Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[WatcherZero]

I think it doubtful it will be rescoped, same people who are now saying its unaffordable are the same who said that there would be no new trains or pacer removal in the ITT.

One thing they could or really should rescope though is the franchise length, push another couple of years into initial length and they should be able to bring costs down.

 

[kieron]

In four weeks time, the election will be decided, and if their ruse is successful, they can procrastinate, re-scope, re-schedule, apply for derogation etc., until the letter of the promises are left as just intentions that coincidentally happen to fall around the time of the next election.

Hasn't Philip Rutnam (the Transport Permanent Secretary) rather shot the Tories' fox on this when he published a letter arguing against the ITT because new trains are dearer than Pacers?

If they now cancel the ITT because a franchise with new trains is dearer than one with Pacers might have been, it will be really hard to avoid it looking like ministerial incompetence, even with Michael McLoughlin safely out of the way somewhere.

I'm not saying it won't happen, though. To misquote an old fable, "... You knew I was a Tory when you voted for me."

 

[martynbristow]

Hasn't Philip Rutnam (the Transport Permanent Secretary) rather shot the Tories' fox on this when he published a letter arguing against the ITT because new trains are dearer than Pacers?

If they now cancel the ITT because a franchise with new trains is dearer than one with Pacers might have been, it will be really hard to avoid it looking like ministerial incompetence, even with Michael McLoughlin safely out of the way somewhere.

I'm not saying it won't happen, though. To misquote an old fable, "... You knew I was a Tory when you voted for me."

Just to note its an invitation to tender and there was no commitment to buying anything. The requirement was to state how you would fund it. The new contract when it comes will be what decides everything.

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres some leeway but you cant fundamentally alter a contract you've tendered or you have to compensate the other bidders and/or rerun it completly.

 

[Bantamzen]

Theres some leeway but you cant fundamentally alter a contract you've tendered or you have to compensate the other bidders and/or rerun it completly.

Indeed, and major changes to the ITT could well see the process having to be re-booted. And after previous franchise delays / problems, the last thing a new government is going to want to do is get into a messy & prolonged re-negotiation. And frankly given that in all likelihood we will have another minority government trying to form and hold together a coalition, the Northern ITT is unlikely to be high up on the priority list.

 

[edwin_m]

Theres some leeway but you cant fundamentally alter a contract you've tendered or you have to compensate the other bidders and/or rerun it completly.

There is usually a clause in tenders that the tendering body doesn't accept any liability to bidders if they decide to change the rules or cancel the tender entirely. However it's quite possible that a bidder, having spent several million, will consider legal action.

If the ITT was changed the tender stage would have to be re-run from the start, but if the change didn't affect the prequalification questionnaire then the prequalification stage would probably stand.

 

[47802]

I get a slight hint from WNXX that any re-scoping downwards is more likely from Labour than the Tories, which I would laugh my socks off if that happened.

I actually think that the railways may do better for investment with the Tories rather than Labour because I think the Tories now realise that good rail infrastructure is a key part of the economy I'm not convinced Labour have that view, also in terms of trying to stem the level of Road Traffic I think the Tories realise there needs to be a carrot as well as a stick, while the Labour party just think you need a stick.

 

[Smudger105e]

All of that was a Party Polital Broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.

 

[47802]

All of that was a Party Polital Broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Ok I guess we are starting to get off the point now, but believe that if you like, that come from someone who has never voted conservative.

I don't see much positive from Labour, Lukewarm about HS2 and some anti-privatisation rhetoric.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Joking aside, surely the money would be far better spent on investing in newer trains? At this rate, Pacers will be around for another 20 years at least!

Your comments would suggest that you have been reading "Paradise Lost", by John Milton...:roll:

 

[northwichcat]

I get a slight hint from WNXX that any re-scoping downwards is more likely from Labour than the Tories, which I would laugh my socks off if that happened.

