Class 800 - Updates

[Coryton]

But that's as maybe I would still maintain that EU single market rules must be being tested to breaking point with the IEP and given that the chosen manufacturer turned out to be a non-EU supplier well .....

 

The random order of small fleets of trains for different routes is precisely whet the EU intended when they created the single market rules and we note GE are not getting IEPs.

 

Having said that if the French can get away with it (I doubt so much of a single nut and bolt on their TGV network, trains or infrastructure, is ever sourced from outside France) I'm pretty sure we should be allowed to.

 

Let's see what happens if there are any further orders and whether the European manufacturers start kicking up a fuss.

 

I don't understand why the IEP would go against EU rules.

 

Unless I haven't been paying attention, a tender was placed to provide and maintain trains to be operated by two operators (currently GWR and VTEC). Hitachi won the bid in open competition. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

Now if the DFT were insisting that all future purchases of 125 mph trains must be from Hitachi without going through a tender then that would clearly be wrong. If they have drawn up specifications for future franchises so that effectively only Hitachi could win the bid then I could see other companies complaining. But is that what's happened? As you say, Anglia has gone a different route. GWR has ordered the 802's, but so far as I know they weren't forced to do so, though there are obvious advantages in a (largely) common fleet and assuming Hitachi priced their original bid to cover design costs with the guaranteed number of trains they would be in a position to be competitive on further orders.

[Ron Ron Ron]

East Coast Mainline upgrades....

 

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/two-major-east-coast-main-line-upgrades-ahead-of-introduction-of-new-azuma-trains

 

 

.

[rodent279]

I've read several times that the UK was behind the original directive to split train operations and infrastructure anyway, rather than it being some un-natural idea imposed by those nasty people in the EU.

Yes, I've seen that somewhere too.

And don't forget that the UK's rail franchise system has been the model for many in Europe.

[royaloak]

 friction-less braking

How does that work on the 800s?

On diesel they will be relying entirely on friction braking via the discs and pads, no rheo braking at all, at least until the whole fleet is 'upgraded'. 

[Coryton]

Yes, I've seen that somewhere too.

And don't forget that the UK's rail franchise system has been the model for many in Europe.

 

I know plenty of other countries have now franchised services to a greater or lesser degree.

 

I don't know to what extent this is based on the particular way it was done in the UK or not.

 

One obvious difference is that no-one else seems to be in a rush to follow the UK example of sacrificing the state operator completely as part of the deal.

 

It's not hard to imagine a parallel universe in which BR was allowed to bid for franchises and survived long enough to start winning franchises in other countries. In fact I would have thought they could have done rather well as other countries started franchising as they would be the only bidders with direct experience.

[D854_Tiger]

How does that work on the 800s?

On diesel they will be relying entirely on friction braking via the discs and pads, no rheo braking at all, at least until the whole fleet is 'upgraded'. 

 

Rumour has it the 800s will receive the upgraded rheostatic braking in view of the extra diesel mileage now planned, albeit temporary.

 

I could be wrong.

[D854_Tiger]

I know plenty of other countries have now franchised services to a greater or lesser degree.

 

I don't know to what extent this is based on the particular way it was done in the UK or not.

 

One obvious difference is that no-one else seems to be in a rush to follow the UK example of sacrificing the state operator completely as part of the deal.

 

It's not hard to imagine a parallel universe in which BR was allowed to bid for franchises and survived long enough to start winning franchises in other countries. In fact I would have thought they could have done rather well as other countries started franchising as they would be the only bidders with direct experience.

 

Politics explains plenty.

 

I still think the flaw with JC's plan for re-nationalisation is that, under the existing (EU) rules, the state would have to bid against the private TOCs it couldn't just take back the franchises as they expired.

 

A process that costs 5 million with no guarantee of success, 5 million that could have been spent on hip operations, as all the media would helpfully point out should the state ever lose a bid.

 

Of course, we now have BREXIT and we might have a new free trade deal but that is still up for question, though if we do get one I'm willing to bet the rules won't look radically different to those of the existing single market.

[rodent279]

Politics explains plenty.

 

I still think the flaw with JC's plan for re-nationalisation is that, under the existing (EU) rules, the state would have to bid against the private TOCs it couldn't just take back the franchises as they expired.

 

A process that costs 5 million with no guarantee of success, 5 million that could have been spent on hip operations, as all the media would helpfully point out should the state ever lose a bid.

