Thameslink new trains why the delay

[cjp]

Way back in 2005 on this site was it was said in this thread
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=296043&postcount=1

Thameslink trains through central London will drive themselves under plans revealed by the government this week (23 February).

The Department for Transport says the next generation of Thameslink trains, due to enter service from 2012 to support infrastructure enhancements delivered by the Thameslink Programme, will be equipped with Automatic Train Operation (ATO). Drivers will operate train doors and oversee passenger safety but the train driving itself will be handled by computers and high-tech signalling equipment.

Introduction of ATO on the Thameslink route, currently operated by train operator First Capital Connect, will be a first for the UK National Rail network. Various ATO systems are currently used on the Docklands Light Railway and the Jubilee and Victoria Tube lines but the technology is largely untried on Britain's main rail network.

Senior civil servants and rail staff have been forced to consider ATO after it emerged that plans for 24 trains per hour in each direction through central London, as promised by the Thameslink Programme, were insufficiently robust and were unlikely to be deliverable for more than a few hours without delays and disruption. Analysis conducted between April and November 2008 found that punctuality above the 93% public performance measure (PPM) could be achieved with a maximum of 20 trains per hour.

According to the DfT, computer modelling has shown that ATO will deliver approximately four trains per hour more through the central London Thameslink corridor than the best that could be achieved robustly with manual driving and conventional signalling within the limits of professional driving standards. Operational challenges for the core section include steep gradients, low speed limits ands short distances between stations which require trains to be precisely driven to avoid knock-on delays to the next services. Under the ATO plans trains will continue to be driven manually on Thameslink routes beyond central London.

Members of the Crossrail project team will help finalise the technical details of the new Thameslink train fleet in a bid to create a national specification for a high capcity urban train control system.

In a first for the UK National Rail network ministers have agreed for the new Thameslink trains, due to enter service from 2012, to use automatic train operation (ATO) in order to minimise station dwell times and maintain the 24 trains per hour in each direction planned under the Thameslink Programme. Recognising that a similar train design will form the basis of units required for the east-west Crossrail route less than five years later, Crossrail staff will be given a say in how the Thameslink trains should be built.

Nine years on I read
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/new-thameslink-trains-previewed-in-london.html

The trains will be fitted with automatic train operation for use on the central core section of the route from Blackfriars to St Pancras where trains will run every two to three minutes with station stops of only 30 seconds.

The £6.5bn Thameslink programme is scheduled for completion in December 2018 with the rebuilt London Bridge station and new infrastructure links in north and south London enabling through journeys from Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire to destinations in Kent, Sussex and Surrey.

With up to 24 trains per hour through central London there will be 80% more peak hour seats on the core cross-London section from 2018.

My Questions, revealing my ignorance, on this wet and windy day:

• Is this delay typical of train procurement?
• Is it all down to politics/ government (funding)?
• Will there really be trains driving themselves in the central part?
• May the TOC not buy and operate the trains directly selling them on as needed at the end of the franchise and so save money (a third parties profits) or are they prohibited from doing this?

And do you, more knowledgable types, think it really will all be done and dusted by 2018?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Way back in 2005 on this site was it was said in this thread
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=296043&postcount=1
Nine years on I read
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/new-thameslink-trains-previewed-in-london.html
My Questions, revealing my ignorance, on this wet and windy day:

• Is this delay typical of train procurement?
• Is it all down to politics/ government (funding)?
• Will there really be trains driving themselves in the central part?
• May the TOC not buy and operate the trains directly selling them on as needed at the end of the franchise and so save money (a third parties profits) or are they prohibited from doing this?

And do you, more knowledgable types, think it really will all be done and dusted by 2018?

2005 was two governments and two Network Rail 5-year control periods ago (and a big recession).
The train procurement was indeed very late, largely due to the complexity of the overall package (depots, maintenance and financing as well as trains).
The infrastructure south of the Thames is also running late (London Bridge rebuilding etc).

Yes, they still plan to use ATO in the core section.
These trains, like IEP, were specified and contracted by DfT, not the TOCs.
The new TOC (TSGN) will simply take over the train contract.
The 2018 timescale seems reasonably certain seeing as most of the infrastructure contracts have been let and the franchise bids are in.
ATO is a novelty with NR though.

