Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[WatcherZero]

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:



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

I believe that's what it specifies for 'regional' rolling stock, for other rolling stock it just says Wi-Fi and fully refurbished.

 

[thealexweb]

Will the 8tpd from Manchester Airport to Barrow-in-Furness be from the general pool of DMUs or does it meet the criteria for the regional express stock. Refurbished Class 158s maybe? A good alternative if the 185s have be moved on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will the 8tpd from Manchester Airport to Barrow-in-Furness be from the general pool of DMUs or does it meet the criteria for the regional express stock. Refurbished Class 158s maybe? A good alternative if the 185s have be moved on.

It was on the list for regional express stock, as one of the former North West Express routes.

It would seem to be a very good candidate for bi-mode operation, including the limited bi-mode option I suggested of a 110mph EMU with sufficient diesel generating capacity to operate at 75mph on diesel.

Neil

 

[edwin_m]

Will the 8tpd from Manchester Airport to Barrow-in-Furness be from the general pool of DMUs or does it meet the criteria for the regional express stock. Refurbished Class 158s maybe? A good alternative if the 185s have be moved on.

Barrow is one of the "Regional Express" routes, but as long as the quality requirements are met it is possible to use refurbished existing stock for these services. As I've suggested further back, I think the new units will be bi-modes for use on routes such as Barrow.

There's an interesting question there about what might be used for those "Regional Express" routes that are electrified from end to end, such as Blackpool. Will this be bi-modes not using their off-wire capability, will they refurbish some 319s or similar with uprated power supplies for air conditioning, or even a new EMU build?

 

[thealexweb]

It was on the list for regional express stock, as one of the former North West Express routes.

It would seem to be a very good candidate for bi-mode operation, including the limited bi-mode option I suggested of a 110mph EMU with sufficient diesel generating capacity to operate at 75mph on diesel.

Neil

Is the new Northern allowed to 'order' bi-modes? I thought I read further back their new unit could not bi-modes. It would make a lot of sense though using electric power between Manchester-Bolton-Preston-Lancaster and diesel onwards from Carnforth to Barrow.

 

[superkev]

With the Scottish franchise mentioning scenic trains I am disappointed these haven't been specified for the S and C etc.
there was some proposals for a scenic 156 in one of the mags.
k

 

[WatcherZero]

Is the new Northern allowed to 'order' bi-modes? I thought I read further back their new unit could not bi-modes. It would make a lot of sense though using electric power between Manchester-Bolton-Preston-Lancaster and diesel onwards from Carnforth to Barrow.

It says they have to order Diesel powered, doesn't stop them being Bi-Mode or Locomotive hauled, just stops them being EMU.

 

[Stats]

With the Scottish franchise mentioning scenic trains I am disappointed these haven't been specified for the S and C etc.

It may not be a specific requirement but proposals for suitably adapted rolling stock for scenic routes is given as a specific example of how bidders can exceed the rolling stock requirements

Proposals to develop the markets for tourist, leisure and enthusiast travel on scenic routes through the deployment (either on an occasional or a regular basis) of heritage rolling stock or other rolling stock adapted specifically to suit the needs of this market;

 

[po8crg]

It says they have to order Diesel powered, doesn't stop them being Bi-Mode or Locomotive hauled, just stops them being EMU.

Technically, it says self-powered. Could be steam or anything.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Indeed. Does not specify diesel; just capable of running on non-electric routes. So, technology permitting (and I'm not claiming it will), would include battery.

If I had to guess, I'd guess diesel. But it's not a "given".

 

[po8crg]

Could be LHCS. I suspect that at least one bidder will call CAF (making Caledonian sleeper stock in mk3 loading envelope) and ask what 120 carriages with normal seats in would cost. They'd need locos (which would not have to be new) as well, and DVTs or DBSOs (ex-442 cabs? new build?) but it would be a number, useful at least for comparison.



I'd bet on DMUs or DEMUs, possibly bi-mode or convertible to bi-mode, but I wouldn't bet much.

 

[lejog]

I believe that's what it specifies for 'regional' rolling stock, for other rolling stock it just says Wi-Fi and fully refurbished.

