TOC running for West Midlands franchise

[northwichcat]

You just need to look at what Kelios are doing to find out how much the big companies want the franchise. If they support Go-Ahead in a bid through Govia, then it's not one of the top franchises but if Kelios have over a 50% stake in one of the bidders then it's a very good franchise to get.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You just need to look at what Kelios are doing to find out how much the big companies want the franchise. If they support Go-Ahead in a bid through Govia, then it's not one of the top franchises but if Kelios have over a 50% stake in one of the bidders then it's a very good franchise to get.

Keolis.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

Could be an interesting bid this; glad to see that Abellio with JR East are entering, and that MTR are as well.

Be interesting how far Govia are willing to bend in the bid - on reasons for trying to keep the franchise is the fact they would be down to two franchises in the UK if they lost the West Mids. Although Southeastern and GTR are more than enough to keep them busy, and it's not as if the West Mids is the most profitable venture currently.

Govia have done well though in procuring the 172s and the 350/2s and 350/3s, however their staff shortage issues have certainly brought them some negative press over the years. The WCML element isn't easy to manage; particularly on the Southern Section; Govia have been good at promoting the cheap B'ham-London fares. They did however do a good job in bringing the fleet into one livery pretty quickly, and the Snow Hill lines have been run pretty well from my experience. Although recently been a few more issues, and a lack of communication. The impending Chase line electrification and 323 arrival will help alleviate overcrowding on the local West Midlands lines in the next franchis.

The Abellio/JR combination would be an unpredictable one - Abellio haven't done too bad job on the Greater Anglia franchise. Also had a steady start on Scotrail. Would be interesting how they would do on the West Mids. Certainly got the ideal base white livery for the West Midlands Rail plan - Swap the red for the blue/green on the documents produced so far and you can see Abellio running it!

The most interesting, and actually my hope, is MTR. They've done an excellent job on their participation in London Overground, and are of course now in the preparation stage for Crossrail, which I'd have good faith in them doing a good job on. Their experience with working under TfL would stand them in a good place in working with the West Midlands Rail, to further the devolved rail operation plan.


The incumbent franchise holder should be lucky in procuring extra stock, given the provisional plans for the 323s and 350/4s to arrive and the impending Chase line electrification. I'd like to see the next holder bring in the ex LO 172s to add capacity on the Snow Hill lines, and certainly allow the 170s to strengthen the Hereford and Shrewsbury lines. If Govia put in a good offer and don't upset the boat over the next year, I can see them keeping it. Would also save the task of rebranding etc. if they kept it. However I can see a real possibility of MTR considering their recent performance in London territory and their clear ability to interact with public bodies to organise rail services, a clear stipulation in the next West Midlands franchise. One aspect I would like to see the next franchise holder take on, is working with the appropriate authorities to try and re-instate the Camp Hill line. It is long overdue and much needed.

 

[Class 170101]

I would be interested to see what is provided between London and Crewe / Birmingham in terms of trains and hopefully faster services to compete on journey times with Virgin as well as more frequent services between London and Trent Valley Stations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First went for XCountry and East Midlands. I think most bidders thought that WM was the runt of the litter...

I would concur with that statement.

 

[ChrisHogan]

The incumbent franchise holder should be lucky in procuring extra stock, given the provisional plans for the 323s and 350/4s to arrive and the impending Chase line electrification. I'd like to see the next holder bring in the ex LO 172s to add capacity on the Snow Hill lines, and certainly allow the 170s to strengthen the Hereford and Shrewsbury lines. If Govia put in a good offer and don't upset the boat over the next year, I can see them keeping it. Would also save the task of rebranding etc. if they kept it. However I can see a real possibility of MTR considering their recent performance in London territory and their clear ability to interact with public bodies to organise rail services, a clear stipulation in the next West Midlands franchise. One aspect I would like to see the next franchise holder take on, is working with the appropriate authorities to try and re-instate the Camp Hill line. It is long overdue and much needed.

