• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

55 5 car 80x could be released according to Modern Railways

Status
Not open for further replies.

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
The most recent copy of Modern Railways suggests that the equivalents of no less than 55 5-car 80x units will be released by GWR, LNER, TPE, Hull Trains and East Coast Trains as a result of the downturn - in that context there really isn't any future for the 180s.
I have my doubts about this.
  • GWR's 800s are tied up in the IEP contract so cannot be easily released, only the 802s possibly could but I still heavily doubt they will go.
  • LNER have 22 5 car units all tied up in the IEP deal which makes them hard to release, they will sooner get rid of the few Intercity 225 sets they are so far keeping.
  • TPE will sooner let go the mk5as than the 802s due to the 802s being able to use the ECML OHLE among other reasons, like the mk5as lower MTIN.
  • Hull Trains and East Coast Trains are a possibility but that would still only release 10 units, nowhere near the 55 MR says.
All (excluding the IEP contract mentioned) are ignoring the leases they have already signed, by the end of which demand may have recovered.

I don't have a copy of MR, does anyone know how they got to the figure of 55 units?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,927
I don't have a copy of MR, does anyone know how they got to the figure of 55 units?
To be fair it only seems to be an opinion piece. I don't really see quite how that many can be freed up. As you note, there are contracts that would have to be unwound / changed.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
To be fair it only seems to be an opinion piece. I don't really see quite how that many can be freed up. As you note, there are contracts that would have to be unwound / changed.
Does it say how they got to 55 units as that is quite a high number?
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
6,093
Well at least it makes a change to have speculation over TPE dumping their units rather than their Mark 5s.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,927
The relevant quote comes from an article by Julian Worth, and appears to very much be an opinion piece. Indeed, it could be noted that the author has the interests of freight access to the railway at the fore rather than passenger use of the railway.

The article, titled "Planning for a New Reality" starts:
It is now beyond question that the railway will look very different going forward. Freight has almost fully recovered and was running at over 98% of budgeted levels by October 2020 with good prospects for growth in future years. In complete contrast, passenger volumes, having recovered to a little over 35%, were on the decline again in the face of renewed Covid restrictions.
It goes on to make a case for short distance commuting and travel for leisure and tourism recovering but not long distance commuting or business travel. The relevant part states that:
Many consider that the super-high frequencies introduced in recent years are unjustified going forward, and Avanti duly removed the third hourly train to Birmingham and Manchester in November 2020. There is a good argument for half-hourly services between major cities, but no more, with one train an hour from London and Birmingham to smaller cities such as Plymouth. Crucially, with much lower business and long-distance commuting volumes, the standard hourly service would need little or no augmentation in the peak.

The quantum of rolling stock for this level of service needs careful analysis by diagrammers, but initial analysis suggests that somewhere around 40-45 Intercity Express Trains (IETs) might potentially be freed up from Great Western, LNER and TransPennine. It remains to be seen which, if any, open access passenger operations will survive, but a deal with First Group to take on the Hull Trains and East Coast Trains IETs would generate another 10 sets, making 50-55 sets in total.

This would enable Cross Country's Bristol and Bournemouth to Manchester and the Reading/Southampton to Newcastle route to be turned over to IETs. It would also allow many, if not all, the Plymouth to Edinburgh services to be converted to bi-mode operation. The cascade would have significant capacity benefits by replacing four-car sets with five-car units (containing more seats per vehicle) thereby largely eliminating overcrowding.
There is then some unnecessary wibble about moving Voyagers to inappropriate routes. I do note that if the London routes are expected to yield a large number of IETs, no doubt there would be cut backs in service provision on Cross Country routes as well. There is no indication as to who has done the analysis about GWR, LNER and TP yielding up 225 80x vehicles between them or indeed what the 'deal' with First Group would be - presumably this would be to buy out their rights to continue to operate as Open Access Operators in return for taking on the leases on the 10 units.
 
Last edited:

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
The relevant quote comes from an article by Julian Worth, and appears to very much be an opinion piece. Indeed, it could be noted that the author has the interests of freight access to the railway at the fore rather than passenger use of the railway.

