West Coast Franchise speculation

[pt_mad]

Yeah. You prefer the lighting in the second picture. We get it. Others don't. Some of us consider the lighting in the first picture to be among the nicest around.

Speculating on what the announced new lighting might be. If it was a like for like replacement of florescent tubes, probably wouldn't have been on the franchise announcement imo.

 

[nbdm]

Warm white LEDs are available. I have them throughout my house.

Chiltern used *cheap and nasty* white ones - worse by far than even quality cool white. The ambiance is like someone got a load of camping lights and installed those. Very poor.

The only good thing about those coaches is the legroom and window alignment. Bad seats, bad layout (commuters don't want near all facing, about half and half is better), drab interior scheme, bad lighting. The ex-ATW coach in the Banbury formation is much nicer.

Personally, I would like some kind of 'night mode' lighting. Apple recently added something similar to iOS (Android have had it for a while via apps such as f.lux) to aid sleeping by reducing 'blue light'.

In the daytime the lights are cool white (as seen in the Chiltern picture) but as night falls the lights could transition to a warmer colour gradually & automatically.
Aircraft like the A380 and B787 have ambient lighting like this and I think it's fantastic (especially on overnight long haul flights)

It's a fairly simple concept, but I doubt it will happen!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Speculating on what the announced new lighting might be. If it was a like for like replacement of florescent tubes, probably wouldn't have been on the franchise announcement imo.

That kind of thing does appear in that kind of place. "Green credentials" are very much to shout about these days. Indeed, I think VTWC did shout about it when the central spots were replaced with LED.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I would like some kind of 'night mode' lighting. Apple recently added something similar to iOS (Android have had it for a while via apps such as f.lux) to aid sleeping by reducing 'blue light'.

In the daytime the lights are cool white (as seen in the Chiltern picture) but as night falls the lights could transition to a warmer colour gradually & automatically.
Aircraft like the A380 and B787 have ambient lighting like this and I think it's fantastic (especially on overnight long haul flights)

It's a fairly simple concept, but I doubt it will happen!

If any TOC was going to try that (it is done using red, green and blue LEDs), I would put VTWC up to it.

 

[Mollman]

However, if they are not careful I can see Stagecoach, and therefore Virgin, being removed from future bidding shortlists.

Grayling reiterated several times that there are no legal grounds to bar Stagecoach from bidding, so I can't see that happening, unless Stagecoach decide voluntarily to not bid?

There is no legal grounds to exclude them, but that doesn't say that they can't be pushed out of winning.

The issue is that the East Coast is not an easy franchise to get right - too much reliance on leisure travel, direct competition from Open Access and also from XC and TPE to a level not found on other Intercity Franchises. Part of the blame must lay at the door of those who awarded it - they should have been aware of the Nat Ex catastrophe and been wary. That means it came across as a realistic bid and therefor you can't bar them from bidding elsewhere because that would open the DfT up to a legal challenge.

 

[gsnedders]

The issue is that the East Coast is not an easy franchise to get right - too much reliance on leisure travel, direct competition from Open Access and also from XC and TPE to a level not found on other Intercity Franchises. Part of the blame must lay at the door of those who awarded it - they should have been aware of the Nat Ex catastrophe and been wary. That means it came across as a realistic bid and therefor you can't bar them from bidding elsewhere because that would open the DfT up to a legal challenge.

If we were to get rid of the East Coast franchise entirely, and have it operate purely on a commercial Open Access basis, how much would change? (Note this is how, for example, intercity trains in Germany operate.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we were to get rid of the East Coast franchise entirely, and have it operate purely on a commercial Open Access basis, how much would change? (Note this is how, for example, intercity trains in Germany operate.)

That's not quite how they operate. DB AG is a powerful incumbent. What you have in Germany is rather more like if we'd done a share issue on BR to create a BR plc, then had them operate the former InterCity sector commercially and bid for contracts for regional franchises on an equal basis to others.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A better example might be Italy, where NTV/Italo (private sector, with an SNCF 20% share) is head to head with Trenitalia (public sector, but in line for partial sell-off).
But this is only on the high-speed network, where there is spare capacity.
Italo services also tend to use out-of-town stations (eg Rome Tiburtina rather than Termini).
Italo (NTV) bought its own new rolling stock (TGV-based).

Franchise planners have considered offering packages of paths on NR routes in the UK, but it seems to fall down on things like dividing the fleets and servicing facilities.
This is a bit like the Premier League offering different games packages to the broadcasters.
But the Voyager fleet was successfully split between VT and XC when the combined franchise split.
HS2 gives the opportunity for more competition, with capacity for new paths, but there doesn't appear to be an appetite for this in DfT at the moment.