I don't see things as being that rosy. The first two years of the West Midlands franchise is likely to be very difficult with an acute shortage of rolling stock. It loses the remaining 150s in the LM fleet at the start of the franchise with the possibility of replacement by 153s if the Great Western cascade works on schedule. Bromsgrove and Chase Line electrifications should be finished around the time of the new franchise but the 323s to resource both don't come until 2019 (via RVAR refit). Bromsgrove requires an extra unit meaning one 6 car XCity formation will go back to 3 cars while Rugeley could be served off peak with 323s but need to revert to 170/153s in the peaks.

The 172 fleet is "over-diagrammed" (leading to regular short formations, particularly in the evening peak) and too many of the unit workings are too tight for 92.5% PPM in the evening peak. Most of the three-car formations in the evening peak have serious crowding issues and urgently need strengthening with more centre cars. What we don't want is more ex-GW 153s; their end doors and low speed make them unsuitable for the Snow Hill services. In addition, post RVAR, they are likely to only seat 60 or so.

All the 170s released from the Rugeley services are needed to strengthen the Hereford and Shrewsbury services that have similar crowding problems.

I have written to all three short-listed bidders with a copy of my submission to the DfT drawing attention to the rolling stock situation at the start of the franchise but whether anything can be done before late 2019 is debatable.

 

[HLE]

But the extra 153's would help on the Nuneaton to Coventry and the marston vale, as well as strengthening the diesel services on other routes out of Brum.

It's not all about the snow hill lines.....

 

[The Planner]

They will need a 153 for Kenilworth too.

 

[Class 170101]

I would be surprised if we see any Class 153 RVAR modified in their current form. I think they will end up being returned to two car trains (Class 155s) when they were built.

 

[northwichcat]

Govia have done well though in procuring the 172s and the 350/2s and 350/3s

Replacing the 150s and 321s was a franchise requirement. Where Govia perhaps did well was convincing DfT to let them keep 3 x 150s and 7 x 321s alongside the new trains.

The 350/3s (and 350/4s for TPE) were plan B. Plan A was for Northern to get new EMUs and to cascade the 323s to LM. LM were only due to get 7 x 350/3s (with the option of getting a cascade of the 350/4s in 2018) so again perhaps they did well convincing DfT they needed 3 extra.

 

[ChrisHogan]

It's not all about the snow hill lines.....

I've not suggested that it is; Rugeley, CrossCity, Shrewsbury and Hereford are all equally short of resources.

However, if the DfT wants to get to 92.5% PPM across the West Midland business unit then it needs to raise the current 89% PPM MAA on the Snow Hill lines to something like 95-96% PPM (outside the leaffall season) as getting any of the New Street services up to more than about 85% with the current infrastructure and services seems highly unlikely.

 

[PowerLee]

A lot of people that use the current London Midland service would be very happy if Govia didn't win the bid.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

The Snow Hill lines issue would easily be solved by trying to get the 8 Class 172s from LO when they're released. Only issue is the lack of end gangways; however not too major an issue considering the lack of ticket checks I find on some Snow Hill line services. Would certainly help strengthen the 2 car units and 3 car units in the peaks. The Snow Hill lines cope very well I find - tends to be the northern section that is packed in the peaks. During the off peaks the 172s have sufficent spare capacity.

If the next franchise doesn't secure those 172s then there could be problems; 153s aren't ideal (particuarly in multiple with 172s) and 170s will need dedicating, as you say, on the Hereford and Shrewsbury lines. Would probably have to go to CAF and try and obtain some Civity DMUs. Worse came to worse, then obtain a nice number of unused 153s, reform them into 2/3 car units, and use a few of them on the Snow Hill lines.

However really I think it was a poor decision to not have ordered the entire 172 fleet as 3 cars - however there was an option in the contract for a further order. Unfortunately never exercised and doubt it ever will now considering the emissions rules....

I was unaware the 323s could be late as early 2019 - was more hopeful of early 2018. I might have therefore been a bit too optimistic in that case! Only short term interim would be freed up 319s; although would have to remove the TSO if platform lengths were an issue.

Losing the 150s is a pain for the Bedford - Bletchley line as have already been discussed in another thread. Can't see the solution to that at the moment considering x2 153s coupled up are too long for platform lengths.