From the benefit of the people who aren't signed up on wnxx it's seems no-one in the Labour party wanted the Shadow Transport Secretary job in the run up to the election and Michael Dugher was sort of forced in to doing it when he'd rather be doing something else. There's been a suggestion if Labour return to government then Lord Adonis will be asked if he wants to return to his old job, which might explain why no-one currently wanted the shadow role and consequently why currently we're hearing of cuts to transport without so much of the counter pro-transport argument from Labour.

 

[158722]

Meanwhile, back in Pacer related discussion...

GW are to deploy 110x 165/166 vehicles in the west between 2016-18 as the Thames valley gets wired. These are expected to displace 8x 143s and 19x 150/1 (and 150/0?) sets, with all other 15x classes retained and even the hybrid 150209 reformed and toilet fitted. That is a total of 27 Pacer displacements/withdrawls.

ScotRail are to release 8x 158s, 10x 156s and 29x 170s in 2017/18 when the full EGIP scheme & HST deployment is achieved. That is a total of 47 units for cascade schemes and eventual Pacer displacements/withdrawls.

LM should release their 6x 153s in 2017 when the Chase line goes live, doubts whether the 3x 150/1s can go too. That is a total of 3 (equivalent-ish) units for Pacer displacements/withdrawls.

Northern should been able to release something around 14 to 16 units (including the TPE load 156s) when Manchester-Bolton-Blackpool goes live in 2017, assuming that no units will be released this year because of Wigan/Chat Moss going live.

That all adds up to around 90 units displaced - almost equivalent to the 142 fleet. The potential 120 new build vehicles for Northern looks sufficient to bridge the gap to see off the other classes. I'd say that it looks possible that all three Pacer classes could well go by 2019/20, but the unknown is increasing demand which could well scupper this plan, whilst any delays in the electrification schemes will naturally have significant impacts, thus requiring short-term retention of the 144s.

 

[martynbristow]

Meanwhile, back in Pacer related discussion...

GW are to deploy 110x 165/166 vehicles in the west between 2016-18 as the Thames valley gets wired. These are expected to displace 8x 143s and 19x 150/1 (and 150/0?) sets, with all other 15x classes retained and even the hybrid 150209 reformed and toilet fitted. That is a total of 27 Pacer displacements/withdrawls.

ScotRail are to release 8x 158s, 10x 156s and 29x 170s in 2017/18 when the full EGIP scheme & HST deployment is achieved. That is a total of 47 units for cascade schemes and eventual Pacer displacements/withdrawls.

LM should release their 6x 153s in 2017 when the Chase line goes live, doubts whether the 3x 150/1s can go too. That is a total of 3 (equivalent-ish) units for Pacer displacements/withdrawls.

Northern should been able to release something around 14 to 16 units (including the TPE load 156s) when Manchester-Bolton-Blackpool goes live in 2017, assuming that no units will be released this year because of Wigan/Chat Moss going live.

That all adds up to around 90 units displaced - almost equivalent to the 142 fleet. The potential 120 new build vehicles for Northern looks sufficient to bridge the gap to see off the other classes. I'd say that it looks possible that all three Pacer classes could well go by 2019/20, but the unknown is increasing demand which could well scupper this plan, whilst any delays in the electrification schemes will naturally have significant impacts, thus requiring short-term retention of the 144s.

Electrification delays are inevitable :/ Unfortunately
The sponge that are the commuting public will soak up any excess stock available I'm sure

 

[northwichcat]

Northern should been able to release something around 14 to 16 units (including the TPE load 156s) when Manchester-Bolton-Blackpool goes live in 2017

The December 2017 timetable enhancements will utilise those released units. Even if the enhancements were scrapped extra capacity would still be required on existing services, so the enhancements may provide a more efficient way of providing that extra capacity. For example, an hourly 2 car train from Manchester to Chester via Northwich and an hourly 2 car train from Manchester to Northwich would require less carriages than a hourly 4 car train from Manchester to Chester via Northwich.

