Northern Overcrowding

[APT618S]

If the Gov. won't fund the lease costs, who picks up the tab?

The problem I see that it is economically beneficial for the ROSCOs to scrap trains like the 153s than to sell them to the TOCs at scrap value to keep leasing costs of the existing trains high.

 

[londonbridge]

One of my fellow Sunderland supporters used to be involved with the EFL fixtures committee, I asked him about this earlier this year, part of it is down to the different numbers in the Premier league vs the EFL, meaning it’s not always possible to have one half of a pairing at home and the other away, however in the majority of cases where both are at home one of the games will get moved to Friday or Sunday on police advice. In some cases the police/authorities will sanction both clubs playing at the same time.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem I see that it is economically beneficial for the ROSCOs to scrap trains like the 153s than to sell them to the TOCs at scrap value to keep leasing costs of the existing trains high.

There probably ought to be some regulation that the state gets first refusal on any rolling stock disposed of by the ROSCO's.

 

[43096]

This is caused by the folly of leasing. If BR was still going, the 15x would be long since paid off and would cost zero to retain other than maintenance (this is why some TOCs have actually purchased rolling stock, e.g. the First-owned HST power cars). The idea that TOCs would have to pay for the use of fully-paid-off rolling stock was one of the greatest follies of privatisation.

It is not "folly". It is a logical way of resolving the conundrum of rolling stock life cycles (30 years+) with shorter term franchise contracts (7-15 years). It has also enabled massive investment in new trains over the last 25 years - it is highly unlikely the Treasury would have directly funded it.

Perhaps this could be part-reversed by the Government purchasing all the 15x and making them available for free.

You are totally contradicting yourself - if something is sold it obviously has a value to its owner. Those HSTs you mention that were sold to First back in 2004 were not cheap to buy and, guess what, First leased them to the Great Western franchise! So if the Government could purchase all the 15x units, they would be paying cash out. That cash needs to be passed on: they'd be leased to the operators! Even if operators buy direct, there is still a cost - they've paid for them so that cost has to be factored in somewhere.

 

[Andyh82]

I did wonder at the time whether the two car units would prove to be a mistake in terms of insufficient capacity. However Patrick McCloughlin had to go against the official written advice of his Permanent Secretary to get the Pacers replaced as the business case didn’t add up, so three car replacement units would probably have been pushing it.

Three car units would have been awkward operationally anyway as so many platforms are limited to four cars, so multiples of two car units are preferable and make more efficient use of limited paths into the big cities.

They should therefore have ordered a smaller number of 4 car units instead of running 2x2 cars as that would stop them using 2 car 195s on their own

Except for a few very specific routes, they should really have aimed for Northern to be a 3 car minimum railway

 

[bramling]

If the Gov. won't fund the lease costs, who picks up the tab?

It doesn’t help that the leasing companies appear to prefer to scrap stock than lease it cheaply.

I seem to remember Roger Ford posed the question as to how low we might see the lease charges go for a BR era unit. The answer seems to be not very.

 

[Watershed]

It is not "folly". It is a logical way of resolving the conundrum of rolling stock life cycles (30 years+) with shorter term franchise contracts (7-15 years).

There are plenty of alternative approaches which could have been used to avoid this being an issue. This outcome is purely a result of the Major government's ideological obsession with privatisation.

It has also enabled massive investment in new trains over the last 25 years - it is highly unlikely the Treasury would have directly funded it.

Yes, sadly the Treasury would rather put the capital expenditure on the "credit card" (by getting the ROSCO to pay for it), even though this means paying far more over the lifecycle of the rolling stock than if the money had been borrowed at government bond rates.

You are totally contradicting yourself - if something is sold it obviously has a value to its owner. Those HSTs you mention that were sold to First back in 2004 were not cheap to buy and, guess what, First leased them to the Great Western franchise! So if the Government could purchase all the 15x units, they would be paying cash out. That cash needs to be passed on: they'd be leased to the operators! Even if operators buy direct, there is still a cost - they've paid for them so that cost has to be factored in somewhere.

It only has a value because the marketplace was set up during privatisation with inflated rental values. The government couldn't get anyone to take the ROSCOs off their hands otherwise.

Even allowing for some of the costs which ROSCOs typically bear as part of the lease, the rental values bore little relation with the depreciated value of something like a 4VEP.