 

[pt_mad]

What doesn't make sense is that on the West Coast, First bid too much and Virgin brought this up and said they will never achieve the figures they say they will. The DFT did an investigation and Virgin held the line.

Yet on the ECML, Virgin Stagecoach did exactly the same thing. Bid too much and they couldn't achieve the figures. So why did the company that was first to complain about First overbidding find themselves 10 percent involved in doing exactly that on another line with only their name to the branding?

Trying not to go too off topic, but presumably if another TOC had formally objected at the announcement stage about the East Coast award the way Virgin objected on the West Coast, a full investigation would have revealed the same flawed figures as last time.

 

[E6007]

What doesn't make sense is that on the West Coast, First bid too much and Virgin brought this up and said they will never achieve the figures they say they will. The DFT did an investigation and Virgin held the line.

That's not what happened. It was the assessment of their bid that Virgin successfully objected to. Can't remember all the details but ...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Good news we have got off the trivia on internal lighting on the 390's .......

 

[ainsworth74]

That's not what happened. It was the assessment of their bid that Virgin successfully objected to. Can't remember all the details but ...

Indeed:

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin asked Sam Laidlaw, the chief executive of Centrica and a non-executive DfT board member, to conduct an urgent investigation following the discovery of unacceptable flaws in the procurement process that led to the competition being cancelled on October 3.

His final report, published today (6 December 2012) by the Department for Transport, finds that:

• the DfT used flawed and inconsistent methodology when guiding bidders on the amount of risk capital (known as the Subordinated Loan Facility) they would need to offer to guarantee their franchise against default (Inquiry report paragraph 4.31, p22)
• the Subordinated Loan Facility figures resulting from the flawed methodology were then varied in a way that contravened franchise competition rules (3.4, p11)
• ministers made the original August 14 provisional contract award without being told about the critical flaws (2.12, p8) and having been given “inaccurate reports” (3.8, p12)

Source

It wasn't the premium payments that were the issue (though they were clearly never going to happen, I recall First proposing to pay over £1bn in the final year of the Franchise!) but this 'Subordinated Loan Facility' and the way that it was applied to the bids by First and Virgin/Stagecoach. I seem to recall it was something along the lines that First's was substantially less than Virgin/Stagecoach despite the First bid being more risky.

 

[DenmarkRail]

If we were to get rid of the East Coast franchise entirely, and have it operate purely on a commercial Open Access basis, how much would change? (Note this is how, for example, intercity trains in Germany operate.)

I suppose you could haul off:
- The VTEC London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, Aberdeen, and Inverness services, to that new First group OA operator
- The VTEC Leeds to Aberdeen service to XC (Could be an extension to one of the services coming from PNZ?)
- The VTEC London to Sunderland service could go to Grand Central
- The VTEC London to Leeds, Skipton, York, and Harrogate services, to a new 'Yorkshire Express' operator
- The VTEC London to Bradford service to Grand Central
- The VTEC London to Hull service to Hull Trains
- The VTEC London to Lincoln to East Midlands Trains

 

[DenmarkRail]

Off topic though, so maybe move this to EC thread?

I suppose you could haul off:
- The VTEC London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, Aberdeen, and Inverness services, to that new First group OA operator
- The VTEC Leeds to Aberdeen service to XC (Could be an extension to one of the services coming from PNZ?)
- The VTEC London to Sunderland service could go to Grand Central
- The VTEC London to Leeds, Skipton, York, and Harrogate services, to a new 'Yorkshire Express' operator
- The VTEC London to Bradford service to Grand Central
- The VTEC London to Hull service to Hull Trains
- The VTEC London to Lincoln to East Midlands Trains

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That's not my perception of how long-distance services operate in Germany.
Regional services (generally slow, thin ones) are being tendered like that on a concession basis, and are being won by both private and public sector operators.
DB still has all the major intercity services for the time being, on a medium-term licence basis, pending a future reorganisation to match the Fourth Railway Package.
This includes all high-speed services and the entire ICE fleet.
There are one or two open access services, generally leisure services with old stock on classic routes.

 

[HH]

I seem to recall it was something along the lines that First's was substantially less than Virgin/Stagecoach despite the First bid being EVEN more risky.

Corrected. Anyway, I hear that the only two options being considered are Management Contract (which certainly worked well for VT on WCML) or DOR (which I feel sure will be as popular with Grayling as the proverbial in an elevator).