 

[ChrisHogan]

If the next franchise doesn't secure those 172s then there could be problems; 153s aren't ideal (particuarly in multiple with 172s) and 170s will need dedicating, as you say, on the Hereford and Shrewsbury lines. Would probably have to go to CAF and try and obtain some Civity DMUs. Worse came to worse, then obtain a nice number of unused 153s, reform them into 2/3 car units, and use a few of them on the Snow Hill lines.

However really I think it was a poor decision to not have ordered the entire 172 fleet as 3 cars - however there was an option in the contract for a further order. Unfortunately never exercised and doubt it ever will now considering the emissions rules....

I was unaware the 323s could be late as early 2019 - was more hopeful of early 2018. I might have therefore been a bit too optimistic in that case! Only short term interim would be freed up 319s; although would have to remove the TSO if platform lengths were an issue.

Losing the 150s is a pain for the Bedford - Bletchley line as have already been discussed in another thread. Can't see the solution to that at the moment considering x2 153s coupled up are too long for platform lengths.

Class 195 centre-cars from CAF to strengthen the existing 172s seem to be the best option. (I assume the 195s will be compatible with 15xs for Northern so they should work with 172s as well.) The LO Class 172s could be wrapped around the existing 172/2s to create more four car units when they become available later.

170/5s seem the best option for Bedford-Bletchley although perhaps a waste of modern rolling stock.

 

[Class 170101]

It could also depend upon the AGA franchise which is probably due for asnnouncement in June will they be keeping their DMUs or leasing new ones? In any event RVAR will see that the 153s will need amending in some way.

 

[sprinterguy]

The 172 fleet is "over-diagrammed" (leading to regular short formations, particularly in the evening peak) and too many of the unit workings are too tight for 92.5% PPM in the evening peak. Most of the three-car formations in the evening peak have serious crowding issues and urgently need strengthening with more centre cars.

Is it? They're diagrammed intensively, but not excessively in my view: There have been some train shortages based on the two fires that have occurred on the 172 fleet; but beyond some short formations in the short term in response London Midland have generally handled the shortfall very well, and restricted short formed trains, of which my usual number home from work is a popular choice to split a pair of 2-car units at Snow Hill, to those in the shoulder peak.

The mix of 3, 4, 5 and 6-car 172s (occasionally 2-car in extremis) is a great improvement on the equivalent length 150s that operated beforehand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A lot of people that use the current London Midland service would be very happy if Govia didn't win the bid.

I wouldn't be among them: "Better the devil you know", and I personally feel that London Midland have served my local lines, the Snow Hills and Cross City, reliably well during their tenure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However really I think it was a poor decision to not have ordered the entire 172 fleet as 3 cars - however there was an option in the contract for a further order.

I don't, as the 2-car trains work superbly semi-coupled as pairs to form four carriage trains where three wouldn't be enough but six would be excessive during the week (Whitlocks End diagrams), and where two carriages is full but not cramped (but some four carriage trains would be welcome, in the grand scheme of things) at the weekends.

 

[MK Tom]

Class 195 centre-cars from CAF to strengthen the existing 172s seem to be the best option. (I assume the 195s will be compatible with 15xs for Northern so they should work with 172s as well.) The LO Class 172s could be wrapped around the existing 172/2s to create more four car units when they become available later.

170/5s seem the best option for Bedford-Bletchley although perhaps a waste of modern rolling stock.

That also wouldn't fit in the platforms I believe. Marston Vale 2-car units need to be 20m carriages.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Is it? They're diagrammed intensively, but not excessively in my view: There have been some train shortages based on the two fires that have occurred on the 172 fleet; but beyond some short formations in the short term in response London Midland have generally handled the shortfall very well, and restricted short formed trains, of which my usual number home from work is a popular choice to split a pair of 2-car units at Snow Hill, to those in the shoulder peak.

The view that they are over-diagrammed came from a recently retired LM fleet engineer. He thought an extra maintenance unit was required to achieve the diagrammed availability. No 172s go onto Tyseley between the peaks meaning all maintenance and repairs take place overnight and good proportion of the fleet is outstabled as Leamington, Worcester, etc. Short-forming has been a regular feature long before the three engine fires. You can't restrict short formations to the shoulder peak by virtue of the cross-city nature of the route, as a shoulder peak from Snow Hill comes back later as a peak hour service. There have been some grossly overloaded peak hour trains in the last year.

