compliant post 2019).

Secondly there could be enough time (maybe a year or two) which would enable the exceptions to be around for a short time before more lines could be electrified to release enough trains to cover the shortfall.

 

[tbtc]

Even the lengths of electrification for CP5 are not fixed in stone, as there is already tlak that the conversion of 3rd rail to OHEL will not stop at Southampton, but will continue onto Poole, likewise options are being looked at to extend the electrification beyond Newbury, possibly as far as Westbury

Since it looks like the "CP5" commitment to electrify to Sheffield won't happen until 2021 (i.e. half way through CP6), I'm not holding out much hope for finding the time to do electrification above and beyond the CP5 commitment by the end of 2019.

Poole etc may well happen, but maybe not in CP5.

 

[jopsuk]

I'd say the obvious option isn't those - it's to cut the Met back to Moor Park (aka. Watford Junction) or Ricky and give the fast lines to NR. They then have a segregated set of rails from Neasden Junction they can wire up, and can lengthen the platforms and improve the line speeds whilst they're at it!

There'd be much upset in Rickmansworth and beyond if you cut off direct services to the City- Wembley Park I reckon would need reconfiguring to allow Chiltern services to stop there (giving access to the Jubilee for London Bridge and Canary Wharf). Marylebone is relatively poorly connected.

 

[LE Greys]

There'd be much upset in Rickmansworth and beyond if you cut off direct services to the City- Wembley Park I reckon would need reconfiguring to allow Chiltern services to stop there (giving access to the Jubilee for London Bridge and Canary Wharf). Marylebone is relatively poorly connected.

Indeed, I'd go for the opposite strategy, extending the Met to Aylesbury Town so that Chiltern can concentrate on working beyond there onto the E-W Link, when that gets reinstated.

 

[jopsuk]

Mindyou, that would be a very long way on Underground stock- from Charing Cross (centre point of London) that's 58km in a straight line. Further than Stansted Airport, Stevenage, Luton, Chelmsford, Crawley, Medway, Tunbridge Wells, Farnborough and as far as Reading. It would be quite a radical extension of TfL's reach! Imagine that lot all as "Overground" terminii (though perhaps not all using 378-style trains!).

 

[tbtc]

Mindyou, that would be a very long way on Underground stock- from Charing Cross (centre point of London) that's 58km in a straight line. Further than Stansted Airport, Stevenage, Luton, Chelmsford, Crawley, Medway, Tunbridge Wells, Farnborough and as far as Reading. It would be quite a radical extension of TfL's reach! Imagine that lot all as "Overground" terminii (though perhaps not all using 378-style trains!).

I'm guessing some passengers may be wanting a toilet on a journey of that length?

 

[mr_jrt]

extending platforms at Rickmansworth could be tricky.

Also, Croxley Hall Junction to Ricky is 2-track so you'd have to either dual-electrify it or restrict Met access past Moor Park except on the watford line

I'd imagine they'd just finish the original plans which were to 4 track to Ricky, and probably throw in a total rebuild further east. Would be a good opportunity to get a decent set of terminal bays that could then also be used by services from Watford.

There'd be much upset in Rickmansworth and beyond if you cut off direct services to the City- Wembley Park I reckon would need reconfiguring to allow Chiltern services to stop there (giving access to the Jubilee for London Bridge and Canary Wharf). Marylebone is relatively poorly connected.

I'm sure there was equal upset when Aylesbury lost its service to Baker Street. Service patterns change and I'm sure if they where to whizz past at 90mph on modern EMUs they'd still be able to change to the Met at HotH and still be ahead, time-wise.

Longer-term, I agree and I'd also investigate looking at adding a Chiltern interchange further south, though probably not Wembley Park as it's too close to HotH to be worthwhile. Two options spring to mind - the West Hampstead interchange project to move the Met stops from Finchley Road and the build Chiltern platforms, and/or to move the Wembley Park stops to Neasden and build a new major interchange there that can interchange with both the Dudding Hill line as well as the Chiltern line to Ruislip (perhaps with the Jubilee line branching there to provide the metro all-stations service on a reinstated pair of tracks).

Indeed, I'd go for the opposite strategy, extending the Met to Aylesbury Town so that Chiltern can concentrate on working beyond there onto the E-W Link, when that gets reinstated.

As others have said - the S Stock isn't suitable, it's slower, more uncomfortable, shorter, and TfL have shown they have no interest in "mainline-style" fast services. Their underground is an all-stations metro. The only way to provide the service those stations need to counter the railheading that occurs and relieve the WCML is to electrify the Amersham line all the way to Aylesbury and provide comparable rolling stock to the WCML suburban services.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm guessing some passengers may be wanting a toilet on a journey of that length?

I'd say it's really journey times opposed to length and whether station toilets are available that should be used to assess whether or not toilets are required.

Manchester Piccadilly to Liverpool is a longer distance than Urmston to Liverpool but the former takes less time on express trains and both the origin and destination stations have toilet facilities.

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn't do all that require some sort of grade seperation where the Chiltern Line joins the Met?
Otherwise you have to dual electrify the junction which is bound to be a nightmare.

Much simpler to dual electrify two sections of two track plain line at the ends.

And you don't have to tear up the current service paterns to do it.

 

[jopsuk]

Started a new thread to continue the Chiltern/met electrification discussion

 

[HSTEd]

True, but a new company could offer to "get into bed" with a TOC or a train manufacturer and secure a contract.