We shall see.

 

[pt_mad]

Can we confirm whether this new West Coast Partnership will still have Network Rail in control of signalling and infrastructure?

As I recall mentioned in some rail rags particularly a few years ago that the DFTs plan is to trial giving operation of signalling and infrastructure management to some TOCs in the future, possibly on the East Coast to begin with in the next franchise on that route.

 

[pt_mad]

That's not what happened. It was the assessment of their bid that Virgin successfully objected to. Can't remember all the details but ...

Richard said first had 'some cash issues', and has concerns over contract for first to pay a large check in the last three years of the franchise.

Also says that VT were outbid twice on the East Coast Franchise, leading to GNER and National Express East Coast going bust.

The irony.

 

[WatcherZero]

A better example might be Italy, where NTV/Italo (private sector, with an SNCF 20% share) is head to head with Trenitalia (public sector, but in line for partial sell-off).
But this is only on the high-speed network, where there is spare capacity.
Italo services also tend to use out-of-town stations (eg Rome Tiburtina rather than Termini).
Italo (NTV) bought its own new rolling stock (TGV-based).

The Italian experience is probably not something to hold up as an example of good practise, the public sector operator doing a load of dirty tricks to try and kill the private competition and leveraging its position as the encumbernt operator.

 

[ainsworth74]

Richard said first had 'some cash issues', and has concerns over contract for first to pay a large check in the last three years of

He may have said that. But that isn't why First lost the Franchise.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Can we confirm whether this new West Coast Partnership will still have Network Rail in control of signalling and infrastructure?
As I recall mentioned in some rail rags particularly a few years ago that the DFTs plan is to trial giving operation of signalling and infrastructure management to some TOCs in the future, possibly on the East Coast to begin with in the next franchise on that route.

These are 2 different things.
HS2 is not NR infrastructure (nor is HS1).
However NR signal and maintain HS1 under contract to its owners (as they do for the Heathrow branch).
While eventual ownership, control and regulation for HS2 hasn't been determined I expect it will follow a similar model, with NR doing the practical work.

Separately, the government wants private money into NR, particularly for new projects.
The aim was for the newly-autonomous Routes to put up projects that could be funded externally, somewhat like the way Crossrail was funded in London.
Like HS1, they want the huge funds of pension schemes used to capitalise national infrastructure.
None of that has been confirmed, and it's still early days for the NR Routes.

The WCP model combines the operator for the WCML and HS2, but nothing has really been said about the nature of the partnership as far as infrastructure is concerned.
Given that HS2 Ltd will be buying the rolling stock rather than WCP, it doesn't look like a deep partnership to me.
The ECP model is supposed to generate a single management team for the route, but I doubt the TOC will have any day to day control of infrastructure.
They may well influence upgrade priorities though, and share the business case (investment/return).
I doubt DfT has thought it all through yet - meanwhile the roof is falling in on the current operation.

 

[pt_mad]

These are 2 different things.
HS2 is not NR infrastructure (nor is HS1).
However NR signal and maintain HS1 under contract to its owners (as they do for the Heathrow branch).
While eventual ownership, control and regulation for HS2 hasn't been determined I expect it will follow a similar model, with NR doing the practical work.

Separately, the government wants private money into NR, particularly for new projects.
The aim was for the newly-autonomous Routes to put up projects that could be funded externally, somewhat like the way Crossrail was funded in London.
Like HS1, they want the huge funds of pension schemes used to capitalise national infrastructure.
None of that has been confirmed, and it's still early days for the NR Routes.

The WCP model combines the operator for the WCML and HS2, but nothing has really been said about the nature of the partnership as far as infrastructure is concerned.
Given that HS2 Ltd will be buying the rolling stock rather than WCP, it doesn't look like a deep partnership to me.
The ECP model is supposed to generate a single management team for the route, but I doubt the TOC will have any day to day control of infrastructure.
They may well influence upgrade priorities though, and share the business case (investment/return).
I doubt DfT has thought it all through yet - meanwhile the roof is falling in on the current operation.

A bit off topic but who will run the operation of the signalling centres as regards the East Coast Partnership? Thought they were putting it into the hands of the new franchisee?

 

[pt_mad]

He may have said that. But that isn't why First lost the Franchise.

Presumably it was these suspicions that prompted an objection and formal investigation.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A bit off topic but who will run the operation of the signalling centres as regards the East Coast Partnership? Thought they were putting it into the hands of the new franchisee?

