East Coast Main Line to Virgin Trains East Coast

[Ken.W]

Or put it another way, the "failings" of the IEP are in fact due to elements outside of the IEP...

 

 

Given they haven't yet trialled them over the route, it's a little early to prejudge. On paper, the 5 car sets (which are likely what will be running to Inverness) have greater HP at rail per car than the current HST sets on the route, and given the line speed I suspect there will be little issue with them keeping to the same timings. Fuel may be an issue if you are running all the way from London on diesel, but then that shouldn't be happening (you make damn sure the ones that are going the farthest get to use the juice the longest if you're having to ration the overhead line capacity).

I did refer to the IEProject, as a whole, the project being the trains and infrastructure work to go with them, but it's obviously too much to expect the two to go together, or trains to be designed for the infrastructure they're to work on.

 

Line speed isn't the issue, even at speeds on the Highland Main Line. They are being tested on the EC route, and as I've previously posted, leaving Doncaster southbound they're still only up to 90 at Bawtry, where an HSTs already up to 110 so even at lower speeds they're not matching HST performance (this, I was told, by someone senior who's actually been on them)

 

The possible fuel capacity issue came up before that of rationing OHL supply out of London. Presumably, in the rush to electrification at the time, the designers* thought Inverness would be electrified for them, or they don't know how far away Inverness is.

 

* Design specified by DaFT, remember

[caradoc]

I'm surprised by the Inverness fuel capacity issue; Fuelling is available at Inverness and the distance from Edinburgh to Inverness is less than 190 miles; Surely an Azuma will have enough fuel for that (assuming that the set works on electric power for the rest of its diagram, or is fuelled at some other stage) ? And, once the Central Scotland electrification is complete (and given enough oomph in the OLE) the diesel distance should just be Dunblane/Inverness, less than 150 miles.

[frobisher]

I did refer to the IEProject, as a whole, the project being the trains and infrastructure work to go with them, but it's obviously too much to expect the two to go together, or trains to be designed for the infrastructure they're to work on.

Not within the scope of the IEP...

 

Intercity Express Programme (IEP) comprises a service to finance, deliver and maintain a new fleet of intercity trains needed to replace ageing trains and support demand growth on the Great Western Main Line and East Coast Main Line routes. IEP's aim is to deliver a best overall long term value for money solution across the rail industry, optimising trains, infrastructure and operations.

In a nutshell, the funding is for the trains, not the infrastructure...

 

Line speed isn't the issue, even at speeds on the Highland Main Line. They are being tested on the EC route, and as I've previously posted, leaving Doncaster southbound they're still only up to 90 at Bawtry, where an HSTs already up to 110 so even at lower speeds they're not matching HST performance (this, I was told, by someone senior who's actually been on them)

Remember, they are being trialled... You don't get 100% day one, you need to gather data. Also was this running on diesel or on OHLE?

 

I'm pretty positive that 110 is something of an ambitious speed for the Highland mainline in any case... I'm not sure that there are that many sections cleared for 100mph operation. It's single track for much of its length with everything that entails, and the HSTs are sharing the route with DMUs and freight (which is 75mph limited in any case).

 

The possible fuel capacity issue came up before that of rationing OHL supply out of London. Presumably, in the rush to electrification at the time, the designers* thought Inverness would be electrified for them, or they don't know how far away Inverness is.

 

* Design specified by DaFT, remember

Citation (oh, I know you hate that...) Inverness was always in the equation and was not in any electrification plans (ditto Aberdeen). On paper the 800's were designed to reach both locations, and until evidence to the contrary is in the open we can't say that they won't...

[Ron Ron Ron]

Not within the scope of the IEP...

 

 

In a nutshell, the funding is for the trains, not the infrastructure...

 

 

 

It and it isn't.

The IEP addresses the infrastructure issues that result from the train specification.

Rather than assume responsibility for the infrastructure requirements, these were (correctly and appropriately) passed on to the infrastructure owner and operator, NR, to identify and address accordingly.

NR also assume the funding of any improvement or modification work required.

 

So yes, IEP involves infrastructure work too, but this is being carried out and funded by another body (NR).

 

 

.

[cravensdmufan]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/29/east-coast-rail-franchise-terminated-three-years-early-virgin-trains

 

I always felt it was never a case of "if", but "when".

 

3rd private operator to hand the keys back.  Disgraceful.

[Chris116]

The whole problem with the franchise system is that the winners are those who have promised the most and are therefore the most likely to fail. It seems the more successful you are the less likely you are to retain a franchise and with the East Coast this latest move is the second to hand back the keys due to not making the money they expected, the third failure was not of the franchise as such but that the owners went bust due to their failings in other parts of their company. 

 

The nationalised East Coast Railway made profits but those in charge wanted it to be run by the private sector who thought they could do better and have been proved that they can't. I am not in favour of nationalising the railways as the main problems seem to come from DaFT but I do think the franchising system needs a massive overhaul. Time and again franchises that are well run and successful are given to another organisation who then make a mess of things.

 

A lot less interference from DaFT would also help with success being rewarded with extensions rather than having the system where most of the payments for a franchise are in the last three years with a get out clause just before those payments kick in.