 

Of course, we now have BREXIT and we might have a new free trade deal but that is still up for question, though if we do get one I'm willing to bet the rules won't look radically different to those of the existing single market.

The rules won't be any different. We'll either be in it, or we won't, we just won't have any say.

[The Stationmaster]

On the contrary, it takes beneficial advantage of electrification, where the wires exist.

2 reviews into the IEP have confirmed that Bi-mode has the advantage when trying to run the same train vehicles both under and off the wires.

All-diesel falls behind Bi-Mode and a change of haulage (changing or attaching locos) remains as the most expensive and inefficient option.

 

Eat Anglia is receiving different Bi-modes and there is further adoption elsewhere outside of these shores.

 

.

 

DafT's figures seem to have been those which decided (in advance?) that changing/arrttaching/detaching locos is the most expensive and inefficient option.  I would challenge that when you immediately consider that diesel traction power needs very different maintenance cycles and down time from passenger coaches and trolling diesel engines about under the wires is hardly a sensible use of resources.  Bi-mode makes sense when you changeover systems on the run - as on the Berks & Hants but when the change happens at say Cardiff or Bristol TM (as would originally have been the case) or Oxford or Swindon the economic advantage boils down entirely to how you plan and use your various traction resources.  If you can't change engines in 5 minutes with modern coupling systems then there is something seriously wrong with your operating methods and equipment design and you keep the electric kit for working under the wires and the diesel kit for working off the wires.  Why do I keep thinking of Bournemouth i wonder?,

[The Stationmaster]

I've read several times that the UK was behind the original directive to split train operations and infrastructure anyway, rather than it being some un-natural idea imposed by those nasty people in the EU.

 

EU Directive 91/440, which requires the complete financial separation of infrastructure and train operating costs, was proposed by the UK Govt and also strongly supported by certain Scandinavian Govts who also saw it as providing the ideal route to permitting freedom of access for individual operators 'on a level (cost) playing field'.  overall in my view an excellent idea and one long overdue in in many countries - including the UK - as it at last ensured proper division of costs.

 

It does not require any sort of privatisation, although it facilitates open access, and both the operations and infrastructure parts can be state owned but they must be financially separate.

[Gerald Henriksen]

 

I still think the flaw with JC's plan for re-nationalisation is that, under the existing (EU) rules, the state would have to bid against the private TOCs it couldn't just take back the franchises as they expired.

 

 

 

Is that true, or just an assumption?

 

If, as is clear from the continent, franchises aren't a EU requirement, then why couldn't a government just let a franchise disappear when it ends?

[Coryton]

Is that true, or just an assumption?

 

If, as is clear from the continent, franchises aren't a EU requirement, then why couldn't a government just let a franchise disappear when it ends?

 

Even if true, given that the government controls the tender conditions it probably wouldn't be hard to arrange affairs so that no private company would want to bid for the next franchise.

[Steadfast]

 If you can't change engines in 5 minutes with modern coupling systems then there is something seriously wrong with your operating methods and equipment design and you keep the electric kit for working under the wires and the diesel kit for working off the wires

 

Even with a screwlink and air pipes, I've done engine swaps in under 5 mins. Just need the replacement engine waiting ready at the signal to come in as soon as it's required. Someone waiting at the back for a brake test and the whole thing can be done very efficiently

 

Jo

[royaloak]

Rumour has it the 800s will receive the upgraded rheostatic braking in view of the extra diesel mileage now planned, albeit temporary.

 

I could be wrong.

You are correct, another variation from the original contract which Hitachi will use to line their pockets with our (taxpayer) money for the next 27 years, good old DaFT! 

[jim.snowdon]

I think it is fair to say that much of this lies not at the door of the DfT but at the mess that the GW electrification has become, and that, in turn owes much to the way design and construction is tendered out to consultancies whose remit is to produce work that satisfies the letter of the various standards at least commercial and technical risk to them for a client that no longer takes a lead in design in the way that the pre-privatised railway did.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

Even if true, given that the government controls the tender conditions it probably wouldn't be hard to arrange affairs so that no private company would want to bid for the next franchise.

That would probably provoke calls for a judicial review from the TOCs and their financial backers. Changing the system may well require a change to whichever of the Transport Acts defined the current system. That in turn requires a change of government and attitudes.

