New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[Mikey C]

It's a fairly conventional 20m, 2 doors per side suburban EMU, basically a modern direct replacement for the 455, when I think First/MTR think something more Crossrail or S-stock-esque is needed?

Well the similar 700s are deemed ok for Thameslink use, and I assume the 717s operating into Moorgate will be similar 2 door 20m units...

 

[HH]

I think there is a point there which the discussion so far hasn't considered. Everything has to be paid for. The ROSCO has bought the 707s, probably with money from a bank or other finance organisation which it must repay over time. It expected to receive an income from leasing the trains which would cover those outgoings, pay for refurbs at intervals, and produce a profit.

Now it won't receive the income from the 707s once the new stock for First/MTR arrives. In the worst case, though it's unlikely, the 707s would never be used again and the ROSCO would make a big loss on them. More probably they will find another home for them, though not necessarily immediately. (After all, the 442's were in store for a time after SWT stopped using them in 2007 and before they went to GatEx, and there'll be another gap, though shorter, before they re-enter service with First/MTR.) So for a period the ROSCO won't get a leasing income from the 707s, but it will have to repay the entity from which it obtained the finance, and storage costs. If as HH has stated the ROSCO has to offer a lower leasing cost to another TOC to take them on, and if it also has to pay to have them reliveried and perhaps other modifications, that means its planned income stream is affected for several years and perhaps throughout the life of the trains.

I don't suppose many tears will be shed for the ROSCO, but it will look at the situation and, in order to rebalance its financial position, will consider whether it can raise lease rentals generally for its other trains as new franchises come up. If it is able to do that, the costs to future TOCs will be higher. That in turn would lead to those TOCs seeking higher fares to cover those higher costs, and/or lower premiums to the DfT. Those things mean that passengers pay a bit more to travel, and/or that government income is lower, so as passengers or taxpayers the public feel the outcome.

It won't of course make a massive difference to fares or government income, but the decision not to keep the 707s will have the kind of effects I've described.

Maybe, with many other EMUs being replaced and needing new homes, the ROSCO won't be able to increase its charges generally - even though the majority of the EMUs soon to be displaced are at least 20 years older than the 707s. The ROSCO may have to face a long-term squeeze on its profits. In that case the ramifications feed through to investments such as pension funds, or to an increase in the rates at which those institutions that provide money for rolling stock purchases are prepared to lend it.

Things are inter-related, in ways that we may not normally have a reason to think about, and I think that although the decision not to keep the 707s may make financial sense for First/MTR in 2017, it will continue to produce effects for very much longer.

It has been considered and the point made already. It's a valid point, but is it correct?

1. If one ROSCO simply raises its prices then no-one will buy from that ROSCO.

2. Will all ROSCOs act in concert? I hope not, because that would be illegal.

3. ROSCOs already charge more if the guaranteed rental period is shorter.

4. They are no longer the only players in the market.

I would expect some behaviour change, but I don't see an across the board large increase in rolling stock costs.

 

[HH]

Well the similar 700s are deemed ok for Thameslink use, and I assume the 717s operating into Moorgate will be similar 2 door 20m units...

700s are Metroised. I would expect the Moorgate stock to be so as well.

 

[Goldfish62]

There seems to be a large gulf between the new franchisee's promises about frequency increases and journey time reductions, and the reality of what can be achieved with the current and approved infrastructure improvements. Given this, how have they been permitted to make such seemingly undeliverable claims and win the franchise?

Am I being too simplistic, or is this essentially a scandalous mess?

Neither. The journey time savings and service increases were mandatory requirements in the ITT that has been in the public domain since last summer. Not sure why it should all be such a surprise. Looking a the Windsor lines it's not difficult for example to work out the Windsor and Reading line service patterns and how the journey time savings will be achieved.

 

[The Ham]

Agreed - It will also lead to RoSCos specifying features that make units more cascadeable and / or a return to section 54 in some form.

The RoSCos with stock leaving the franchise:
Porterbrook: 455, 456, 458
Angel: 707

The RoSCos with stock arriving at the franchise:
Angel: 442
UNKNOWN: new stock


The RoSCos with stock staying at the franchise:
Angel: 444, 450
Porterbrook: 158, 159

So the question is which RoSCo is financing the new stock?

