New Trains

[RichmondCommu]

G'day,

Here's a question for you all. Given that we all agree that the Pacers need replacing, what is there to stop a train leasing company from offering Northern a brand new train which has been accepted to run in the UK by Network Rail? In other words, could a class 172 be offered to Northern for customer evaluation? If the units went down well with the travelling public what is there to stop the leasing company and Northern from agreeing to lease the trains?

As a born again rail enthusiast, I dare say there are many things that have happened since privatisation that I’m not aware of but this seems like common sense to me! The Pacers could be kept in warm storage if the next Franchisee wasn't so keen but I’m sure NW commuters would love their brand new trains.

I look forward to your responses!

Richmond Commuter!

 

[90019]

what is there to stop a train leasing company from offering Northern a brand new train which has been accepted to run in the UK by Network Rail?

The DfT.

 

[swt_passenger]

G'day,

Here's a question for you all. Given that we all agree that the Pacers need replacing, what is there to stop a train leasing company from offering Northern a brand new train which has been accepted to run in the UK by Network Rail? In other words, could a class 172 be offered to Northern for customer evaluation? If the units went down well with the travelling public what is there to stop the leasing company and Northern from agreeing to lease the trains?

Northern are subsidised to allow them to lease X number of Pacers. They wouldn't be able to afford to lease 172s off their own bat, they'd need more DfT cash.

If you were to go back to one of the earlier threads about the LM 150 cascades, there's a FOI response that suggests that they may not even be able to use the 142s they are due to get back from FGW, unless a satisfactory business case is approved by DfT.

Voluntarily taking on 172s is a bit of a step up from that...

 

[WatcherZero]

Its less an issue on more profitable franchises, but at franchises like Northern which require large amounts of subsidy in particular (mainly due to cap and collar) the Dft has to agree to subsidise the trains in service.

 

[Yew]

I would say the main problem would be aquiring 172's. Roscos seem very reluctant to buy stock, prefering to keep their profits and let the taxpayer pay for the trains that help them line their pockets more.

 

[Boppawombat]

Are they going to fit rubber wheels to the Pacemakers and get them back on the roads instead? Perhaps Stagecoach can buy them all back and use them for buses again....!!!

 

[RichmondCommu]

I would say the main problem would be aquiring 172's. Roscos seem very reluctant to buy stock, prefering to keep their profits and let the taxpayer pay for the trains that help them line their pockets more.

I feared this might be the case. Have the Rosco's actually bought any passenger rolling stock? Despite their reluctance, does the government have the power to force them to contribute towards the cost of purchasing rolling stock? Surely the chances of getting Pacer replacements would be greatly increased if the Rosco's were to share the costs? If not where is the point in having Rosco's?

 

[Eng274]

Surely the chances of getting Pacer replacements would be greatly increased if the Rosco's were to share the costs?

Common sense alert!

Roscos seem to be shifty when it comes to forking out for new stock orders, mainly due to the rail industry being at a crucial point at the moment, what with the uncertainty of which lines will definitely be electrified, and hence this has a massive bearing on the rolling stock procurement policy (for example, its pointless panic-buying diesel multiple units in 2011 if mass electrification of their intended routes in 2025 renders these expensive diesel trains redundant. Its an unlikely scenario for trains to be redundant but it could happen, and that puts the fear of God into Roscos).

Also Roscos are owned by banks, and so if they can get government money to shoulder the long term financial burden while they pocket the lease charges, they like it very much.

The bi-mode IEP (eventual HST replacement) outcome is a compromise which covers all the bases, it allows electric running while under the wires, and diesel running when not. But it means many extra tons of redundant engines/transformers exist (depending which mode its running in at any given time) causing extra power consumption compared with a dedicated diesel or electric train. Its not the best solution, but its all that can be done until a set program of electrification is agreed

 

[Lampshade]

The ROSCOs should be forced to replace the Pacers. They were GIVEN to the ROSCOs with a balance sheet figure of £0, yet they charge £100,000 a year to lease them, since 1997 that equates to £13,800,000 just from leasing Pacers, talk about money for old rope

 

[RichmondCommu]

Common sense alert!

