"The North Of England Is Getting A Rough Deal" discussion

[HSTEd]

Remember when a ROSCO had to be shamed out of charging £130,000/yr for the lease of 1930s tube stock?

 

[AM9]

Well, I'm not against cascades per se. What worries me is whether these will include enough additional capacity to deal with growth, and whether enough provision is being made for those routes which are unlikely to be electrified in the near future.

Well that's up to the bidders for the Northern area TOC. If as is often the case, the 'sparks' effect generates increased patronage on electrified lines quickly enough, the Northern TOC will be able to lease further 319s before they are all committed elsewhere. Failing that there are spare 317s that are currently on ROSCOs books. There may be groans from a few about more London cast-offs but serious growth will demand more capacity. This gives a better return on the capital cost of route electrification. That's the only way that London get's better services. Yes, of course the capacity increases won't happen overnight, but the case will get stronger until even London-based politicians will have to respond!

 

[Grumpy]

I'm pretty sure that the figures are available for the business cases - I'll have a look and see if I can dig them out.

From memory, the average Northern passenger pays 35p/ mile to travel, which means a subsidy from central/local government of around 40p per mile (i.e. passengers aren't even paying half of the cost)

.

But all this is irrelevant to the services in question. The question is what is their income (ie passenger miles times the yield/passenger mile) and the cost. The total Northern deficit is irrelevant to the services in discussion. You say passengers aren't paying half the cost but you offer no evidence. Between Manchester and Liverpool/Blackpool passengers may be paying more than the cost.

Compare this with Goblin. There we have 2 car trains with 120 seats and a driver probably costing at least £10k more than his Northern equivalent. Probably a big lossmaker. People seem to have been trying to make a case for electrification for years but have never been able to make it stack up.
So we have a lossmaking service and a marginal business case. Does anyone really expect the argument to be trotted out that the route can only afford cascaded stock?

 

[northwichcat]

It would have been interesting if the DMUs for Wales were ex-London ones.

Well FNW got ex-London 322s but I don't think there were any complaints as they were used to provide new services with cheaper fares than available with other operators.

 

[AM9]

I don't think so. If you are clearly going to continue running services for the indefinite future ( I don't believe anyone is questioning the need for services such as Manchester-Liverpool) then the question is simply "What is the most efficient means of providing those services?" Either continue with diesel or electrify. Someone has cranked the numbers, fed in the alleged benefits of electrification, together with the costs of providing, and concluded that electrification is the solution. The phrase "If the cost of track electrification is amortised over the volume of passenger traffic, its probably just about justified" is nonsensical gobbleldygook.

It's unfortunate that you don't understand it. Putting the wires up costs real public money. There must either be a direct return , i.e. reduced costs and/or increased patronage; or an indirect return, as in it reduces road traffic and all the associated benefits that brings.

The numbers used will have been real cash flow forecasts. The lease charges are real cash flows. The leasing companies are charging what they can for trains many will consider written down. However what's been written down in their books is irrelevant-they charge as much as they can. And those charges are what comes out of the Railway's bottom line. The reference to the Rosco's as middlemen is barmy. The DfT cant just make up some notional written down figures as you suggest, the Treasury wouldn't allow it. The actual cash you are going to have to pay out is what has to be used in the case.

Do you think that if the DfT wrote in the scheme that only shiny new stock would be deployed, it would suddenly appear from the ROSCOs at the same cost as redeployed stock, I think not. They are just profit-making organisations doing the minimum possible for maximum return. The price would rise (maybe as much as has been suggested on this thread). The TOC subsidy would have to rise and as the case is marginal the scheme may be regarded as just not worth it. Cue more cries of 'not fair' from the North.

Clearly the Lessors need to maximise the yield from their assets which includes trying to gain additional leasing years out of old stock. Hence they try to make them appealing with re-tractioning and refurbishment proposals. They may have quoted figures which have been used in the Business Case which should also cover such as maintenance, energy usage, effect on passenger demand etc all of which can be compared with new stock. It may be that the overall cash flows for old stock look better than new. But of course that should also be the case down south.