 

Sorry if this is too political but railways have become a political football. Privatised by one party with the other screaming about how it should be run but then doing nothing while in power. Then the ones who privatised it all say the system is wrong but again avoid doing anything once back in power. Meanwhile the TOCs try to run to the rules which much of the time do not make sense.

[woodenhead]

Discussion here chaps: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/128645-ecml-franchise-fails-again/ 

[cravensdmufan]

Interesting leaflet from the RMT downloadable from this page:

 

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/publications/east-coast-mainline-what-our-members-say/?preview=true

 

I know some folk will say it's merely union propoganda but I have to say, having spoken with lots of VTEC staff, morale is definitely very low indeed.

[RANGERS]

A recent journey on VTEC highlighted many of the issues which have dominated discussions on this thread and the wider media. No standard class catering, toilets out of use, appalling ride on the Mk4 coaches and a general air of deterioration.

 

Whilst staff morale may well be at a low ebb, it certainly wasn’t apparent and all credit to the train team who did their very best, against all odds, to at least try to maintain the standards customers had come to expect.

 

Who knows what the future holds for the operation of the route, and it’s something of even greater significance to those staff, but it’s undoubtedly still the jewel in the railway crown and deserves much better, as do the staff who actually run it day to day.

[cravensdmufan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44142258

 

Well it had to happen!  Surprised it's taken this long actually.

 

I'm glad Stagecoach/VT weren't let off the hook with a continuation on a "not for profit" basis (er, what private company operates without wanting a profit?!).

 

Branson must be grinning well tonight.  He's had Virgin plastered all over the ECML for the past 3 years with just 10% of the loss!  Cheap advertising or what?

 

I'm not a bit disappointed at this news tonight.

 

Hope staff now feel a bit more secure. 

[Coryton]

I'm glad Stagecoach/VT weren't let off the hook with a continuation on a "not for profit" basis (er, what private company operates without wanting a profit?!).

 

It's not clear to me why they would they want to carry on not-for-profit.(Though there was the suggestion of a possible bonus at the end of the not-for-profit period if they played nicely).

 

In any case, the reason for going back to a public company seems to be so that the DfT can accelerate their plans for some kind of vertical integration on the route, which may not turn out to be a Good Thing.

[cravensdmufan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44142258

 

Well it had to happen!  Surprised it's taken this long actually.

 

I'm glad Stagecoach/VT weren't let off the hook with a continuation on a "not for profit" basis (er, what private company operates without wanting a profit?!).

 

Branson must be grinning well tonight.  He's had Virgin plastered all over the ECML for the past 3 years with just 10% of the loss!  Cheap advertising or what?

 

I'm not a bit disappointed at this news tonight.

 

Hope staff now feel a bit more secure. 

Sorry - just seen this new topic which is more relevent now that ECML will rid itself of Virgin Trains - at least for the next couple of years!

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134204-ecml-franchise-to-be-broucht-back-under-public-ownership/

[009 micro modeller]

It's not clear to me why they would they want to carry on not-for-profit.(Though there was the suggestion of a possible bonus at the end of the not-for-profit period if they played nicely).

 

In any case, the reason for going back to a public company seems to be so that the DfT can accelerate their plans for some kind of vertical integration on the route, which may not turn out to be a Good Thing.

Isn't vertical integration only likely to happen after A Certain Event, due to the EU directives on separately accountable infrastructure and train operations? Saying that I'd quite like to see it vertically integrated and in public ownership, but I expect Grayling has it in mind to privatise the infrastructure as well as the trains.

[The Stationmaster]

Isn't vertical integration only likely to happen after A Certain Event, due to the EU directives on separately accountable infrastructure and train operations? Saying that I'd quite like to see it vertically integrated and in public ownership, but I expect Grayling has it in mind to privatise the infrastructure as well as the trains.

 

Why does everybody rabbit on about vertical integration on Britain's railways as if it was the best thing since sliced bread?  Is it some new kind of mouse trap?  What exactly will it deliver please?

 

PS I worked in a vertically integrated BR for over 30 years and in a train operating company for 6 years so it is a genuine question.

[rockershovel]

A propos the joys, or otherwise of franchising, it’s interesting to compare this with the AMP (Asset Management Programme) in the water and utility sector. Framework packages are let for five years, at rates dictated by the owners (the utility companies), so assessing what work is intended during the forthcoming AMP is of vital importance.

 

What then ensues is a general all-change every five years. Nothing gets done in the first year, as staff move around willy-nilly, teams are disrupted, lost experience is rebuilt as far as possible and work put out to tender. The small number of “framework contractors” seek to cherry-pick the available work, force unprofitable contracts which can’t be avoided down the throats of subcontractors (who are otherwise excluded from opportunities), postpone large dud contracts until the next AMP and generally make hay while the sun shines. No new work of consequence starts, much after the middle of year 3. Nothing much gets done at all in year 5, as existing work is completed.

 

Then the whole process starts again. It’s rare for framework contractors to hold successive contracts, and few seriously attempt to do so (unless they are related to, or subsidiaries of to the asset owners, in which case things work rather differently).