 

[6Gman]

They should therefore have ordered a smaller number of 4 car units instead of running 2x2 cars as that would stop them using 2 car 195s on their own

Except for a few very specific routes, they should really have aimed for Northern to be a 3 car minimum railway

As has already been pointed out the economic case for even the limited Pacer replacement programme was considered inadequate by the civil service and it was a political decision to go ahead.

A bigger replacement programme would have cost more and may well have been popular here, but would have needed to join the queue with all the other areas of public spending - health, education, policing, social care etc.

 

[Andyh82]

As has already been pointed out the economic case for even the limited Pacer replacement programme was considered inadequate by the civil service and it was a political decision to go ahead.

A bigger replacement programme would have cost more and may well have been popular here, but would have needed to join the queue with all the other areas of public spending - health, education, policing, social care etc.

Well indeed but then a couple of months later they didn’t have the same opinion with the Greater Anglia franchise so their regional services are now 3 car minimum

 

[jayah]

We should base our rolling stock strategy on returning to a previous level with no regard for modern operations, travel patterns or economics? (Sorry, being devil's advocate)

Your point is valid, but indicates nostalgic thinking. It would be better put as 'use the £200bn to lengthen trains and platforms for services that are already overcrowded.'

Two coach trains with huge toilets, space for wheelchairs, bikes and buggies and around 110 seats won't work except on the most terminally sparse routes.

The £78m being spent electrifying the Wigan to Bolton line would put a big dent in the problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not "folly". It is a logical way of resolving the conundrum of rolling stock life cycles (30 years+) with shorter term franchise contracts (7-15 years). It has also enabled massive investment in new trains over the last 25 years - it is highly unlikely the Treasury would have directly funded it.

It wasn't folly for new stock. It absolutely was for existing BR stock which should have remained in Government ownership rather than being flogged off in a fire sale.

You are totally contradicting yourself - if something is sold it obviously has a value to its owner. Those HSTs you mention that were sold to First back in 2004 were not cheap to buy and, guess what, First leased them to the Great Western franchise! So if the Government could purchase all the 15x units, they would be paying cash out. That cash needs to be passed on: they'd be leased to the operators! Even if operators buy direct, there is still a cost - they've paid for them so that cost has to be factored in somewhere.

But when they become old they are basically free.

 

[chris_in_salop]

It is not "folly". It is a logical way of resolving the conundrum of rolling stock life cycles (30 years+) with shorter term franchise contracts (7-15 years). It has also enabled massive investment in new trains over the last 25 years - it is highly unlikely the Treasury would have directly funded it.

"Massive investment in new trains over the last 25 years"?

I commute every day and do a lot of leisure travel in the west midlands and mid Wales . Almost all my journeys over the last few months have been in vehicles that are 30 or more years old - 150s, 153s, 158s.

Admittedly some have recently had a paint job. And some have even had the seating re-upholstered in the last decade.

So what "massive investment" are you referring to? Surely you don't mean that undersized, toilet-stinking plastic junk that Virgin inflicted on us 20 years ago.

 

[Mat17]

It started before privatisation. Sprinterisation replaced every 2 heritage DMU or LHCS vehicles with 1 Sprinter vehicle (or something along those lines).

3 for 2 I believe. For every 3 first gen vehicles pulled netted 2 sprinter vehicles added, iirc.

 

[43096]

It wasn't folly for new stock. It absolutely was for existing BR stock which should have remained in Government ownership rather than being flogged off in a fire sale.

Remained in Government hands and presumably hired out to the TOCs. AKA leasing.

But when they become old they are basically free.

Only once the acquisition cost has been written down, by which time maintenance costs are likely to be spiralling due to their age.

 

[43096]

"Massive investment in new trains over the last 25 years"?

I commute every day and do a lot of leisure travel in the west midlands and mid Wales . Almost all my journeys over the last few months have been in vehicles that are 30 or more years old - 150s, 153s, 158s.

Admittedly some have recently had a paint job. And some have even had the seating re-upholstered in the last decade.

So what "massive investment" are you referring to? Surely you don't mean that undersized, toilet-stinking plastic junk that Virgin inflicted on us 20 years ago.

Just because you haven't seen them in a limited area doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Judging by the area you're talking about, you've conveniently missed off the Turbostars and Desiros.

You might not like the Pendolinos and Voyagers (and I don't either), but they were still new trains financed by the ROSCOs.

