Porterbrook moans about new franchises ordering new trains

[jyte]

It's been talked about, but I'd see batteries as more likely. There isn't much call for a unit that can run at only 60mph under the wires, particularly with a load of perfectly good if old EMUs about to get scrapped and thus having negligible financial value.

A battery+pantograph+diesel 230 would be interesting...even if that's basically a 769

 

[Bletchleyite]

A battery+pantograph+diesel 230 would be interesting...even if that's basically a 769

I'm sure Vivarail could build you that, but I can't think of anywhere it would be sensibly used, as unlike many other countries we don't really have many low-speed OHLE electrified lines.

 

[jyte]

I'm sure Vivarail could build you that, but I can't think of anywhere it would be sensibly used, as unlike many other countries we don't really have many low-speed OHLE electrified lines.

Don't shoot me...but b-ham suburban services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't shoot me...but b-ham suburban services.

Bit late for that, new EMUs are already on order

 

[tbtc]

It is simply not sustainable to scrap stock that is not life expired. No industry can do that without costs having to rise significantly. I would maybe accept an argument for that if it were that the new trains being entered into service provided such an improvement in passenger service that passengers would pay these increased costs. But pay extra for an 802 over an HST? A 385 over a 365? I wouldn't pay extra for either

I don't think anyone is claiming that it is sustainable to scrap stock that is not life expired in the medium/long term.

But we have a situation where stock needs to be accessible from 1 January 2020 and a lot of trains don't currently meet those criteria. So a lot of "non-life-expired" trains (however you define that - it's not a black/white thing - some last longer than others) are going to have to be upgraded which costs a lot of money and means a TOC being without their trains for a while - witness the short-formations on EMT services recently.

We also have a situation where TOCs can order one large fleet at a cheaper rate than the motley crew of "heritage" trains that they inherited from their predecessor, so it becomes cheaper/ easier to order a big fleet of new trains.

Look at the GEML or Thameslink - lots of different types of EMU all doing the same kind of job (but with the complications of not working together/ needing separate maintenance/ needing separate training etc) - you could get a huge fleet of 700s or 720s to do that job - you could argue that the current problems are the inevitable hangover from the days of ordering lots of small fleets in piecemeal fashion and it's more sustainable to bite the bullet and order simpler/ bigger/ cheaper fleets of homogenous trains (though this will seem quite boring if you are a trainspotter who enjoys the variety of micro-fleets etc).

There's also the point to make that a number of lines have new trains planned whilst there's no guaranteed home for the older trains, but that's not the same as scrapping modern trains - stock like the 360s or 379s will find a home - there are going to be lines like Corby that require EMUs which haven't been announced yet - there are areas like South Eastern which have hundreds of ex-BR trains that will need replacement.

Plus, the actual cost of hiring the train is only a small part of the overall cost of the railway - compared to track access charges/ fuel/ drivers/ other staff - it's not like ticket prices will need to double any time soon.

The ROSCOs have known of these problems for many years - they have done very little to react to the necessary changes - I don't think that the rush of new trains will continue at such rates post-2020 but something needs to be done in the next couple of years, and if the ROSCOs aren't evolving then they will be left behind.

 

[route:oxford]

The 707 issue isn't such a big issue.

A company can't over-value an asset on their books for too long. They'll have whack in an depreciation charge sooner or later. At which point the return on the asset will align with similar units.

They were built for ready conversion into 25kv pantograph units. Once a bit more knitting goes up, there'll be a home for them somewhere.

 

[Domh245]

They were built for ready conversion into 25kv pantograph units. Once a bit more knitting goes up, there'll be a home for them somewhere.

Will there? I can't think of (m)any places which need 30 or fewer 5 car metro type units that haven't already been electrified? If they need more than 30, they'll either go and get exactly what they need from a manufacturer, or angel will have to ask Siemens to build them some more (which won't be cheap).

 

[43096]

Will there? I can't think of (m)any places which need 30 or fewer 5 car metro type units that haven't already been electrified? If they need more than 30, they'll either go and get exactly what they need from a manufacturer, or angel will have to ask Siemens to build them some more (which won't be cheap).

