First Group win South West franchise

[jim.snowdon]

The DDA, and more specifically, the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, are a uniquely British invention. The EU directive required that public transport provides for People with Reduced Mobility, not "the disabled" - what we have with the RVAR is the result of our own government letting the disabled lobby run riot with no real balance from the able bodied and adding all sorts of prescriptive requirements to what was otherwise a quite sensible piece of EU legislation. Leaving the EU won't make it go away either as it is already a piece of UK legislation anyway. EU Directives apply to member states; it is then up to each member state to translate them into their own legislation and HMG has a record of using the process to hide its own bells and whistles under the umbrella of "compliance".

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

The first two 707's have pantographs for testing purposes (presumably to do with signing off various bits of approval paperwork) but are then scheduled to have them removed when the OHLE testing is done.

 

Retrofitting pantographs onto the 707's should be a very easy job so they will find a home somewhere.

 

It is where all the 455's and 456's are going to go I am most interested in.

Rumour has it that the 455, 456 and 458 fleets will be going in entirety and that the 707s may end up with either Southeastern or GTR, with WorstSWT replacing them with a single fleet of new off-the-shelf units, which could be based on the 345 stock with an eye to future compatibility with Crossrail 2 (although if that takes as long to happen as Crossrail 1, they'll be well on the way to worn out by the time it opens).

 

Jim

['CHARD]

1. No one would be discriminated against by not increasing provision for the disabled as it is already more than adequate.
2. On a 6 or 9 car refurbished class 159 set the amount of nicely carpetted empty space now provided to comply with nonsensical regulation is extraordinary.
3. Still, as you are permitted to bring your own chair to sit in with wheels on, presumably there is nothing in the bylaws to prevent you bringing your own wheeless chair to enable enjoyment of all this newly created space.
4. Someone suggested I contact my MP to complain. Perhaps I could, but since I've neither seen nor heard of such a person, I presume I don't have one to complain to.

 

My numbering.

 

1. That is very interesting, I trust you will be providing a link to the consultation with user groups representing the 'disabled,' which clearly demonstrates their satisfaction with adequacy of facilities.

2. The empty space could be left as bare plywood to save money I suppose, you could write to the operator and suggest this.

3. The phrasing and snide intent of this statement is frankly shocking.

4. Happily, this closing statement doesn't just make you look foolish, it establishes it beyond doubt.

 

Apologies in advance to the moderators, but this boils my core.

[John M Upton]

456s, with their loos, should be ideal for that new Portsmouth - Weymouth service.

 

I have not seen any mention of upgrading the electricity supply west of Poole so shorter trains will presumably be necessary.

 

The 456's lost their toilets back on Southern, they kept freezing in the winter and as the 455's they ran with do not have toilets, along with the issue of no corridor connection between units to access it as well, they were binned and a wheelchair/pram/pushchair/bicycle space put in instead.

[Zomboid]

456s, with their loos, should be ideal for that new Portsmouth - Weymouth service.

 

I have not seen any mention of upgrading the electricity supply west of Poole so shorter trains will presumably be necessary.

Power supply upgrades don't normally make it into franchise announcements, do they? Though the lights will be rather dim down there if they try running more electric trains past Poole without doing anything. Perhaps most of the trains from Portsmouth won't make it past Bournemouth, and those that do will replace London trains. Or they could use diesels.

[Dunsignalling]

Rumour has it that the 455, 456 and 458 fleets will be going in entirety and that the 707s may end up with either Southeastern or GTR, with WorstSWT replacing them with a single fleet of new off-the-shelf units, which could be based on the 345 stock with an eye to future compatibility with Crossrail 2 (although if that takes as long to happen as Crossrail 1, they'll be well on the way to worn out by the time it opens).

 

Jim

If it takes that long it will be (at least) the franchise-holder-after-next that will be commissioning them.

 

John

[great central]

Rumour has it that the 455, 456 and 458 fleets will be going in entirety and that the 707s may end up with either Southeastern or GTR, with WorstSWT replacing them with a single fleet of new off-the-shelf units, which could be based on the 345 stock with an eye to future compatibility with Crossrail 2 (although if that takes as long to happen as Crossrail 1, they'll be well on the way to worn out by the time it opens).

 

Jim

Hmm, haven't the Chinese been trying to get into the British rolling stock market anyway? Perfect chance seeing as many think that MTR are putting much of the money into this franchise

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hmm, haven't the Chinese been trying to get into the British rolling stock market anyway? Perfect chance seeing as many think that MTR are putting much of the money into this franchise

 

It seems from the press releases that it is 70% First and 30% MTR. But it could be the other way round.

 

Either way, nobody puts that much real money into franchises and the rolling stock is usually leased from a RosCo (bank subsidiary).