 

[Paul Duck]

Overcrowded trains on the Durham Coast on weekends has been going on for over 20 years now. It doesn't matter what weekend it is most morning to early afternoon trains are severely & dangerously overcrowded. I remember a couple of years ago management turning up at Hartlepool on a December Saturday and been amazed at the numbers trying to travel. Still nothing has been done.
Northern did strengthen some services to 4 coaches on the Durham Coast a couple of weeks ago, but guess what... it was the international break so there was no football on all weekend!

The only ways I can see overcrowding being reduced is the Mayor standing up and demanding more units and Northern to pull their finger out. The upgrades to Darlington, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool stations will make adding extra services surely easier (rolling stock dependant). Once Sunderland is upgraded to 4 platforms surely there must be an intention/ appetite to run 1/2 hourly from Teesside to Sunderland (still hourly Teesside to Newcastle) and pax can change there for Metro services to Newcastle.

But remember no one travels off peak in the North East according to the DFT.

 

[jkkne]

Overcrowded trains on the Durham Coast on weekends has been going on for over 20 years now. It doesn't matter what weekend it is most morning to early afternoon trains are severely & dangerously overcrowded. I remember a couple of years ago management turning up at Hartlepool on a December Saturday and been amazed at the numbers trying to travel. Still nothing has been done.
Northern did strengthen some services to 4 coaches on the Durham Coast a couple of weeks ago, but guess what... it was the international break so there was no football on all weekend!

The only ways I can see overcrowding being reduced is the Mayor standing up and demanding more units and Northern to pull their finger out. The upgrades to Darlington, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool stations will make adding extra services surely easier (rolling stock dependant). Once Sunderland is upgraded to 4 platforms surely there must be an intention/ appetite to run 1/2 hourly from Teesside to Sunderland (still hourly Teesside to Newcastle) and pax can change there for Metro services to Newcastle.

But remember no one travels off peak in the North East according to the DFT.

It's pretty much the same further North on the Tyne Valley line. The Sprinters are hopeless for luggage or the large amount of shopping that some Teessiders seem to cart back down from the Metrocentre and they're no better a ride than the Pacers were at times. During West Coast it's even worse.

Living in Hexham I'll either drive or take the bus versus standing on the train.

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately there's been too much like for like replacement on Northern routes without the uplift in capacity needed. One can only hope that we speak up any surplus units and allow more sets to be doubled up.

 

[70014IronDuke]

When Sunderland were relegated to League One, Northumbria Police withdrew their objections to the Teams playing at home on the same day as naturally Sunderland's attendance is lower and the number of visiting fans is lower so it became manageable from a match control point of view. It'll likely change if Sunderland are promoted.

I believe Sunderland had 31K+ last Saturday.
I don't know if that includes season ticket holders who don't turn up, but even so, some Premier League clubs would be envious of that crowd. Still, Northumberland Police presumably know what they are doing - or do they?

 

[greyman42]

I believe Sunderland had 31K+ last Saturday.
I don't know if that includes season ticket holders who don't turn up, but even so, some Premier League clubs would be envious of that crowd. Still, Northumberland Police presumably know what they are doing - or do they?

Last Saturday would of been rammed regardless of Sunderland being at home.

 

[Miken]

Just boarded the 0730 Burscough Bridge to Alderley Edge service which is 2 coaches. It is already heaving and thankfully I'm off at Wigan but I rather think that by the time it's is even halfway to Manchester it will be a steaming petri dish of Covid particles. Northern it seems back to the bad old days of peak services with woefully inadequate passenger provision.

 

[gazzaa2]

Seems the same across the network. I got yet another 2 car packed out train into Lime Street from Manchester on Saturday when Liverpool were playing at home.

What's happened to their rolling stock?

Bring back the pacers, all is forgiven.

 

[Bigman]

Don't even try to squeeze on a 2 car 150 on a Saturday afternoon from Woodlesford when LUFC are at home. Enough said.

 

[tbtc]

Unfortunately there's been too much like for like replacement on Northern routes without the uplift in capacity needed. One can only hope that we speak up any surplus units and allow more sets to be doubled up.

You mean all of the 23m 153s and 30m 142/144s that were replaced by 46m 195s and 69m 170s?

And the services where two coach Sprinters were replaced by four coach EMUs?

Too much like for like?

No uplift in capacity?

There probably ought to be some regulation that the state gets first refusal on any rolling stock disposed of by the ROSCO's.

How would that work then?