 

Jim

[rodent279]

Even with a screwlink and air pipes, I've done engine swaps in under 5 mins. Just need the replacement engine waiting ready at the signal to come in as soon as it's required. Someone waiting at the back for a brake test and the whole thing can be done very efficiently

 

Jo

I've seen that done at New St, maybe not quite in 5 min, but something very close. Not on different ends either, on the same end. Commonplace on the Continent, engine swaps are routine and seem to happen very slickly and efficiently.

[rodent279]

Is that true, or just an assumption?

 

If, as is clear from the continent, franchises aren't a EU requirement, then why couldn't a government just let a franchise disappear when it ends?

The EU does not require us to franchise out our railway system. It simply requires separation of infrastructure from operations for accounting purposes, and open access to the network.

 

I think, in theory at least, infrastructure & ops could actually be under one roof, as long as the accounting lines were separate, and access to the network was granted on a free and fair basis to all comers. In other words, Railtrack could have existed as a subsidiary of the BRB, with IC, NSE, Scotrail, RR & the freight sector all being separate subsidiaries of the BRB, and access being granted to other outside operators such as GBRf.

 

All of this is entirely academic really, but it does show that the franchise system we have is only one possible model.

[phil-b259]

I think it is fair to say that much of this lies not at the door of the DfT but at the mess that the GW electrification has become, and that, in turn owes much to the way design and construction is tendered out to consultancies whose remit is to produce work that satisfies the letter of the various standards at least commercial and technical risk to them for a client that no longer takes a lead in design in the way that the pre-privatised railway did.

 

Jim

 

There are two separate strands here and it is unwise to get them mixed up.

 

Firstly while the 800 may be a fine train that does not excuse the fact that the ones ordered under DfT pressure for the GWML and ECML will be by far the most expensive trains to lease in the country! This stems from the entire IEP being mishandled by the DfT from the start (with many changes to the tender specification while civil servants tried to decide what they wanted from their 'ultimate train'). Left to its own devices the rolling stock industry would have delivered something just as good but for far less money, but of course that did not fit in with the "Rolling Stock leasing companies are ripping us off" nonsense pedalled by politicians*- whiteness the proposal for new electric locos and extensively rebuilt Mk4s for the ECML which got rejected out of hand by the DfT as not fitting in with their 'vision' but which would have cost the taxpayer a fraction of the cost of the 800s.

 

Secondly we have the bungled GWML electrification programme whose implementation and execution by NR has gone very wrong. While quite rightly NR gets much of the blame for this, as an agent of Government and heavily under the influence of the DfT it seems as though nobody had the guts to tell the politicians the basic truth that decades of pretending that 'bionic duckweed' (as the esteemed Roger Ford of Modern Railways) put it would render electrification 'unnecessary' had totally destroyed the necessary skills base in the UK and that trying to push forward with several ambitious schemes all at once was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

True had electrification proceeded as planned then the variation orders would not be needed, but it is also the case that the 800s are far more expensive than they should be variation orders or no variation orders and the DfT cannot wiggle out of that however much it tries. Similarly if the DfT had actually been realistic about just how much electrification the tiny electrification skills base in the Uk could deliver after years of staring them of investment, then they would have foreseen the need to make all 800s fully bi-mode from the start and no variation orders would have been required.

 

As I have said before, railways are long term things totally unsuited to managing by politicians who struggle to see further than the next election. BR had a sucessfull train procurement and electrification programme precisely because they tried to keep politicians fro becoming too involved with the specifics. The class 800 procurement and the electrification programme stand as stark reminders as what happens when that firewall is removed (for purely idealogical reasons)

[Covkid]

The EU does not require us to franchise out our railway system. It simply requires separation of infrastructure from operations for accounting purposes, and open access to the network.

 

I think, in theory at least, infrastructure & ops could actually be under one roof, as long as the accounting lines were separate, and access to the network was granted on a free and fair basis to all comers. In other words, Railtrack could have existed as a subsidiary of the BRB, with IC, NSE, Scotrail, RR & the freight sector all being separate subsidiaries of the BRB, and access being granted to other outside operators such as GBRf.

 

All of this is entirely academic really, but it does show that the franchise system we have is only one possible model.

 

That is the way I understand it.

DB (German railways) is a state owned company. The infrastructure and trains are seperate business accountancy but owned by the same company.

It is ironic that when DB bought Arriva, the Arriva "private" operations in Germany had to be sold off because DB couldn't compete with itself. I believe these operations were sold to the Italian state Railway.