If you are referring to 319s on Thameslink, there are not enough of them and they are no longer suitable for the route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

True, but just because there weren't enough passengers to make a profit, it doesn't mean that there weren't substantial numbers of passengers. Don't forget, that a considerable proportion of the London commuter railway hasn't made a profit through a fait proportion of the 20th century.

You are correct. The result was that maintenance on all of the Underground was virtually abandoned resulting in increasing failure and breakdowns in a circle of decline. A lesser neglect on BR infrastructure and stock still reduced reliability and in some cases safety, (Clapham Junction to name one). The tube is midway in a massive update, most of which is not even visible to the traveller so almost every weekend about 25% of the network is closed. That is a measure of the neglect, particularly in the '80s. Throughout this period, London commuters have not had much of an option but to keep using rail as with negligible road investment since the 2nd world war, they have been at preak capacity.

Well, I'm not against cascades per se. What worries me is whether these will include enough additional capacity to deal with growth, and whether enough provision is being made for those routes which are unlikely to be electrified in the near future.

If the passenger returns are there, the stock will be made available (eventually), ask London commuters about long delays in acknowledgement of overcrowding.

 

[HH]

Like I've pointed out before there are places where newer 3 car trains could run diagrams currently operated by 4 car Pacers without a noticeable reduction in capacity. Newer trains may have higher leasing costs but can have cheaper maintenance costs and be more fuel efficient but of course it's not always the case e.g. 185s use more diesel than 3 car 158s.

You possibly don't understand just how cheap the pacers are relative to other rolling stock. Those 4 pacers would cost less than ONE EMU. The running costs are less, but nowhere near enough less to make up that difference.

I don't have exact figures, but my more knowledgeable friends reckon a refurbished 319 will be north of £10k a month, while a Pacer is around £2k. There might be other costs that offset the cheaper day to day maintenance and lower power costs; for example modern rolling stock tends to get air conditioning; this uses power and is costly to maintain.

 

[northwichcat]

You possibly don't understand just how cheap the pacers are relative to other rolling stock. Those 4 pacers would cost less than ONE EMU. The running costs are less, but nowhere near enough less to make up that difference.

Where do you get 4 Pacers from? I was talking about a 4 car Pacer (as currently operate on services such as those to Southport) being operated by a 3 car 172 instead.

The thing is that Pacers won't last all that much longer and unless Angel Trains and Porterbrook lower the leasing costs (relatively compared to inflation) then they will get more expensive to maintain rather than cheaper. If Porterbrook were to proceed with the extensive refurbishment they propose as a possible way of keeping them in service post-2019 how much extra would Porterbrook charge to lease out the units with much more limited capacity then they have currently?

If the EMUs are really as expensive as you say (in comparison to Pacers) then maybe we should look at acquiring some 2 car EMUs for the services that are under wires but don't get very high loadings, such as Alderley Edge to Manchester services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the EMUs are really as expensive as you say (in comparison to Pacers) then maybe we should look at acquiring some 2 car EMUs for the services that are under wires but don't get very high loadings, such as Alderley Edge to Manchester services.

Which class do you feel would be best suited ?

 

[northwichcat]

Which class do you feel would be best suited ?

Well the problem is there's no 2 car EMUs or EMUs which can be shortened to 2 car. Maybe it would be a good long term investment to get some, considering the plan is for a rolling electrification program and there's always going to be some services on electrified routes that'll struggle to fill up a larger train. If they were compatible with a 4 car EMU design then they could also be used to lengthen services where 8 cars would be overkill.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The thing is that Pacers won't last all that much longer and unless Angel Trains and Porterbrook lower the leasing costs (relatively compared to inflation) then they will get more expensive to maintain rather than cheaper. If Porterbrook were to proceed with the extensive refurbishment they propose as a possible way of keeping them in service post-2019 how much extra would Porterbrook charge to lease out the units with much more limited capacity then they have currently?

