Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Calder Vale-Chester is (effectively) required in spreadsheet MCR 1B, but in the 'from Leeds' section rather than the 'to Manchester' section......'Fifteen services departing from Leeds to Bradford Interchange shall also call at Warrington Bank Quay.'

It is the geographically-stated wording of the above that made me laugh, as any train running from Leeds to Bradford would need a most intriguing route to see Warrington Bank Quay as an interim stop...

 

[Senex]

Which existing service do you suggest axing? From what I've read there's no capacity to run a 2nd TPE service between Northallerton and Newcastle even with the proposed freight loops.

Is there a stronger commercial case for having two trains an hour linking Birmingham and Sheffield with Newcastle than for having two trains an hour linking Liverpool and Manchester with Newcastle?

 

[Deerfold]

It is the geographically-stated wording of the above that made me laugh, as any train running from Leeds to Bradford would need a most intriguing route to see Warrington Bank Quay as an interim stop...

There's no mention of it as an interim stop. Seems to make perfect sense (though not the most natural of wording).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Seems to make perfect sense (though not the most natural of wording).

It was the unnatural way that it was worded that made me laugh..

Sorry for mentioning the "interim stop"...just my quirky sense of humour coupled to the poor wording of the extract.

 

[northwichcat]

It is the geographically-stated wording of the above that made me laugh, as any train running from Leeds to Bradford would need a most intriguing route to see Warrington Bank Quay as an interim stop...

Well Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester-Warrington Bank Quay-Manchester-Rochdale-Bradford would be a scenic route for the most part.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is there a stronger commercial case for having two trains an hour linking Birmingham and Sheffield with Newcastle than for having two trains an hour linking Liverpool and Manchester with Newcastle?

This will all depend on how you view "The Northern Powerhouse", which last time I saw did not incorporate Birmingham.

 

[TBY-Paul]

Which existing service do you suggest axing? From what I've read there's no capacity to run a 2nd TPE service between Northallerton and Newcastle even with the proposed freight loops.

I'm always surprised that more use isn't made of the Ferryhill - Northallerton route via Yarm and the Stillington line. If the line was upgraded, you could have 1 TPE service an hour use the line with a stop at Stockton/Yarm.

 

[lejog]

It was the unnatural way that it was worded that made me laugh..

Sorry for mentioning the "interim stop"...just my quirky sense of humour coupled to the poor wording of the extract.

'To be fair to the civil servant that wrote the text (and that's possibly a first for me) it does make perfect sense in the context of the table in which it appears. Its only when it's reported out of context that it becomes ambiguous and amusing.

 

[Senex]

This will all depend on how you view "The Northern Powerhouse", which last time I saw did not incorporate Birmingham.

So far -- though who knows what idiocy the politicians will come up with next. The established pattern, though with no very long historic background, is that York-Newcastle is served by 2 ECML trains, 2 XC trains, and one TPE train per hour. But why should this be set in stone? Could there be a second TPE service per hour to give six altogether, especially given the Norther Powerhouse arguments, or if there are to be but five trains an hour, then why not 2 TPE rather than 2 XC would be my question? Leeds certainly deserves an hourly Scotland service, which one of the XC workings provides, but might the other XC not be a Leeds terminator, thus providing the extra capacity on the Birmingham-Leeds route that XC argues for? (Though the losers are then passengers from the Sheffield and southwards heading for York and beyond, who get only the slow route via Leeds.) Which groups of passengers get fast services, which get slow services, and which are made to change? What are the commercial arguments?

 

[BantamMenace]

I'm always surprised that more use isn't made of the Ferryhill - Northallerton route via Yarm and the Stillington line. If the line was upgraded, you could have 1 TPE service an hour use the line with a stop at Stockton/Yarm.

That wouldn't do anything to each congestion through Durham though

 

[po8crg]

Well Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester-Warrington Bank Quay-Manchester-Rochdale-Bradford would be a scenic route for the most part.

Involves a reversal at WBQ. Leeds-Huddersfield-Stalybridge-Stockport-Altrincham-Northwich-Warrington Bank Quay-Manchester Victoria-Rochdale-Bradford would do it with no reversal.

 

[Bantamzen]

Involves a reversal at WBQ. Leeds-Huddersfield-Stalybridge-Stockport-Altrincham-Northwich-Warrington Bank Quay-Manchester Victoria-Rochdale-Bradford would do it with no reversal.

Will this be an hourly service? Sounds like a great ale-trail, with an hour at each stop.....