Roscos seem to be shifty when it comes to forking out for new stock orders, mainly due to the rail industry being at a crucial point at the moment, what with the uncertainty of which lines will definitely be electrified, and hence this has a massive bearing on the rolling stock procurement policy (for example, its pointless panic-buying diesel multiple units in 2011 if mass electrification of their intended routes in 2025 renders these expensive diesel trains redundant. Its an unlikely scenario for trains to be redundant but it could happen, and that puts the fear of God into Roscos).

Also Roscos are owned by banks, and so if they can get government money to shoulder the long term financial burden while they pocket the lease charges, they like it very much.

I fully appreciate your comments regarding electrification but in all fairness there are routes in S & W Yorks which will not be electrified for many years! I appreciate that reconditioned 319's will be a big help but they will not be much use on the Preston - Colne route and many others! Or local services between Manchester - Leeds / Sheffield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The ROSCOs should be forced to replace the Pacers. They were GIVEN to the ROSCOs with a balance sheet figure of £0, yet they charge £100,000 a year to lease them, since 1997 that equates to £13,800,000 just from leasing Pacers, talk about money for old rope

I can't believe how corrupt the ROSCO's appear to be. £13.8m would surely be enough to at least start the procurement ball rolling?

 

[Eng274]

I fully appreciate your comments regarding electrification but in all fairness there are routes in S & W Yorks which will not be electrified for many years! I appreciate that recontioned 319's will be a big help but they will not be much use on the Preston - Colne route and many others! Or local services between Manchester - Leeds / Sheffield.

There are routes that will never be electrified in this lifetime, I never meant to suggest that EVERY stretch of track should be electrified, if the DfT/Roscos knew for certain what was/wasn't being electrified then it would make rolling stock planning/procurement much easier.

But sometime in the future, wholesale diesel fuel could be too expensive for TOCs to viably run diesel trains, which will require an altogether new fuel source that doesn't need a Scalextric third rail or overhead wires. The underlined bit is what ROSCOs are also worried about when it comes to diesel trains - they do not want their stock to be sat idle due to obsolescence.

 

[RichmondCommu]

There are routes that will never be electrified in this lifetime, I never meant to suggest that EVERY stretch of track should be electrified, if the DfT/Roscos knew for certain what was/wasn't being electrified then it would make rolling stock planning/procurement much easier.

But sometime in the future, wholesale diesel fuel could be too expensive for TOCs to viably run diesel trains, which will require an altogether new fuel source that doesn't need a Scalextric third rail or overhead wires. The underlined bit is what ROSCOs are also worried about when it comes to diesel trains - they do not want their stock to be sat idle due to obsolescence.

Fair do's but a start could at least be made on replacing the worst examples of the Pacer fleet knowing full well that in 30 years time they will still be in use on certain routes. Not only that but surely diesel fuel could be replaced by bio fuel?

 

[IanPooleTrains]

I don't even see Northern, as much as I don't like them, taking the 172s.

I would gladly take a Pacer over the 172s and I don't like Pacers!

 

[Eng274]

Fair do's but a start could at least be made on replacing the worst examples of the Pacer fleet knowing full well that in 30 years time they will still be in use on certain routes. Not only that but surely diesel fuel could be replaced by bio fuel?

I agree that could be a certainty (there will probably still be diesel trains around in 30-40 years) but unfortunately a ROSCO would want a more solid guarantee that the train would be perfectly usable throughout the entire 40 year lifespan.

Bio-fuel works very well, but it requires a huge area of land to grow the rapeseed for biofuel conversion - which the UK does not have unfortunately, certainly not enough to shoulder the burden of the UK's annual demand for diesel. And I doubt the government would be happy if everybody converted to used vegetable oil from their local chippy rather than normal diesel, so the whole bio fuel escapade may see chipfat being taxed beyond recognition just like the fossil diesel counterpart.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't even see Northern, as much as I don't like them, taking the 172s.

