Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[Xenophon PCDGS]

[*]120 carriages sounds good (though we don’t know how “self powered” they’ll be), but will be a drop in the ocean compared to Pacer replacement – will still need lots of electrification and cascading if you want to be rid of Pacers by 1 January 2015.

I learn something new every day on this website. When was it ever said (and by who) that there was a hope that Pacers would be disposed of by 1st January 2015?

That particular aspiration is now two months past its deadline.

 

[Statto]

Good to see an increase on the Liverpool-Wigan line Sunday service frequency to 2tph.

Interesting proposals for a Boxing Day service.

 

[Snapper]

Some thoughts & observations here - including on what Rutnam thinks getting rid of the Pacers will cost..https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/the-pacer-change-hits-northern/

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think you'll find Blackburn has had a direct service to Manchester for a while now!

Not something that can be said for Accrington, says he remembering that once services to Accrington did once run from Manchester Victoria via Bury.

 

[158756]

Can the franchise requirements be changed after publication of the ITT, bearing in mind the upcoming spending review and the practically non existent business case for replacing Pacers? As in are people safe in trumpeting 'the end of the line for the dreaded Pacer' as on the BBC this evening, or may we yet be disappointed?

What is anyone's interpretation of whether D78s can be used? They appear to be specifically ruled out as the 120 new carriages, but could they be classed as new build in addition to those? Or alternatively are LU a 'relevant operator' for them to be classed as existing EMUs? (Considering section 5.4.2.26)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can the franchise requirements be changed after publication of the ITT, bearing in mind the upcoming spending review and the practically non existent business case for replacing Pacers? As in are people safe in trumpeting 'the end of the line for the dreaded Pacer' as on the BBC this evening, or may we yet be disappointed?

What is anyone's interpretation of whether D78s can be used? They appear to be specifically ruled out as the 120 new carriages, but could they be classed as new build in addition to those? Or alternatively are LU a 'relevant operator' for them to be classed as existing EMUs? (Considering section 5.4.2.26)

Are you saying that the Ministerial comment regarding the Pacers was made and that those charged with the upcoming spending review were not aware that such a nationally rolled-out proposal was about to be made?

Most people, seeing the phrase "new-build" would automatically assume the "Ronseal syndrome" as thinking "exactly what it says on the tin" and not go deeper into the convoluted Vivarail D78 PR method of "new lamps for old" scenario hoping to slip this under the radar of established logic....

Perhaps the next Vivarail project will be obtain a fleet of Trabants from their former owners, proposing to completely refurbish them and then on project completion to call them "new-build"....

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Can the franchise requirements be changed after publication of the ITT, bearing in mind the upcoming spending review and the practically non existent business case for replacing Pacers? As in are people safe in trumpeting 'the end of the line for the dreaded Pacer' as on the BBC this evening, or may we yet be disappointed?

Until there is a contract with the winner (end of 2015, after a change of government), anything can change.

Overall, in the face of infrastructure uncertainty (electrification and Ordsall Chord), I think they have done a decent job on the ITTs.
Whether it lasts 7-9 years is questionable, and much is unsaid.
Rail North has still not come out for identification, other than spokesman Richard Leese.

Note that DfT management had to be overruled by Patrick McLoughlin (no doubt he checked with Clegg and Osborne first) about replacing the Pacers.
There could yet be repercussion elsewhere on this (it's money taken from the wider DfT budget).

As far as I can see Northern are empowered to order 120 new DMU vehicles but TPE are not obliged to order anything new (yet).
Without TP electrification details it would be a waste of time anyway.
The Class 442 element for TPE is odd - are we talking Class 68 haulage?
I imagine it is a short-term measure until the TP wires go up.

It seems to me that the 185 fleet will need to be split with Northern taking over Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere (until electrification completes).
TPE will be a smaller network, the extensions mentioned are potentially Newcastle-Edinburgh and, rather oddly, Man Airport-Crewe.

As I read it the Northern Liverpool-Man Airport service will run via the CLC (diesel) rather than Newton-le-Willows.
Where will Northern find the stock for Chester-Victoria-Bradford-Leeds?
Is this where the Liverpool 156s will end up?