Okay the relevant part of the ITT contains an opening bracket which never closes which gave me a false impression that air conditioning etc was a priority for Regional services but a requirement for all.

However it still seems a mighty ask to replace all pacers, introduce Regional services with high quality rolling stock the franchise doesn't currently have and to refurbish all other existing rolling stock to a standard comparable with new rolling stock within 3 years. Has any previous franchise award come up with such a requirement?

 

[edwin_m]

Okay the relevant part of the ITT contains an opening bracket which never closes which gave me a false impression that air conditioning etc was a priority for Regional services but a requirement for all.

However it still seems a mighty ask to replace all pacers, introduce Regional services with high quality rolling stock the franchise doesn't currently have and to refurbish all other existing rolling stock to a standard comparable with new rolling stock within 3 years. Has any previous franchise award come up with such a requirement?

That's an interesting point, especially as the DMU refurbishing programme can't start until some units can be taken out of service to go into works. As we all know there are no spare DMUs in any TOC to cover for these, and as far as I can see there won't be until the Bolton route is electrified. It will then be a pretty intensive (and therefore expensive) programme, with displaced units being joined after a while by the first of the new build and probably Pacers staying in service until close to the deadline.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The DfT must be banking on the sucessful bidder using the freed up 15x from GW to assist in any refurbishment programme. They will probably be available in 2017.

The question for me is what the balance of new versus secondhand 15x and 17x will eventually be. Doing a C6 refurb to a high spec. is going to cost for the whole 15x fleet and there will be a tipping point beyond which a few more new vehicles added to the 120 minimum requirement will become the prefered choice compared to doing all the 15x.

The cl.153 fleet may be the most vulnerable here (allowing for complete removal of all Pacers by 2020 as a given).

 

[WatcherZero]

Would have thought it would be something like doing immediate rebranding then after Christmas when its quieter start releasing 3 units a week for refurbishment taking approx. 14 days each, can pick up the pace later. That would do the entire fleet in about a year and a half. Remember they have until 2020 to do it though obviously the sooner the better the financial return for the TOC.

 

[47802]

The cl.153 fleet may be the most vulnerable here (allowing for complete removal of all Pacers by 2020 as a given).

Lets hope so along with the 155's

 

[Greybeard33]

The DfT must be banking on the sucessful bidder using the freed up 15x from GW to assist in any refurbishment programme. They will probably be available in 2017.

The question for me is what the balance of new versus secondhand 15x and 17x will eventually be. Doing a C6 refurb to a high spec. is going to cost for the whole 15x fleet and there will be a tipping point beyond which a few more new vehicles added to the 120 minimum requirement will become the prefered choice compared to doing all the 15x.

The cl.153 fleet may be the most vulnerable here (allowing for complete removal of all Pacers by 2020 as a given).

You are assuming that the 120 new vehicles will be DMUs. However, the ITT permits the alternative of procuring 120 new unpowered carriages (the diesel locos to haul them would not have to be new). This option would have much lower leasing costs, given the likely very high unit cost of a small order for a new design of Stage IIIB compliant DMU to the British loading gauge.

Even though LHCS incurs high track access charges, might not the lower leasing costs make this overall the more attractive option to the TOC?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

You are assuming that the 120 new vehicles will be DMUs. However, the ITT permits the alternative of procuring 120 new unpowered carriages (the diesel locos to haul them would not have to be new). This option would have much lower leasing costs, given the likely very high unit cost of a small order for a new design of Stage IIIB compliant DMU to the British loading gauge.

Even though LHCS incurs high track access charges, might not the lower leasing costs make this overall the more attractive option to the TOC?

Would class 67s be useful for that idea (would they even be allowed on Northern routes anyway)?

 

[159220]

You are assuming that the 120 new vehicles will be DMUs. However, the ITT permits the alternative of procuring 120 new unpowered carriages (the diesel locos to haul them would not have to be new). This option would have much lower leasing costs, given the likely very high unit cost of a small order for a new design of Stage IIIB compliant DMU to the British loading gauge.

