Rolling Stock Costs c2c versus ATW

[Gareth Marston]

The recent ORR figures for rail finances throw up some interesting questions.

C2C have rolling stock costs of £23 million per annum with a homogenous fleet of 74 4 car Class 357 Electrostars new since 1998. Total 296 carriages.

ATW have rolling stock costs of £39 million per annum with a mixed fleet of BR Class 142 (15 2 car) /143 (15 2 car) /150 (36 2 car) /153 (8 single car) /158 (24 2 car) DMU's and modern Class 175 DMU's (15 3 car, 12 2 car) plus 8 Mk3 some DVTs and Class 67 locos. Total 265 carriages.

How come C2C's rolling stock bill is so much lower with a similar sized fleet? I would have expected c2C leasing costs to be higher as they have a much newer fleet.

Can anyone shed any light? Thanks.

 

[Manchester77]

I do believe that ROSCOs charge more for ex-BR stock because they're older and have less time to make money off them

 

[Pumbaa]

Is this just leasing cost or leasing plus VTAC (variable track access charge)?

 

[edwin_m]

As well as VTAC we need to know if the costs include maintenance, diesel fuel and traction power. Maintenance and energy costs are likely to be higher for diesels, and with the DMU shortage leasing costs may be higher too.

 

[tbtc]

Interesting question - I'd guess that two of the reasons would be that EMUs are cheaper to lease than DMUs and that a four coach unit is cheaper to lease than two two coach units, but that's just guesswork. Maybe there's also some benefit in leasing hundreds of coaches from the same ROSCO?

Hopefully this shows the benefits of TOCs getting uniform fleets (and potentially of changing franchise boundaries to enable that to happen?)

 

[Gareth Marston]

The Orr spreadsheet doesn't go into detail of how the figures are derived hence the post, Virgin pays £221 million for its homogenous newish fleet from same rosco yet East coast pays only £85 million for its older ex BR stock. This partly explains why east coast pays premium , FGW pays £66 million. No prizes for guessing what IEP will do as the monthly lease costs are more than for a pendolino
Looking at other tocs it doesn't seem to hold that ex BR is charged more.

 

[northwichcat]

Intermediate vehicles are cheaper to lease than driving vehicles. C2C have 148 driving vehicles and 148 intermediate vehicles.

ATW only have a small number of intermediate vehicles on some of the 175s and by the time they have 153s (with two cabs per train) and some expensive to lease loco hauled stock that's more than cancelled out by other stock.

Also how many toilets do the 357s have per train? That might also have an influence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hopefully this shows the benefits of TOCs getting uniform fleets (and potentially of changing franchise boundaries to enable that to happen?)

I think to achieve that we will need some large orders of new trains all going to the same TOC. Not like the recent 172 and 350 orders where a small number of trains have been split between multiple operators. We also had a cancelled proposed order to be split between Northern, FGW and TPE.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Here's the link to the ORR spreadsheet beware its a monster.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11143

 

[tbtc]

We also had a cancelled proposed order to be split between Northern, FGW and TPE

You talk about this as if it were ever tendered. The Government suggested doing it then decided to do something else (electrification to free up DMUs) instead. Yet this "proposal" keeps getting mentioned.

 

[northwichcat]

You talk about this as if it were ever tendered. The Government suggested doing it then decided to do something else (electrification to free up DMUs) instead. Yet this "proposal" keeps getting mentioned.

As brought up in the thread about this that YorkshireBear started a few weeks ago an invitation to tender was issued and here it is http://webarchive.nationalarchives.....dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/diesel/invitation.pdf It was pulled before it was awarded though.

I also said 'cancelled proposed order' in my post which would be correct even if the DfT hadn't reached the invitation to tender stage as it was included as on the HLOS output strategy.

 

[IanXC]

As brought up in the thread about this that YorkshireBear started a few weeks ago an invitation to tender was issued and here it is http://webarchive.nationalarchives.....dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/diesel/invitation.pdf It was pulled before it was awarded though.

I also said 'cancelled proposed order' in my post which would be correct even if the DfT hadn't reached the invitation to tender stage as it was included as on the HLOS output strategy.

Thanks for posting that link - I'd not previously seen the proposed unit lengths for this cancelled programme - being entirely 3/4 car units shows the decision to replace the programme with the electrification programme in a new light.

 

[Gareth Marston]

C2C apparently pay Network Rail £26 million for running 7 million train KM's and ATW pay Network Rail £65 million for running 23 million train KM. Which gives an average cost payable to NR per train KM of £3.71 for C2C and £2.83 for ATW.

 

[edwin_m]

Reasons C2C will pay more to NR are longer trains (access charges are per vehicle), probably more capacity charges due to use of congested bits of the railway, and charges for traction electricity assuming that is included in the figures.

On the other hand ATW will probably pay more in fixed access charges because compared to the Tilbury line the Welsh network is much larger, less densely used, with a high proportion of manual signalling.

 

[northwichcat]

Thanks for posting that link - I'd not previously seen the proposed unit lengths for this cancelled programme - being entirely 3/4 car units shows the decision to replace the programme with the electrification programme in a new light.

It was actually swt_passenger who posted it first in April in a different thread.