I could find nothing about the overall Class 319 fleet deployment.
There's a lot still left to the bidders to propose.
We may yet be in for more surprises as a result.
Still reading...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I thought the 442s were destined for the scrap heap once they went off-lease. What's the most likely option that for dft are thing about, mods to make them suitable for loco hauling (by I don't know lets say a class 67), the installation of diesel engines to covert them to DMUs (an option that I think is highly unlikely) or converting them to either overhead or dual voltage.

What route(s)s are the dft probably thinking they should be used on?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Who is going to help those who need wheelchair ramps, or travel advice, or provide the reassuring presence the government believes is so important? What of those with limited vision. There are a multitude of situations for which a human interaction is required whether on the train or on the platform.

Without knowing which stations would be affected it is difficult to argue the point of access for people with disabilities, but I rather suspect that may not be as much of a hinderance to lowering staff numbers as it should be.

 

[47802]

I thought the 442s were destined for the scrap heap once they went off-lease. What's the most likely option that for dft are thing about, mods to make them suitable for loco hauling (by I don't know lets say a class 67), the installation of diesel engines to covert them to DMUs (an option that I think is highly unlikely) or converting them to either overhead or dual voltage.

What route(s)s are the dft probably thinking they should be used on?

I suppose they might be a temporary loco hauled solution pending electrification, they could take over the Newcastle Liverpool half hourly service, with 185's for the other services, The Newcastle service is fairly limited stop so the end doors wouldn't be too much of an issue. I carn't see conversion 25Kv emu being very likely, for starters they would need to meet 350 timing's on the west coast

Of course just because they are not ruled out doesn't mean bidders will go for it, it looks to me like a well we are having to spend more money on Northern so lets look at a cheaper option than bi-modes for TPX. While 200 million for Pacer replacement is a lot of money in the grand scheme of Railway spending and Government spending its naff all especially as an election bribe!

 

[Viscount702]

I suppose they might be a temporary loco hauled solution pending electrification, they could take over the Newcastle Liverpool half hourly service, with 185's for the other services, The Newcastle service is fairly limited stop so the end doors wouldn't be too much of an issue. I carn't see conversion 25Kv emu being very likely, for starters they would need to meet 350 timing's on the west coast

Of course just because they are not ruled out doesn't mean bidders will go for it, it looks to me like a well we are having to spend more money on Northern so lets look at a cheaper option than bi-modes for TPX. While 200 million for Pacer replacement is a lot of money in the grand scheme of Railway spending and Government spending its naff all especially as an election bribe!

If conversion for loco haul is possible couldn't they be hauled by electric as well as diesel so could be used to Glasgow/Edinburgh. Also thinking the 350's are supposed to go to Northern.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I suppose they might be a temporary loco hauled solution pending electrification, they could take over the Newcastle Liverpool half hourly service, with 185's for the other services, The Newcastle service is fairly limited stop so the end doors wouldn't be too much of an issue. I carn't see conversion 25Kv emu being very likely, for starters they would need to meet 350 timing's on the west coast

Of course just because they are not ruled out doesn't mean bidders will go for it, it looks to me like a well we are having to spend more money on Northern so lets look at a cheaper option than bi-modes for TPX. While 200 million for Pacer replacement is a lot of money in the grand scheme of Railway spending and Government spending its naff all especially as an election bribe!

This. The 120 carriages as pacer replacement is an election bribe That said I think the Northern ITT is quite good overall but the TPE ITT is somewhat confusing with no firm dates for electrification and IMO ruling out the most sensible option of taking on the ex-Scotrail 170's to allow an increase in services.

 

[edwin_m]

I thought the 442s were destined for the scrap heap once they went off-lease. What's the most likely option that for dft are thing about, mods to make them suitable for loco hauling (by I don't know lets say a class 67), the installation of diesel engines to covert them to DMUs (an option that I think is highly unlikely) or converting them to either overhead or dual voltage.

What route(s)s are the dft probably thinking they should be used on?

I agree loco haulage is the most likely option. The 442 traction equipment is shot so the power cars would be scrapped, but the trailers were brand new in teh late 1980s and basically to the Mk3 design, so should have a decade or more remaining life. DVTs and DBSOs have been successfully converted to work push-pull with different loco types, so no reason why that couldn't be done with the 442 driving trailers.

The door layout is a big restriction though, and it's hard to think of a TPE route where they won't extend dwell times as most have intermediate stations with large numbers both boarding and alighting. It will be for bidders to decide if using 442s is workable and cost-effective.