Even though LHCS incurs high track access charges, might not the lower leasing costs make this overall the more attractive option to the TOC?

It has been widely reported that the cost lies with the uncertainty for the ROSCO and nothing to do with the availability of a suitable engine. The 6H 1800 R83p found in the Class 172 has already been upgraded to a Stage IIIb 6H 1800 R85. (and of course the IEP is also Stage IIIb from MTU/RR)

Now we have an invitation to tender confirming to the ROSCOs that the DfT/operators shall support an order for new DMUs the ROSCOs have enough certainty to order a product over its lifetime. Something like the turbostar platform is an ideal contender as design costs are well established and a compliant Stage IIIb engine is easy to find (After all the Stage IIIb directive has been in force since 1st Jan 2012!! Enough time for the manufacturers to design suitable engines). I am also sure due to the uniformity of the Hitachi range of AT products, the design of the AT-300 in accommodating a 'powerpack' for the Class 800 can be applied to an AT-100 or AT-200 for a regional DMU.

The issue has been the uncertainty the ROSCOs have faced in not being sure their brand new DMU shall be leased for its lifetime. The tender and the DfT are now saying, they support it.

There is also a lot of lobbying and consultations going on to see for further DMU orders as the realisation falls that electrification is not going everywhere and our current DMUs mainly date from the 1980s.

 

[Class 170101]

Could be LHCS. I suspect that at least one bidder will call CAF (making Caledonian sleeper stock in mk3 loading envelope) and ask what 120 carriages with normal seats in would cost. They'd need locos (which would not have to be new) as well, and DVTs or DBSOs (ex-442 cabs? new build?) but it would be a number, useful at least for comparison.

as for Locos, there should be some Class 67s looking for work shortly.

 

[BantamMenace]

It has been widely reported that the cost lies with the uncertainty for the ROSCO and nothing to do with the availability of a suitable engine. The 6H 1800 R83p found in the Class 172 has already been upgraded to a Stage IIIb 6H 1800 R85. (and of course the IEP is also Stage IIIb from MTU/RR)

Now we have an invitation to tender confirming to the ROSCOs that the DfT/operators shall support an order for new DMUs the ROSCOs have enough certainty to order a product over its lifetime. Something like the turbostar platform is an ideal contender as design costs are well established and a compliant Stage IIIb engine is easy to find (After all the Stage IIIb directive has been in force since 1st Jan 2012!! Enough time for the manufacturers to design suitable engines). I am also sure due to the uniformity of the Hitachi range of AT products, the design of the AT-300 in accommodating a 'powerpack' for the Class 800 can be applied to an AT-100 or AT-200 for a regional DMU.

The issue has been the uncertainty the ROSCOs have faced in not being sure their brand new DMU shall be leased for its lifetime. The tender and the DfT are now saying, they support it.

There is also a lot of lobbying and consultations going on to see for further DMU orders as the realisation falls that electrification is not going everywhere and our current DMUs mainly date from the 1980s.

Ordering a bi-mode with a removable self-powering system that leads to a EMU being left should convince the ROSCOs that there product will be used for its lifetime.

 

[Greybeard33]

Would class 67s be useful for that idea (would they even be allowed on Northern routes anyway)?

I guess it depends on the route. The high top speed of the Class 67 could be advantageous/necessary on some routes.

It has been widely reported that the cost lies with the uncertainty for the ROSCO and nothing to do with the availability of a suitable engine. The 6H 1800 R83p found in the Class 172 has already been upgraded to a Stage IIIb 6H 1800 R85. (and of course the IEP is also Stage IIIb from MTU/RR)

Now we have an invitation to tender confirming to the ROSCOs that the DfT/operators shall support an order for new DMUs the ROSCOs have enough certainty to order a product over its lifetime. Something like the turbostar platform is an ideal contender as design costs are well established and a compliant Stage IIIb engine is easy to find (After all the Stage IIIb directive has been in force since 1st Jan 2012!! Enough time for the manufacturers to design suitable engines). I am also sure due to the uniformity of the Hitachi range of AT products, the design of the AT-300 in accommodating a 'powerpack' for the Class 800 can be applied to an AT-100 or AT-200 for a regional DMU.

