Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[WatcherZero]

Arent we forgetting something?

TPE Direct award extension? its getting really really late now.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Arent we forgetting something?

TPE Direct award extension? its getting really really late now.

What is the number of days now left to run on the matter?

 

[WatcherZero]

About a fortnight

 

[northwichcat]

Looking at the Northern ITT they are required to run the following services as a minimum from December 2017:
- Hourly Crewe to Piccadilly via the Airport stopper
- 8 trains a day from Airport to Barrow
- 2 trains a day from Airport to Windermere.
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Chat Moss service
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Warrington service
- Hourly Airport to Blackpool service
- Additionally an hourly stopper unless the Chat Moss service acts as a second stopper

TPE are required to provide:
- Hourly Airport to Scotland service
- Half-hourly Airport to York service
- Hourly Airport to Cleethorpes service

Plus additionally Northern will have to provide an hourly Airport-Leeds via Bradford service from December 2019.

I think the Airport to Liverpool Chat Moss will have to be all-stops between the Airport and Piccadilly otherwise they'll be 11tph between Piccadilly and the Airport post-2019 and I'm pretty sure Network Rail said the maximum could be 10tph.

If that is the case it would likely free up some 323s from the Airport line which could then be used to run the additional Macclesfield-Manchester services without any issues about 319s not accelerating quickly enough to run stoppers ahead of Pendolinos.

 

[158756]

Looking at the Northern ITT they are required to run the following services as a minimum from December 2017:
- Hourly Crewe to Piccadilly via the Airport stopper
- 8 trains a day from Airport to Barrow
- 2 trains a day from Airport to Windermere.
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Chat Moss service
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Warrington service
- Hourly Airport to Blackpool service
- Additionally an hourly stopper unless the Chat Moss service acts as a second stopper

TPE are required to provide:
- Hourly Airport to Scotland service
- Half-hourly Airport to York service
- Hourly Airport to Cleethorpes service

Plus additionally Northern will have to provide an hourly Airport-Leeds via Bradford service from December 2019.

I think the Airport to Liverpool Chat Moss will have to be all-stops between the Airport and Piccadilly otherwise they'll be 11tph between Piccadilly and the Airport post-2019 and I'm pretty sure Network Rail said the maximum could be 10tph.

If that is the case it would likely free up some 323s from the Airport line which could then be used to run the additional Macclesfield-Manchester services without any issues about 319s not accelerating quickly enough to run stoppers ahead of Pendolinos.

I thought it was established previously in this thread that while Liverpool-Warrington-Airport is stated in the consultation response there isn't actually a requirement for it in the TSR spreadsheets.
If this doesn't happen it would leave a path for the stopper, but it probably doesn't really matter if the Chat Moss service stops if it's going to call at all stations Liverpool-Manchester anyway.

Would it not be a good idea for some 319s to go south of Manchester anyway if there's still services diagrammed for diesels there. (Is there still a DMU Alderley Edge diagram?). The Macclesfield stopper will have less distance and fewer station calls in front of the expresses, so could they not be run by slightly lower performance stock?

 

[northwichcat]

Would it not be a good idea for some 319s to go south of Manchester anyway if there's still services diagrammed for diesels there. (Is there still a DMU Alderley Edge diagram?). The Macclesfield stopper will have less distance and fewer station calls in front of the expresses, so could they not be run by slightly lower performance stock?

There's a couple of services at peak times which operate as DMU instead of EMU and could switch. However, some which could initially switch got extended to non-electrified destinations e.g. a Manchester to Hazel Grove service became Manchester to Hazel Grove to Chinley.

A Macclesfield-Piccadilly service could do 8 intermediate calls and there are Pendolinos doing Stoke-Stockport non-stop so it would depend on the exact timings of services.

 

[rick9525]

May have missed but could not see any mention of any Sunday increase in the Sunday service to Picadilly from Marple/New Mills Central. It is crazy that during the winter there is only a service every 2 hours. In contrast from Hadfield I enjoy an every 30 mins service arbeit from 10am till mid evening yet back in the very early 90's there was no Sunday Winter service at all. On a side note I wish Network Rail would increase the speed over the top side of the Dinting Triangle. 10mph is painfully slow.

 

[northwichcat]

I thought it was established previously in this thread that while Liverpool-Warrington-Airport is stated in the consultation response there isn't actually a requirement for it in the TSR spreadsheets.