 

[47802]

If conversion for loco haul is possible couldn't they be hauled by electric as well as diesel so could be used to Glasgow/Edinburgh. Also thinking the 350's are supposed to go to Northern.

I think that's only a possibility at this stage for the 350's, I imagine AC conversion costs will be considerable for a train that's nearly 30 years old, there also wouldn't be enough of them to provide a standard electric fleet once North Transpennine is electrified. I think any replacement of the 350's is likely to be new build straight electric or bi-mode that can be extended to North Transpennine e soon as built if Bi-mode or pending electrification if straight electric. No doubt you could use them with an electric loco, but the 442's are not approved for 110mph, not sure how difficult that would be to change and the ITT clearly states 350 timing's must be met on the west coast.

 

[edwin_m]

This. The 120 carriages as pacer replacement is an election bribe That said I think the Northern ITT is quite good overall but the TPE ITT is somewhat confusing with no firm dates for electrification and IMO ruling out the most sensible option of taking on the ex-Scotrail 170's to allow an increase in services.

On a quick read of the posts here I generally agreed.

If I had any, my money would be on some or all of the 120 carriages being bi-modes to a modular design, which might allow the diesel engine to be removed later to create a pure EMU. Either way they will still be useful as electrification extends. I believe Bombardier's Aventra range includes something like this, and no doubt the other suppliers could also put one together.

These could be used on routes such as Barrow-Manchester, Chester-Caldervale and Sheffield-Moorthorpe-Leeds (even Leeds-Carlisle?) where much but not all of the journey is under the wires. The same routes are also likely to be the ones most in need of new rolling stock to a higher standard for the "Regional" services.

I don't see the new order being much more than 120 - some bidders may order a handful more to give them a bit of an edge. And due to the number of Pacers to be replaced, extra services on many diesel routes, and the likelihood of new DMUs having nothing to do after 10 years or so, I think the D78 is still very much on the cards. Other operators such as GW and Scotrail will be cascading some DMUs but numbers and timescales look highly uncertain.

Good that DfT appear to be taking measures to prevent Chiltern-style poaching of units, and they've also learned a few lessons from Transport Scotland in specifying rolling stock.

 

[northwichcat]

Another downside is that there is no mention of the Northern Hub proposals for additional peak services from Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield and Marple/Rose Hill.

It could be TfGM's plan for tram-trains to Rose Hill and then Glossop at a later date has meant plans for acquiring additional heavy rail carriages to those stations can't be justified unless it's confirmed tram-trains won't go ahead on those lines.

 

[Camden]

I suppose they might be a temporary loco hauled solution pending electrification, they could take over the Newcastle Liverpool half hourly service, with 185's for the other services, The Newcastle service is fairly limited stop so the end doors wouldn't be too much of an issue. I carn't see conversion 25Kv emu being very likely, for starters they would need to meet 350 timing's on the west coast

Of course just because they are not ruled out doesn't mean bidders will go for it, it looks to me like a well we are having to spend more money on Northern so lets look at a cheaper option than bi-modes for TPX. While 200 million for Pacer replacement is a lot of money in the grand scheme of Railway spending and Government spending its naff all especially as an election bribe!

The picture in the north is confusing as on the one hand we hear that it is investment all the way but on the other electrification might be put back, causing confusion over what to do regarding rolling stock for transpennine. I agree 200 million doesn't sound a lot for the number of pacer trains that need to be replaced, although some may not need replacing re the cascade of class 319 trains to newly electrified lines.

I don't think loco hauled could work on the transpennine which may be limited stop but it's essentially a commuter service rather than an end to end intercity, and one that operates over congested lines. You'd be adding a great deal of time to the timetable that campaigners throughout the north have been fighting for a long time to get reduced (recently come down to three hours end to end) and reducing the number of services that could run. At Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, etc, the trains have a large empty out and refill so MK3 end doors would slow things massively.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

On a quick read of the posts here I generally agreed.

If I had any, my money would be on some or all of the 120 carriages being bi-modes to a modular design, which might allow the diesel engine to be removed later to create a pure EMU. Either way they will still be useful as electrification extends. I believe Bombardier's Aventra range includes something like this, and no doubt the other suppliers could also put one together.

These could be used on routes such as Barrow-Manchester, Chester-Caldervale and Sheffield-Moorthorpe-Leeds (even Leeds-Carlisle?) where much but not all of the journey is under the wires. The same routes are also likely to be the ones most in need of new rolling stock to a higher standard for the "Regional" services.

