Why are new trains so awful

[royaloak]

Ps - BR designed Driving Van Trailer has the best capacity for carrying push bikes - me and some mates go bike touring and the capacity of Voyagers and Pendolino’s to Carry bikes is laughable in the 21st Century. BR design considerations win again!

 

Matt Wood

A DVT is effectively 70ft of train that cant carry passengers and as the passenger trains are full do you want to have 70ft of passenger carrying or 70ft for bike carrying?

there isnt the platform capacity (or money) for both so which option do you want?

[royaloak]

Not if you don’t want an integrated transport policy - that be witchcraft !

 

Still if there aren’t enough seats and luggage capacity for travellers then cycle carrying capacity will be way down the list.

 

Ok - maybe not on peak hour commuter trains but cross country and other long distance services should make provision absolutely. Coming back from Scotland a couple of years ago on the sleeper our bikes came down in a Ford Transit from Inverness which we met beside Euston Station. Struck me as nuts and still does.

 

Matt Wood

The sleepers run at maximum length for the platforms at Euston, if you want to be able to carry bikes will you be losing a sleeper coach or a seated coach?

Edited April 29, 2018 by royaloak

[Robin2]

Why are people still thinking the TOCs are allowed to order the trains they want in the numbers they want?

That hasnt been allowed since 1993 but people still dont get it.

I don't think that statement provides any basis for believing that the TOCs would spend their money on more trains or longer trains. I suspect they would have even fewer and shorter trains if there was no regulation.

 

At the same time it is quite legitimate to criticize the Government for not insisting on more and longer trains - and paying for them.

 

...R

Edited April 29, 2018 by Robin2

[D826]

Well clearly those DVTs were thought a reasonable design response back in the day when BR was speccing new rolling stock.

 

I'd just advocate flexible adaptable design and capacity - designing something so it can fulfil only 1 function is fine if your just interested in squeezing in the last punter- commuter services then, but you'd like to think longer distance travel and cross country would aspire to greater comfort.

 

Best regards

 

Matt W

[phil-b259]

Ps - BR designed Driving Van Trailer has the best capacity for carrying push bikes - me and some mates go bike touring and the capacity of Voyagers and Pendolino’s to Carry bikes is laughable in the 21st Century. BR design considerations win again!

 

Matt Wood

You have got the HSE / HMRI to thank for that - NOT BR.

 

If BR had got its way the Mk3 and Mk4 DVTs would have been stuffed full of seats plus a small luggage area and guards office.

 

The ONLY reason this didn't happen was the fact a MK2 DBSO conversion hit a herd of cows at 100mph, derailed and caused at least one fatality. Subsequently the HSE / HMRI imposed a ban on passengers traveling in the leading vehicles of trains that went over 100mph. Hence all that van space going spare on the 110mph Mk3 version and the 125mph Mk4 type.

 

After privatisation the HSE / HMRI changed their minds so the Pendalinos, Voyagers, IETs, etc all feature seating in their leading vehicles as opposed to a power car or large luggage van.

[phil-b259]

Why did that Cross Country train have insufficient capacity?

Who specifies them as 4 or 5 coaches instead of 5 or 6?

 

Answer the SRA who went on to become the DaFT!

 

Why are people still thinking the TOCs are allowed to order the trains they want in the numbers they want?

That hasnt been allowed since 1993 but people still dont get it.

While the SRA / DfT obviously did have an input, please remember that the need for XC to use the short western facing bay platforms at Reading* (or platform share a main platform with a Turbo terminating there from London) means that 5 cars was the absolute limit.

 

InterCity got away with longer trains because they ran less of them! - thus timetabling was easier and the need to platform share couldlargely be avoided.

 

Of course making the entire XC fleet 5 car sets (and maybe ordering a few more units) would still have helped

 

* much the same concerns occurred at other places on the XC network.

Edited April 29, 2018 by phil-b259

[Mark Saunders]

While the SRA / DfT obviously did have an input, please remember that the need for XC to use the short western facing bay platforms at Reading* (or platform share a main platform with a Turbo terminating there from London) means that 5 cars was the absolute limit.

 

InterCity got away with longer trains because they ran less of them! - thus timetabling was easier and the need to platform share couldlargely be avoided.

 

Of course making the entire XC fleet 5 car sets (and maybe ordering a few more units) would still have helped

 

* much the same concerns occurred at other places on the XC network.