As you say, there is at least the advantage with the 707s that they are a type still in production. Realistically, SouthEastern Networker replacement as part of the current franchising process is probably the best bet - though there is no guarantee.

 

[bramling]

I don't think anyone is claiming that it is sustainable to scrap stock that is not life expired in the medium/long term.

But we have a situation where stock needs to be accessible from 1 January 2020 and a lot of trains don't currently meet those criteria. So a lot of "non-life-expired" trains (however you define that - it's not a black/white thing - some last longer than others) are going to have to be upgraded which costs a lot of money and means a TOC being without their trains for a while - witness the short-formations on EMT services recently.

We also have a situation where TOCs can order one large fleet at a cheaper rate than the motley crew of "heritage" trains that they inherited from their predecessor, so it becomes cheaper/ easier to order a big fleet of new trains.

Look at the GEML or Thameslink - lots of different types of EMU all doing the same kind of job (but with the complications of not working together/ needing separate maintenance/ needing separate training etc) - you could get a huge fleet of 700s or 720s to do that job - you could argue that the current problems are the inevitable hangover from the days of ordering lots of small fleets in piecemeal fashion and it's more sustainable to bite the bullet and order simpler/ bigger/ cheaper fleets of homogenous trains (though this will seem quite boring if you are a trainspotter who enjoys the variety of micro-fleets etc).

There's also the point to make that a number of lines have new trains planned whilst there's no guaranteed home for the older trains, but that's not the same as scrapping modern trains - stock like the 360s or 379s will find a home - there are going to be lines like Corby that require EMUs which haven't been announced yet - there are areas like South Eastern which have hundreds of ex-BR trains that will need replacement.

Plus, the actual cost of hiring the train is only a small part of the overall cost of the railway - compared to track access charges/ fuel/ drivers/ other staff - it's not like ticket prices will need to double any time soon.

The ROSCOs have known of these problems for many years - they have done very little to react to the necessary changes - I don't think that the rush of new trains will continue at such rates post-2020 but something needs to be done in the next couple of years, and if the ROSCOs aren't evolving then they will be left behind.

It’s very poor that the accessibility modifications have become part of this. For something which has been known about for very many years the way it has (sadly predictably) turned into a mad rush is another example of how the system hasn’t worked.

 

[Domh245]

As you say, there is at least the advantage with the 707s that they are a type still in production. Realistically, SouthEastern Networker replacement as part of the current franchising process is probably the best bet - though there is no guarantee.

A type that is still in production, but dependant on the size of any subsequent top-up order, a small production run, which will have a higher cost per unit that those done initially (which were 'too expensive' in the first place!)

SouthEastern Networker replacement would be a sensible place to send them too, but what has been said so far is that it's either Hitachi AT100s or Alstom depending on which bidder wins.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The 707 issue isn't such a big issue.

A company can't over-value an asset on their books for too long. They'll have whack in an depreciation charge sooner or later. At which point the return on the asset will align with similar units.

They were built for ready conversion into 25kv pantograph units. Once a bit more knitting goes up, there'll be a home for them somewhere.

They also have rails along the side that all the seats attach to so can easily be rejigged for long distance services. Also don't they have chop n' change cabs like standard Desiro's?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm sure Vivarail could build you that, but I can't think of anywhere it would be sensibly used, as unlike many other countries we don't really have many low-speed OHLE electrified lines.

Don't shoot me...but b-ham suburban services.

Ahem... Abbey line? Paisley Canal?

 

[Dave1987]

Nope, they haven't.

Probably the bid with the highest premium, as the rolling stock element of the bids will have been scored very similarly for new trains and old trains refurbed to a high standard.

Considering I know someone who has been involved in franchise bidding recently, the general feeling is that unless you propose new stock in your bid you don’t stand a hope of getting the franchise. Some franchise bidders have proposed refurbished trains and have lost franchises to other bids who were bidding mass new train orders. Bad precedents are being set. Trains 10-15 yrs old stand good chance of going to the cutters torch for scrap. Every franchise expects new trains now. Very bad situation to be in.

 

[Dave1987]

The question is how long it can last, I suspect not long beyond SE, EM and XC tenders in the next year. At which point there will be a mountain of surplus stock which should incentive ROSCOs.