For example, we know that the 507/508s will need replacing in the next few years. I could be knocking on the door of the big train manufacturers, knocking on the door of the PTE, knocking on the door of the current TOC (or whoever is bidding for the next contract)...

If the profits were as obscene as some enthusiasts suggest that they are then some speculative organisation could have tried to get their foot in the door. I'm not aware of anyone who's even seriously tried.

If a TOC attempted to do anything like that it would be buried in legal challenges from the established ROSCOs demanding that an open contract be put out for tender.
They would then arrange to have their high power lawyers force the TOC to require all sorts of capital checks and the like in the contract which means a new player would need enormous financial resources.

This is sufficiently difficult and expensive that the returns for a new ROSCO will be significantly worse than the returns for the current ones.
In this way it becomes better for venture capitalists to either go to other markets (see commodities trading) or simply buy slices of the existing ROSCOs on the stock exchange.

 

[WatcherZero]

Not true a Toc can propose any rolling stock and any supplier and they can agree a deal for orders pre-franchise award. (Both Virgin and First already had them in place for West Coast for example). They are only required to see out the remaining lease on stock that the Dft has given a guarenteed lease duration to the ROSCO for.

 

[northwichcat]

In relation to the energy supply problems in the news today

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said that "we cannot afford to be complacent".

"The reforms we are making to the electricity market through the Energy Bill and through our gas generation strategy are aimed at plugging this gap in order to keep the lights on," he added.

Given that the additional electric trains proposed to be introduced to the network over the coming through years will result in a large increase in demand for electricity in the North West, how will there be the electricity for the trains to run if we're struggling to get the electricity for the operation of ticket offices and TVMs?

 

[Class377/5]

In relation to the energy supply problems in the news today

Given that the additional electric trains proposed to be introduced to the network over the coming through years will result in a large increase in demand for electricity in the North West, how will there be the electricity for the trains to run if we're struggling to get the electricity for the operation of ticket offices and TVMs?

Where's the struggling to keep the lights on?

 

[Goatboy]

There's nothing stopping another company from joining the market, if these profits are as big as people suggest. In almost twenty years, nobody seems to be interested though.

There are significant barriers to entry which put off new entrants into the market despite considerable profit opportunity. Primarily the need to purchase a fleet of rolling stock in order to lease it - without the benefit of a ready-made taxpayer funded fleet as per the ROSCO's formation in the mid 1990's.

It's simply misleading to state imply that a lack of new market entrants implies a lack of profit. There are numerous profitable industries with few if any new market entrants as a result of high barriers to entry.

 

[The Ham]

Where's the struggling to keep the lights on?

Possibly in the UK, if there is no long term planning in energy supply.

However, there is a fair chance that as energy become more scarce prices rise making it better for people to consider being more careful about their energy usage and possibly even pushing people into generating their own power (just look at the number of homes which have solar panels on them, which 10 years ago was fairly rare).

 

[Metrailway]

Where's the struggling to keep the lights on?

The risk of a blackout could rise to around 50% in the near future according to Ofgem:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9590135/Millions-of-British-households-face-blackout-warns-Ofgem.html

In its strongest ever warning, Ofgem said there may have to be “controlled disconnections” of homes and businesses in the middle of this decade because Britain has not done enough to make sure it has enough electricity.

The regulator's new analysis reveals the risk of power-cuts is almost 50 per cent in 2015 if a very cold winter causes high demand for electricity.

It predicts Britain will face power shortages because old coal and oil plants are being forced to shut down under the European Union’s environmental regulations.

 

[Class377/5]

Possibly in the UK, if there is no long term planning in energy supply.

However, there is a fair chance that as energy become more scarce prices rise making it better for people to consider being more careful about their energy usage and possibly even pushing people into generating their own power (just look at the number of homes which have solar panels on them, which 10 years ago was fairly rare).

Don't they just repeat that story every few years tho? Wheel out 'experts', get Government to say something then all goes quiet again.

Personally I don't see why we annit building a green industry with UK build wind and water power generations creating UK jobs on manufacture, maintance and operations.

 

[jopsuk]

We are going to hit problems- we're a net importer of gas, coal that's massively full of sulphur* is ever more expensive. On-shore wind power is controversial; off shore power isn't yet "break even" though it is getting there. A big increase in hydro can only be done by flooding many, many valleys in Wales, northern England and Scotland. Nuclear requires a big investment up front and good long term planning for what to do with the waste, and people don't like the idea of being nuclear reactors. Building a barrage across the Severn would massively environmentally destructive.

The energy policy in this country is somewhat paralysed. Whatever direction we go (it needs a mix of approaches) people WILL object.

 

[YorkshireBear]

We are going to hit problems- we're a net importer of gas, coal that's massively full of sulphur* is ever more expensive. On-shore wind power is controversial; off shore power isn't yet "break even" though it is getting there. A big increase in hydro can only be done by flooding many, many valleys in Wales, northern England and Scotland. Nuclear requires a big investment up front and good long term planning for what to do with the waste, and people don't like the idea of being nuclear reactors. Building a barrage across the Severn would massively environmentally destructive.

The energy policy in this country is somewhat paralysed. Whatever direction we go (it needs a mix of approaches) people WILL object.

It is a bit tricky. It is the main reason i support nuclear, if people object everything use the power that generates the most....