Northern and TPE Consultation Document

[Olaf]

With lots in the press lately about devolved powers for the nations and regions, the press need to kick up a stink about the difference between the new Scotrail franchise and the proposed Northern franchise.

Scotrail get HSTs, brand new EMUs, lots more capacity, tourist coaches etc, Northern get no prospect of anything positive except being made to do more for less.

If you see a problem, why rely on the press to raise the issue for you?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With lots in the press lately about devolved powers for the nations and regions, the press need to kick up a stink about the difference between the new Scotrail franchise and the proposed Northern franchise. Scotrail get HSTs, brand new EMUs, lots more capacity, tourist coaches etc, Northern get no prospect of anything positive except being made to do more for less.

This being the case, how does the new Northern franchise sound attractive to those short-listed to make their tender applications.

 

[Andyh82]

Presumably the only benefit is the money they will make from the franchise, but the bidders must know that whoever wins it, their image and brand will be ruined. I'd predict whoever wins it, they won't put their main corporate name on it.

 

[northwichcat]

Replacing the 21st century 170s with four coach 1970s HSTs doesn't seem like a huge leap forward (look at all the frothing about the age of the 1980s 319s coming to Northern!).

Those two situations aren't really comparable.

The HSTs Scotrail will get have had an extensive internal refurbishment and there's probably no passenger benefits the 170s have which the refurbished HSTs don't have. Apparently Scotrail receive a lot of complaints about the 170s letting in too much cold air in the winter, so the end door layout will help with that problem. The HSTs can easily be reformed in to appropriate length formations for the services they will run.

The 319s are in fixed 4 car formations and currently look likely to replace 185s on Manchester Airport to Blackpool services (which have 2+2 seating, tables and air conditioning.) Network Rail have recommended against using 4 car EMUs on the Bolton corridor as the infrastructure and passenger numbers would be served better using 3/6 car formations. The 319s have 3+2 seating (and are set to retain it), which is unpopular when it replaces 2+2 seating - see the complaints about LM using 350/2s on services which used to get 350/1s and when SWT introduced new 450s with 3+2 seating.

Plus some of the additional EMU capacity in Scotland is coming in the form of Class 321s from London (again, imagine the wailing about "ancient London cast-offs" on this Forum if the 321s were due in Manchester )

The North West was promised new DMUs to arrive in 2012, then promised extensively refurbished cascaded 319s starting to arrive in 2013, which was put back to 2014 (minus the extensive refurbishment) and now it'll be 2015 before they are in passenger service (with a minimal refurbishment.) People are fed up of waiting and the cascaded trains aren't getting any younger.

(plus, whilst it's going to be part of a separate franchise, Scotland will also see 21st century Class 67s on the sleeper replaced by 1960s Class 73s - grass isn't always greener)

And newer isn't always better. I understand Northern received many positive comments about operating c.47 hauled 5 car mk2 sets between Manchester and Preston yesterday with people saying how much better it was than the usual (142s and 150s).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Presumably the only benefit is the money they will make from the franchise, but the bidders must know that whoever wins it, their image and brand will be ruined. I'd predict whoever wins it, they won't put their main corporate name on it.

The part that I have emboldened above is exactly what I had in mind when I made my posting.

 

[Class83]

Those two situations aren't really comparable.

The HSTs Scotrail will get have had an extensive internal refurbishment and there's probably no passenger benefits the 170s have which the refurbished HSTs don't have. Apparently Scotrail receive a lot of complaints about the 170s letting in too much cold air in the winter, so the end door layout will help with that problem. The HSTs can easily be reformed in to appropriate length formations for the services they will run.

The dwell times of the HSTs at Haymarket could be an issue, at least they'll be going through platforms 1 and 2 which are slightly less congested than 3 and 4. Power doors will help slightly, but it's a similar situation to TPE where the idea of long distance end door stock meets the reality of the majority of passengers needing to get on and off quickly.