Without the ITT or prospectus it's hard to say how the details will work - I'm not sure the DfT knows itself yet.
The SWT/NR alliance failed because the financial realities eventually didn't work.
The Partnership is supposed to merge these aspects in a common business plan.
I think of ECP more as a TOC/NR joint venture rather than "who controls the trains".
I imagine the Partnership will share revenue and costs, and also the benefits/problems with things like infrastructure upgrades/failures.
I'm sure "NR" staff will continue to push the buttons in the signalling centres, but they will work for the Partnership.

 

[KashmireHawker]

The WCP Invitation to Tender has FINALLY been released! Has at the bottom of the intention of it beginning on 15th September 2019, instead of the 2 year extension until April 2020 as outlined in Feb's Extension of current franchise. Day before my 22nd too

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/west-coast-partnership-2018-invitation-to-tender

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that the current service is near enough immutable. I’d have thought there would be more freedom.

 

[All Line Rover]

I can't see a single improvement in the service frequency table:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/west-coast-partnership-2018-invitation-to-tender
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/694331/wcp-attachment-a-tsr-tables.pdf
​

All of the stated requirements are based on the current timetable, e.g. 1 Northampton to Euston service on weekday mornings (as now), 4 Nuneaton to Euston pre-10am weekday arrivals (as now), on weekdays "Between 20:00 - 20:59, no arrivals at London Euston [from Chester] are required" (as now - so a gap remains between the 17:35 and 19:35 departures), on Saturdays the final service from Euston to Manchester must be no later than 21:00 (as now - the final service currently departing at 21.00).

I know the WCML franchise is suffering from rolling stocks constraints (a handful of temperamental Pendolino trains as of late have necessitated daily cancellations), but this is hardly an inspiring proposal for the next 8-10 years.

 

[All Line Rover]

Interesting that the current service is near enough immutable. I’d have thought there would be more freedom.

Page 43 of the stakeholder briefing document* claims that "flexibility will be provided through: (i) setting maximum journey times at levels which enable bidders to improve connectivity [i.e. an implication that longer journey times might be tolerated to permit more stops at intermediate stations]; (ii) a flexible Train Service Requirement (TSR) structure enabling bidders to develop new stopping patterns [elsewhere it being mentioned that skip-stopping is a possibility]".

However, the next paragraph states that "bidders will be required to deliver fast end to end journey times and challenged to work towards aspirational headline journey times in preparation for HS2". That precludes (i), and to a considerable extent precludes (ii). You can't add additional calls to the Liverpool to London trains because they are closely followed by the Manchester to London via Wilmslow trains (which are in turn closely followed by the Glasgow to London non-stop-from-Warrington trains), and skip-stopping doesn't work with the latter two - swapping Crewe with Lichfield on the Manchester trains or Warrington with Nuneaton on the Glasgow trains would be economic suicide.

*https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../694760/wcp-stakeholder-briefing-document.pdf

 

[All Line Rover]

The proposals regarding ticketing are depressingly unimaginative. For example (page 54 / '50' of the stakeholder briefing document) says: "Bidders will be required to make rail fares... better suited to passengers’ needs. This will include a product which offers customers that travel regularly – but not five days-a-week – a better value for money option than purchasing multiple return tickets (such as a carnet system)." Virgin already offers both first and standard class carnets for infrequent passengers, and long-distance peak return fares on the WCML are so high that season tickets already provide "a better value for money option than purchasing multiple return tickets" even for passengers who only travel once a week!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

My expectations were not very high and have been fully confirmed.
No change whatever to the service specification. They have just taken the current timetable and set it in concrete.
The only morsel is an example of possibly reducing some headline journey times (eg Chester in 1h55m, Liverpool/Manchester in less than 2h).
I can't find the word "tilt" anywhere, just 125mph minimum stock.
They can use stock freed up elsewhere, so as I read it, IC225s are OK!

The vagueness on HS2 services means they have just booted that into the future, all the details is on the pre-HS2 period.
My reading is that HS2 Ltd will retain total control of HS2 throughout the pre-operational period.
The "partner" can advise but are by no means in charge of operational planning.

There's a suggested threat of preventing the winning bidder from running other franchises, and mentions East Coast particularly.
So Virgin/Stagecoach might have to choose if they want WC or EC, but not have both (or EMT).
Of course, the bids might well exceed the minimum SLC. We shall see.
The parent guarantee will be at least £45m.
I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of this 293-page set of instructions.
The bid teams, after twiddling their thumbs for 3 months, now have another 3 to put together their killer bid.