There should have been a price fixed in the 1990s at which Government could aquire the assets at any future date? Given that we didn't know then whether the trains would be scrapped after five/ten years or remained in service for decades longer, that'd have been a brave decision, as well as potentially forcing the ROSCO to sell it to the Government for a fraction of what the scrap metal price was

Should this apply to all other assets sold on by Government too? e.g. any buildings sold by the Government should be able to be bought back by the Government for a peppercorn sum at a future date? Or would your law only apply to trains?

It doesn’t help that the leasing companies appear to prefer to scrap stock than lease it cheaply

There's a scrap metal price for them though

If it made business sense for ROSCOs to lease old trains for pennies then presumably they would be doing so

surely there must be an intention/ appetite to run 1/2 hourly from Teesside to Sunderland (still hourly Teesside to Newcastle) and pax can change there for Metro services to Newcastle

Something needs to be done

Whilst the Forum devotes a lot of attention to quiet branch lines, theres an underdeveloped market on the Durham coast - it seems odd that Newcastle - Leeds is just as quick a journey as Newcastle - Middlesbrough but even odder that Newcastle - Leeds can be fifteen or more coaches per hour (2x TPE plus 1x XC) whilst Newcastle - Middlesbrough gets a two coach Sprinter

More attention really should be focussed on routes like the coast route here - the Arriva Northern franchise promised a second train per hour from Newcastle to Middlesbrough but was coy about whether there'd be any benefit to Hartlepool etc (the suggestions were that it'd run via Stillington instead, on the already busy Durham corridor)

It's like we've washed our hands of the responsibility to deal with the Durham Coast though - maybe there's an assumption that the Metro north of the Wear will solve all of the problems - the Mayors "North Of The Tyne" and in Teesside both have their "local" priorities and nobody seems to be sufficiently engaged in Bigger Picture stuff to improve regional connectivity

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just boarded the 0730 Burscough Bridge to Alderley Edge service which is 2 coaches. It is already heaving and thankfully I'm off at Wigan but I rather think that by the time it's is even halfway to Manchester it will be a steaming petri dish of Covid particles. Northern it seems back to the bad old days of peak services with woefully inadequate passenger provision.

The mind boggles as to why they are having such massive problems with capacity given that they are currently operating little more than the pre-1998 timetable with a rather larger fleet than they had back then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2021 ==

Seems the same across the network. I got yet another 2 car packed out train into Lime Street from Manchester on Saturday when Liverpool were playing at home.

What's happened to their rolling stock?

Bring back the pacers, all is forgiven.

The Pacers should have stayed as "rush hour extensions" only, i.e. coupled to a PRM-TSI compliant unit. Their removal was solely political and very stupid.

 

[evergreenadam]

The mind boggles as to why they are having such massive problems with capacity given that they are currently operating little more than the pre-1998 timetable with a rather larger fleet than they had back then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2021 ==



The Pacers should have stayed as "rush hour extensions" only, i.e. coupled to a PRM-TSI compliant unit. Their removal was solely political and very stupid.

Yes, going to be interesting to see how they cope with a normal timetable.

 

[yorksrob]

You mean all of the 23m 153s and 30m 142/144s that were replaced by 46m 195s and 69m 170s?

And the services where two coach Sprinters were replaced by four coach EMUs?

Too much like for like?

No uplift in capacity?

Going by my own line, the Hallam, which is a fairly standard urban route (of the sort you like telling us all we should be concentrating on), we've had 3-carriage 144's replaced by 2-carriage 158's on the stoppers, which is a maintenance of capacity, whilst on the fasts, 2 carriage 158's have been replaced by 2 carriage 195's, which is a reduction in capacity. From what people have observed on here, this isn't the only line where this is happening.

How would that work then?

There should have been a price fixed in the 1990s at which Government could aquire the assets at any future date? Given that we didn't know then whether the trains would be scrapped after five/ten years or remained in service for decades longer, that'd have been a brave decision, as well as potentially forcing the ROSCO to sell it to the Government for a fraction of what the scrap metal price was

Should this apply to all other assets sold on by Government too? e.g. any buildings sold by the Government should be able to be bought back by the Government for a peppercorn sum at a future date? Or would your law only apply to trains?

It's fairly simple really. The rules would change whereby if the ROSCO decided to sell rolling stock, the Government would get first refusal. Price could be independantly ajudicated as with a compulsory purchase.

It may come as a surprise to you, but it is possible to conceive of legal and managerial arrangements that are different from John Major's Railways Act.