 

[northwichcat]

According to an informed source the reason the TPE Direct Award hasn't been signed is because the next franchise may not start in February 2016. Network Rail are refusing to agree a timetable for North TPE electrification following on from them being behind schedule with North West electrification, which has resulted in DfT not knowing what to say in the ITT for the next TPE franchise, that they were supposed to publish in a couple of weeks.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

According to an informed source the reason the TPE Direct Award hasn't been signed is because the next franchise may not start in February 2016. Network Rail are refusing to agree a timetable for North TPE electrification following on from them being behind schedule with North West electrification, which has resulted in DfT not knowing what to say in the ITT for the next TPE franchise, that they were supposed to publish in a couple of weeks.

I should think NR's only partial excuse is the complexity of the Northern Hub plans awaiting planning permission in Manchester.
There's no excuse for late planning of base NW and TP electrification.
They've had 5 years planning time for NW and 3 for TP, and have repeatedly said that early delays have not affected later phases.
TP is supposed to be done by a different contractor, although there is no contract yet.
It's not long since they were talking about an "early start" on the east side.

 

[Class 170101]

A lot of this work seems to eb scheduled for December 2015 to December 2016 with some work before then but not as much as post December 2015 according to NR Rules of the Route.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

According to an informed source the reason the TPE Direct Award hasn't been signed is because the next franchise may not start in February 2016. Network Rail are refusing to agree a timetable for North TPE electrification following on from them being behind schedule with North West electrification, which has resulted in DfT not knowing what to say in the ITT for the next TPE franchise, that they were supposed to publish in a couple of weeks.

Having read the article in Modern Railways December (p16), it reads very badly for NR - and everybody else really.
The choice is to put out ITTs which have a lot of uncertainty, or agree Direct Award extensions for TPE/Northern for another year until NR's plans are more certain.
Apparently NR doesn't like the idea of agreeing to the CP5 dates and then being liable for any delays.
On top of the NR issues, there's the Northern DMU options to consider.
Plus still nothing about Rail North's role.

 

[northwichcat]

Having read the article in Modern Railways December (p16), it reads very badly for NR - and everybody else really.
The choice is to put out ITTs which have a lot of uncertainty, or agree Direct Award extensions for TPE/Northern for another year until NR's plans are more certain.
Apparently NR doesn't like the idea of agreeing to the CP5 dates and then being liable for any delays.
On top of the NR issues, there's the Northern DMU options to consider.
Plus still nothing about Rail North's role.

Northern should be easier to agree than TPE, given the service changes proposed for Northern aren't really any more significant than the changes which have occurred during the existing franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Now it's December do we know when DfT will take the next steps with the ITTs and consultation responses due to be published this month.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Northern should be easier to agree than TPE, given the service changes proposed for Northern aren't really any more significant than the changes which have occurred during the existing franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Now it's December do we know when DfT will take the next steps with the ITTs and consultation responses due to be published this month.

They'll have to put out some sort of statement this month.
I suppose there might be a second consultation on new proposals based on whatever early decisions they can make (route transfer, fleet size etc).
Then there's the February electrification report coming up.
Not to mention an election.
I actually think Northern is the more complicated, as it's where all the issues collide.

 

[northwichcat]

I actually think Northern is the more complicated, as it's where all the issues collide.

If you recall the start date of the current franchise was delayed because a date for the closure of the Oldham Loop hadn't been committed to.

Then during the franchise there's been revisions to allow:
1. Additional Manchester-Preston services (to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of the Virgin services on that corridor)
2. New Nottingham services.
3. Additional Stoke services.
4. Additional Manchester Airport and Chinley services to relieve pressure on South TPE services.
5. Acquiring additional 150s and 158s - some for extra capacity, others to directly/indirectly allow 2, 3 and 4 to happen.
6. Temporary acquisition of the 180s to allow for a delay in the 150s being released.
7. Acquiring additional electric carriages.
8. Changes to Stalybridge services on more than one occasion.
9. Starting/terminating some peak time Mid-Cheshire services at Stockport and withdrawal of a morning Crewe-Piccadilly stopper due to Virgin VHF.

I imagine the next franchise will be similar. There will be changes written in to be done alongside TPE changes but the dates will be subject to change.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If you recall the start date of the current franchise was delayed because a date for the closure of the Oldham Loop hadn't been committed to.