 

[po8crg]

Will this be an hourly service? Sounds like a great ale-trail, with an hour at each stop.....

That I have to agree with.

Hey, it would give a regular service on the Stalybridge-Stockport line too.

 

[northwichcat]

I noticed in Porterbrook's 323 brochure they claim the following:

The 3-car units contain almost as many seats as a 4-car unit of 20m vehicles so the running cost per seat is around 25% less than the more common 20m design.

That might be worth noting when suggesting 319s should replace 323s to give Northern a common fleet.

 

[Class377/5]

I noticed in Porterbrook's 323 brochure they claim the following:

That might be worth noting when suggesting 319s should replace 323s to give Northern a common fleet.

Well that's simple word play. A 4 car 20m unit like the 319s are 80m long. The 323s are 70m long. The are almost the same length.

 

[northwichcat]

Well that's simple word play. A 4 car 20m unit like the 319s are 80m long. The 323s are 70m long. The are almost the same length.

The track access (including electricity consumption) is significantly cheaper for a 323 over a 319. Leasing costs we don't know but Porterbrook set them and they are the ones making the claim.

 

[po8crg]

Well that's simple word play. A 4 car 20m unit like the 319s are 80m long. The 323s are 70m long. The are almost the same length.

But the relevant thing, cost-wise, is the track access charge, which is 5.82p for a 323 motor and 5.17p for a 323 trailer, and 12.88p for a 319 motor and 4.43p for a 319 trailer, so that's 26.17p for a 4-car 319 and 16.81p for a 3-car 323. The 319 will also pay 25% more for electrification asset usage, as that's per-vehicle-mile. Not sure about electricity consumption, but I think the 319 uses more as well.

(Prices from http://www.networkrail.co.uk/using-our-network/cp5-access-charges/ )

 

[BantamMenace]

But the relevant thing, cost-wise, is the track access charge, which is 5.82p for a 323 motor and 5.17p for a 323 trailer, and 12.88p for a 319 motor and 4.43p for a 319 trailer, so that's 26.17p for a 4-car 319 and 16.81p for a 3-car 323. The 319 will also pay 25% more for electrification asset usage, as that's per-vehicle-mile. Not sure about electricity consumption, but I think the 319 uses more as well.

(Prices from http://www.networkrail.co.uk/using-our-network/cp5-access-charges/ )

Makes a very good argument for potentially paying slightly over the odds for more 323s from LM if possible, when is the lease up on them?

 

[northwichcat]

Not sure about electricity consumption, but I think the 319 uses more as well.

Track access includes electricity consumption where applicable, that's why EMUs (on average) are more pricey than DMUs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Makes a very good argument for potentially paying slightly over the odds for more 323s from LM if possible, when is the lease up on them?

There is no doubt that the Northern Rail Class 323 are a popular unit on the routes they run upon.

 

[Class83]

I noticed in Porterbrook's 323 brochure they claim the following:

That might be worth noting when suggesting 319s should replace 323s to give Northern a common fleet.

Given that the 4*20 319 has to include 2 extra doors than a 3*23 323 not that surprising that seating capacity is similar, however, the 319 will have a significantly higher crush loading capacity. Are there 30-40 323s spare which the new Northern Franchisee can lease instead of the 319s though?

 

[TBY-Paul]

I'm always surprised that more use isn't made of the Ferryhill - Northallerton route via Yarm and the Stillington line. If the line was upgraded, you could have 1 TPE service an hour use the line with a stop at Stockton/Yarm.

That wouldn't do anything to each congestion through Durham though

Whilst it wouldn't do much to ease congestion at Durham (that would need Leamside re-opening) it would remove a path between Ferryhill and Skelton Junc, if you miss out Northallerton and used the low level route, so you don't have to go onto the Fast lines.

 

[Greybeard33]

Given that the 4*20 319 has to include 2 extra doors than a 3*23 323 not that surprising that seating capacity is similar, however, the 319 will have a significantly higher crush loading capacity. Are there 30-40 323s spare which the new Northern Franchisee can lease instead of the 319s though?

And Porterbrook's 319 brochure suggests the option of removing some seats from the trailer cars to further increase crush loaded capacity.

With the prospective future surplus of old EMUs, Porterbrook must be anxious to keep its 86 319s in service as long as possible, in competition with Angel Trains' 317s and Eversholt's 318s, 320s, 321s and 322s. Whereas the 43 323s will no doubt remain in demand. So Porterbrook might be expected to offer attractive lease rates for the 319s, which might offset their higher running costs vis-a-vis the 323s.