Actually both Pacers and 319s will need refurbs to be compliant post 2019.
There aren't any 2-car AC EMUs, and it begs the question of viability if Alderley Edge services can't fill anything bigger.

DfT has just republished the list of compliant vehicles, and Northern haven't got any other than the 333s.
Only GA has compliant 156s. No other 15x comply.
TPE and VT are already fully compliant.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...refurbished-to-modern-accessibility-standards

 

[HH]

The thing is that Pacers won't last all that much longer and unless Angel Trains and Porterbrook lower the leasing costs (relatively compared to inflation) then they will get more expensive to maintain rather than cheaper. If Porterbrook were to proceed with the extensive refurbishment they propose as a possible way of keeping them in service post-2019 how much extra would Porterbrook charge to lease out the units with much more limited capacity then they have currently?

If the EMUs are really as expensive as you say (in comparison to Pacers) then maybe we should look at acquiring some 2 car EMUs for the services that are under wires but don't get very high loadings, such as Alderley Edge to Manchester services.

You're right; the status quo cannot be maintained, so a solution has to be found. Finding one that saves cost (which DfT expects - 'we want more for less' the prospectus says) looks a very tough task indeed. And that is the point I am making.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually both Pacers and 319s will need refurbs to be compliant post 2019.

Indeed. It is thought that some of the pacers wouldn't even be able to survive the process.

 

[northwichcat]

There aren't any 2-car AC EMUs, and it begs the question of viability if Alderley Edge services can't fill anything bigger.

I'd suggest a more effective use of paths through Stockport would be 2tph to Buxton and 2tph to Chester with no Hazel Grove or Alderley Edge turnbacks, with maybe looking at extending the Airport stopper to Alderley Edge.

However, there are other routes which may be electrified where something like a 323 may prove excessive capacity - Chester to Crewe, Hope Valley stoppers, Winter Windermere services (1 x 2 car in Winter and 2 x 2 car in Summer would probably work.)

 

[Grumpy]

It's unfortunate that you don't understand it. Putting the wires up costs real public money. There must either be a direct return , i.e. reduced costs and/or increased patronage; or an indirect return, as in it reduces road traffic and all the associated benefits that brings.


.

It's unfortunate you never read others' posts and think about what they've said before you fire off your own. Of course I realise that putting the wires up costs public money. Hence my use of "the costs of providing".

Your comment about direct and indirect returns also shows you don't have the depth of understanding. Basically you have to evaluate all the practical options than select the best. It could be that the option selected shows neither a direct or indirect positive return, but shows the least worst of all the possible options. Logically in another business if none of the options showed a return you wouldn't spend any money and would leave the market. Hence my use of the caveat re continuing the service. If you are to keep this going, even if unprofitable, but for social reasons than the minimum option might be to invest in refurbishing/re-engining etc. the existing fleet to keep the service going. But there might be no positive financial return on this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you think that if the DfT wrote in the scheme that only shiny new stock would be deployed, it would suddenly appear from the ROSCOs at the same cost as redeployed stock, I think not. They are just profit-making organisations doing the minimum possible for maximum return. The price would rise (maybe as much as has been suggested on this thread). The TOC subsidy would have to rise and as the case is marginal the scheme may be regarded as just not worth it. Cue more cries of 'not fair' from the North.


.

Of course not. If you actually read what I wrote it clearly states the overall costs for old stock need comparing with similar for new stock, and if you want new than you have to justify the extra cost. Nothing to do with "not fair" other than the same principles should also apply in the South East and Scotland.