 

[sprinterguy]

The view that they are over-diagrammed came from a recently retired LM fleet engineer. He thought an extra maintenance unit was required to achieve the diagrammed availability.

An additional maintenance unit certainly wouldn't go amiss I'll admit, far be it for me to contest the experience of Tyseley's engineers.

You can't restrict short formations to the shoulder peak by virtue of the cross-city nature of the route, as a shoulder peak from Snow Hill comes back later as a peak hour service.

You sort of can because longer journeys out to Stratford or Worcester constitute a little over a two hour round trip, so it's possible for a train to miss the high peak period in Birmingham. Granted that both Stratford and Worcester have commuter traffic of their own, mind, particularly in the case of the latter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Short-forming has been a regular feature long before the three engine fires.

I haven't noticed this with much regularity, except during a period of around a fortnight immediately in the wake of the second engine fire, where things really were very tight and certain diagrams were being shortformed on a daily basis in response, unavoidably leading to some very cramped conditions.

More common than shortformed 172s in my experience has been when the 170+153 diagram has operated without the 153, or a 2-car 170 has been provided instead of a 3-car.

 

[northwichcat]

I was unaware the 323s could be late as early 2019 - was more hopeful of early 2018. I might have therefore been a bit too optimistic in that case! Only short term interim would be freed up 319s; although would have to remove the TSO if platform lengths were an issue.

The LM 350/3 order broke down as:
- 3 units to allow an internal cascade to provide additional capacity on Cross City services.
- 3 units for other immediate capacity improvements.
- 3 units to cover Bromsgrove electrification (which was scheduled for 2015 at the time.)
- 1 unit as maintenance/spare

So probably as far as DfT are concerned LM have enough units already to cover one electrification scheme and only need additional units when the second scheme is ready. The fact that LM initially replaced 7 x 321s with 4 x 319s suggested they already had 3 units spare.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Class 195 centre-cars from CAF to strengthen the existing 172s seem to be the best option. (I assume the 195s will be compatible with 15xs for Northern so they should work with 172s as well.)

Why would you think CAF's DMU vehicles will work with Bombardier's?
They are pretty much bound to be running different train management systems, even if the couplers are compatible (which they might not be).
You certainly don't see Alstom class 175 or Siemens class 185 vehicles mixed up with other manufacturer's DMUs.

 

[swt_passenger]

The LM 350/3 order broke down as:
- 3 units to allow an internal cascade to provide additional capacity on Cross City services.
- 3 units for other immediate capacity improvements.
- 3 units to cover Bromsgrove electrification (which was scheduled for 2015 at the time.)
- 1 unit as maintenance/spare

So probably as far as DfT are concerned LM have enough units already to cover one electrification scheme and only need additional units when the second scheme is ready. The fact that LM initially replaced 7 x 321s with 4 x 319s suggested they already had 3 units spare.

Your breakdown above is not explained by either the LM or the DfT announcements. They both state that 3 units (12 cars) are for Cross City by internal cascade, and the other 7 units (28 cars) are all for Euston services.

Here are extracts from the two announcements:

12 will help deliver an internal rolling stock cascade that will provide additional capacity on the Cross City line in Birmingham ...

...The other 28 London Midland carriages will provide faster peak journeys and extra capacity on services into London Euston from December 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-trains-and-faster-journey-times-will-boost-capacity

...seven of the new trains are earmarked for London commuter services providing 4,474 extra seats each weekday.

The remaining three new trains will be used to provide extra capacity on the Cross-City line in Birmingham.

http://www.londonmidland.com/about-...ins-bring-extra-capacity-and-faster-journeys/

I don't disagree with the basic point though, that as far as DfT are concerned LM already have the units for Bromsgrove wiring. I made the same point in a different thread a few days ago.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't disagree with the basic point though, that as far as DfT are concerned LM already have the units for Bromsgrove wiring. I made the same point in a different thread a few days ago.

Rail news reported

and the trains will also allow electric services from Birmingham New Street to be extended to Bromsgrove from May 2015, assuming that the plan to relocate Bromsgrove Station is confirmed and that electrification is completed on schedule.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/02/29-fleet-boosts-confirmed-for-london.html

I doubt DfT would want to draw attention to Bromsgrove electrification if it was running behind schedule.