RDG and DFT have made a very big PR stunt of the new trains so people expect new trains for their line. MP’s starting to say in Parliament about their constituents deserving brand new stock and not casts offs from other lines. New train bonanza has made cascading trains distinctly unfashionable and no MP is going to tolerate their constituents suffering cast offs while others get brand new. Cause and effect....

 

[F Great Eastern]

I say convenience because it means they don't have to put up with trains going away for refurbishment which causes a short term shortage of stock. Also didn't DfT also stall over the award of Anglia because Abellio had submitted a bid which was clearly the best for quality but they weren't sure if it the numbers added up after the Brexit vote lowered the value of the pound?

It hasn't worked out that way though. The last 12 months have had some days where the short form numbers have almost reached three figures which is pretty unbelievable, as every single type of rolling stock has had a dramatic downturn in reliability. It has been the worst few months I can ever remember for train availability.

With trains that are new to the country and Bombardier trains that have resulted in Crossrail being delayed, and trying to fit 113 seated people in a carriage and probably the first 3+2 airline seating I've ever seen and reduced leg-room, I wouldn't be so sure of how well it will turn out for Abellio.

Especially when it seems almost certain some 8 car units will be replaced with 5 car units and the fact that Abellio have just discovered the new trains dimensions are not compatible with Hertford East in anything other than single formation, because of a screw up.

 

[AndrewE]

Considering I know someone who has been involved in franchise bidding recently, the general feeling is that unless you propose new stock in your bid you don’t stand a hope of getting the franchise. Some franchise bidders have proposed refurbished trains and have lost franchises to other bids who were bidding mass new train orders. Bad precedents are being set. Trains 10-15 yrs old stand good chance of going to the cutters torch for scrap. Every franchise expects new trains now. Very bad situation to be in.

and some people still insist that franchising, or something very like the current structure is the only option available, as the alternatives are totally unviable in their opinion - maybe they can't admit they mean just unfashionable (or would upset too many influential people who have one or more vested interests.)

 

[Dave1987]

Firstly, there's a big difference between 20 years and 15 years on something that could be used for 35-40 years. As such if 15 years were to be the normal length that the trains were used for costs would go up quite a bit more than I was taking about. However I'm not aware of any fleet which is being scrapped after 15 years (maybe some of the 350's, but they are likely to find another home).

The point I was making was that although costs would go up for trains being scrapped after 20 years they may not be too much for a TOC to bear.

One of the things encouraging shorter life spans is the fact that a lot of stock from circa 2000 was smaller fleets (class 175, 180, 185, 22x, etc) or at least smaller fleets in each franchise. As such if they run out of usefulness others aren't so keen to take them on. However if you have a large fleet even if some end up being scrapped some will find more work. Which will push some costs up but not all.

It's worth noting that the big fleets )i.e. 450's) are due to carry on in service until well after they are 25 based on what we know now and may continue on beyond that as part of the next franchise. Even the 185's part of the fleet will continue in service for some time.

Even if the 22x's are stored from XC and EMT some are likely to continue to be used. For instance if you assume that the 220's get converted to 6 coaches units by scraping end coaches you are only taking about 25% of the fleet making it to 20 whilst the rest may make it to 30. Again this would mean that the costs would need to go up to cover the extra units lost, but not by as much as some fear.

However there's the limiting factor that is if someone else will offer a cheaper train then you can't set the price too high add otherwise your trains may not have any work. There's often people willing to undercut on cost of there's still a profit to be made, in that my small profit is better than your profit.

The train manufacturers don't care who they sell trains to as long as they get paid, if it's Bob and Co Leasing rather than one of the established companies chances are Bob and Co Leasing wouldn't get such a good deal from them. However over time having that extra competition will help keep prices down for TOC's but will result in lower profits for the leasing companies.

Personally I don't think that shorter lifespans of trains is a long term problem, as it's only really impacting on a limited number of fleets and for specific reasons. Once those stop being relevant the problem will go away until other factors cause it to come back again.