I don't see the new order being much more than 120 - some bidders may order a handful more to give them a bit of an edge. And due to the number of Pacers to be replaced, extra services on many diesel routes, and the likelihood of new DMUs having nothing to do after 10 years or so, I think the D78 is still very much on the cards. Other operators such as GW and Scotrail will be cascading some DMUs but numbers and timescales look highly uncertain.

Good that DfT appear to be taking measures to prevent Chiltern-style poaching of units, and they've also learned a few lessons from Transport Scotland in specifying rolling stock.

That actually makes a lot of sense as new bi-mode stock for Northern to run services to Barrow etc would allow an internal cascade of DMU's for pacer replacement and hopefully free up enough 185's for TPE to maintain current service levels. Sheffield - Moorthorpe/Doncaster should be electrified by the early 2020's though so I'm mot sure new bi-mode units are need for that service.

 

[northwichcat]

Can the franchise requirements be changed after publication of the ITT, bearing in mind the upcoming spending review and the practically non existent business case for replacing Pacers? As in are people safe in trumpeting 'the end of the line for the dreaded Pacer' as on the BBC this evening, or may we yet be disappointed?

I disagree that there's a non-existent business case. Angel Trains have said refurbishing 142s is not economically viable and when fitting new final drive units for the 142s recently they only acquired ones which are expected to last 5-6 years.

Porterbrook came up with a plan for making 143s and 144s 'accessible' although apparently a minor exemption order would still have to be granted by the Secretary of State for Transport to keep them in service post-2019. However, the plan (which also fulfils the requirement of all on board train toilets needing to be retention toilets post-2019) reduces the capacity of an already small train further.

While Porterbrook have come up with that idea for Pacers they've not said anything further regarding 153s - when they previously said the cost of fitting an accessible retention toilet to a 153 was not economically viable, so it could be they can still try to flog those 'accessible' Pacers to EMT/FGW/ATW as 153 replacements.

Something is needed to replace the 79 x 142s with Northern regardless and EMUs will only go so far unless you invent a time machine. Does it not make sense for one order of new trains opposed to one small order for Northern, then in a few years time maybe one small order for East Midlands and maybe one for Great Western.

The new Northern rolling stock requirements (which exclude Pacers post-2019) are less strict than the Scotrail rolling stock requirements. However, I think if they are properly adhered to there's going to being few complaints from people in the North post-2019 that Scotrail trains are better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This. The 120 carriages as pacer replacement is an election bribe That said I think the Northern ITT is quite good overall but the TPE ITT is somewhat confusing with no firm dates for electrification and IMO ruling out the most sensible option of taking on the ex-Scotrail 170's to allow an increase in services.

The TPE ITT also says bidders can present options for using 125mph stock on services which run on mainlines alongside other 125mph capable trains.

Strangely it says bidders should assume they'll start the franchise with the 185s, the 350/4s plus 4 x DMUs with similar characteristics to the 170/3s. What's similar to a 170 apart from a 170? Ignoring the Chiltern 16xs and the electric trains that leaves:
* Sprinters - with lower top speed
* 172s - same top speed but more commuter style layout with no FC
* 175s - same top speed, again no FC
* 180s/22xs - 125mph capable trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TPE will be a smaller network, the extensions mentioned are potentially Newcastle-Edinburgh and, rather oddly, Man Airport-Crewe.

TPE also includes options for Manchester services leaving Scotland to have Blackpool or Liverpool portions on them.

As I read it the Northern Liverpool-Man Airport service will run via the CLC (diesel) rather than Newton-le-Willows.

Definitely still a requirement for Liverpool-Man Airport via Chat Moss in there. It's not clear where the fast Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly will go after Piccadilly. It seems Northern bidders will have flexibility over some Airport services but others will be a franchise requirement.

Where will Northern find the stock for Chester-Victoria-Bradford-Leeds?
Is this where the Liverpool 156s will end up?

December 2017 is the proposed start date. The released documents tell bidders to assume 158 running for timetabling purposes.

December 2017 should see a number of enhanced services, presumably as a result of EMUs replacing DMUs.