 

Railway sectorisation politics came in the construction of Manchester Airport as the platform length and pointwork was so positioned that Inter City trains could not use the platforms as it was entirely financed by Regional Railways! 

[Robin2]

Railway sectorisation politics came in the construction of Manchester Airport as the platform length and pointwork was so positioned that Inter City trains could not use the platforms as it was entirely financed by Regional Railways! 

Do you mean that the InterCity TOCs offered money to build longer platforms and it was refused?

 

...R

[Mark Saunders]

Do you mean that the InterCity TOCs offered money to build longer platforms and it was refused?

 

...R

 

The other way, Inter-City as a sector refused to pay anything so the design was done so their trains would be too long to be able use the Station!

 

Mark Saunders

[Robin2]

The other way, Inter-City as a sector refused to pay anything so the design was done so their trains would be too long to be able use the Station!

 

Mark Saunders

Isn't that how the Tory market is intended to work?

 

...R

[royaloak]

I don't think that statement provides any basis for believing that the TOCs would spend their money on more trains or longer trains. I suspect they would have even fewer and shorter trains if there was no regulation.

 

At the same time it is quite legitimate to criticize the Government for not insisting on more and longer trains - and paying for them.

 

...R

With a 7 or 10 year franchise the TOC wouldnt get a return on their investment so they wouldnt order any trains.

 

By the time they have sorted out what type of train and how many they want, go through all the procurement process, order the trains, build the trains, test the trains, train up the crews etc and get them in service you will be at the end of the franchise so how do they get a return on their investment and what do they do with the trains they bought if they dont win the franchise again?

Edited April 29, 2018 by royaloak

[Reorte]

Isn't that how the Tory market is intended to work?

 

...R

Manchester Airport station was opened before privatisation.

[JeremyC]

You have got the HSE / HMRI to thank for that - NOT BR.

 

If BR had got its way the Mk3 and Mk4 DVTs would have been stuffed full of seats plus a small luggage area and guards office.

 

The ONLY reason this didn't happen was the fact a MK2 DBSO conversion hit a herd of cows at 100mph, derailed and caused at least one fatality. Subsequently the HSE / HMRI imposed a ban on passengers traveling in the leading vehicles of trains that went over 100mph. Hence all that van space going spare on the 110mph Mk3 version and the 125mph Mk4 type.

 

After privatisation the HSE / HMRI changed their minds so the Pendalinos, Voyagers, IETs, etc all feature seating in their leading vehicles as opposed to a power car or large luggage van.

If you are referring to the Polmont accident, there were 13 fatalities and the speed was reported to be approx 85mph.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Polmont1984.pdf

Edited April 29, 2018 by JeremyC

[jjb1970]

I remember some of the media coverage on push-pull operation following that accident, it wasn't an especially positive example of informed reporting nor of how governments and regulators respond to such media stories and the fear they whipped up.

[Zomboid]

With a 7 or 10 year franchise the TOC wouldnt get a return on their investment so they wouldnt order any trains.

 

By the time they have sorted out what type of train and how many they want, go through all the procurement process, order the trains, build the trains, test the trains, train up the crews etc and get them in service you will be at the end of the franchise so how do they get a return on their investment and what do they do with the trains they bought if they dont win the franchise again?

That's what the leasing arrangements are intended to deal with, so the TOCs aren't taking the risk.

Hence the madness of the new train order for SWR - it's not SWR taking the risk, it's the leasing companies who buy the trains and have the problem, but they also have the whole life of the trains to get a return. The fairly pointless purchase of the new trains would suggest that a controlling mind would be no bad thing - but that would be the DfT, which would probably not be progress.

[Oakydoke]

....The fairly pointless purchase of the new trains would suggest that a controlling mind would be no bad thing - but that would be the DfT, which would probably not be progress.

Much better if that "controlling mind" was 15 to 20 year franchises and a transfer of more of the "risk" to the TOC's.

 

A move to centralised government control (Civil Service, Treasury etc) can only lead to more bad decision making and covering of ar*es when it all goes wrong.

[Robin2]

With a 7 or 10 year franchise the TOC wouldnt get a return on their investment so they wouldnt order any trains.

I reckon they should make all the present franchises permanent with a strict customer satisfaction survey every 2 years. If you fail the survey 2 times in a row you lose your franchise and you are not allowed to bid for its replacement or for any other franchise for the next 10 years.