Also note the half-hourly Manchester-Leeds TPE "semi-fasts" will start in December 2017 with the hourly Victoria-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Leeds via Dewsbury stoppers going at the same time.

 

[Wolfie]

Hasn't Philip Rutnam (the Transport Permanent Secretary) rather shot the Tories' fox on this when he published a letter arguing against the ITT because new trains are dearer than Pacers?

If they now cancel the ITT because a franchise with new trains is dearer than one with Pacers might have been, it will be really hard to avoid it looking like ministerial incompetence, even with Michael McLoughlin safely out of the way somewhere.

I'm not saying it won't happen, though. To misquote an old fable, "... You knew I was a Tory when you voted for me."

There is a pan-Government Strategic Review of all expenditure due whoever gets elected.

Should (as is highly likely) DfT's budget be heavily cut (and all of the deficit reduction forecasts assume exactly that) that is all the justification needed to revisit the Northern ITT. The Ruttnam letter then assumes a whole lot more significance.

Any new SofS for Transport is not constrained by his/her predecessors decisions, well unless a legally binding contract is already in place and even that could be broken for the right compensation.....

Theres some leeway but you cant fundamentally alter a contract you've tendered or you have to compensate the other bidders and/or rerun it completly.

Having written and issued Govt ITTs I have to say that you really could not be more wrong!

There is usually a clause in tenders that the tendering body doesn't accept any liability to bidders if they decide to change the rules or cancel the tender entirely. However it's quite possible that a bidder, having spent several million, will consider legal action.

If the ITT was changed the tender stage would have to be re-run from the start, but if the change didn't affect the prequalification questionnaire then the prequalification stage would probably stand.

Indeed. Zero compensation was paid for the West Coast fiasco for example.....

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed. Zero compensation was paid for the West Coast fiasco for example.....

While no compensation was made for wasting the operator's time in preparing the bids for a franchise that wasn't awarded, they did have their costs reimbursed.

the National Audit Office calculated that there would be a "significant cost to the taxpayer" as a result of the fiasco.

It said costs for staff, advisers, lawyers and the two reviews into the fiasco added up to £8.9m, on top of the estimated £40m it will take to reimburse firms for the cost of their bids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21577826

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm not convinced Labour have that view, also in terms of trying to stem the level of Road Traffic I think the Tories realise there needs to be a carrot as well as a stick, while the Labour party just think you need a stick.

What gets me is that the two (at least) main parties are seemingly happy to give carrots to motorists and sticks to public transport users, as well as vice-versa. The Conservative's road building policies for example...

 

[martynbristow]

Just to clarify:

Variations to the Franchise Agreement
Bidders’ attention is drawn to the variation provisions in paragraph 1 of Schedule 9.5 (Variations to the Franchise Agreement and Incentivising Beneficial Changes) of the Franchise Agreement and the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the contracted Train Service Requirement. The Secretary of State reserves the right to require variations to the Franchise Services and/or the manner in which Franchise Services are required to be delivered, and any consequential changes to the Franchise Agreement, acting in compliance with law. The Secretary of State may also require variations to other contracted provisions or outputs, acting in compliance with law.

§1

 

[northwichcat]

Just to clarify:
§1

When DfT issued the ITT it seemed they envisaged Northern taking on the released Scotrail 15xs and 17xs (or possibly the released Scotrail and FGW 15xs), plus 120 new carriages and alongside North West electrification and cascaded EMUs that would be enough to get rid of the Pacers, allowing for extra services.

They allowed an option for more new carriages, presumably if another operator bagged Scotrail units first.

However, they didn't seem to allow for Northern bidders taking on the FGW 150/1s as well as all the Scotrail 15xs and 17xs. That could be the kind of change bidders may expect DfT to make. Alternatively, they could add or remove routes from the franchise spec. In the past they have done that when awarding franchises - see TPE.