 

[transmanche]

Is it all down to politics/ government (funding)?

Yes, it is.

 

[thelem]

Bear in mind the 2012 date was for the first train to be introduced, while 2018 is for the last train. There have been huge delays though - most obviously it was originally called Thameslink 2000.

Is this delay typical of train procurement?

Not to this extent.

Is it all down to politics/ government (funding)?

Yes. This also affected the supplier chosen, as they had a role in funding the train build.

Will there really be trains driving themselves in the central part?

Yes. This already happens on the DLR and Victoria Line.

May the TOC not buy and operate the trains directly selling them on as needed at the end of the franchise and so save money (a third parties profits) or are they prohibited from doing this?

In theory they could, I think FGW own a handful of their trains. I think they might also be forced to take a certain number of rented trains. In practise you don't want to buy and asset with a 40-year lifespan if you've only got a licence to operate a service for 10 years. Also, businesses often favour renting as it means they don't have their capital tied up in property and can use it for other purposes.

 

[transmanche]

Yes. This already happens on the DLR and Victoria Line.

Also on the Central and Jubilee lines and (parts of?) the Northern line too.

The Victoria line has been operating with automatic trains since it opened in 1968.

 

[IanXC]

In theory they could, I think FGW own a handful of their trains.

Indeed - First Group purchased 12 HST powercars at a time they were out of use and in very poor condition. In addition First Great Western own 3 class 143s as assets of the Greater Western franchisee.

 

[djo]

ATO might have been talked about in the past but they are planning to install ERTMS in the core section, definitely need a driver for that!!!

D

 

[transmanche]

ATO might have been talked about in the past but they are planning to install ERTMS in the core section, definitely need a driver for that!!!

ERTMS/ETCS is method they will be using to deliver ATO.

 

[swt_passenger]

ATO might have been talked about in the past but they are planning to install ERTMS in the core section, definitely need a driver for that!!!

D

The initials are important here, ERTMS = European Rail Traffic Management System. The onboard part of that is ETCS = European Train Control System.

The ETCS level they are using in the core definitely includes ATO functionality. We have discussed it in quite a few earlier threads, for instance I linked to a Network Change Notice about it a few weeks ago in another thread here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1655632&postcount=53

For the Thameslink Programme, the coloured light signals throughout the Core Area and in the London Bridge design will remain in-situ and operational for use in the event of a failure or perturbation. Retention of lineside signalling will also allow access for stock not fitted with on-board ETCS equipment. Rules will need to be put in place to determine driver-signaller behaviour as a result of a failure to either sub-system.
3.3.8
The Thameslink Programme will also provide support for Automatic Train Operation (ATO) of the new Class 700 rolling stock within the ETCS area. The Thameslink Automatic Train Supervision System (ATSS) will pass information to the train to set dwell time and trip time to allow the ATO system to control the train with minimal intervention by the train driver.
3.3.9
It should be noted that the ETCS signalling system will only be available to ETCS-fitted trains and should have no impact on non-fitted stock, which can continue to operate using the conventional lineside signalling. ATO will also only be possible with ATO-fitted Class 700 rolling stock. Transition borders for ETCS and ATO will have no impact upon existing TPWS and AWS train protection systems.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ormal cppn/ncg52013tlp001 hci formal cppn.pdf

 

[Darren R]

In theory they could, I think FGW own a handful of their trains. I think they might also be forced to take a certain number of rented trains. In practise you don't want to buy and asset with a 40-year lifespan if you've only got a licence to operate a service for 10 years. Also, businesses often favour renting as it means they don't have their capital tied up in property and can use it for other purposes.

With the current franchising system it makes no business sense to buy new rolling stock and then sell it to the new franchisee later. The new trains as assets would disappear off the company's balance sheet after four years, and they would be liable for Capital Gains Tax at 40% when selling them on. They could well find themselves losing money on such a deal. What business is going to do that?

 

[Class377/5]

One thing overlooked is the fact the trains will be later arriving than but so is the infrastructure. originally designed to be finished in Dec 2015. A combination of the pause enforced by the spending review in 2010 and the market crash meaning the London Bridge design had to save round £1bn of its cost meant that the KO2 works won't be completed until 2018 in the end.