 

Ideally one of the franchises would be in State ownership so that there would be a comparison with private sector franchises.

 

...R

[Ron Ron Ron]

Do you mean that the InterCity TOCs offered money to build longer platforms and it was refused?

 

...R

 

 

Isn't that how the Tory market is intended to work?

 

...R

 

 

That was BR InterCity.

Not a private TOC.

 

.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[jim.snowdon]

I reckon they should make all the present franchises permanent with a strict customer satisfaction survey every 2 years. If you fail the survey 2 times in a row you lose your franchise and you are not allowed to bid for its replacement or for any other franchise for the next 10 years.

 

Ideally one of the franchises would be in State ownership so that there would be a comparison with private sector franchises.

 

...R

Ideally, we would go back to something akin to the BR sectors, but operated as state-owned commercial companies, much as the German or Dutch models, with a single controlling mind when it comes to resolving conflicts between the different operational sectors.

 

Jim

[Ron Ron Ron]

Ideally, we would go back to something akin to the BR sectors...

 

 

Why is that ideal?

There's no basis for that assumption.

 

It appears that other EU state, or state owned operators are going to have to open up to more privatisation, or be de-nationalised over the coming decade.

Monsewer Macron is certainly attempting to clip SNCF's wings and open up the possibility of more private sector involvement in the French railways.

 

 

.

[PatB]

I'm not sure if lack of bike space is anything new. I remember complaints back in the early 1980s that HSTs couldn't (or possibly that the staff wouldn't) carry bicycles.

[Robin2]

Ideally, we would go back to something akin to the BR sectors, but operated as state-owned commercial companies, much as the German or Dutch models, with a single controlling mind when it comes to resolving conflicts between the different operational sectors.

 

It would be nice to think that state-owned enterprises look after the public they are put there to serve but there is plenty of evidence that they just look after their own interests - they are just different interests than those of private business. That's why I suggested a mix of private and state rail franchises so that each can be a comparator for the other

 

...R

[phil-b259]

That's what the leasing arrangements are intended to deal with, so the TOCs aren't taking the risk.

Hence the madness of the new train order for SWR - it's not SWR taking the risk, it's the leasing companies who buy the trains and have the problem, but they also have the whole life of the trains to get a return. The fairly pointless purchase of the new trains would suggest that a controlling mind would be no bad thing - but that would be the DfT, which would probably not be progress.

 

The 'new train fleet business was deliberately encouraged by the DfT who rigged the bidding process to give 'extra credit' to bidders who proposed 'extra customer enhancements' The fact that finance was relatively cheap to arrange made it easy for bidders to include such proposals in their bids. A few years ago bidders proposing the renewal of a train fleet - including some that have not even entered service at the time, would be rejected as not 'offering value for money' by the very same DfT.

 

I repeat, the 2nd largest cost TOCs face after staff, is train leasing - and as such they are guided by what the DfT tell them. This can range from no new stock (as in the 'zero growth' Northern franchise a decade ago right through to the current 'new stock gets you Browne points in franchise bids' approach. It all hinges on what the DfT happen to want at the time.

[rodent279]

All of the above makes me think that its not so much better trains or better railways that we need, but better, cleverer passengers, especially commuters.

[phil-b259]

I reckon they should make all the present franchises permanent with a strict customer satisfaction survey every 2 years. If you fail the survey 2 times in a row you lose your franchise and you are not allowed to bid for its replacement or for any other franchise for the next 10 years.

 

Ideally one of the franchises would be in State ownership so that there would be a comparison with private sector franchises.

 

...R

 

Which is all very well until the TOC suffers though Government polices - like the DOO saga on Southern, which could have been resolved in a matter of months had the DfT not deliberately sabotaged every attempt made.

 

Similarly while VTEC may have got its sums wrong, after two previous failures on the route you would have thought the DfT would have got wise to the danger of overbidding by now.....

 

There is also the little mater that the Treasury is more than a little concerned that there is not enough 'competition' in the franchise bidding process (lets not forget that simply entering the process requires vast quantities of expenditure to be made with no guarantee of success) - indeed Ariva pulled out of the recent Wales Franchise citing changes to the franchise specification making it unprofitable to continue with their proposed bid. Having winners of franchises facing the prospect of being bared from bidding for 10 years isn't going to help the lack of 'competition' for franchises is it?