So Angel lose out on the 707's and gain on 442's. Which at first glance doesn't look that great a deal as there will only be 90 coaches on lease rather than 150. However they are left with a class that is nearly new and potentially has more scope to be leased. Rather than a fairly specialist EMU that would have been limited in where it could run and in many people's eyes was destined for scrap (either in full or in part) or use as coach stock.

Personally I don't think that they have done too badly out of it and certainly won't be too concerned at this stage. By the end of 2021, if no home have been found for them, then they may be getting fairly worried.

 

[Mikey C]

700s are Metroised. I would expect the Moorgate stock to be so as well.

The 707s looks pretty Metroised to me as well!

http://www.vagonweb.cz/fotogalerie/foto/201602/DSC_0286.jpg

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well the similar 700s are deemed ok for Thameslink use, and I assume the 717s operating into Moorgate will be similar 2 door 20m units...

Thameslink is a bit different in that it is also a longer distance service. These services are more like LO or Crossrail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

700s are Metroised

They're not, they're a suburban 2+2 layout with some metro type features. A metro layout involves things like side-facing seats and a very large number of doors - think S-stock.

 

[HH]

They're not, they're a suburban 2+2 layout with some metro type features. A metro layout involves things like side-facing seats and a very large number of doors - think S-stock.

Let's call them semi-metroised then. DfT think they're metroised...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let's call them semi-metroised then. DfT think they're metroised...

But I think First/MTR want something *more* metroised, i.e. like S-stock. And having seen loadings on suburban SWT services I can see why.

 

[HH]

The 707s looks pretty Metroised to me as well!

They do appear to be similar to Cl700. I strongly doubt that the internal layout of their replacements will be much different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They do appear to be similar to Cl700. I strongly doubt that the internal layout of their replacements will be much different.

I expect it will be more like the Crossrail units with more side-facing seating and either three doors or short vehicles.

 

[swt_passenger]

But I think First/MTR want something *more* metroised, i.e. like S-stock. And having seen loadings on suburban SWT services I can see why.

Perhaps in the final analysis Stagecoach failed to take the heavy hint in the ITT that the 455s, 456s, 458s and 707s were all inadequate in terms of the particular requirement was to improve dwell times at the station with the highest "churn" of passengers, i.e. Clapham Junction.

AFAICS it was made fairly clear in the ITT that DfT wanted something to be done, so maybe SWT's proposal, whatever it was (maybe trying to cram far more trains into the timetable?) was found wanting. Maybe they wanted to muddle through for a few years with more minor alterations to the layout of the 455s and 458s and possibly some alter some 450s again? It would possibly only have put off a change of fleet for a few years, perhaps at the time of the next franchise start.

As is usually the case we'll probably never find out the exact details of the failed bid, but no doubt there'll be plenty of rumour and speculation...

 

[HH]

But I think First/MTR want something *more* metroised, i.e. like S-stock. And having seen loadings on suburban SWT services I can see why.

That's not what I hear. Of course specifications could change, with the DfT's agreement.

 

[HH]

Perhaps in the final analysis Stagecoach failed to take the heavy hint in the ITT that the 455s, 456s, 458s and 707s were all inadequate in terms of the particular requirement was to improve dwell times at the station with the highest "churn" of passengers, i.e. Clapham Junction.

AFAICS it was made fairly clear in the ITT that DfT wanted something to be done, so maybe SWT's proposal, whatever it was (maybe trying to cram far more trains into the timetable?) was found wanting. Maybe they wanted to muddle through for a few years with more minor alterations to the layout of the 455s and 458s and possibly some alter some 450s again? It would possibly only have put off a change of fleet for a few years, perhaps at the time of the next franchise start.

As is usually the case we'll probably never find out the exact details of the failed bid, but no doubt there'll be plenty of rumour and speculation...

You're assuming that Stagecoach lost the bid because of an inferior rolling stock strategy. That's a massive assumption, which may very well not be correct.

 

[swt_passenger]

They do appear to be similar to Cl700. I strongly doubt that the internal layout of their replacements will be much different.

In terms of the average number of seats per carriage the 707 and both 700 variants are almost identical. Someone did the figures a few weeks ago in another forum:
707 avg 54
700/0 avg 53
700/1 avg 55

Given that the 707s don't have tiolets, then that actually suggests there might be slightly more standing space in a 707 than a 700...

 

[swt_passenger]

You're assuming that Stagecoach lost the bid because of an inferior rolling stock strategy. That's a massive assumption, which may very well not be correct.