The issue has been the uncertainty the ROSCOs have faced in not being sure their brand new DMU shall be leased for its lifetime. The tender and the DfT are now saying, they support it.

There is also a lot of lobbying and consultations going on to see for further DMU orders as the realisation falls that electrification is not going everywhere and our current DMUs mainly date from the 1980s.

The just-updated report of the Rolling Stock Strategy Steering Group states that:

It has been widely expected that present and future EU legislation regarding emissions from
diesel engines (Directive 97/68/EC and its subsequent amendments, implemented in Great
Britain as the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants)
Regulations 1999 and 2013, known as NRMM) will increasingly make it difficult to procure and
operate new DMUs having underfloor diesel engines, with an affordable business case. Indeed,
EU consultation on further tightening of the rules is now underway. Our present understanding
of the associated issues is as follows.

and

It is probably unlikely that a business case can be made at present to fit a Stage IIIB
compliant diesel engine (or engines) to any of the existing British DMU types. The D-Train
project being developed by Vivarail proposes to examine the feasibility, reliability and
business case of fitting pairs of smaller Stage IIIB compliant automotive diesel engines
beneath former LUL vehicles.

This Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy has been
produced by a Steering Group chaired by Richard Brown,
and comprising senior representatives of:
• Abellio
• Angel Trains
• Arriva
• Eversholt Rail Group
• First Group
• Go-Ahead Group
• Keolis
• National Express
• Network Rail
• Porterbrook Leasing
• Rail Delivery Group Executive Team
• Stagecoach
Now in its third edition, it incorporates input from train builders, the Railway
Industry Association, and other stakeholders.

http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-02-long-term-passenger-rolling-stock-strategy-3rd-ed.pdf

Do you have better information than the Steering Group?

I think the issue for the ROSCOs is not so much that the new DMUs might not see out their lifetime, more that the older, written-down, DMU fleets might have to be withdrawn earlier as electrification progresses, reducing the ROSCOs' future lease revenue from them.

 

[edwin_m]

It has been widely reported that the cost lies with the uncertainty for the ROSCO and nothing to do with the availability of a suitable engine. The 6H 1800 R83p found in the Class 172 has already been upgraded to a Stage IIIb 6H 1800 R85. (and of course the IEP is also Stage IIIb from MTU/RR)

Now we have an invitation to tender confirming to the ROSCOs that the DfT/operators shall support an order for new DMUs the ROSCOs have enough certainty to order a product over its lifetime. Something like the turbostar platform is an ideal contender as design costs are well established and a compliant Stage IIIb engine is easy to find (After all the Stage IIIb directive has been in force since 1st Jan 2012!! Enough time for the manufacturers to design suitable engines). I am also sure due to the uniformity of the Hitachi range of AT products, the design of the AT-300 in accommodating a 'powerpack' for the Class 800 can be applied to an AT-100 or AT-200 for a regional DMU.

The issue has been the uncertainty the ROSCOs have faced in not being sure their brand new DMU shall be leased for its lifetime. The tender and the DfT are now saying, they support it.

There is also a lot of lobbying and consultations going on to see for further DMU orders as the realisation falls that electrification is not going everywhere and our current DMUs mainly date from the 1980s.

As pointed out, the Rolling Stock Strategy is still saying that there are problems with underfloor engines. I think this may be to do with exhaust post-treatment equipment outside the engine. The SET solution isn't relevant here because Hitachi have had to raise the floor to accommodate it, something that isn't possible on a suburban/regional design.

I do agree that residual life is a significant problem, which a bi-mode would address.

 

[47802]

I guess it depends on the route. The high top speed of the Class 67 could be advantageous/necessary on some routes.

The just-updated report of the Rolling Stock Strategy Steering Group states that:

and


http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-02-long-term-passenger-rolling-stock-strategy-3rd-ed.pdf

Do you have better information than the Steering Group?