 

[158722]

The December 2017 timetable enhancements will utilise those released units. Even if the enhancements were scrapped extra capacity would still be required on existing services, so the enhancements may provide a more efficient way of providing that extra capacity. For example, an hourly 2 car train from Manchester to Chester via Northwich and an hourly 2 car train from Manchester to Northwich would require less carriages than a hourly 4 car train from Manchester to Chester via Northwich.

Also note the half-hourly Manchester-Leeds TPE "semi-fasts" will start in December 2017 with the hourly Victoria-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Leeds via Dewsbury stoppers going at the same time.

Which indeed points towards the requirement for retention of some Pacers for longer, despite any new stock and all those cascades, perhaps until Manchester-Leeds-York goes live in 20?? - did I see pointers towards this being delayed until 2021 now?

 

[northwichcat]

Which indeed points towards the requirement for retention of some Pacers for longer, despite any new stock and all those cascades, perhaps until Manchester-Leeds-York goes live in 20?? - did I see pointers towards this being delayed until 2021 now?

DfT have said sometime after December 2020 in the TPE ITT. Roger Ford suggested prior to that being issued it was the December 2021 timetable change they aiming for but Network Rail haven't given any guarantee on that timescale.

 

[edwin_m]

While no compensation was made for wasting the operator's time in preparing the bids for a franchise that wasn't awarded, they did have their costs reimbursed.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21577826

The payments to West Coast bidders were fundamentally because the process to select the bidders wasn't applied in the way that the bidders had been led to believe would happen. This reason wouldn't apply if Government just changes its mind and re-runs the competition with a different ITT.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The DfT were banking on the GW 15x to be part of the mix in Northern and as well as the 150/1 and 153 fleet, I am told they were after at least 6 more (150/2) until quite late in the DA process.

The release dates for the GW 150/1 and 153 fleet reflect the urgent need to get them "possibly" (in DfT double speak!) into the North. As well as pacer replacement, there is a heavy ITT mandated refurb programme to cover.

I can see why Porterbrook are still carrying on with their demo. set but I still can't see it being a success. Pacers are politically toxic, whoever gets in after May 7th. If money is to be saved, NR will likely get shafted first, especially as they are now on yearly budgets and treasury monitoring & control.

 

[martynbristow]

The DfT were banking on the GW 15x to be part of the mix in Northern and as well as the 150/1 and 153 fleet, I am told they were after at least 6 more (150/2) until quite late in the DA process.

The release dates for the GW 150/1 and 153 fleet reflect the urgent need to get them "possibly" (in DfT double speak!) into the North. As well as pacer replacement, there is a heavy ITT mandated refurb programme to cover.

I can see why Porterbrook are still carrying on with their demo. set but I still can't see it being a success. Pacers are politically toxic, whoever gets in after May 7th. If money is to be saved, NR will likely get shafted first, especially as they are now on yearly budgets and treasury monitoring & control.

I've not seen this come up yet but how does this compare against D-train.
effectively they are the same idea.
Pacers are beneficial because there light like the D-train.
Is there any idea who will have the upper hand ?

 

[Domh245]

I've not seen this come up yet but how does this compare against D-train.
effectively they are the same idea.
Pacers are beneficial because there light like the D-train.
Is there any idea who will have the upper hand ?

In terms of numbers in the fleet, for maintenance and training etc, the D train will have an advantage - up to 75 D trains or 48 Pacers (143/4 of different lengths however, and currently spread between 3 operators - looking at Northern specifically, 14x 2 car 144 and 9x 3 car 144s). The D train might also have an advantage in the number of passengers it can take, dependant on the configuration, and will have an advantage in acceleration.

The 144 will have the advantages of a higher top speed (by 15mph) at the cost of a lower acceleration, and an almost guaranteed availability - they work now and the refurbishment is mainly cosmetic, wheras nobody quite knows if the D-Trains will work or if they will shake themselves apart/combust/break down/etc. The pacers would also have the 'advantage' of not being perceived as a Southern Cast-Off, but at the expense of being a pacer!