 

Given that it is only a 7-year franchise, it's not going to be easy to find someone to finance this all-new fleet unless the long-term hire is guaranteed by the Govt (i.e. you and me). I think it might be politically "courageous" for the Govt to give such a guarantee to the Chinese given the known antipathy of Mrs May and her advisors.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[phil-b259]

Someone suggested I contact my MP to complain. Perhaps I could, but since I've neither seen nor heard of such a person, I presume I don't have one to complain to.

 

 

MP - as in your elected representative and member of parlement - the people who make the laws and turn any EU directives into legislation in the Westminster parlement.

 

If you are spending any time resident in the U.K. then there is nothing to prevent you getting in contact and stating your concerns To a person that has some power to influence proceedings.

Edited March 31, 2017 by phil-b259

[Joseph_Pestell]

MP - as in your elected representative and member of parlement - the people who make the laws and turn any EU directives into legislation in the Westminster parlement.

 

If you are spending any time resident in the U.K. then there is nothing to prevent you getting in contact and stating your concerns To a person that has some power to influence proceedings.

 

Unless he lives in Maidenhead - not a lot.

[jim.snowdon]

Unless he lives in Maidenhead - not a lot.

And we all know what the MP for Maidenhead is doing....

[Bulleidnutter]

Simple answer to the WoE problems. Rather than continue to add loops. Re double the whole length fron Salisbury.

[Gwiwer]

Simple answer to the WoE problems. Rather than continue to add loops. Re double the whole length fron Salisbury.

 

Not quite that simple I'm afraid

 

It took a lot of money, persuasion and goodwill to redouble through Axminster.  While that allows an hourly service it offers precious little in the way of diversionary paths should GWR request them.  There is probably no case to provide any more loops between Yeovil and Wilton as those which exist permit the existing perfectly adequate timetable.  The only case to be made might be farther west and that would be based upon a demonstrated business case for more trains between Honiton and Exeter.   I doubt any case could be made to re-double any length simply to facilitate GWR diversions which are seldom needed anyway.

[PaulRhB]

There is a case for more capacity on the WoE, unfortunately finding the money is more difficult after the rearranging of the way tgecraikway is financed. There are more urgent jobs on the existing lines too that there is no money for.

[The Stationmaster]

And we all know what the MP for Maidenhead is doing....

 

Seemingly being rather helpful to GWR/a certain commuter group in jollying up a bit of action at DafT and NR in respect of various local railway items.  One must hope that events in Brussels don't distract her from important constituency matters now that GWR are at last pushing with NR something I suggested last May regarding our branch and avoiding the reduction in train service planned for her constituents (much to their dismay).

['CHARD]

I suggested last May 

 

There's been more than one of her?

[Dunsignalling]

 

Not quite that simple I'm afraid

 

It took a lot of money, persuasion and goodwill to redouble through Axminster.  While that allows an hourly service it offers precious little in the way of diversionary paths should GWR request them.  There is probably no case to provide any more loops between Yeovil and Wilton as those which exist permit the existing perfectly adequate timetable.  The only case to be made might be farther west and that would be based upon a demonstrated business case for more trains between Honiton and Exeter.   I doubt any case could be made to re-double any length simply to facilitate GWR diversions which are seldom needed anyway.

GWR diversions, unless some replace the SWT trains, have been more-or-less killed off by the 2012 recontrol scheme. Up trains aren't a problem but down trains certainly are.

 

Relocating Signal 4807, the down main starter at Honiton (formerly H20) has made it impossible to create an overlap on 4809, the down home, behind a train. Thus, no following down train can leave Axminster loop until the preceding one has departed from Honiton, by which time there will be an up train there awaiting a path to Axminster.   

 

That precludes the former practice of having one train on the down starter awaiting an up working, while a second down is en-route from Axminster. The Axminster dynamic loop has room to hold more than one train in each direction so diversions are still possible but the relocation of one signal at Honiton increases delays by around 20 minutes. Either to the up train held at Honiton or the down at Axminster.

 

So, a schoolboy error in the planning process for the recontrol has greatly reduced the usefulness of the line between Exeter and Yeovil for diversionary purposes. Unless of course it was decided in full knowledge of the impact it would have..........  

 

Various landslips over the years since singling would make it prohibitively expensive to redouble the line throughout.

 

However, new loops at/near Whimple and Crewkerne plus some lengthening of the one at Honiton would facilitate a robust half-hourly service. More substantial extension of Honiton loop (down to Feniton and about a half-mile up towards Axminster) with intermediate signals as at Axminster, might make adding one at Whimple unnecessary. 

 

John

Edited March 31, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Joseph_Pestell]

Self-interest, of course, but I think that there is definitely a case for doubling westwards from Wilton.

 

In theory, single track plus loops is adequate for the timetable but it can soon go to pot. And even when it is running to timetable, you can get stuck waiting at Tisbury on the loop for quite some time.