I think the issue for the ROSCOs is not so much that the new DMUs might not see out their lifetime, more that the older, written-down, DMU fleets might have to be withdrawn earlier as electrification progresses, reducing the ROSCOs' future lease revenue from them.

do you think the DFT would write the requirement for new DMU/Bi-mode if they couldn't get any? and a Bi-mode will still need a significant diesel engine unless you are going for the Duracell Electrostar type option

http://www.mtu-online.com/brazil/press/detail/news/mtu_exhibits_current_drive_solutions_and_milestones_from_90_years_of_rail_drives_at_innotrans_2014/news_smode/images/cHash/9074935e934c4b62348d539b198303eb/

Picture 5 6H 1800 engine Stage 3b compliant up to 522hp output, picture 6 also shows a hybrid version.

 

[Greybeard33]

do you think the DFT would write the requirement for new DMU/Bi-mode if they couldn't get any? and a Bi-mode will still need a significant diesel engine unless you are going for the Duracell Electrostar type option

http://www.mtu-online.com/brazil/press/detail/news/mtu_exhibits_current_drive_solutions_and_milestones_from_90_years_of_rail_drives_at_innotrans_2014/news_smode/images/cHash/9074935e934c4b62348d539b198303eb/

Picture 5 6H 1800 engine Stage 3b compliant up to 522hp output, picture 6 also shows a hybrid version.

The wording of the ITT is:

These must be newly-built (not re-using components from existing rolling stock) and, unless the Bidder intends for them to be hauled by a locomotive, must be capable of operating under their own power for significant distances on non-electrified routes.

Do you think the DfT would have included the options for LHCS and battery IPEMUs, if it was confident that new DMUs would be affordable?

The RSSSG report does not say that Stage IIIB compliant engines are not available. It just doubts that a DMU to the British loading gauge would be affordable, with a Stage IIIB engine in an underfloor installation. Tables 5 & 6 in the report indicate that the total operating costs per vehicle mile of a new DMU (including lease cost but excluding traincrew pay) would be 59% greater than those of a new EMU.

 

[47802]

The wording of the ITT is:

Do you think the DfT would have included the options for LHCS and battery IPEMUs, if it was confident that new DMUs would be affordable?

The RSSSG report does not say that Stage IIIB compliant engines are not available. It just doubts that a DMU to the British loading gauge would be affordable, with a Stage IIIB engine in an underfloor installation. Tables 5 & 6 in the report indicate that the total operating costs per vehicle mile of a new DMU (including lease cost but excluding traincrew pay) would be 59% greater than those of a new EMU.

Loco hauled is not ruled out but in short 3 or 4 coach formations will overall likely be more expensive than a DMU, and I very much doubt it will be adopted,

 

[158756]

The ITT says that the new stock must be capable of operating on non-electrified routes and that IPEMUs with comparable range to the unit being tested by Greater Anglia would count.

Given the above, if underfloor engines and LHCS were deemed too expensive, could a bidder propose IPEMUs with insufficient range to work most non-electrified routes, intending to use some or all of them solely on electrified routes?

 

[Clarence Yard]

The balance of new vehicle types that that the bidders offer will be interesting. IPEMU is this years hot topic with a lot of promise but there is beginning to be serious market interest in supplying IIIB fitted DMU products to UK operators on terms which means they can be a competitive option. A couple of ROSCOs also seem to have realised that they will have a decent enough life.

Just how this actually pans out in practise remains to be seen because, until someone actually goes for it, it is all just talk at the moment but owning groups are hoping that these two possible paths will unlock the 15x replacement issue.

Loco hauled remains an expensive option for all day service which is why bidders tend to ignore it in the end and go for a MU option. But as peak busters they can be a really competitive option, even if you use 67's.

The Northern franchise process could really set the agenda for the future. Interesting times.

 

[47802]

The ITT says that the new stock must be capable of operating on non-electrified routes and that IPEMUs with comparable range to the unit being tested by Greater Anglia would count.

Given the above, if underfloor engines and LHCS were deemed too expensive, could a bidder propose IPEMUs with insufficient range to work most non-electrified routes, intending to use some or all of them solely on electrified routes?

They could but will the range really be good enough.

 

[BantamMenace]

They could but will the range really be good enough.

Out of interest what is the current range of the battery EMU with GA?