That does appear to be the case. However, why would DfT say there is going to be a Liverpool to Manchester Airport via Warrington service if it may not run? Do bidders have to run it but can opt out if they can prove that Airport path or the rolling stock can be put to better use or something?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Responses to the Windermere/Blackpool posts that came up in the 153 thread:

Can't see 10 Class 350s being enough though.

Surprised at that. I expected Manchester to Blackpool to require more than four diagrams, nearer 6 diagrams so doubling up would be 12 units.

Manchester Airport to Blackpool has to be a regional route with a high quality EMU. This is an hourly semi-fast service. The Manchester Victoria to Blackpool stopping services can be operated by any EMU.

One option would be a Brighton Express style refurbishment of some 319s. But as the 350s are suitable, and LM will operate 319s, it would make more sense if that was being considered to use 350s instead.

I was thinking of the 319s here for Northern. The Class 360s would create a sub-fleet at LM which cannot work with the Class 350s. 350/4s won't have this issue.

Well fitting air conditioning and 2+2 seating with tables to the 319s was proposed when Lord Adonis first announced Chat Moss electrification. However, I think the 319s are really a commuter train and improving the interior will create something more like the ex-Wessex 150s than the 185s that currently work those services.

The 5 car 360s will create a sub-fleet where ever they go as there are no other 5 car AC Desiros. Why can't they run coupled up to 350s? They are the same type of train, unlike the 350s and 380s.

Is it confirmed that Windermere services will remain as a shuttle? Albeit one unit on the shuttle is clearly all thats needed.

No. I already explained there's a requirement for 2 x Manchester Airport-Windermere services per day and 2 x Windermere-Manchester Airport services per day. Those services can be at any time provided that:
1. They must call at no more than 2 stations between Manchester Oxford Road and Preston.
2. An hourly service is maintained between Oxenholme and Windermere.

It would be two for some of the day. They will have to pass each other somewhere not too far south of Oxenholme otherwise there would be a big gap in the timetable of shuttles on the branch itself.

I don't see why that has to be the case. There's no requirement for the regional EMUs to run the shuttle so you could have a 319 running the shuttles and either have:
1. The 319 not being used some hours due to the through services operated by 350s. Some people may claim that would be a waste but it would be less wasteful than having units sat out of use between the morning and evening peak peak.
2. The regional services providing additional services to the hourly shuttle, which could be very useful between the start of the Easter school holidays and September. The spec shows the minimum requirement for services, not the maximum requirement.

 

[30907]

I don't see why that has to be the case. There's no requirement for the regional EMUs to run the shuttle so you could have a 319 running the shuttles and either have:
(...) 2. The regional services providing additional services to the hourly shuttle, which could be very useful between the start of the Easter school holidays and September. The spec shows the minimum requirement for services, not the maximum requirement.

With existing infrastructure you couldn't get significantly better than hourly, but the unit on the shuttle could run down to Lancaster and back while the regional unit was on the branch, which would be moderately useful (allowing southbound travellers an easier interchange).
On the other hand, if there are no other 319 workings north of Preston, it's probably just as easy and not much more expensive to keep with present practice.
Either way, 2 return trips Manchester - Windermere between the peaks should be do - able.

 

[northwichcat]

On the other hand, if there are no other 319 workings north of Preston, it's probably just as easy and not much more expensive to keep with present practice.

Looking at the Blackpool-Preston requirements it would allow bidders to run some Blackpool-Preston-Windermere services if they wish to do so

They have to run a minimum of 87 Blackpool (North or South)-Preston services per day.
A minimum of 19 must be Blackpool- Manchester Airport
A minimum of 16 must be Blackpool-Leeds via Burnley
A minimum of 14 must be Blackpool-Liverpool
A minimum of 17 must be on the Blackpool South branch.

That leaves 21 services where the bidders can choose the final destination. Although, I imagine most of them will be stopping services between Blackpool North and Victoria.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They have to run a minimum of 87 Blackpool (North or South)-Preston services per day.
A minimum of 19 must be Blackpool- Manchester Airport
A minimum of 16 must be Blackpool-Leeds via Burnley
A minimum of 14 must be Blackpool-Liverpool
A minimum of 17 must be on the Blackpool South branch.

That leaves 21 services where the bidders can choose the final destination. Although, I imagine most of them will be stopping services between Blackpool North and Victoria.

What will be the position regarding services from Blackpool to Colne, as these are not stated above? Are these continuations of the Blackpool South services?

