Jump to content
 

Stagecoach Lose EMT to Abellio / Disqualified from 3 Franchises


Recommended Posts

On 21/08/2019 at 08:35, DY444 said:

See also stories of HT 180s coming to the MML in due course.  Just what Thameslink reliability needs - a train on the MML with a reputation for setting fire to itself.  It is however cheap.

 

On 22/08/2019 at 00:43, jools1959 said:

The four Hull Trains Class 180’s are all heading to Grand Central as they need them to increase capacity and it’s easier for a ROSCO to keep a small fleet with one operating company.

 

On 22/08/2019 at 02:15, great central said:

Hope someone's told our new bosses then, according to them only a few weeks ago the HT 180s were going to undergo a thorough rework at Etches Park before replacing the ex GC HST sets........

 

On 22/08/2019 at 13:42, jools1959 said:

From what I learned from some Hull Trains drivers earlier this year when they were training on HST’s and they couldn’t wait to get rid of the 180’s.  When I asked where they were going, they laughed and said “Grand Central and good riddance lol”.

 

Pretty sure that two of the four ex FHT 180s are on Etches Park.  AIUI they will replace the ex GCR HSTs, then themselves be replaced by the 804s in 2022 - if they survive that long.

 

Lets not forget that the FHT crews and the maintenance staff have gained a lot of experience over the time they have operated for FHT on the ECML. In a moment that has pretty much gone and they are intended to operate a "new route", crewed by "new staff" and maintained at a "new depot" by "new maintenance staff".   Let us just see how that pans out. 

 

      

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/08/2019 at 21:26, royaloak said:

GWRs sHitachis are on a 27.5 years lease.

 

I think it is the 800s that are on the 27.5 year lease, which has around 25 years to run I rthink.

The 802s on the other hand were Rosco procured and I believe are on a longer term arrangement.  But you would probably know more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Covkid said:

 

I think it is the 800s that are on the 27.5 year lease, which has around 25 years to run I think.

The 802s on the other hand were Rosco procured and I believe are on a longer term arrangement.  But you would probably know more. 

You are correct its the DaFT procured 800s on the 27.5 year lease, I am not sure what the 802s are on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, royaloak said:

You are correct its the DaFT procured 800s on the 27.5 year lease,

 

And a lease whose payments are so high, it makes the 800 the most expensive train to operate in the whole of the Uk (if not the world) by some margin.

 

All done by the DfT / HM Treasury in the name of 'obtaining best value for the taxpayer of course.....'

 

 

(though I suppose in fairness they didn't say exactly which bracket of taxpayers the were referring to)

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And a lease whose payments are so high, it makes the 800 the most expensive train to operate in the whole of the Uk (if not the world) by some margin.

 

All done by the DfT / HM Treasury in the name of 'obtaining best value for the taxpayer of course.....'

 

 

(though I suppose in fairness they didn't say exactly which bracket of taxpayers the were referring to)

I understand the 800s are now about 25% more expensive than the higher spec 802s due to the amount of 'variations' the DaFT asked for after signing the original contract, although I am unable to find anything official to back it up, I can confirm, as stated by Phil, the 800s ARE the most expensive trains currently in service.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 24/01/2020 at 18:04, royaloak said:

I understand the 800s are now about 25% more expensive than the higher spec 802s due to the amount of 'variations' the DaFT asked for after signing the original contract, although I am unable to find anything official to back it up, I can confirm, as stated by Phil, the 800s ARE the most expensive trains currently in service.

I very much doubt if anybody will ever own-up to the cost of the VOs (Variation Orders) or the increased operating costs on the 800s.  I have asked the Transport Select Committee in Parliament to investigate it compared with the costs saved by cutting back on the electrification compared with the cost of the VOs and operating costs on the 800s.  I received a positive reply from the Committee Secretary to the extent that it was being put on the list but it was up to the Chairman of the Committee if they actually took it up.   Maybe that will only happen once the ghost of Grayling has finally been laid to rest?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now being reported that DfT settled with Arriva because they thought Arriva would win.  The DfT have also been fighting a rear guard action in court to prevent certain information being admitted as evidence but the judge keeps overruling them (and is reportedly getting angry at their obfuscation).  So far at least the DfT appears to be making a very bad job of defending its position and unless they get their act together quickly then the smart money is on Stagecoach winning. 