There may also be other benefits to the D-Train or the Pacer depending on how the D-Train performs once it's actually finished, such as ride, but for now I'll leave that out.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Pacers and the D train are equally as politically toxic as each other. Can you imagine the furore if you actually tried to replace a mid 1980's train with older underground stock, however well it is tarted up.

No sane politician is going to do it. If money is to be saved, you go for the big bucks (NR annual budget) rather than relatively penny number savings on Opex that just give you grief from both the punters and the voters.

The totally contrived correspondence between the politicians and officials at the DfT regarding pacer replacement shows that this last set of politicians have actually woken up to the realities of what it will take to get rid of them and they don't want D stock, that is for sure!

 

[158756]

Pacers and the D train are equally as politically toxic as each other. Can you imagine the furore if you actually tried to replace a mid 1980's train with older underground stock, however well it is tarted up.

No sane politician is going to do it. If money is to be saved, you go for the big bucks (NR annual budget) rather than relatively penny number savings on Opex that just give you grief from both the punters and the voters.

The totally contrived correspondence between the politicians and officials at the DfT regarding pacer replacement shows that this last set of politicians have actually woken up to the realities of what it will take to get rid of them and they don't want D stock, that is for sure!

Call me cynical, but:
They're currently fighting an election. In a months time they'll be safe in their seats for the next five years, faced with the task of cutting the deficit and an instant opportunity to save money on a franchise receiving more subsidy in one day than most of their voters will see in a lifetime.

As someone said upthread, a GP appointment within a month or new trains for rich commuters?

 

[northwichcat]

The DfT were banking on the GW 15x to be part of the mix in Northern and as well as the 150/1 and 153 fleet, I am told they were after at least 6 more (150/2) until quite late in the DA process.

The release dates for the GW 150/1 and 153 fleet reflect the urgent need to get them "possibly" (in DfT double speak!) into the North. As well as pacer replacement, there is a heavy ITT mandated refurb programme to cover.

I can see why Porterbrook are still carrying on with their demo. set but I still can't see it being a success. Pacers are politically toxic, whoever gets in after May 7th. If money is to be saved, NR will likely get shafted first, especially as they are now on yearly budgets and treasury monitoring & control.

At first glance it would seem with 6 additional 150/2s, that cascaded Sprinters from FGW and Scotrail, plus the 120 new carriages would be enough for Northern, as that would roughly be equivalent to the number of 142 and 144 carriages they have.

However, I've not looked in detail at whether the number of carriages released by electrification in the North will be exactly the same number as the number of extra carriages required for enhancements and extra capacity.

DfT seem to have worded the ITTs in a way to prevent TPE taking on released Scotrail 170s so that Northern (and possibly other franchises) can take them on. Although, the wording of the ITTs is deliberately vague to make it appear like DfT leave cascade decisions to ROSCOs and TOCs. The way the wording is written wouldn't rule out Scotrail 170s going to ATW and ATW releasing 175s to Northern or Scotrail 170s going to LM and LM releasing 172s to Northern. All that's ruled out is Northern taking on 17xs still required by other franchises unless DfT says otherwise.

The point about DMUs to cover refurbishments is a good one. Maybe DfT's masterplan involves Northern taking on surplus DMUs so that they can put a considerable number through a refurbishment program simultaneously, as well as getting Pacers withdrawn ASAP.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Just a small correction, there are 10 144 MS vehicles, not 9. Though the one from 144023 did spend a while OOU with fire damage last year.

 

[superalbs]

Wasn't the demonstrator due out in April? Haven't heard anything about this project for ages, I would guess they are waiting until the election to see whether pacers are to be kept in the Northern franchise or not. Hopefully they don't try and pitch this dumb idea to GWR.