 

[cjp]

With the current franchising system it makes no business sense to buy new rolling stock and then sell it to the new franchisee later. The new trains as assets would disappear off the company's balance sheet after four years, and they would be liable for Capital Gains Tax at 40% when selling them on. They could well find themselves losing money on such a deal. What business is going to do that?

I feel your argument might be wrong. Capital assets can be depreciated year by year and set against profits for tax. Alternatively Should they be able to sell them for more than they paid is it wrong to pay tax on the gain? If you think it is wrong that the country does not need the income required to run the country [tax] then they they could act as Vodaphone and others have done. Perhaps putting each train purchased in a separate company, possibly a BV company and then selling not the trains but the company?

 

[Class377/5]

I feel your argument might be wrong. Capital assets can be depreciated year by year and set against profits for tax. Alternatively Should they be able to sell them for more than they paid is it wrong to pay tax on the gain? If you think it is wrong that the country does not need the income required to run the country [tax] then they they could act as Vodaphone and others have done. Perhaps putting each train purchased in a separate company, possibly a BV company and then selling not the trains but the company?

Like a ROSCO?

 

[Darren R]

I feel your argument might be wrong. Capital assets can be depreciated year by year and set against profits for tax. Alternatively Should they be able to sell them for more than they paid is it wrong to pay tax on the gain? If you think it is wrong that the country does not need the income required to run the country [tax] then they they could act as Vodaphone and others have done. Perhaps putting each train purchased in a separate company, possibly a BV company and then selling not the trains but the company?

I wasn't really commenting on the tax system and the rights-and-wrongs of it in general or in relation to the railways. I merely meant that it was potentially another financial disincentive for TOCs to invest in their own rolling stock. One of the original question posed was this:

May the TOC not buy and operate the trains directly selling them on as needed at the end of the franchise and so save money (a third parties profits) or are they prohibited from doing this?

What I am saying is that yes, TOCs can buy and operate the trains directly and then sell them at the end of the franchise. But there is no incentive for them to do so, and every incentive for them not to.

 

[Chris125]

There's a great article in The Rail Engineer about the proposed Thameslink Signalling, well worth a read -

Signalling the Thameslink Programme

Chris

 

[DownSouth]

Like a ROSCO?

I think cjp meant registering a company for each rolling stock item - e.g. 377501 Ltd, 377502 Ltd, 377503 Ltd and so on.

It's a moot point anyway, no rail vehicle will ever get sold second hand for a higher price than it was supplied new so capital gains tax won't need to be paid - and that is one of the two core reasons leasing is a better general practice for franchised passenger rail operators than ownership.

A more interesting prospect would be a franchised passenger rail operator buying some rolling stock, losing their franchise and then doing something else with said rolling stock other than selling or leasing to their successor in the franchise.

 

[cjp]

I think cjp meant registering a company for each rolling stock item - e.g. 377501 Ltd, 377502 Ltd, 377503 Ltd and so on.

A more interesting prospect would be a franchised passenger rail operator buying some rolling stock, losing their franchise and then doing something else with said rolling stock other than selling or leasing to their successor in the franchise.

That was what I had in mind.
Your "Potential Ransom" scenario is interesting and ought to ensure any TOC obtained a good price for any rolling stock they owned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What I am saying is that yes, TOCs can buy and operate the trains directly and then sell them at the end of the franchise. But there is no incentive for them to do so, and every incentive for them not to.

I understand but my point was that companies which buy and then rent the rolling stock to the TOC make money from acting as middlemen (or else why do it?) and so if a TOC bought stock directly it would save by not having to pay a third party its profit. Simplistic I know but it seemed to make a certain amount of sense to me.

 

[transmanche]

I understand but my point was that companies which buy and then rent the rolling stock to the TOC make money from acting as middlemen (or else why do it?) and so if a TOC bought stock directly it would save by not having to pay a third party its profit. Simplistic I know but it seemed to make a certain amount of sense to me.

However there is a good reason that ROSCOs were established.

If you were the CFO of Stagecoach/First/DB/NS/et al, there's no way you'd ever sanction the expenditure required to acquire a brand-new fleet of rolling stock as the risk is just too high on a short franchise (compared to the life of the asset).