What should be the next DMU order?

[RobShipway]

£2.83 average single journey farebox.



I think it's more a result of the fact that NXEA serves London. Maybe East Coast and Northern should be combined



I thought the RPI +3 was intended to pay for rolling stock. If it happens, and some money from the RPI +3 is shifted from London commuter franchises to the heavily subsidised franchises... then maybe Northern might get some shiny new carriages.



DfT could always deal with this as a Network Change and make additional cash available to pay for it. That might also get Northern some shiny new carriages.

But surely, in areas where there is going to be future electrification it is sensible to look at what could be available, now as in the next 6 to 12 months as it is likley to be cheaper than ay something special like IEP which is going to take years before it is on the rails from the point in time of inception?

Hence, why I don't see we Bombardier as local train manufacturer all ready in exist cannot maybe have a EDMU version of class 172/class 377 train which before you say that this ws something that CSC have looked at providing, I am thinking about the fact that a deal such as I suggest now could prevent the job losses at Derby.

On another question, if CSC got a deal to build trains would they setup a manufacturing base here in the UK in the same way that Hitachi is planning on doing?

 

[anthony263]

On another question, if CSC got a deal to build trains would they setup a manufacturing base here in the UK in the same way that Hitachi is planning on doing?

Yes i remember reading somewhere that they wanted to set up a european facility

 

[Kingfisher200262]

But surely, in areas where there is going to be future electrification it is sensible to look at what could be available, now as in the next 6 to 12 months as it is likley to be cheaper than ay something special like IEP which is going to take years before it is on the rails from the point in time of inception?

Hence, why I don't see we Bombardier as local train manufacturer all ready in exist cannot maybe have a EDMU version of class 172/class 377 train which before you say that this ws something that CSC have looked at providing, I am thinking about the fact that a deal such as I suggest now could prevent the job losses at Derby.

On another question, if CSC got a deal to build trains would they setup a manufacturing base here in the UK in the same way that Hitachi is planning on doing?

I understand your point of view and yes, I'm sure Bombardier could easily build some more 172s and would be happy to do so. Whether they could easily build a diesel electric version is another matter and really one for Bombardier.

I think you mean CSRE and yes, there will be a UK manufacturing base. This was stated quite some time before it was proposed by Hitachi.

 

[tbtc]

£2.83 average single journey farebox

I don't know how that compares to other TOCs, but Northern presumably get any PTE subsidy on top of this. Plus, the £2.83 suggests relatively shot distance journeys (no wonder, when the long distance services on many lines that Northern serve are in the hands of other TOCs), meaning the same seat may be occupied several times over a journey.

I'd be prepared to accept that there's no case for new stock, but not when many Northern services are packed-full - if they can't make a profit with full trains (plus being reimbursed by PTEs for any fares that are cheaper than they may be commercially) then something is wrong somewhere.

Anyhow, my ultimate point is that we don't have a chance of electrifying sufficient lines by 1 January 2020 to replace 136 Pacers (just through EMU cascading). For example, the Lancashire Triangle will release around 30 DMUs, but these will be needed for strengthening existing services elsewhere (or for running new services mainly under the wires?) - that won't mean any Pacers are withdrawn.

Same with GWML electrification - it'll replace a lot of HSTs (the worst of which aren't going to have that long left in them, though they could be cascaded to XC), but not that many DMUs.

 

[BR Blue]

The Dft should to ask Bombardier to convert some or all of the class 220 voyager series to EDMU, with an additional pantograph coach. At the very least convert Virgin`s 221`s, which spend their days mostly under wires. Bombardier made an offer (operation Thor, I think) some time ago and it remains to be seen if it is possible. If it was to be a success then I`d expect some kind of voyager-lite type EDMU to follow. Without any need for 125mph running so its engines could be much lower in power and fuel consumption. Something that could operate at 75/90mph on diesel and 100mph under wires.

If it never happens we`ll still have the IEP Bi-mode to enjoy

 

[RobShipway]

I understand your point of view and yes, I'm sure Bombardier could easily build some more 172s and would be happy to do so. Whether they could easily build a diesel electric version is another matter and really one for Bombardier.

I think you mean CSRE and yes, there will be a UK manufacturing base. This was stated quite some time before it was proposed by Hitachi.

Yes, I did mean CSRE. Thank you for your reply.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I'd be prepared to accept that there's no case for new stock, but not when many Northern services are packed-full - if they can't make a profit with full trains (plus being reimbursed by PTEs for any fares that are cheaper than they may be commercially) then something is wrong somewhere.

Anyhow, my ultimate point is that we don't have a chance of electrifying sufficient lines by 1 January 2020 to replace 136 Pacers (just through EMU cascading).

Same with GWML electrification - it'll replace a lot of HSTs (the worst of which aren't going to have that long left in them, though they could be cascaded to XC), but not that many DMUs.