The article, titled "Planning for a New Reality" starts:

It goes on to make a case for short distance commuting and travel for leisure and tourism recovering but not long distance commuting or business travel. The relevant part states that:

There is then some unnecessary wibble about moving Voyagers to inappropriate routes. I do note that if the London routes are expected to yield a large number of IETs, no doubt there would be cut backs in service provision on Cross Country routes as well. There is no indication as to who has done the analysis about GWR, LNER and TP yielding up 225 80x vehicles between them or indeed what the 'deal' with First Group would be - presumably this would be to buy out their rights to continue to operate as Open Access Operators in return for taking on the leases on the 10 units.
It is interesting how he doesn't at all mention how he got 40-45 units. The IEP sets would be too difficult to transfer due to the IEP contract, there are 41 5 car 802s between GWR and TPE so that may be how he got to that figure but TPE would not give up their 802s before the mk5as.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The relevant quote comes from an article by Julian Worth, and appears to very much be an opinion piece. Indeed, it could be noted that the author has the interests of freight access to the railway at the fore rather than passenger use of the railway.

The article, titled "Planning for a New Reality" starts:

It goes on to make a case for short distance commuting and travel for leisure and tourism recovering but not long distance commuting or business travel. The relevant part states that:

There is then some unnecessary wibble about moving Voyagers to inappropriate routes. I do note that if the London routes are expected to yield a large number of IETs, no doubt there would be cut backs in service provision on Cross Country routes as well. There is no indication as to who has done the analysis about GWR, LNER and TP yielding up 225 80x vehicles between them or indeed what the 'deal' with First Group would be - presumably this would be to buy out their rights to continue to operate as Open Access Operators in return for taking on the leases on the 10 units.

I suppose the situation with XC may be a bit different as that has a higher proportion of leisure passengers.

The article also seems to assume that if the TOCs listed shrink their fleets it will be IEPs which go. In the case of TPE and LNER, that seems unlikely.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,927
It is interesting how he doesn't at all mention how he got 40-45 units. The IEP sets would be too difficult to transfer due to the IEP contract, there are 41 5 car 802s between GWR and TPE so that may be how he got to that figure but TPE would not give up their 802s before the mk5as.
I guess that what the author has done, if anything, is look at the standard off-peak pattern timetable and train lengths, compared this with the peak pattern and worked out how many extra units are 'peak only', identifying these as 'spare'.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
The article also seems to assume that if the TOCs listed shrink their fleets it will be IEPs which go. In the case of TPE and LNER, that seems unlikely.
IEPs specifically is a no, they are on a very long contract which would be very hard to get out of, TPE don't have any from the IEP.
I guess that what the author has done, if anything, is look at the standard off-peak pattern timetable and train lengths, compared this with the peak pattern and worked out how many extra units are 'peak only', identifying these as 'spare'.
Maybe, I would disregard what he says, the fact he doesn't say how he got to 40-45 units doesn't give confidence.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
IEPs specifically is a no, they are on a very long contract which would be very hard to get out of, TPE don't have any from the IEP.

I really don't think we need to nit pick to the extent of trying to make out that they are a different type of train! The basic design was developed for this project so it is entirely reasonable to use the same name for the follow on orders given that as trains they are pretty much the same.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,927
IEPs specifically is a no, they are on a very long contract which would be very hard to get out of, TPE don't have any from the IEP.
Tightly specified in terms of getting units back to the right depot at night but it may be possible to rewrite service plans such that units work from North Pole or Stoke Gifford and back at night but go to Bournemouth or Manchester instead of working between London and Bristol / South Wales during the day. Something similar with the Hitachi depots on the East Coast.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
I really don't think we need to nit pick to the extent of trying to make out that they are a different type of train! The basic design was developed for this project so it is entirely reasonable to use the same name for the follow on orders given that as trains they are pretty much the same.
The trains themselves may be nearly identical but the contract they are on is very different.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,355
It is interesting how he doesn't at all mention how he got 40-45 units. The IEP sets would be too difficult to transfer due to the IEP contract, there are 41 5 car 802s between GWR and TPE so that may be how he got to that figure but TPE would not give up their 802s before the mk5as.
Under the new world order of ERMAs the TOCs have no say in what trains go where - that is entirely a DfT decision and the TOCs have to comply.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
Under the new world order of ERMAs the TOCs have no say in what trains go where - that is entirely a DfT decision and the TOCs have to comply.
I doubt the DfT will be moving the units any time soon, definitely not the GWR units.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,043
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I really don't think we need to nit pick to the extent of trying to make out that they are a different type of train! The basic design was developed for this project so it is entirely reasonable to use the same name for the follow on orders given that as trains they are pretty much the same.