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I must admit I remain puzzled by some of this.  Surely a very simple piece of information is the situation money wise of the relevant section of the pension fund when a particular franchisee took over  and the situation of that section of the fund when their franchise ended.  if the actuarial shortfall had worsened then it is - on the face of it - indicative of poor stewardship, if it had substantially improved if it's indicative of good stewardship, and if it is roughly a similar percentage it might not necessarily be bad news but it does suggest a lack of concern.  akl of that is very simple, readily available information which is  beyond DafT's control and is down to teh tri ustees of any particular section of the fund to allow to be presented in evidence

 

If the DfT has been asking franchise bidders to guarantee the financial strength of the relevant section of the pension fund beyond the end of their franchise (which one statement from a 'bumped' franchisee implied) then we are clearly looking at a nonsense because there is no way that could be expected of them.  But if that really was what DafT was seeking there shouldn't just be some 'housekeeping' but a major clearout of total incompetents.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I must admit I remain puzzled by some of this.  Surely a very simple piece of information is the situation money wise of the relevant section of the pension fund when a particular franchisee took over  and the situation of that section of the fund when their franchise ended.  if the actuarial shortfall had worsened then it is - on the face of it - indicative of poor stewardship, if it had substantially improved if it's indicative of good stewardship, and if it is roughly a similar percentage it might not necessarily be bad news but it does suggest a lack of concern.  akl of that is very simple, readily available information which is  beyond DafT's control and is down to teh tri ustees of any particular section of the fund to allow to be presented in evidence

 

If the DfT has been asking franchise bidders to guarantee the financial strength of the relevant section of the pension fund beyond the end of their franchise (which one statement from a 'bumped' franchisee implied) then we are clearly looking at a nonsense because there is no way that could be expected of them.  But if that really was what DafT was seeking there shouldn't just be some 'housekeeping' but a major clearout of total incompetents.

Is it really quite as simple as that? 

 

As the actuarial process will factor expectations affecting fund performance over a period which could be significantly longer than the length of the franchise, A scheme which looks healthy at the beginning could be in rapid decline during the duration of it on account of decisions made years previously. To expect the franchise holder to underwrite this liability seems to be a pill too bitter to swallow for many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, RANGERS said:

Is it really quite as simple as that? 

 

As the actuarial process will factor expectations affecting fund performance over a period which could be significantly longer than the length of the franchise, A scheme which looks healthy at the beginning could be in rapid decline during the duration of it on account of decisions made years previously. To expect the franchise holder to underwrite this liability seems to be a pill too bitter to swallow for many.

The franchise holder is inevitably there as 'the management' when the snapshot of fund performance is made - so is merely involved as part of the corrective action at that time.  Where the money is actually invested has not very much at all to do with the franchise holder because that is decided by the trustees (of which the management/franchise holder is only one) and Pensions Management.

 

So the franchise holder is in many respects not underwriting anything and it would be stupid of DafT to expect them to do so. (and if that is what DafT expected it really was stupid - in the extreme).  The value of the section of the fund, and any shortfall situation, can change for all sorts of reasons - for example Gordon Brown was rather good at creating instant shortfalls in numerous pension funds, especially final salary funds, when he changed the rules relating to such funds.  Purely because of action by him when he was Chancellor and its impact on the fund my full pension retirement date effectively moved back 18 months - the fund hadn't changed, the trustees hadn't made any new decisions, the management involvement hadn't changed, it was all 100% down to Gordon Brown deciding to implement an idea from The Treasury.  He also mucked things up when he ruled that funds should move more into various gilts.

 

So with many extraneous influences there is no way a current management,  in the shape of a franchisee, could take on a commitment beyond the time when their franchise ends and its ridiculous to even think that they could.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...