 

With the expansion of Gillingham, that is no longer going to be such a good railhead for many due to road traffic issues. Doubling would open up the possibility of reopening Semley (for Shaftesbury) and Dinton. When they were closed in the 60s, very few people commuted daily to London as they do now. So I think a case could be made financially.

[Geoff Endacott]

There's been more than one of her?

 

That's not as bad as the MP for Tatton. There seem to be at least six of him.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Mike Storey]

I recall the initial reaction to Stagecoach winning the SWD was not complementary, and my more recent experience of their services (up to last year) in the Portsmouth/Havant and Richmond/Staines areas, do not allow me to have any regret at their passing. I do recognise however, that their "local" management initiatives, as opposed to their corporate approach, had much to applaud on occasion, particularly Alliancing, which corporate policy rather than local management, destroyed, IIRC.

 

The opprobrium poured on to MTR, for the new franchise, seems inappropriate. Many of their key management personnel were British in the past, although I know of only one now (but I am out of touch these days). Their joint venture with Laing, later taken over by Arriva, on London Overground had been nothing but successful. That won MTR the Crossrail concession without a partner. That Arriva chose to bid alone for LO this time around (and won), suggests they have picked the brains over intensive metro operation and no longer need MTR. Indeed, their operations across Northern now suggest they learnt an awful lot, such is the improvement I have experienced there (between Hebden Bridge and all points east, at least). First say they have partnered with MTR for precisely the same reasons - and boy, do they need someone to give them lessons - so it may not be all as bad as many have suggested. Quite what the Chinese government get out of this, is not clear, as MTR Corp is substantially owned by private/corporate investors and is a quoted company. However, the HK govt (thus now the Chinese govt, one would presume) were quoted as retaining a majority shareholding in 2003/4. Whether this is still true remains difficult to ascertain, under Hang Seng rules. At least 1.15 billion shares are owned privately, but by whom?

[The Stationmaster]

MTR principal shareholders are listed here (assuming the link works where you are) - presumably covers only those holding more than a particular percentage (and only accounts for c.182 million shares)

 

http://www.4-traders.com/MTR-CORPORATION-LIMITED-1412694/company/

[Mike Storey]

MTR principal shareholders are listed here (assuming the link works where you are) - presumably covers only those holding more than a particular percentage (and only accounts for c.182 million shares)

 

http://www.4-traders.com/MTR-CORPORATION-LIMITED-1412694/company/

 

Thanks Mike. This does indeed confirm a majority shareholding retained by the HK govt (c.4 billion shares), but, if my maths are correct, also shows that around 1.25 billion shares must be held by others. As the list shows only a small portion of those, it could be, as is common in China, holdings by many thousands of individuals.

 

On another note, some more detail has emerged of the SW franchisee's plans - http://www.4-traders.com/FIRSTGROUP-PLC-4001947/news/South-West-Trains-franchise-New-operator-planning-35bn-20-metre-elevated-monorail-from-Woking-to-W-24146363/

 

 

 

 

But do check the date......

[TomE]

A clue as to the branding of the new Franchise:

 

 

Tom.

[Gwiwer]

First have tried to bring back the GWR with an uninspiring livery and lacklustre performance.  Let's see if they can do any better with the MTR financial rocket up their behinds.

[roythebus]

Having been brought up to speed on what a 707 is (apart from the flying variety) the DDA regulations were indeed a British "invention" from the late 1980s and adopted in various forms by the EU countries. My investigations regarding toilets on trains led me to a lengthy tome on railway regulations amounting to some 685 pages, some of which were with regard to my initial query on toilets on heritage rolling stock that had been rebuilt having been out of use for over 20 years.

 

Basically the regs are that retention toilets must be fitted after a certain date, after which turd-on-the-track toilets will no linger be allowed except on heritage stock. On such stock, if it has been out of use for over 20 years and is rebuilt/restored etc the TOTT toilet cannot be used, as per the K&ESR Birdcage brake. So maybe that is why the 442s are being modified?

 

I suggested in another forum that the railway regulations would have to be re-done assuming brexit happens as part of the Great Reform Bill, but as the railway regs were already in place via things like the UIC, little would need to be altered, but all would still need to be re-written! 

 

As for disabled use, a lot of early low-floor buses had to be withdrawn because during the last 20 years since their introduction wheelchairs have grown in size so much so that they can't negotiate the entrance of the bus and fit round the corner by the wheel arch. In my years of driving rail replacement buses (not coaches), I've only ever used the wheelchair ramp twice, which would suggest to me that there is an over-provision of such facilities as the disabled still moan that they can't get out and about by bus!

 

People really don't give a damn who runs the railways or what colour the trains are as long as they run to time, are clean and safe. If they get a seat that's a bonus! A train is a train.  As for the 455's they used to have inter-unit corridor connections which were notoriously draughty for the driver, which is one of the spurious reasons BR dispensed with my services in the late 1980s.