I would gladly take a Pacer over the 172s and I don't like Pacers!

Ian, 172's were simply used as an example. With respect you don't exactly live in Pacer land do you old chap and so are not really qualified to pass judgement on them. Perhaps i should refer you to my sister in law who has a season ticket between Wigan and Manchester????

 

[Boppawombat]

Ian, 172's were simply used as an example. With respect you don't exactly live in Pacer land do you old chap and so are not really qualified to pass judgement on them. Perhaps i should refer you to my sister in law who has a season ticket between Wigan and Manchester????

Pace[make]rs on the line between Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield is bad enough. I am just surprised and amazed that these trains have been allowed to eke out their existence for so long, despite their well documented operational / reliability problems.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I agree that could be a certainty (there will probably still be diesel trains around in 30-40 years) but unfortunately a ROSCO would want a more solid guarantee that the train would be perfectly usable throughout the entire 40 year lifespan.

Bio-fuel works very well, but it requires a huge area of land to grow the rapeseed for biofuel conversion - which the UK does not have unfortunately, certainly not enough to shoulder the burden of the UK's annual demand for diesel. And I doubt the government would be happy if everybody converted to used vegetable oil from their local chippy rather than normal diesel, so the whole bio fuel escapade may see chipfat being taxed beyond recognition just like the fossil diesel counterpart.

Well it could be argued that if a ROSCO wishes to continue to lease trains it might have to except a 30 year lifespan (which I reckon you and I might agree is reasonable for certain routes in the NW). It’s impossible to give a solid guarantee on things like that. Perhaps ROSCO world has become a bit too cozy?

In terms of Bio-fuel, I agree that it would probably have to be imported but I would suggest that Brazil is a lot less volatile than Russia / the Middle East!

 

[swt_passenger]

I feared this might be the case. Have the Rosco's actually bought any passenger rolling stock? Despite their reluctance, does the government have the power to force them to contribute towards the cost of purchasing rolling stock? Surely the chances of getting Pacer replacements would be greatly increased if the Rosco's were to share the costs? If not where is the point in having Rosco's?

In broad terms ALL post privatisation stock has been bought by ROSCOs.

I guess where you are really coming from with this question, is 'have any ROSCOS bought stock on spec without a prior requirement'. The answer to that question is yes - but only very small numbers of 170s.

 

[thefab444]

In broad terms ALL post privatisation stock has been bought by ROSCOs.

I guess where you are really coming from with this question, is 'have any ROSCOS bought stock on spec without a prior requirement'. The answer to that question is yes - but only very small numbers of 170s.

In addition to the handful of Porterbrook Class 170s, the four Class 350/0s (now 360201 - 204) were purchased by Angel Trains for demonstration work, although these were probably part funded by Siemens as well.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also Roscos are owned by banks, and so if they can get government money to shoulder the long term financial burden while they pocket the lease charges, they like it very much.

They don't get government money though. What they get is a government guarantee that the particular stock will be used on a particular route, eg the WCML Pendolino fleet.

In other words the DfT provide a guarantee that there will always be someone to pay the leasing charges - but they don't pay any of the capital - that is arranged by the Rosco, just like it will be arranged for the Thameslink stock by what is effectively a newly formed Rosco...

 

[WatcherZero]

I fully appreciate your comments regarding electrification but in all fairness there are routes in S & W Yorks which will not be electrified for many years! I appreciate that reconditioned 319's will be a big help but they will not be much use on the Preston - Colne route and many others! Or local services between Manchester - Leeds / Sheffield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I can't believe how corrupt the ROSCO's appear to be. £13.8m would surely be enough to at least start the procurement ball rolling?

Frankly no, it would only buy you a dozen carriages.