I get the impression ATW will no longer be required to run the peak time extras between Chester and Manchester as a result of Northern running Chester-Victoria-Bradford-Leeds

 

[First class]

I disagree that there's a non-existent business case. Angel Trains have said refurbishing 142s is not economically viable and when fitting new final drive units for the 142s recently they only acquired ones which are expected to last 5-6 years.

Porterbrook came up with a plan for making 143s and 144s 'accessible' although apparently a minor exemption order would still have to be granted by the Secretary of State for Transport to keep them in service post-2019. However, the plan (which also fulfils the requirement of all on board train toilets needing to be retention toilets post-2019) reduces the capacity of an already small train further.

While Porterbrook have come up with that idea for Pacers they've not said anything further regarding 153s - when they previously said the cost of fitting an accessible retention toilet to a 153 was not economically viable, so it could be they can still try to flog those 'accessible' Pacers to EMT/FGW/ATW as 153 replacements.

Something is needed to replace the 79 x 142s with Northern regardless and EMUs will only go so far unless you invent a time machine. Does it not make sense for one order of new trains opposed to one small order for Northern, then in a few years time maybe one small order for East Midlands and maybe one for Great Western.

The new Northern rolling stock requirements (which exclude Pacers post-2019) are less strict than the Scotrail rolling stock requirements. However, I think if they are properly adhered to there's going to being few complaints from people in the North post-2019 that Scotrail trains are better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The TPE ITT also says bidders can present options for using 125mph stock on services which run on mainlines alongside other 125mph capable trains.

Strangely it says bidders should assume they'll start the franchise with the 185s, the 350/4s plus 4 x DMUs with similar characteristics to the 170/3s. What's similar to a 170 apart from a 170? Ignoring the Chiltern 16xs and the electric trains that leaves:
* Sprinters - with lower top speed
* 172s - same top speed but more commuter style layout with no FC
* 175s - same top speed, again no FC
* 180s/22xs - 125mph capable trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


TPE also includes options for Manchester services leaving Scotland to have Blackpool or Liverpool portions on them.



Definitely still a requirement for Liverpool-Man Airport via Chat Moss in there. It's not clear where the fast Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly will go after Piccadilly. It seems Northern bidders will have flexibility over some Airport services but others will be a franchise requirement.



December 2017 is the proposed start date. The released documents tell bidders to assume 158 running for timetabling purposes.

December 2017 should see a number of enhanced services, presumably as a result of EMUs replacing DMUs.

I get the impression ATW will no longer be required to run the peak time extras between Chester and Manchester as a result of Northern running Chester-Victoria-Bradford-Leeds

How about 180s to ATW to replace loco+stock diagrams, freeing up Mk3 coaches for TPE?

I believe theres 4 x sets of loco+stock (inc spares), or enough to form that.

 

[WatcherZero]

The thing that struck me was ive never seen a tender with so many future amendments to be negotiated once the franchise starts already included in information for bidders. It makes the Thameslink tender look simple.

 

[47802]

I don't think loco hauled could work on the transpennine which may be limited stop but it's essentially a commuter service rather than an end to end intercity, and one that operates over congested lines. You'd be adding a great deal of time to the timetable that campaigners throughout the north have been fighting for a long time to get reduced (recently come down to three hours end to end) and reducing the number of services that could run. At Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, etc, the trains have a large empty out and refill so MK3 end doors would slow things massively.

Well that's clearly something that would need to be assessed it does say that it would need to be to 185 timings, assuming the designated loco could keep to 185 timing's, the current timetable for Newcastle services North has, 8Min Victoria, 1.5 Huddersfield, 3 Leeds, 2.5 York, Southbound its 2Min York, 5 Leeds, 1.5 Huddesfield, 2 Victoria.

On the other hand it talks about 125mph trains, I'm not convinced the 442 is likely scenario, and we don't really want another 1001 things you can do with a 442 thread!

 

[Aictos]

Not something that can be said for Accrington, says he remembering that once services to Accrington did once run from Manchester Victoria via Bury.

Indeed, the line to Manchester closed 5th December 1966 so 50 years on, Accrington gets a direct link to Manchester which can only help the town's economy grow providing of course the trains can be found to run the Tormorden Curve....

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/a/accrington/
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/Oubliette/Whatashed.html

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....While Porterbrook have come up with that idea for Pacers they've not said anything further regarding 153s - when they previously said the cost of fitting an accessible retention toilet to a 153 was not economically viable, so it could be they can still try to flog those 'accessible' Pacers to EMT/FGW/ATW as 153 replacements....