You only have to read MR to see train manufacturers targeting more massive orders for the next franchises to come up to realise their will be lots of trains going for scrap that should not be. Cannot imagine any board of a leasing company or the bond market will see that in a good way going forward. Why would you buy a bond from a leasing company when that leasing company cannot guarantee that their assets will even make it to half life before they are having to be scrapped. The only way is if your bond had a high enough yield to mitigate that risk. So the leasing company has to raise its leasing costs to the TOC. Cause/effect. Basic economics....

 

[Dave1987]

and some people still insist that franchising, or something very like the current structure is the only option available, as the alternatives are totally unviable in their opinion - maybe they can't admit they mean just unfashionable (or would upset too many influential people who have one or more vested interests.)

Depends where your ideology and vested interests stand.

 

[Dave1987]

I don't think anyone is claiming that it is sustainable to scrap stock that is not life expired in the medium/long term.

But we have a situation where stock needs to be accessible from 1 January 2020 and a lot of trains don't currently meet those criteria. So a lot of "non-life-expired" trains (however you define that - it's not a black/white thing - some last longer than others) are going to have to be upgraded which costs a lot of money and means a TOC being without their trains for a while - witness the short-formations on EMT services recently.

We also have a situation where TOCs can order one large fleet at a cheaper rate than the motley crew of "heritage" trains that they inherited from their predecessor, so it becomes cheaper/ easier to order a big fleet of new trains.

Look at the GEML or Thameslink - lots of different types of EMU all doing the same kind of job (but with the complications of not working together/ needing separate maintenance/ needing separate training etc) - you could get a huge fleet of 700s or 720s to do that job - you could argue that the current problems are the inevitable hangover from the days of ordering lots of small fleets in piecemeal fashion and it's more sustainable to bite the bullet and order simpler/ bigger/ cheaper fleets of homogenous trains (though this will seem quite boring if you are a trainspotter who enjoys the variety of micro-fleets etc).

There's also the point to make that a number of lines have new trains planned whilst there's no guaranteed home for the older trains, but that's not the same as scrapping modern trains - stock like the 360s or 379s will find a home - there are going to be lines like Corby that require EMUs which haven't been announced yet - there are areas like South Eastern which have hundreds of ex-BR trains that will need replacement.

Plus, the actual cost of hiring the train is only a small part of the overall cost of the railway - compared to track access charges/ fuel/ drivers/ other staff - it's not like ticket prices will need to double any time soon.

The ROSCOs have known of these problems for many years - they have done very little to react to the necessary changes - I don't think that the rush of new trains will continue at such rates post-2020 but something needs to be done in the next couple of years, and if the ROSCOs aren't evolving then they will be left behind.

Where are the 379’s and 360’s going then? I read in MR mag that the train manufacturers are targeting more mass replacements on the franchises due to be given in the near future.

Ow and BTW your beloved bi-modes have a nasty habit of majorly overheating in the hot weather due to the extremely tight packaging. Not something suffered by their predecessors as they had huge radiators with large amounts of airflow.

 

[Dave1987]

The 707 issue isn't such a big issue.

A company can't over-value an asset on their books for too long. They'll have whack in an depreciation charge sooner or later. At which point the return on the asset will align with similar units.

They were built for ready conversion into 25kv pantograph units. Once a bit more knitting goes up, there'll be a home for them somewhere.

Really? Where exactly? Just like there will supposedly be homes for a number of other fleets that aren’t exactly old. Love these can’t blanche statements of a home “somewhere” as if some magical place no one thought of will be conjured up to use them. The next franchises to be let are all being targeted by the train manufacturers for more mass orders.

 

[js1000]

Really? Where exactly? Just like there will supposedly be homes for a number of other fleets that aren’t exactly old. Love these can’t blanche statements of a home “somewhere” as if some magical place no one thought of will be conjured up to use them. The next franchises to be let are all being targeted by the train manufacturers for more mass orders.

The manufacturers lobbying for more orders from new franchisees is entirely normal. In reality though they have very little power and most importantly no ability to 'close a deal'. The difficult part is getting a leasing company to buy the trains upfront on the new franchisees behalf. If the leasing company has a surplus of stock and is willing to offer them at a lower rate than it would otherwise cost to make a new rolling stock order then the manufacturers are frozen out. I have no doubt the 707s will find a new home on the new Southeastern or Southern franchises in the coming years.