[jim.snowdon]

The EU does not require us to franchise out our railway system. It simply requires separation of infrastructure from operations for accounting purposes, and open access to the network.

 

I think, in theory at least, infrastructure & ops could actually be under one roof, as long as the accounting lines were separate, and access to the network was granted on a free and fair basis to all comers. In other words, Railtrack could have existed as a subsidiary of the BRB, with IC, NSE, Scotrail, RR & the freight sector all being separate subsidiaries of the BRB, and access being granted to other outside operators such as GBRf.

 

All of this is entirely academic really, but it does show that the franchise system we have is only one possible model.

And one that is generally held up elsewhere in the world as the example of how not to do it.

 

Jim

[Ron Ron Ron]

That is the way I understand it.

DB (German railways) is a state owned company. The infrastructure and trains are seperate business accountancy but owned by the same company.

 

 

 

More precisely, DB is a private joint stock company, with 100% of the shares held by the German federal government.

DB is a holding company that consists of completely separate business divisions (i.e. separate companies), that look after different aspects of the business (inter-city, regional infrastructure, logistics, cargo, international operations etc, etc).

So technically, not separate accountancy within the same company, although that's ultimately the case.

 

It was set up this way with the intention of privatising, or part privatising various business areas.

Privatisation has been held up by various political concerns, some political objection and the after effects of the 2008 crash.

Recent financial problems have led to some restructuring, with a view to potentially selling off some parts of DB (for e.g. logistics, Arriva).

 

 

 

.

[Steadfast]

I've seen that done at New St, maybe not quite in 5 min, but something very close. Not on different ends either, on the same end. Commonplace on the Continent, engine swaps are routine and seem to happen very slickly and efficiently.

 

Generally speaking, a loco swap will be quicker than a run round, if only because of less signals to wait for and less distance to travel. Most efficient is a move within the same signal because you don't need to come out and back in over another signal

 

Jo

[D854_Tiger]

The EU does not require us to franchise out our railway system. It simply requires separation of infrastructure from operations for accounting purposes, and open access to the network.

 

That is correct but the long term aim of the single market is for public sector services to be outsourced on a competitive basis.

 

In order not to ruffle too many feathers, the rules were drawn up to allow state control but if (once) the privatised genie is let out of the bottle, the rules say it can't be put back in again.

 

So yes SNCF could continue to run the French railways but if ever they were outsourced, SNCF could only resume control on a competitive basis bidding against the private sector.

 

What is often not realised about the EU, often by those most enthusiastic for it, is that mixed markets in healthcare and education are the norm across wide parts of the EU, for example half of all Spanish schools are in the private sector, and companies like Virgin Healthcare are running publicly funded healthcare in many places. It was always only going to be a matter of time before the EU would have expected some reciprocal arrangement here in the UK.

 

This explains why Jeremy Corbyn has always been strongly anti-EU (as well as being a Bennite) though not why most of the rest of his own party are not likewise.

 

I'm not a particularly strong political sort, one of those despised middle of the road characters, but all those young Labour party members being so enthusiastic for the EU has always struck me as like turkeys voting for Xmas.

[D854_Tiger]

Generally speaking, a loco swap will be quicker than a run round, if only because of less signals to wait for and less distance to travel. Most efficient is a move within the same signal because you don't need to come out and back in over another signal

 

Jo

 

 

Didn't the Metropolitan used to schedule a locomotive changeover for three minutes at Rickmansworth back in the 1950s.

 

Then that was steam to electric, without the benefit of auto-coupling and involving someone dropping down onto the four foot amongst all that electrification.

 

The trouble with GW electrification having loco changeovers, it would have been a bit messy, as we would be talking Oxford, Swindon, Bristol and Cardiff all requiring loco change and crew arrangements and facilities.

 

Also someone in the DfT claimed it would take 15 minutes with modern stock because all the computers would need to be reset and they were listened to. 

 

Then to be fair, bi-modes can have their diesels taken out later, should the wires be extended, and, to be even fairer, that has happened before now when many had previously written off the possibility.

 

Once a major rolling electrification program is up and running, the incentive could (should) be to keep it going, whatever is said now, cost wise and not just in pounds but also political capital.

 

I suspect Grayling's decision to cut-back was simply the opportunism of a minister, with a budget burning a hole in his pocket, given the perfect excuse, by all the delays, to spend the money on something else or impress his political masters by presenting it as departmental savings.