 

[30907]

The spec provides for hourly services to both termini, but not that they have to be through workings as far as I can see. And given that only the East Lancs services will be diesel, there's not much room to manoeuvre.

 

[edwin_m]

The spec provides for hourly services to both termini, but not that they have to be through workings as far as I can see. And given that only the East Lancs services will be diesel, there's not much room to manoeuvre.

Blackpool South will still be diesel too!

Given the lack of bay platforms at Preston (those that exist require the trains to cross over to the fast line side of the station) I don't imagine there will be much change to this service.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Blackpool South will still be diesel too!

Given the lack of bay platforms at Preston (those that exist require the trains to cross over to the fast line side of the station) I don't imagine there will be much change to this service.

The only change I can foresee happening here is conversion to tram-train or pure tram operation. Conversion would be the least implausible way of upgrading the line, as it would be unjustified to spend huge amounts of money on redoubling and electrifying the line when passenger numbers aren't huge and there's a light rail system designed for tram-train operation only 100m away. With the proposed extension of the tram to Blackpool North, and by converting the route to tram operation all the way to a set of tram platforms at Kirkham and Wesham, you would lose very little in terms of connectivity.

 

[Sheepy1209]

The only change I can foresee happening here is conversion to tram-train or pure tram operation. Conversion would be the least implausible way of upgrading the line, as it would be unjustified to spend huge amounts of money on redoubling and electrifying the line when passenger numbers aren't huge and there's a light rail system designed for tram-train operation only 100m away. With the proposed extension of the tram to Blackpool North, and by converting the route to tram operation all the way to a set of tram platforms at Kirkham and Wesham, you would lose very little in terms of connectivity.

Passenger numbers on this line aren't huge because demand is suppressed by capacity and service quality - including reliability.

Extending the trams to Kirkham would make the service worse; how can a service which requires a change of trains at Kirkham & Wesham mean losing 'very little in connectivity' to anyone going to Preston?

Extending the tram line makes a lot of sense logically but people in South Fylde are more Preston-oriented than Blackpool and need a decent service in that direction. If the tram could be routed along the main road to Preston (plenty of space) it would be far more attractive - but that's pie-in-the-sky.

 

[edwin_m]

Various tram-train ideas have been talked about for the Blackpool South line over the years. The most useful would probably be to convert it to tramway with a link to the existing trams at Pleasure Beach or even via the former Blackpool Central site, but continue the service from Kirkham as a tram-train on the existing railway to terminate at Preston.

 

[Llama]

Tram-trains Kirkham to Preston is unlikely to happen, they would be too much of a constraint on headway, the line speed is likely to be increased to 90 or higher on that stretch.

 

[po8crg]

If HS2 gets extended to Scotland on the western route, then the planning document included a station (Preston Interchange) on the M55 north-west of Preston.

If that were to be built, then there would be a demand to link the station to both Preston and Blackpool.

One approach to that would involve the trams:
Convert Blackpool S - Kirkham/Wesham to tram (and connect to the existing tram system at Starr Gate, Pleasure Beach or the former Blackpool Central) and then build a new line from K&W to Preston Interchange, which would cut across country from K&W and then follow the M55 corridor to the Interchange, and then come into Preston on street (eg along Tag Lane).
Trams would have to run pretty quickly on the ex-rail section for this to be quick enough to be a useful link into Blackpool, but tram-train designs generally can get up a decent clip (and even base-line trams routinely do 50 mph).

Another option would be to close Salwick station and reroute the track between K&W and Preston to run via Interchange so all Preston-Blackpool trains could stop there.

 

[northwichcat]

If anyone fancies some light reading here's the draft contract for the next Northern franchise: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/417807/northern-franchise-agreement.pdf Obviously some sections are yet to be filled in with the award not yet being made.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The three TPE bids (from First, Stagecoach and Keolis/Go Ahead) were due in today.
So the die is cast for the next franchise.
Somebody in Great Minster House is going to have some interesting bedtime reading tonight...
And the bid teams can put their feet up, until the phone rings.
The three Northern bids (from Arriva, Govia and Abellio) have another four weeks to go.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah 26th June, though the Northern bidders preliminary rolling stock plans had to be in by 13th March so they could be reconciled with TPE and other franchise bidders.

First Managing director being interview briefly on Sky about their bus order, asked whether they were still committed to UK rail and insisted that they were as they had only submitted their bid for TPE yesterday. So they submitted their bid on the very last day, risky, must have been working furiously on polishing it to try and regain a foothold in rail.