 

[spargazer]

I have to admit that I've never travelled on a pacer, but judging by the continual complaining about them on this forum, I imagine that by most people's standards, a 315 service would be an upgrade, i.e more capacity, quieter, faster acceleration and more reliable to name just a few. If there is an insistence on new trains to replace the 142s then the 142s can't be that bad.

pacers are far superior to those M5000 lemons on Metrolink

 

[AM9]

Your comment about direct and indirect returns also shows you don't have the depth of understanding. Basically you have to evaluate all the practical options than select the best. It could be that the option selected shows neither a direct or indirect positive return, but shows the least worst of all the possible options. Logically in another business if none of the options showed a return you wouldn't spend any money and would leave the market. Hence my use of the caveat re continuing the service. If you are to keep this going, even if unprofitable, but for social reasons than the minimum option might be to invest in refurbishing/re-engining etc. the existing fleet to keep the service going. But there might be no positive financial return on this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that all of this is true and according to the rules that apply to the DfT. However, there is a considerable amount of political capital tied up in transport infrastructure that governments seek to exploit, especially in the run up to a general election.
In recent years, the DfT process has been found wanting, (e.g. creating an RFQ that is insensitive to regional employment conditions, as in Thameslink, and making a complete mess of competitive bids as with the WCML bids). Since then, I believe more expedient conclusions are being extracted from the assessment of needs and bidders' responses, which probably place areas outside the south-east at a disadvantage. Just because I am Home Counties born and based and this region could be seen to benefit from it, I don't see this as right. Those making the decisions must ensure that any scheme must be seen to perform as required but (regrettably) also fall within certain political boundaries in areas of cost and timescales - see above paragraph for political objectives. It's unfortunate for those that aren't the government of the day's flavour of the month.

If you actually read what I wrote it clearly states the overall costs for old stock need comparing with similar for new stock, and if you want new than you have to justify the extra cost. Nothing to do with "not fair" other than the same principles should also apply in the South East and Scotland.

Notwithstanding my acknowledgment of the potential of political contamination of the process, the overriding decision in any assessment is that the capital expenditure is necessary for the scheme to achieve its objectives at minimum cost. Looking at the two largest updates in London since the late sixties:

Existing Thameslink stock cannot provide the planned service, - there isn't enough of it and it wouldn't have the performance for the intense core service in the core.​

There isn't enough of any single EMU type to run the planned Crossrail service.​

I can't speak of Scottish schemes, but there are probably some on this forum who would.
In respect of the current Northern lines electrification, there seems to be no reasons why 4-car 319s as released, cannot provide the required service with the exception of a few lines that have very low demand coupled with short platforms. A solution could be one or more of the following:

rectify the infrastructure shortfalls, (particularly as the expected 'sparks' effect may justify increasing the lines capacity in the near future​

source something that isn't currently available, i.e. 2-car AC EMUs​

leave those lines out of the current scheme.​

 

[starrymarkb]

2 Car EMUs run on the continent (eg the Talent 2 is available in 2-6 vehicle form)

 

[northwichcat]

rectify the infrastructure shortfalls, (particularly as the expected 'sparks' effect may justify increasing the lines capacity in the near future

I think anyone expecting a 'sparks' effect will be very disappointed. In the past electrification schemes have occurred on lines where growth is expected and they have then seen growth post-electrification. However, this time it's occurring on lines which have already seen substantial growth and are overdue extra capacity, so unless electrification is alongside a service revision (as North TPE will be) I expect we'll see average growth on lines being electrified in line with lines not being electrified.

 

[AM9]

I think anyone expecting a 'sparks' effect will be very disappointed. In the past electrification schemes have occurred on lines where growth is expected and they have then seen growth post-electrification. However, this time it's occurring on lines which have already seen substantial growth and are overdue extra capacity, so unless electrification is alongside a service revision (as North TPE will be) I expect we'll see average growth on lines being electrified in line with lines not being electrified.

Is the capacity that is overdue deterring new passengers and/or driving away existing ones? That is a real issue in the South East. Of course they end up on another overcrowded route or mode of transport. Occasionally, they change their jobs and exit the rat race, but in those circumstances the rail overcrowding is usually just a part of the picture. Or they are late so often that they get sacked!