The way the Dft has freaked out when stock was bought without their permission demonstrates the cause of reluctance by the ROSCO's to be proactive. Yes they could do with micromanaging less but they also have the responsibility of ensuring a coherent rolling stock strategy and the availability of stock to franchises, Franchises buying their own stock or ROSCO's buying unauthorised fleets would destroy the stability of the rolling stock market. Creating a independent procurement agent and fleet regulator with a commitment to organising consistent annual stock purchases would be a great help.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There have been points raised in postings so far, that seem to say that diesel units would not be required after electrification. But look at the area of the Northern franchaise in which Class 142 Pacers operate. Besides the Lancashire Triangle electrification in the Northern Hub proposals, there is still a very large mileage on BOTH sides of the Pennines that still have no plans for electrification, let alone nothing in the terms of cross-Pennine electrification.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Frankly no, it would only buy you a dozen carriages.

The way the Dft has freaked out when stock was bought without their permission demonstrates the cause of reluctance by the ROSCO's to be proactive. Yes they could do with micromanaging less but they also have the responsibility of ensuring a coherent rolling stock strategy and the availability of stock to franchises, Franchises buying their own stock or ROSCO's buying unauthorised fleets would destroy the stability of the rolling stock market. Creating a independent procurement agent and fleet regulator with a commitment to organising consistent annual stock purchases would be a great help.

Well, it's hardly coherent at the moment is it? All this stop / start of orders combined with incompatibility between types... DfT - Department for Twittishness?

 

[ainsworth74]

DfT - Department for Twittishness?

Well i isn't the letter I'd personally choose but otherwise I would say your spot on their Peter!

 

[tbtc]

I would gladly take a Pacer over the 172s

Easy to say when not forced to use Pacers regularly.

Some might argue that your line would get Pacers if it were further north, and that the 170s on that route would be better used on Pacer services like Sheffield - Leeds...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would gladly take a Pacer over the 172s and I don't like Pacers!

I have a feeling that you really meant to say....."and I don't like Pacers coming anywhere near Rugeley" at the end of your last sentence.

Perhaps a week's holiday at a certain location in Newton Heath would give you a more considered view of what Pacers actually are like for those of us unfortunate to have to use them on both sides of the Pennines.

 

[WestCoast]

I would gladly take a Pacer over the 172s and I don't like Pacers!

What is so bad about the 172s? I am a regular Pacer commuter and they are the only train where "normals" groan when they see one! Normally, they couldn't care less...

What really irks me is when people say "pacer or nothing". Well, factually it is true but it certainly typifies a poor attitude in the UK that wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere....

 

[87019Chris]

What I dont understand is they were built as a stopgap,:roll: not ment to last this long so why do we still have them; they are dangerous in crashes, even though the railways are the safest way of traveling I still dont like being on an un-refubished 142 ( with bus seats ), they are also dangerous on high speed routes, as there was an incident with one on an ecs move, it had an accident when one of the shafts on the underside of a 142 decided it didnt want to stay below and tried to free itself causing harm to people on a station and also if it had been in service then it would have caused harm to anyone inside the carrige. Also 142's can not meet current emmision standards so there is another reason, and in 30 years this stock willl probably be still in use as before up north gets electrified the south will be done ( dont want to turn this into a north vs. South thing but it will ) so that means that they will get a good amount of use out of it so the ROSCO's can stil make there big bucks out of this rolling stock. Also as scotland and wales demand there new stock and electrification i may just remind you that the notrhen network contains more population than both of these areas (seperatly)
And also the new 172's are better than 142's for sure as anything with a bogie is better than a 142.

 

[WatcherZero]

Because their cheap and the run, no matter how poor quality. For a ROSCO to replace them it must consider the cost of purchasing the new trains and also the loss of nolonger being able to lease the pacers when they still have x years left in them.

This is why the 2019 deadline is so good, if they can no longer lease them after that then they have no financial incentive not to replace them.

 

[fulshaw]

at the real risk of getting my head chewed off I think the banks all sold off their controlling stakes in the ROSCOS and not sure that it's Network Rail who say whether a train can run on our network - is that not down to the regulator?