Exactly why I said perhaps. It definitely was an assumption, what else could it be in context?

 

[HH]

In terms of the average number of seats per carriage the 707 and both 700 variants are almost identical. Someone did the figures a few weeks ago in another forum:
707 avg 54
700/0 avg 53
700/1 avg 55

Given that the 707s don't have tiolets, then that actually suggests there might be slightly more standing space in a 707 than a 700...

Interestingly I hear that the specifications put out included toilets.

 

[HH]

Exactly why I said perhaps. It definitely was an assumption, what else could it be in context?

Indeed. Given the ITT I would be surprised if the strategies weren't broadly similar. Of course there will have been differences, but there are lots more elements that would have affected the outcome at least as much, if not more:

1. The price!
2. Operations - timetables and performance
3. Customer Service, including fares/ticketing
4. How DfT assessed the deliverability of their plans - it's all very well having good strategies, but bidders have to provide convincing plans that they can deliver the benefits.

 

[squizzler]

So lets look at the possibilities for these trains to replace SWT's existing fleet being introduced in 2019.

Bombardier Aventra (unlikely due to Crossrail/TfL order)
CAF Civity (unlikely due to factory order full with TPE/Northern order).
Hitachi AT100 (Will any European factory have availability?)
Stadler Flirt UK (Busy delivering Greater Anglia fleet.

Is there any possibility that Alstom could be in a position to offer a replacement for the 707s?

How about ?

• CRRC (Chinese)
• Pesa Dart (poland)
• Newag Impuls (poland)

Newag even have a "powerhouse" type bi-mode that'll be perfect for the route to Exeter!

 

[Bletchleyite]

[*]Pesa Dart (poland)

I hope not, those are awful trains. They're supposed to be a Polish equivalent of the Stadler FLIRT, but have almost none of its good features. Ugly, tiny windows etc. Cheap rubbish of the worst order.

 

[HowardGWR]

I hope not, those are awful trains. They're supposed to be a Polish equivalent of the Stadler FLIRT, but have almost none of its good features. Ugly, tiny windows etc. Cheap rubbish of the worst order.

According to Ian Walmsley of Modern Railways, that'll be what is chosen then.

 

[Deepgreen]

Will the 455 AC traction conversions cease now, if the new order is to replace them?

 

[infobleep]

What are the chances of some of these things being introduced sooner? For example could they add the Farnham to Guildford earlier or will these changes require additional rolling stock and staff.

Would be good to see some 455s go to and from Farnham in the short term. I'm sure the Alton Line Users would approve

Talking of staff. I assume they will need more drivers and guards to run this franchise.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Deepgreen]

Neither. The journey time savings and service increases were mandatory requirements in the ITT that has been in the public domain since last summer. Not sure why it should all be such a surprise. Looking a the Windsor lines it's not difficult for example to work out the Windsor and Reading line service patterns and how the journey time savings will be achieved.

I was thinking of the main line primarily, but on the Windsor route, presumably the level crossings' risk assessments will threaten any increases in frequency?

 

[Mikey C]

They're not, they're a suburban 2+2 layout with some metro type features. A metro layout involves things like side-facing seats and a very large number of doors - think S-stock.

Well it wouldn't be hard to change the seating to introduce a few sideways seats.

The 345s may have 3 doors per carriage, but then they are 23m units. The overground 710s I'm pretty sure will be 20m units with 2 doors per carriage

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the S-stock is 18m vehicles with 3 doors... I'm thinking a bit like that.

You're talking services which are really not dissimilar to the Metropolitan Line.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Will the 455 AC traction conversions cease now, if the new order is to replace them?

Would be sad day to see those Slow Wobbly Trains go.

 

[HH]

What are the chances of some of these things being introduced sooner? For example could they add the Farnham to Guildford earlier or will these changes require additional rolling stock and staff.

Would be good to see some 455s go to and from Farnham in the short term. I'm sure the Alton Line Users would approve

Talking of staff. I assume they will need more drivers and guards to run this franchise.

Strengthening trains doesn't require additional staff, but there are also additional services, so yes there will be an increase in train crew.

I imagine that the timescales are as good as they can achieve, because why would you wait - the sooner they're in the sooner you get the benefits.

 

[Feathers44]

Would be sad day to see those Slow Wobbly Trains go.

I've lived with them for most of my life. I'm strangely attached to them so it would be a shame to lose them. Air conditioned units in the summer, however, could be a convincer.