Of course, if the investment in the north that politicians are currently touting proves to be more than electioneering, there may be expansion of services. This could be rolled-out fairly quickly on lines that have been electrified, so the region will be better equipped for changes. Similarly, if a route declines, the recent investment in electrification means that the 100 year-old rusty rails aren't the only assets that will potentially be scrapped, OHLE is worth much more strung up than as scrap so efforts to revive its use in situ are more likely.

On a slightly different tack, are any of the routes important to freight, with or without the completion of the electric spine? Would there be a case for east-west freight traffic either between mineral/chemical distribution points and customer locations, or just for ECML/WCML diversionary purposes? I suppose that would also depend on the gauge of each line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

2 Car EMUs run on the continent (eg the Talent 2 is available in 2-6 vehicle form)

Why not remake some 309/1s?

 

[The Ham]

Well the problem is there's no 2 car EMUs or EMUs which can be shortened to 2 car. Maybe it would be a good long term investment to get some, considering the plan is for a rolling electrification program and there's always going to be some services on electrified routes that'll struggle to fill up a larger train. If they were compatible with a 4 car EMU design then they could also be used to lengthen services where 8 cars would be overkill.

There are the class 456's (OK they are only third rail, but ann EMU none the less).

Probably one of the reasons that there are few EMU's less than 4 coaches is more down to the lack of lines that would justify having them. In that it would be cheaper to run three of four (out of a fleet of 50) which are too long rather than have a small sub fleet of five or six or more to cover a line or two as well as having almost the same number (maybe one or two less) of the longer sets.

 

[HSTEd]

They have single car EMUs on the continent.....

 

[AM9]

They have single car EMUs on the continent.....

Like grown-up trams, or Locomotives with lots of 2nd men seats.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Like grown-up trams, or Locomotives with lots of 2nd men seats.

What is said to be the ideal length and seating capacity of a Tram-Train ?

 

[AM9]

They have single car EMUs on the continent.....

A rather more serious answer would be that electrification of low density lines on the continent has been practiced for many decades, many before reliable diesel traction was economical, and especially in alpine areas.
In the UK, it seems that a decision was made around the '60s that diesel should follow steam on low density routes. Thus the requirements for short multiple units only really involved diesels, except for SR 3rd rail branch lines in rural areas. They have benefitted from the established supply of 2-car EMUs that have long been used to make up suburban and main-line trains, e.g. 2HAP, 2BIL, and more recently as mentioned, 456s.
The few branch line wirings there have been were either as add-ons to mainline schemes, e.g. Witham-Braintree, or to remove diesel islands adjacent to high density electric routes, e.g. Romford-Upminster, Wickford-Southminster, Watford Juction-St Albans Abbey.
Ironically, lines in and around hilly areas like the Pennines, seem to have been caught up in various infrastructure improvement famines since the '60s.

 

[yorksrob]

A rather more serious answer would be that electrification of low density lines on the continent has been practiced for many decades, many before reliable diesel traction was economical, and especially in alpine areas.
In the UK, it seems that a decision was made around the '60s that diesel should follow steam on low density routes. Thus the requirements for short multiple units only really involved diesels, except for SR 3rd rail branch lines in rural areas. They have benefitted from the established supply of 2-car EMUs that have long been used to make up suburban and main-line trains, e.g. 2HAP, 2BIL, and more recently as mentioned, 456s.
The few branch line wirings there have been were either as add-ons to mainline schemes, e.g. Witham-Braintree, or to remove diesel islands adjacent to high density electric routes, e.g. Romford-Upminster, Wickford-Southminster, Watford Juction-St Albans Abbey.
Ironically, lines in and around hilly areas like the Pennines, seem to have been caught up in various infrastructure improvement famines since the '60s.

We did have one route through the pennines which saw considerable investment and electrification. Unfortunately, it was closed !