 

[lejog]

We are looking for a complete modernisation of the Northern rolling stock fleet, which will involve replacing Pacer trains completely by 2020 and delivering high-quality modern trains for passengers. Bidders’ rolling stock plans must include at least 120 new-build carriages for use on non-electrified routes. The new carriages that will be introduced on the Northern network, along with the release of diesel units following the introduction of electric trains on newly-electrified routes, will enable the replacement of the Pacer units. Existing electric and diesel trains on Northern will receive a complete modernisation to make them ‘as new’ as soon as practicable after franchise start, with the emphasis that the design of new and existing interiors should feel thoroughly modern and focus on passenger comfort.

I've just been reading the documents fully and came across this which I don't think has been discussed. As well as axing Pacers, all existing DMUs and EMUs are to receive a "complete modernisation". Blimey.

Are there any ROSCO glossies for refurbished Sprinters?

 

[WatcherZero]

They tend to produce them to help sell them when they will become off lease, they don't tend to produce promotional materials for stock that already has a home.

 

[northwichcat]

Porterbrook have done some for most of their DMUs. Although, not 156s for some reason and their 153 brochure is basic - it says they have no plans to make them compliant for post-2019 but doesn't look at alternative options.

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/pages/brochuresPDF.html

 

[lejog]

Thanks for that. I've now got on to the Northern ITT which makes it sound like travelling on Northern will be a pleasure by 2020, although it provides a get-out clause.

(The Franchisee .....will (as a minimum) ensure that from 1 January 2020 onwards all rolling stock that forms part of the Train Fleet:
i. Has been subject to such refurbishment as is necessary in order that passengers will perceive the overall design, internal ambience, condition and facilities, and the external condition, as being thoroughly modern, comfortable and comparable to that of new or nearly-new rolling stock (so far as possible given the engineering and technical constraints of the fleets in question);

 

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Northern ITT
(The Franchisee .....will (as a minimum) ensure that from 1 January 2020 onwards all rolling stock that forms part of the Train Fleet:
i. Has been subject to such refurbishment as is necessary in order that passengers will perceive the overall design, internal ambience, condition and facilities, and the external condition, as being thoroughly modern, comfortable and comparable to that of new or nearly-new rolling stock (so far as possible given the engineering and technical constraints of the fleets in question);

What does this mean for the 319s? Presumably the engineering and technical constraints would allow 2 + 2 seating in pace of 3+ 2 and seating raised higher to allow the view out of the windows to be seen a bit more comfortably, but what about retro-fitting the air-conditioning that is seen as a sine qua non for modern passenger stock? Could that be done? If not, this 30-year-old stock is going to seem very dated and sub-standard indeed.

 

[po8crg]

What does this mean for the 319s? Presumably the engineering and technical constraints would allow 2 + 2 seating in pace of 3+ 2 and seating raised higher to allow the view out of the windows to be seen a bit more comfortably, but what about retro-fitting the air-conditioning that is seen as a sine qua non for modern passenger stock? Could that be done? If not, this 30-year-old stock is going to seem very dated and sub-standard indeed.

Porterbrook have looked at this:

Air Conditioning

This feature has become standard on modern trains, however this was not the case when the Class 319s were built.

Concept designs have been produced for fitting air conditioning but this is not a simple operation, primarily because the auxiliary supply cannot support the additional electrical load and must be replaced by an upgraded electronic system.

Current proposals assume the existing windows are retained with hopper ventilators sealed up. Conditioned air would be fed into the vehicle via new ducts set into the vehicle ceiling controlled by sensors in the air return path.

Alternative more basic air cooling systems have been proposed and could be fitted if desired, however to provide reasonable passenger comfort levels replacement of the auxiliary supply system remains essential.

 

[lejog]

What does this mean for the 319s? Presumably the engineering and technical constraints would allow 2 + 2 seating in pace of 3+ 2 and seating raised higher to allow the view out of the windows to be seen a bit more comfortably, but what about retro-fitting the air-conditioning that is seen as a sine qua non for modern passenger stock? Could that be done? If not, this 30-year-old stock is going to seem very dated and sub-standard indeed.

The ITT does go on to specify things like toilets, WiFi, charging points, tables, luggage space and yes air conditioning for all rolling stock by 2020:

Air conditioning and heating systems that are designed to operate effectively and reliably within the range of ambient temperatures normally experienced across the Franchise geography;

although there is the possible get out clause about engineering and technical constraints mentioned in my last post.