Then during the franchise there's been revisions to allow:
1. Additional Manchester-Preston services (to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of the Virgin services on that corridor)
2. New Nottingham services.
3. Additional Stoke services.
4. Additional Manchester Airport and Chinley services to relieve pressure on South TPE services.
5. Acquiring additional 150s and 158s - some for extra capacity, others to directly/indirectly allow 2, 3 and 4 to happen.
6. Temporary acquisition of the 180s to allow for a delay in the 150s being released.
7. Acquiring additional electric carriages.
8. Changes to Stalybridge services on more than one occasion.
9. Starting/terminating some peak time Mid-Cheshire services at Stockport and withdrawal of a morning Crewe-Piccadilly stopper due to Virgin VHF.

I imagine the next franchise will be similar. There will be changes written in to be done alongside TPE changes but the dates will be subject to change.

I think you'd say all those changes were incremental, based on evolving need and using a similar fleet.
Assuming DfT go for an 8-ish year franchise, there will be at least 2 radical changes of operation - full NW electrics in 2017 and then full Northern Hub/TP electrification in 2019, both with new/different fleets.
DfT will have to come up with a service structure to match both new timetables, determine how they are split between NP and TP, and ask for bids against them.
No wonder it's hard, especially if NR won't agree the dates!

 

[455driver]

Presumably the only benefit is the money they will make from the franchise, but the bidders must know that whoever wins it, their image and brand will be ruined. I'd predict whoever wins it, they won't put their main corporate name on it.

Dont brand it as the owning group then!
Up to 6 months ago could you see any Arriva logos anywhere on the Cross Country fleet?

 

[WatcherZero]

Apparently in small print of Autumn Statement docs is ITT for both Northern and TPE now 'early 2015'.

 

[Stats]

Apparently in small print of Autumn Statement docs is ITT for both Northern and TPE now 'early 2015'.

Would explain why Abellio has extended the deadline for responses to the PQQ for bidders wishing to participate in their rolling stock and maintenance tender for the Northern franchise from 1 December to 15 December.

 

[WatcherZero]

BREAKING NEWS: Cleethorpes to Manchester direct train service saved
THE direct Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport train service is to be retained.

Transport Minister Patrick McLoughlin has just announced in the House of Commons that the direct link will be included in the invitation to tender for the new South Transpennine franchise.

It comes after a Grimsby Telegraph-backed campaign to save the vital service which appeared to be under threat.

South TPE route option retained?

 

[northwichcat]

South TPE route option retained?

Given there was a proposal for an additional Manchester-Sheffield service and there's already a Sheffield-Hull service I wonder if Manchester-Sheffield-Hull could still be implemented alongside it.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

How do we know if it goes to Manchester hourly like it currently does?
They might be every 2 hours or only some go all the way.
We will only know when the Hull and Nottingham options have been shown.
Has the Scarborough, Barrow, Blackpool etc papers have similar news?

 

[WatcherZero]

Hansard now have the mornings debate.

In response to a question about the ECML from Cleephorpes MP his response was.

My hon. Friend, along with the Grimsby and Scunthorpe Telegraph, has led an interesting campaign. I am pleased to say that after consideration of the responses to our consultation on the Northern and TransPennine Express franchise, we have decided to retain the Cleethorpes services within the TPE franchise. The forthcoming invitation to tender for the TPE franchise will specify that direct services between Cleethorpes and Manchester airport should continue. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) have both been at the forefront of this campaign, and I am very pleased to announce today that it has been successful.

Other notes electrification task force is looking at 72 routes some of which are freight routes. One North interim report on HS3/other routes should reach McCloughlin by end of March. When asked to confirm whether yesterdays Pacer commitment was firm or just encouraged he dodged the question by attacking Labours record on electrification. HS2 College opening year would be 2017/18 about same time as construction starts.

Denton MP asked for a full rather than Parliamentary service for his station, basically told its a noble desire to be able to return to the station you left but to stop going on about it by the Speaker and Minister John Hayes.

McCloughlin says he expects interim electrification taskforce report in Feb. Answered a lot of 'can you electrify my local line' requests with I note your lobbying, wait for the report.

On Hull electrification he says hes coughed up the money hes now waiting on other people for the report.