If I read it right, the Northern ITT says that all toilets must be accessible and must have retention tanks, but that a unit does not have to have a toilet if it is used on short services, that would not reasonably require one, or where it would be coupled to a unit that has a toilet fitted.

....Something is needed to replace the 79 x 142s with Northern....

And the 23 class 144s....

 

[northwichcat]

If I read it right, the Northern ITT says that all toilets must be accessible and must have retention tanks, but that a unit does not have to have a toilet if it is used on short services, that would not reasonably require one, or where it would be coupled to a unit that has a toilet fitted.

However, you can't keep a non-accessible toilet that dumps waste on the track so the costs of removing the toilet and not making it look like someone's just ripped out the toilet, would still have to be incurred.

With the 153s having corridor connectors they could run around only attached to 155/6s. However, not all routes which allow 156s also allow 153s.

And the 23 class 144s....

I was meaning even if DfT hadn't ruled out Pacers the 142s would have been dropping dead before the next franchise ran out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It makes the Thameslink tender look simple.

Thameslink is very simple. DfT had already decided on the number of new trains, the type of trains, the number of carriages per set, the services required and the minimum capacity requirement.

 

[WatcherZero]

Your kidding, merger of two franchises after commencement, routes chopped and changed, three delays to commencement of the franchise, multiple brands having to be maintained separately, programme delays and short term orders to cover for the delays. All the while being the single largest franchise for fleet size and passengers carried.

 

[northwichcat]

Your kidding, merger of two franchises after commencement, routes chopped and changed, multiple brands having to be maintained separately, programme delays and short term orders to cover for the delays.

I thought you were just talking about the Thameslink part, not GTR plus Southern.

 

[Class 170101]

And the 23 class 144s....

....Something is needed to replace the 79 x 142s with Northern...

Still not enough to equal 120 carriages. Very reliant on Class 319s and the electrification schemes being it seems.

Personally I would have a look at the 144e and see what it is like before saying scrap Pacers for ever. Demand is rising and capacity does not seem to be keeping pace.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With the 153s having corridor connectors they could run around only attached to 155/6s. However, not all routes which allow 156s also allow 153s.

As for the 153s just reform them back to C;ass 155s as built but again it should be noted that two Class 153s equals one Class 155 which only gives you half the number of trains needed. DDA toilets shouldn't then become a problem.

 

[northwichcat]

'Without the need' but it does say a second onboard member of staff will focus on revenue collection. Surely this just puts an end to 'delayed waiting for a member of train crew' in half of the current cases as if need be you can leave without the revenue collector.

Noticed in the ticket-less travel report it implies only 1 in 5 Northern services chosen for a representative sample had a full ticket inspection carried out by the on board guard, while 2 in 5 services chosen had a train too congested for a full ticket inspection to be carried out. Also over 5% of passengers didn't have a ticket and stated the reason for it was no opportunity to buy a ticket. No wonder a change has been proposed.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ive been looking at the scoring and the weighting for quality, there is 12.88 points available for quality for TPE and 12.9 for Northern. For Northern the weight attached to quality is 28 so potentially a bid with a maximum quality would have to require £361.2m more subsidy (or net present value to Government) to beat a bid with a quality score of 0. For TPE the weight is 25 so £322m. This is over the lifetime of the franchise plus extension period so for TPE the subsidy available for quality is approx. £35.7m per year and for Northern £36.1m.

However if the top bids are less than £25m apart then a second stage of evaluation is performed if the winning bid is greater than 0.35 higher in quality than the next best it will win and those more than 0.3 behind will be excluded, if lower it goes to a third stage where the winner is the cheapest bid excluding quality entirely.

The quality scoring Northern (TPE) are;

Leadership and management 3.5% (5.25%)
Mobilisation plan 0.5% (0.75%)
Stakeholder partnering 3% (3.75%)
Sustainability and Environment 3% (3%)
Innovation 2% (2.25%)
Community Engagement 2% (0%)

Train service 20% (21%)
Rolling stock 17.5% (18%)
Performance 7.5% (8%)
Supporting infrastructure change 5% (8%)

Marketing and branding 5% (5%)
Fares and revenue protection 11% (6%)

Customer service 12% (13%)
Stations 8% (6%)