 

[cuccir]

I believe Sunderland had 31K+ last Saturday.
I don't know if that includes season ticket holders who don't turn up, but even so, some Premier League clubs would be envious of that crowd. Still, Northumberland Police presumably know what they are doing - or do they?

Which is around 75% of what they were getting on average in the Premier League. That's a noticeable reduction in the number of people in the space.

 

[tbtc]

Unfortunately there's been too much like for like replacement on Northern routes without the uplift in capacity needed. One can only hope that we speak up any surplus units and allow more sets to be doubled up.

Going by my own line, the Hallam, which is a fairly standard urban route (of the sort you like telling us all we should be concentrating on), we've had 3-carriage 144's replaced by 2-carriage 158's on the stoppers, which is a maintenance of capacity, whilst on the fasts, 2 carriage 158's have been replaced by 2 carriage 195's, which is a reduction in capacity. From what people have observed on here, this isn't the only line where this is happening

So you've gone from complaining about too much "like for like" replacement across Northern to accepting that there's been some huge increases in capacity across the franchise (as electrification, new trains and cascades has allowed all of the shortest stock to be removed), it's just that your local route isn't getting a share of that - fair enough

I absolutely agree that your local route is the kind of one that we should be focussing more on - I've suggested in the past that we could achieve a lot more out of it by interworking at Leeds, to get round the problems with the short platform (e.g. interworking a Sheffield - Barnsley - Wakefield - Leeds service with a Leeds - Castleford - Pontefract - Knottingley service every half hour would mean that you could have three/four coach trains at Platform 17, since there'd only be one train in Leeds at any time (even if the plan was that each service had a ten minute layover at Leeds, you'd never have two trains needing the same platform at the same time)

However, as you'll be aware, Platform 17 is restricted (forgive me for not remembering the exact length, but it's certainly under one hundred metres, and the separate Sheffield semi-fasts and Castleford services mean that both need the platform at the same time, so each service is restricted to only two carriages). I'm sure that Northern would love to stick more carriages on, but the train length is constrained by the length of this frustratingly short bay platform

Until we either spend large sums of money on lengthening it (money that appears in short supply), start running services from the Woodlesford lines into other platforms (which means conflicts with other lines, and cutting capacity for other routes) or interwork the two separate routes so that an arrival from Sheffield becomes the departing Knottingley train and vice versa (so that anything through Woodlesford can be three/four coaches long - my preferred solution), we are stuck bumping up against the problem of the short platform - something needs to be done, but it doesn't look like it'll happen

(for my cunning plan to work, you'd chop the "Sheffield - Castleford - Leeds" service at Barnsley or Wakefield - Wakefield to Castleford would be provided by the ex-Huddersfield service, Castleford would still have a half hourly service into Leeds it's just that they'd all be ex-Knottingley - stops at Darton and Normanton would be picked up by the "semi-fasts")

It's fairly simple really. The rules would change whereby if the ROSCO decided to sell rolling stock, the Government would get first refusal. Price could be independantly ajudicated as with a compulsory purchase.

It may come as a surprise to you, but it is possible to conceive of legal and managerial arrangements that are different from John Major's Railways Act.

There'd have been no problem with the ROSCOs agreeing a sale to the Government if they'd both found a reasonable price - I'm just wondering how far you want to go with this idea that the Government should be able to buy assets back lower than the market price though

Which is around 75% of what they were getting on average in the Premier League. That's a noticeable reduction in the number of people in the space.

I'm sure that there's a lot of Premier League teams who'd be delighted to retain three quarters of their attendances if they ever suffered a double relegation

But I suppose that it's not just a case of ten thousand fewer supporters at each match, it's also (for the purposes of this thread) about the fact that a lot of those ten thousand will have been travelling longer distances to matches (e.g. Manchester United would have brought a lot more to the away end than Rotherham United) - so it probably makes quite a difference to the numbers travelling by train to the Stadium of Light (whereas a lot of that 31k attending matches in the third tier will be relatively local to Wearside)

 

[david1212]

One cause goes back that when the franchise was re-tendered in 2004 it was on a no-growth basis so no new rolling stock was specified and that subsequently but before the stage IIIB diesel emissions deadline no new stock was voluntarily ordered. Further once new stock was ordered driven by the PRM deadline and route electrification there was not major fleet expansion.

The class 769's have been a disaster and their have been training delays from the Covid pandemic but regardless more stock should have been ordered so trains could be of adequate length / number of seats.