 

[Dave1987]

The manufacturers lobbying for more orders from new franchisees is entirely normal. In reality though they have very little power and most importantly no ability to 'close a deal'. The difficult part is getting a leasing company to buy the trains upfront on the new franchisees behalf. If the leasing company has a surplus of stock and is willing to offer them at a lower rate than it would otherwise cost to make a new rolling stock order then the manufacturers are frozen out. I have no doubt the 707s will find a new home on the new Southeastern or Southern franchises in the coming years.

Hmmm I don't think you are taking into context the way franchise bidding is going. Unless the DFT mandates the use of stock like they did with the orders for Thameslink and IEP the TOC's will bid what they believe will win. The DFT have said they will no longer mandate the use of stock on a franchise and will leave it to the market. The feeling with bidders currently is that there is no point in not proposing new train orders with your bid because you will lose the bid. MP's are even using the cliche "cast offs" in parliament now and all want new trains to be part of any new franchise. I would not make any such claim that any of the soon to be off lease fleets will find permanent new homes. In fact I would go so far as to put money on a fleet less than 20 years old going for scrap. That will not look good on the bond markets for leasing companies. Then comes (as RF puts it so elegantly) the kittens being threatened. If the train manufacturers don't get the mass orders the threats to close the assembly plants will come along will the associated job losses. Either way this train building bonanza will end badly. I totally agree with the OP quoted article on this, it is totally unsustainable. The fact that a vast quantity of the new trains for the UK have and are being build outside the UK has only compounded the issues.

 

[gingerheid]

It was recognised Porterbrook faced a risk at time of privatisation How much were they sold for? £1, wasn't it?

 

[43096]

It was recognised Porterbrook faced a risk at time of privatisation How much were they sold for? £1, wasn't it?

You are £527,999,999 out.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmpubacc/782/78203.htm

 

[tbtc]

SWR won by promising 1960s 442s (although bits of them are even older than that)... Wales & Borders was won by promising 1970s 230s and 1980s 769s... WMT are also going with the 1970s 230s... Caledonian Sleeper refurbished some 1960s 73s whilst ScotRail are taking some 1970s HSTs... Northern will be running 150s until the duct tape can no longer hold them together... there's going to be a lot of stock running round that's older than you (assuming 1987 is your year of birth?)

Considering I know someone who has been involved in franchise bidding recently, the general feeling is that unless you propose new stock in your bid you don’t stand a hope of getting the franchise. Some franchise bidders have proposed refurbished trains and have lost franchises

The feeling with bidders currently is that there is no point in not proposing new train orders with your bid because you will lose the bid

So bidders for franchises are being forced to promise investment in brand new trains - other than the examples I gave above where they are taking on trains from the 1960s/1970s/1980s?

One minute people are complaining that the Government are squeezing too much money out of new TOCs and insisting on massive premiums, the next people are complaining that too much focus is being put on the "quality" aspect of the bids? It's easy to get dizzy entering into an argument on here!

The next franchises to be let are all being targeted by the train manufacturers for more mass orders.

Train manufacturers are trying to sell new trains?

Hold the front page, Dave - you'll be telling me that these multinational organisations employ sales staff to encourage people to actually buy their products next - how very dare they...

I would go so far as to put money on a fleet less than 20 years old going for scrap

Some will, like the front carriages of the 460s - trains that were built for one particular purpose and aren't much use at being cascaded elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if some 91s are cut up soon - another type of stock that isn't future-proof. It probably won't be economical to keep all the 153s operational as single units. What's the alternative though - we keep running unsuitable trains because it's more important to keep them operating for a notional life-span of thirty/forty years than to provide passengers with appropriate stock?

f the train manufacturers don't get the mass orders the threats to close the assembly plants will come along will the associated job losses

You're complaining that there are too many trains and also that manufacturers will be laying people off due to lack of orders?

If private companies want to speculatively open factories in Goole/ Newport/ Newton Aycliffe etc then good luck to them - they enter the market knowing there are no guarantees - not so long ago we were complaining that Bombardier in Derby were the only manufacturer left - but now the arrival of new factories and assembly plants is A Bad Thing?