Northumberland CC are commissioning a report on the reopening of the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Line.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...er-talks-and-electrification-overruns-drag-on

I have just read this Rail News article which says the ITT or Invitations to Tender, which will specify the next franchise expectations for the future train companies. Has been pushed back to early 2015 rather than this December. This is because DaFT had to change their plan after George Osbourne's Autumn statement.

 

[northwichcat]

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...er-talks-and-electrification-overruns-drag-on

I have just read this Rail News article which says the ITT or Invitations to Tender, which will specify the next franchise expectations for the future train companies. Has been pushed back to early 2015 rather than this December. This is because DaFT had to change their plan after George Osbourne's Autumn statement.

That link says the delay is due to delays with Network Rail infrastructure and electrification programs not the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

That link says the delay is due to delays with Network Rail infrastructure and electrification programs not the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

On the headline it says Pacer talks too. It must be related to the statement at least partially. They probably haven't picked a Pacer replacement option yet.

 

[northwichcat]

On the headline it says Pacer talks too. It must be related to the statement at least partially. They probably haven't picked a Pacer replacement option yet.

Pacer replacement was talked about when the shortlist was drawn up in August: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-transpennine-express-rail-operators-revealed

You could say the highlighting of it again and formally approving Windemere electrification is so the media hopefully forget the ITTs were supposed to be out this month and publish positive stories instead of questioning why the ITTs are delayed and uncovering a story about problems with Network Rail.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

On the headline it says Pacer talks too. It must be related to the statement at least partially. They probably haven't picked a Pacer replacement option yet.

I read it as being politically necessary to replace the Pacers (too many ministers have nodded and winked), but they can't finance a deal without major impact on Northern's next franchise.
Lease costs will go up and so will subsidy, so they need to rework the service spec to bring it back to an acceptable level.

I remember John Prescott saying "money was no object" when he agreed to roll out TPWS urgently after Ladbroke Grove.
What he really meant was the railway had to fund TPWS and they had to raid other projects to compensate (like putting off resignalling).
Similarly, replacing Pacers will have consequences elsewhere.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

According to Modern Railways (Jan 2015, pp 7, 9), the short-listed bidders for TPE have been told (in advance of the formal ITT) to plan on the basis of no new electric trains for the duration of the new franchise.
Similarly the Northern bidders have been told not to include cascaded 185s in any of their plans.
It also seems that there is some alternative plan being developed for TP South services.
All this is because of the likely delay to TP North electrification.
If true, it's a sorry state of affairs.
It also points to cascaded EMUs for Blackpool/Windermere TPE services.

There is also a long piece by Roger Ford on Pacer replacement which points at the D78 scheme being a goer.
This is because there is no alternative quick way to replace the Pacers without the rapid cascade of DMUs from new electrification, now delayed.

 

[158756]

The ORR decision letter on Alliance Rail's proposed WCML services refers to the scope cost and timing of electrification being as yet undecided, and Network Rail believing that reduced signalling headways are necessary on North TPE.
It says that issues with the deliverability of the project will be clarified in the next 12 weeks.

 

[WatcherZero]

Don't think anyone expected anything other than cascaded stock for Blackpool/Windermere. Said when they first announced the ITT that it was too short a franchise length to build on electrification and too long to be an efficient caretaker treading water. Lacked common sense.

The only way out of this mess now is the Government does a Chiltern and offers franchise extensions for investment in new rolling stock towards the end of the franchise that should give the franchisee the flexibility to respond to uncertain dates.

 

[158756]

According to Modern Railways (Jan 2015, pp 7, 9), the short-listed bidders for TPE have been told (in advance of the formal ITT) to plan on the basis of no new electric trains for the duration of the new franchise.
Similarly the Northern bidders have been told not to include cascaded 185s in any of their plans.
It also seems that there is some alternative plan being developed for TP South services.
All this is because of the likely delay to TP North electrification.
If true, it's a sorry state of affairs.
It also points to cascaded EMUs for Blackpool/Windermere TPE services.

There is also a long piece by Roger Ford on Pacer replacement which points at the D78 scheme being a goer.
This is because there is no alternative quick way to replace the Pacers without the rapid cascade of DMUs from new electrification, now delayed.

When you say 'no new electric trains', is that 'you may use 319s but not new build' or is it 'there will be no wires for you to use within the franchise period' ?