Please don't misunderstand me; I'd love there to be a competition for the supply of new DMUs and I do think that around 200 new vehicles are needed. I just don't think it will happen and result in an order being placed.

 

[northwichcat]

I think it's more a result of the fact that NXEA serves London. Maybe East Coast and Northern should be combined

I thought the RPI +3 was intended to pay for rolling stock. If it happens, and some money from the RPI +3 is shifted from London commuter franchises to the heavily subsidised franchises... then maybe Northern might get some shiny new carriages.

TPE is a lucrative franchise but apart from a few Windermere shuttles they operate longer distance journeys. Plus they are one of the few operators to have overcrowded off-peak services on weekdays more than an hour after the peak period has ended.

I've previously compared fares for travel between towns within Kent (excluding the HS1 service) with those in Cheshire and found there to be virtually no difference. Therefore, I think Southeastern must be using the higher fares for London journeys to subside the journeys within Kent.

Plus, the £2.83 suggests relatively shot distance journeys (no wonder, when the long distance services on many lines that Northern serve are in the hands of other TOCs), meaning the same seat may be occupied several times over a journey.

Very good point. Yesterday a Chester-Manchester service I was on picked up around 30 people at Hale and most of them alighted around 1 mile up the line at Altrincham. Although given the short length of their journey and the fact that there were only around 5 empty seats most of them stood rather than actually occupied a seat.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

TPE is a lucrative franchise but apart from a few Windermere shuttles they operate longer distance journeys. Plus they are one of the few operators to have overcrowded off-peak services on weekdays more than an hour after the peak period has ended.

I've previously compared fares for travel between towns within Kent (excluding the HS1 service) with those in Cheshire and found there to be virtually no difference. Therefore, I think Southeastern must be using the higher fares for London journeys to subside the journeys within Kent.



Very good point. Yesterday a Chester-Manchester service I was on picked up around 30 people at Hale and most of them alighted around 1 mile up the line at Altrincham. Although given the short length of their journey and the fact that there were only around 5 empty seats most of them stood rather than actually occupied a seat.

The fact remains that there are some routes and even some entire franchises that fall far short of covering their costs. It's not even a case of greedy TOC owning groups creaming excessive profits for their investing shareholders; most, nay all TOCs return low single figure profit margins and in the sensible world of business, some would ask why anybody would want to operate a UK rail franchise.

It is a very good point regarding multiple use of a seat and maybe TOCs should be asked to monitor seat usage on a point to point basis, but gathering this information would incur costs and would only produce data that would encourage TOCs to apply yield management between busy point to point journeys.

 

[RobShipway]

Please don't misunderstand me; I'd love there to be a competition for the supply of new DMUs and I do think that around 200 new vehicles are needed. I just don't think it will happen and result in an order being placed.

If CSRE which given an order to build 200 EDMU trains rather than DMU trains, how soon could a manufacturing base for those trains be setup and how soon would those trains be available?

Also, if requested could CSRE work alongside an existing UK manufacturer such as Bombardier to build the trains perhaps which would mean that the trains maybe quicker to be built as the existing facilities in Derby could be used?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

If CSRE which given an order to build 200 EDMU trains rather than DMU trains, how soon could a manufacturing base for those trains be setup and how soon would those trains be available?

Also, if requested could CSRE work alongside an existing UK manufacturer such as Bombardier to build the trains perhaps which would mean that the trains maybe quicker to be built as the existing facilities in Derby could be used?

If an order were placed, the vehicles would be delivered between eighteen and twenty four months afterwards and the final assembly facilities would be made ready to coincide with this programme.

CSRE has made several approaches to Bombardier regarding cooperation and these approaches have been rebuffed each time at high level. Nevertheless, we are happy to collaborate with any party that raises the prospect of a mutually beneficial outcome.

In general, our strategy for location of our final assembly facilities rests on three strands: 1. locality to a deep sea port; 2. connection to the UK railway network; 3. access to a suitably capable workforce.

Derby would, alas, only satisfy two of these three criteria. South Wales and Merseyside are the main locations that are on our radar.

 

[RobShipway]

If an order were placed, the vehicles would be delivered between eighteen and twenty four months afterwards and the final assembly facilities would be made ready to coincide with this programme.

CSRE has made several approaches to Bombardier regarding cooperation and these approaches have been rebuffed each time at high level. Nevertheless, we are happy to collaborate with any party that raises the prospect of a mutually beneficial outcome.

In general, our strategy for location of our final assembly facilities rests on three strands: 1. locality to a deep sea port; 2. connection to the UK railway network; 3. access to a suitably capable workforce.

Derby would, alas, only satisfy two of these three criteria. South Wales and Merseyside are the main locations that are on our radar.

Thankyou KingFisher.