Where are the 379’s and 360’s going then? I read in MR mag that the train manufacturers are targeting more mass replacements on the franchises due to be given in the near future.

Ow and BTW your beloved bi-modes have a nasty habit of majorly overheating in the hot weather due to the extremely tight packaging. Not something suffered by their predecessors as they had huge radiators with large amounts of airflow.

Your bi-mode obsession never stops - maybe there are better threads for it though?

The 379s and 360s? There are going to be newly electrified lines needing suitable stock - e.g. twelve coach EMUs to Corby - we tried putting batteries in a 379 to find future uses for them - there are plenty of 319s we could be getting rid of at other TOCs - look at how the 365s suddenly became required in Scotland - all this hype and we're not actually cutting anything up yet.

 

[route:oxford]

Really? Where exactly? Just like there will supposedly be homes for a number of other fleets that aren’t exactly old. Love these can’t blanche statements of a home “somewhere” as if some magical place no one thought of will be conjured up to use them. The next franchises to be let are all being targeted by the train manufacturers for more mass orders.

If you give me a comprehensive schedule of electrification over the next 30 years...

Then I'll work out where the best place to put the stock that apparently nobody wants and has, in line with accounting practice, been depreciated to a scrap value.

Who knows... Siemens might even buy them back at scrap value, rebuild with a Pantograph and sell them "as new" to another leasing company.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Considering I know someone who has been involved in franchise bidding recently, the general feeling is that unless you propose new stock in your bid you don’t stand a hope of getting the franchise. Some franchise bidders have proposed refurbished trains and have lost franchises to other bids who were bidding mass new train orders. Bad precedents are being set. Trains 10-15 yrs old stand good chance of going to the cutters torch for scrap. Every franchise expects new trains now. Very bad situation to be in.

Seems to be the case if the trains are electric, but not with diesels. Northern didn't even order enough DMUs to replace the pacers.

 

[The Ham]

You only have to read MR to see train manufacturers targeting more massive orders for the next franchises to come up to realise their will be lots of trains going for scrap that should not be. Cannot imagine any board of a leasing company or the bond market will see that in a good way going forward. Why would you buy a bond from a leasing company when that leasing company cannot guarantee that their assets will even make it to half life before they are having to be scrapped. The only way is if your bond had a high enough yield to mitigate that risk. So the leasing company has to raise its leasing costs to the TOC. Cause/effect. Basic economics....

Train companies may be offering new fleets for franchises, however there's not such a big market for new trains as some think.

On the SWT franchise there could have beena good case for new 5 coach (23m) DMU's or bimodal trains to get rid of circa 30 year old 159's. No that didn't happen, they'll likely be pushing 40 before they are replaced.

Likewise how about the 444's and 450's they are going to be well over 25 before they are replaced.

Yes there was the replacement of the 707's, but they are more tied up with the rest of the metro fleet, where the majority of them are over 35 years old and the vast majority are about 30 years old.

Most of the big replacements of fleets have been to remove two or more classes and replacement with fewer.

 

[whhistle]

Especially when it seems almost certain some 8 car units will be replaced with 5 car units and the fact that Abellio have just discovered the new trains dimensions are not compatible with Hertford East in anything other than single formation, because of a screw up.

Please remember to post links to sources for information.
I'm not saying I don't believe you, just for further reading.

 

[hwl]

Train companies may be offering new fleets for franchises, however there's not such a big market for new trains as some think.

On the SWT franchise there could have beena good case for new 5 coach (23m) DMU's or bimodal trains to get rid of circa 30 year old 159's. No that didn't happen, they'll likely be pushing 40 before they are replaced.

Likewise how about the 444's and 450's they are going to be well over 25 before they are replaced.

Yes there was the replacement of the 707's, but they are more tied up with the rest of the metro fleet, where the majority of them are over 35 years old and the vast majority are about 30 years old.

Most of the big replacements of fleets have been to remove two or more classes and replacement with fewer.

Exactly - savings from fleet commonality (including avoiding more creating more micro fleets), reduced maintenance and added operational functionality (like SDO /DOO camera / wider doors etc) are key part of the picture.