 

[Class377/5]

Yeah 26th June, though the Northern bidders preliminary rolling stock plans had to be in by 13th March so they could be reconciled with TPE and other franchise bidders.

First Managing director being interview briefly on Sky about their bus order, asked whether they were still committed to UK rail and insisted that they were as they had only submitted their bid for TPE yesterday. So they submitted their bid on the very last day, risky, must have been working furiously on polishing it to try and regain a foothold in rail.

Its not unusual to put bids in on the last day. There is no risk giving it one more look after as most bids are done in advance and bids requires a lot of paperwork that needs a van to deliver.

 

[WatcherZero]

That's what I mean, they thousands of pages, if you leave it to last moment what if you have a power cut, corruption, printer failure, other emergency etc....

I know from experience if you plan to hand in coursework on the final day then whatever can go wrong will go wrong.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The approach of the bidders will be interesting.
First and Keolis have the advantage of being incumbents.
Keolis might also be able offer a complementary bid to Govia's for Northern (ie shared fleets/facilities etc).
Stagecoach have to approach it cold, having never been closely involved in the area other than with Virgin on inter-city services (WC, EC).
In train procurement, they are all close to Siemens, with growing involvement with Hitachi.
The Bombardier and Alstom links are harder to judge.

 

[po8crg]

That's what I mean, they thousands of pages, if you leave it to last moment what if you have a power cut, corruption, printer failure, other emergency etc....

If something goes wrong then you put in the draft you printed yesterday (assuming it's not a PDF submission).

For things on this size, they will be printing out a new draft at least once a day.

 

[WatcherZero]

Digital copy and paper submission, LNW is right they are tens of thousands of pages long, crates and crates of paper. You wont be printing a fresh draft multiple times a day, most of it (evidence, plans, supporting documentation like quotes) will be finalised with only an periodically updated index and figures likely in flux to the end as they are massaged, even a decent photocopier overheats after a few hundred pages straight.

 

[northwichcat]

I know from experience if you plan to hand in coursework on the final day then whatever can go wrong will go wrong.

They may have it ready to submit but just hold off doing so in case something emerges which makes them want to make a last minute alteration.

Keolis might also be able offer a complementary bid to Govia's for Northern (ie shared fleets/facilities etc).

Initially 185s are expected to be used on some routes transferring from TPE to Northern, so it's likely they'll be some Northern services worked by TPE units until Northern get their own regional stock sorted.

Stagecoach have to approach it cold, having never been closely involved in the area other than with Virgin on inter-city services (WC, EC).

Stagecoach (in the form of EMT) run Liverpool-Sheffield which overlaps North and South TPE. EMT also run Summer specials to Scarborough.

If Stagecoach win I wonder if they'll be competition concerns.

In train procurement, they are all close to Siemens, with growing involvement with Hitachi.
The Bombardier and Alstom links are harder to judge.

A post from Tony Miles on wnxx a few months ago said that Alstom were offering a new model of Intercity train to TPE bidders and one of them seemed very interested.

 

[Class377/5]

Digital copy and paper submission, LNW is right they are tens of thousands of pages long, crates and crates of paper. You wont be printing a fresh draft multiple times a day, most of it (evidence, plans, supporting documentation like quotes) will be finalised with only an periodically updated index and figures likely in flux to the end as they are massaged, even a decent photocopier overheats after a few hundred pages straight.

No but you still check it. Thousands of pages take time to check and the longer you check the better. Hence last day submissions isn't abnormal but rather common.

 

[CC 72100]

even a decent photocopier overheats after a few hundred pages straight.

I'm not so sure about that - at my work ours coped sufficiently well with the demands of dissertation submission week, even if they drunk ink like there was no tomorrow!

3 machines (out of 4) jamming during light use yesterday was more of surprise.

 

[RAPC]

So they submitted their bid on the very last day, risky, must have been working furiously on polishing it to try and regain a foothold in rail.

Not at all - standard operating procedure for any large tenders. You should have your work well sorted, but you keep your powder dry and submit late on for two reasons:

1) Just in case you get any late insights that may help to course correct the final submission.
2) You don't offer up time for anyone co-ordinating the tender process to let any of your submission information to be fed to other parties (see 1)) and offer them any late insight.

Having worked on large tenders in my field (including tendering for rail company business), the above happens from time to time, hence the need to keep the submissions under lock and key until the deadline.