I made the presumption one was a maintenance/spare as operators usually seem to allow for at least 1 in 10 units being as such.

 

[swt_passenger]

The point if you read the whole linked articles is that the 3 units for Bromsgrove are the same 3 units as the "Cross City'. DfT did draw attention to Bromsgrove as well:

From the DfT announcement:

Of the 40 carriages London Midland will receive, 12 will help deliver an internal rolling stock cascade that will provide additional capacity on the Cross City line in Birmingham. The frequency of peak and off-peak services between Birmingham and Redditch will be increased from 2 trains per hour to 3 trains per hour from December 2014. The trains will also enable electric services from Birmingham New Street to be extended to Bromsgrove from May 2015, assuming that the plan to relocate Bromsgrove Station is confirmed and electrification is completed on schedule.

The other 7 units don't get mentioned until the next paragraph.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Why would you think CAF's DMU vehicles will work with Bombardier's?
They are pretty much bound to be running different train management systems, even if the couplers are compatible (which they might not be).
You certainly don't see Alstom class 175 or Siemens class 185 vehicles mixed up with other manufacturer's DMUs.

I'm sure CAF would be prepared to build compatible vehicles if the order was big enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You sort of can because longer journeys out to Stratford or Worcester constitute a little over a two hour round trip, so it's possible for a train to miss the high peak period in Birmingham. Granted that both Stratford and Worcester have commuter traffic of their own, mind, particularly in the case of the latter.

That doesn't work. The 1457 Stourbridge-Stratford is a minimum length 3-car already and comes back at 1626 becoming the 1723 from Snow Hill that is already F&S leaving Birmingham and difficult to get on at its last principal pick-up (Galton Bridge). Short-forming to a 2-car means passengers left behind.

The one an hour later is a 4-car and needs that capacity at 1823 as there in a gap in the service as it starts to wind down to half-hourly.

Towards Worcester, there are a large amount of schools traffic from Hagley and other stations down to Worcester and vice-versa. These services are mainly 3-car services anyway.

I see no reason why the West Midlands franchise shouldn't be expansionary in the same way that the Northern franchises are, after the growth in passenger numbers during the LM 'no growth' franchise. We can't expect large numbers of new services because of the infrastructure constraints around Birmingham but we ought to move from a 3/4-car railway to a 6-car railway where platform lengths permit. At the moment, there is a handful of 6-car formations on CrossCity and one in each peak on the Snow Hill lines.

That needs extra rolling stock.

 

[BHXDMT]

Sorry for dragging up an older thread, but it's entirely related and not worth a new one.

MTR UK have pulled out of the West Midlands Franchise bid, leaving Govia and Abellio as the only two bidders.

MTR has withdrawn from the competition for the next West Midlands franchise. The revelation comes shortly after the Hong Kong based operator had announced a partnership to bid with FirstGroup for the South Western franchise.

The decision leaves the DfT running a second franchise competition with just two bidders -- who are Abellio and the incumbent Govia, which runs West Midlands as London Midland.

Link

Supposedly to focus on Crossrail & their new joint venture with First Group for the South Western franchise.

 

[JaJaWa]

Is the Abellio bid still Abellio/East Japan Railway Company/Mitsui?

 

[HH]

Ah yes, the brave new world of Wilkinson's DfT. That's two franchises now with only two bidders.

Looks like DfT's attempt to shift all risk onto bidders has backfired. The margins just aren't big enough, especially given the cost of bidding.

 

[northwichcat]

Ah yes, the brave new world of Wilkinson's DfT. That's two franchises now with only two bidders.

Looks like DfT's attempt to shift all risk onto bidders has backfired. The margins just aren't big enough, especially given the cost of bidding.

If Govia don't like the terms of the new franchise they could pull out and be pretty much guaranteed to get a franchise extension on the old terms, as bidding can't happen with just Abellio.

 

[BHXDMT]

Is the Abellio bid still Abellio/East Japan Railway Company/Mitsui?

Correct.

 

[HH]

if govia don't like the terms of the new franchise they could pull out and be pretty much guaranteed to get a franchise extension on the old terms, as bidding can't happen with just abellio.

D.O.R. are the fallback