 

[AM9]

We did have one route through the pennines which saw considerable investment and electrification. Unfortunately, it was closed !

Yes, they took the opportunity to close that when the coal traffic died. At least the new tunnels are wired with AC!

 

[ainsworth74]

At least the new tunnels are wired with AC!

Glass half full type of person are we

 

[AM9]

Glass half full type of person are we

Well no not according to people who know me but this thread has been getting so depressing that I thought that a bit of frivolity might help.

 

[WatcherZero]

New research from PTEG that finds that the costs of regional rail have been unfairly inflated. Essentially that in the governments accounting smaller regional trains like Pacers have the same track damage and maintenence costs as inter city trains. Likewise the track damage costs of freight trains which can be up to 60 times that of pacers is kept low so that they remain competive with roads. The report argues that if regional rail was properly accounted it would go from taking 58% of national rail subsidy to 28%. Likewise they argue its not recieving its fair share of investment, regional rail pays 30% of national annual maintenence costs and 32% of financing costs yet recieves only 20% of investment.

New report reveals how biased cost allocation system penalises local rail services in the regions







Thursday, July 10, 2014








- Lightweight regional trains allocated same share of maintenance costs as much heavier Intercity trains -

- A fairer system of cost allocation would reduce regional rail’s share of government support by around 50% –

A new report from pteg takes the lid off the complex way in which the costs of running the national rail network to show how time and again the rules are biased against regional rail, loading on costs in a way that feeds false perceptions about the value for money of local rail services in England outside the South East.

The report finds that:
•the allocation of maintenance and renewal costs largely treats every passenger train in the same way even though Inter-city trains are estimated to produce twenty times the amount of track damage as the most basic regional train (a Pacer)
•in order to make rail freight competitive, and to keep freight off the roads, the substantial damage that freight trains cause to rail infrastructure are largely ignored. However, the knock on effect is that many of these costs are then picked up by regional rail even though freight trains cause up to sixty times the track damage of a Pacer train
•Although regional rail received only 20% of new investment by Network Rail in 2012/13, regional rail contributed 30% of fixed track access charges and was allocated 32% of Network Rail’s overall financing costs
•A system that allocates costs more fairly would result in regional rail going from taking an estimated 58% share of total government support for the railways to 28%

The report finds that: ‘…it is clear that the current method for allocating costs is heavily skewed against regional railways. Our alternative approach would create a more level playing field for regional rail and ensure that the national debate and key decisions are informed by robust evidence.’

The report comes at a time when the Government is consulting on the future of the Northern Rail franchise in a way that highlights the ‘high costs’ of the franchise to justify low aspirations for investment in the network and to raise the prospect of fares increases and service reductions.

http://www.pteg.net/media-centre/pr...biased-cost-allocation-system-penalises-local

 

[Bantamzen]

Oh dear, can open, worms everywhere.....

In the meantime, my local newspaper had picked up on a inference that fares could soar under possible terms under the new Northern / TPE franchises:

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co...._soar_to_pay_for_improved_services/?ref=var_0

Now whilst I accept that fares will probably have to go up to justify both the Northern Hub works & other electrification projects, as well as possibly new stock under the new franchises, I don't accept that they should be levelled with fares in the S/E. We are a very long way from having the level of investment seen down there, even with the planned upgrades.

And a bigger fear is that fares will rise to pay for projects even before they have been completed, or worse still begun, with subsequent withdrawals further down the line. Can you imagine the reaction to fare increases justified by plans to buy new stock, only for the DfT to change their mind & send up up more cascaded stock from elsewhere on the network. Maybe I'm being too cynical here, but I can't help feeling that the minister is poking the nest to see if they can get away with higher fares & a promise of better to come somewhere further down the line...

 

[Hadders]

I suspect future fare rises on a new Northern franchise could be RPI+3%.

IIRC this is what has been done on London Midland and Southeastern.