And in any case, in effect the Government has contracted the provision of a certain number of the actual IEP sets, and so as long as they continue to pay for them they can in practice move them where they like. This might not strictly be within the current contract, but where else are they going to send them?
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
And in any case, in effect the Government has contracted the provision of a certain number of the actual IEP sets, and so as long as they continue to pay for them they can in practice move them where they like. This might not strictly be within the current contract, but where else are they going to send them?
Aren't they allocated to specific depots they have to return to? "As long as they continue to pay" they can't stop paying or it is a breach of contract.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
The game is different when the customer is the Government.
A contract is a contract no matter the customer, Hitachi may be more willing to renegotiate but they can still not accept any renegotiation and the contract will carry on for the full length of 27.5 years, I would imagine Hitachi will be willing to let them move to another operator but to leave them in storage for a few years? I doubt Hitachi would be as interested in future contracts if that happened.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Agility (not Hitachi!) will be entirely happy to accommodate government requests to move IEP units, at a suitable cost!
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,499
Agility (not Hitachi!) will be entirely happy to accommodate government requests to move IEP units, at a suitable cost!
Indeed, but I doubt Agility will be happy to let their trains sit in storage.
That isn't totally true. Governments have a lot more sway.
They have sway but a contract is still a contract, both parties have to agree to the terms, if the trains are going to be sat around losing Agility money I doubt Agility/Hitachi will be interested in future government contracts anyway.

Remember that the MR piece is an opinion piece, I heavily doubt any 80xs will be released.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,344
Whilst rail is currently at 35% of pre Covid-19 levels, that's unlikely to remain once the Work from home if you are able rules get removed. Likewise there's a lot of leisure travel which had been deferred until life returns to normal.

Even if there was substantial fall in passenger numbers (many more think that it's going to be a 10-30% fall than more than 30% fall) then most of the fall is likely to be London commuting rather than other rail travel.

As such the trains most likely to be removed from service would be the metro trains or even the medium distance EMU's.

Whilst a 80x would be more expensive to run, if you've got to pay for them otherwise (potentially unlike other leases) then customers would rather a 80x turned up than a 15x/16x as they would have better capacity and more tables.

With GWR it's likely that the short HST's that would be got rid of early on (long before you look at 80x's).

However the thinking is flawed, as current rail use is no basis on what to consider future rail use on, as we're not back to a more normal situation. It's like trying to say that as we're in week 2/3/4/5 of the school summer holidays that we should reduce capacity into London sourcing the morning peak as no one is using it in the numbers they used to.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,721
Indeed, but I doubt Agility will be happy to let their trains sit in storage.

They have sway but a contract is still a contract, both parties have to agree to the terms, if the trains are going to be sat around losing Agility money I doubt Agility/Hitachi will be interested in future government contracts anyway.

Remember that the MR piece is an opinion piece, I heavily doubt any 80xs will be released.

Would Agility be losing money if the trains were sat around? I believe the obligation on Agility’s end is to make available suitable trains to be able to run the diagrams specified in the contract. If those diagrams don’t run, that’s not Agility’s problem, they would expect to be paid even if the trains never leave the depot.

As others have said, if the situation now is that requirement is reduced and the DfT no longer want to pay for that many IEPs, they’re going to have to go through a contract change process and Ability will expect some recompense for losing a guaranteed 27 years of income. Far more likely that other classes of train on shorter leases would be disposed off if long term savings on rolling stock are required.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,259
Location
Wittersham Kent
We could have 10 5 cars for Marshlink. Could allow the Brighton service to be reinstated immediately. Would allow time for the units to be fitted with TVM before the new crossover at Ashford station is put in to place. 171s could be released to EMR. Win win
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,043
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
As others have said, if the situation now is that requirement is reduced and the DfT no longer want to pay for that many IEPs, they’re going to have to go through a contract change process and Ability will expect some recompense for losing a guaranteed 27 years of income. Far more likely that other classes of train on shorter leases would be disposed off if long term savings on rolling stock are required.

More likely they would, as MR have suggested, provide that income via making the trains available for a slightly different set of routes instead of the ones they presently run. That shouldn't cost them a lot more, so the variation to the contract should not be expensive.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
More likely they would, as MR have suggested, provide that income via making the trains available for a slightly different set of routes instead of the ones they presently run. That shouldn't cost them a lot more, so the variation to the contract should not be expensive.

They'll either continue to provide the required sets for ECML and GWML services (which are then left not used), or will be paid a handsome sum to move them - whatever happens Agility won't loose
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,229
It’s pure speculation, with no foundation; just a different type of media for it than on this forum.

Whilst rail is currently at 35% of pre Covid-19

It hasn’t been at that level for months. Rather less than half that now.
 

MatthewRead

On Moderation
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
1,636
Location
West london
We could have 10 5 cars for Marshlink. Could allow the Brighton service to be reinstated immediately. Would allow time for the units to be fitted with TVM before the new crossover at Ashford station is put in to place. 171s could be released to EMR. Win win
What about the length of the platforms are they long enough for a 5 car IET set?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top