[m0rris]

Why does everybody rabbit on about vertical integration on Britain's railways as if it was the best thing since sliced bread? Is it some new kind of mouse trap? What exactly will it deliver please?

 

PS I worked in a vertically integrated BR for over 30 years and in a train operating company for 6 years so it is a genuine question.

Personally speaking, for what I have seen the costs at the moment that NR and the Tocs seem to be willing to pass onto each other in various peojects/operational changes are eye watering.

 

I don't think there is much need for total integration, there's many examples of very successful railway operators where infrastructure and operations are separated up to the board level - I'd have no problem with this in the UK. What is needed though are people responsible for the overall balance sheet sitting at the top who can force infrastructure and operations to find the most effective/best value method of operating. I noted with interest how quickly the Scots got 365s running, whilst I am sure there were other factors a major contributor must have been Alex Hynes ability to get the railway working as one and not deferring all the work because it wasn't for their side...

 

As it stands, it appears that NR is an unaccountable body, not effectively challenged by government and too powerful to be subject to a meaningful challenge from the Tocs. Something needs to meaningfully change to get the railway working and back on a vaguely sensible cost.

Edited May 20, 2018 by m0rris

[The Stationmaster]

Personally speaking, for what I have seen the costs at the moment that NR and the Tocs seem to be willing to pass onto each other in various peojects/operational changes are eye watering.

 

I don't think there is much need for total integration, there's many examples of very successful railway operators where infrastructure and operations are separated up to the board level - I'd have no problem with this in the UK. What is needed though are people responsible for the overall balance sheet sitting at the top who can force infrastructure and operations to find the most effective/best value method of operating. I noted with interest how quickly the Scots got 365s running, whilst I am sure there were other factors a major contributor must have been Alex Hynes ability to get the railway working as one and not deferring all the work because it wasn't for their side...

 

As it stands, it appears that NR is an unaccountable body, not effectively challenged by government and too powerful to be subject to a meaningful challenge from the Tocs. Something needs to meaningfully change to get the railway working and back on a vaguely sensible cost.

 

But that is basically saying NR's management are not under control and they do not properly manage cost (among other things) - I wouldn't argue with that from what I have seen, particularly on the GWML in recent years.  And as far as the overall balance sheet is concerned that increasingly seem to be down to DafT.

 

Perhaps an answer is to go back to an informed supervisory board for NR instead of leaving things in the hands of uniformed Civil Servants?

[phil-b259]

Isn't vertical integration only likely to happen after A Certain Event, due to the EU directives on separately accountable infrastructure and train operations? Saying that I'd quite like to see it vertically integrated and in public ownership, but I expect Grayling has it in mind to privatise the infrastructure as well as the trains.

 

Please remember that thanks to the decision of the UK population in June last year, EU directives / Regulations will soon have no relevance to the UK.

 

While the intention is that currently in force directives will be carried over and still apply, after 11pm on 29 March 2019 the bottom line is that after that date the UK Government is at liberty to rip up the 'requirement' to keep infrastructure and operations separate.

 

Thus it is entirely possible that the post 2020 'Public Private Partnership' setup Mr Grayling speaks of could combine the functions of Network Rails North eastern route and LNER operations in a single vertical integrated organisation.

 

From an ideological perspective, this prospect pleases those on the right of the political spectrum who distrust NR and who believe that it needs to be broken up with different routes 'competing against each other' to lower infrastructure costs and continue the agenda of 'breaking the Unions'*.

 

* Please note, the ONLY group of staff able to cause a National Rail strike these days are the signallers - most of whom are represented by the RMT. Splitting them up into separate entities based on NR routes would greatly hamper the unions ability to go for a UK wide strike as under Conservative trade union laws the Signallers employed by a vertically integrated LNER could not take any action in support of Signallers working for a similar WCML based entity.

Edited May 20, 2018 by phil-b259

[m0rris]

But that is basically saying NR's management are not under control and they do not properly manage cost (among other things) - I wouldn't argue with that from what I have seen, particularly on the GWML in recent years.  And as far as the overall balance sheet is concerned that increasingly seem to be down to DafT.

 

Perhaps an answer is to go back to an informed supervisory board for NR instead of leaving things in the hands of uniformed Civil Servants?

Some of the decisions leave a lot to be desired - The journalist Tony Miles has discussed on another forum the glee with which cancelling electrification from Thingly to Bristol was announced as a significant cost saving despite the massive overall increase in cost with the use of bi-modes to UK Rail plc.

 

Theres been a few areas where I have seen action by both Tocs and NR that have increases the others cost where it appeared to me that dialogue and or some difficult conversations could have made very significant savings - as much as NR as the biggest organisation have the biggest affect I think there's plenty that could be done to improve cost control on both sides especially at all if the interfaces.

 

There definitely needs to be a move away from the growing power of the civil service but, as is the case with many large organisations, the Dft is empire building and I doubt it will give up its empire easily. Perhaps, when you look aboard and look at how most other countries have done it the answer is/was to have a privatised company 100% owned by the state...