Great Western Coffee Shop

How about this for a franchise specification, just published.


High quality and safe passenger environment consistent with modern inter-urban and regional
passenger rolling stock in the UK and Europe. This condition is to be maintained throughout
the Franchise Term, by means of an interior refresh if necessary.
^ Ability to work safely and reliably in the ambient winter / summer weather conditions
experienced in the xxxxxxxxx  area.
^ Bogied vehicles.
^ Standard Class accommodation with a seating density no greater than 2+2.
^ Where First/Business Class is provided, there should be a clear differentiation between the
quality of First/Business and Standard Class accommodation.
^ Shoulder room and leg room should not be reduced from that currently provided on
each route.
^ Air conditioning and appropriate heating including during station stops.
^ Toilet provision on board which is no less than currently provided on each route and that
avoids smell being noticeable in seated areas.
^ CET provision for on-board toilets shall be in accordance with the environmental
requirements of Section 2.2.2. (xxxxxxxxx Requirements) of Delivery Plan 4
(Sustainability).
^ 90% of fleet PRM TSI compliant by 31/12/2018.
^ 100% of fleet PRM TSI compliant by 31/12/2019.
^ Real-time visual and audible passenger information system. PRM TSI compliance represents
the minimum standard and proposals are invited for provision of additional information, e.g.
train service information and infotainment.
^ Facilities for storing large items of luggage within sight/proximity of passengers when seated;
overhead racks for smaller luggage, flexible space for pushchairs/prams and cycle storage
facilities (minimum 2 cycles per unit).
^ Wi-Fi capability fully compatible with modern standards.
^ 230V power sockets (one per pair of seats) capable of charging a laptop, mobile phone or
similar device.
^ Tables at all seats (may be fixed or folding).
^ No more than 50% of the seats to be ^airline^ style layout.
^ CCTV coverage and on-board recording at a minimum of 2 fps normal and 25 fps for 2
mins before and 5 mins after a trigger event of all passenger areas (except toilets). System to
include forward facing camera mounted in each driving cab.
^ Design to maximise comfort for standing passengers at peak times, e.g. space and
handhold provision.
^ Bodyside door locations / width and interior layout to facilitate rapid boarding and alighting  


Before you get too excited, it's for the new Scotrail franchise.  Interesting that so much is being specified in detail - no more than 50% airline seats, tables at all seats, no smelly toilets, no squashing up seats to squeeze more in, etc.

With respect, the spec is fairly generic. Much of it is de-facto for new rolling stock (except the ratio of airline seats and tables). And in some respects it is fairly vague, for example the IEP specification is much clearer as to precisely how many luggage stacks should be provided and what size the overhead racks should be.

However, what is interesting about the ScotRail Franchise ITT is that if you read the rest of the document you'll note that whilst Transport Scotland don't explicitly say there must be new build diesel intercity rolling stock used, any bid that offers it will be looked upon more favourably than one that doesn't.

Another interesting thing I was discussing with a colleague the other day is that since the London Midland 350/2 were delivered in 2008 there has been no rolling stock ordered since with 3+2 seating. Whilst there's been no announcement from the DfT on whether it has been banished to the past or not, I can't help wondering if this has been something they've had some kind of influence with. Even the 377/7 and 377/8 Electrostars ordered by Southern have 2+2 seating throughout!

But, and also with respect, those were the specific aspects to which I drew attention to.

I'm not sure how an operator which is only going to be announced in the autumn is expected to start a procurement process, place an order, and have the first new trains delivered by Dec 16, which is the requirement. That feels rather tight, and probably limits new build options to a continuation of an existing run. 

I wonder if in hindsight Siemens' decision to pull out of the Crossrail process was also aimed at putting them in prime position for this sort of delivery timescale for Scotrail, as they have already delivered the 380s up there.  Although it may coincide with peak deliveries for Thameslink, the basic Desiro City will probably meet Scotrail or their successor's needs...

Paul

You could be on to something there.
I havent been to see the actual mock up myself but from looking at photos the desiro city class 700 looks pretty good.

A unit like this would be good for Scotrail  in the future.

I do hope Bombardier's Aventra  is just as good especially if it is chosen for Crossrail and we do see a GW order as suggested by some

It's not uncommon for franchise bidders to kick off procurement at bidding stage, for example Virgin's 6 car Pendolinos. Contracts can be signed on when the franchise is awarded and away you go. I believe two of the bidders for ScotRail are doing a similar thing.

Any details of what stock those bidders are looking into?

Personally, if I were writing a franchise spec for Great Western I'd put a requirement on the Cardiff/Bristol-Southampton/Portsmouth regional express service (and similar) to be worked by rolling stock which favors passenger comfort rather than sacrificing seats and/or legroom/table-bays for increased standing room (class 165/166 stock falls into the latter category).

Just because a vehicle looks good, doesn't mean it is necessarily appropriate for a particular service.

No you wouldn't. If you were writing the franchise specification you would be working for the DfT. The DfT's priority is to minimise the call on the public purse - if this means the passengers have to stand then so be it. Specifying levels of comfort is not in the DfT's remit and if you did you do so you would be sentenced to writing press releases.

If you want to have lots of seats and tables and all the other good things you will have to (a) convince your MP to get the DfT to change its ways and (b) be prepared to pay a lot more for your ticket.

Anything else is fantasy.

Not sure about that. I seem to recall somebody posting that they specified things like no toilet smell getting into the saloons in the IEP spec. The DfT seem to be able to specify what they like, although when it suits them they adopt a policy of leaving it to the franchise holder to decide.

I agree with you that the DfT can specify what they wish to - within limits! 'Remit' was a bad choice, I meant more that they don't see a need to specify comfort and in general have not done so up to now - although how one specifies 'comfort' I'm not sure.

I still don't understand why the DfT is involved in such details in the first place. I would have thought they could have specified the minimum seat pitch and seat width and then left it up to the operators. If the operator could see that offering a more 'comfortable' seat, and possibly more of them, would increase his income then he would do it.

Under the current implementation of the structure it seems that the TOCs have less freedom of action than BR did in its final years.

Just wait until you see the new Thameslink trains. Fine for a 30min commute I guess (assuming you can gwet a seat, which I doubt in high-peak), but they won't be popular (or [particularly suitable) for a longer distance trip through London & onwards the other side!

Glad they aren#'t coming to the GW frankly.

Well all those making calls for Crossrail to Reading need to be aware that their trains will have relatively less seats than the Thameslink 700s, no toilets, and they'll be 10 mph slower.   (As currently specified.)

Paul

ouch!

Thank you! This is a point I keep making - the trains will unsuitable for journeys as far as London to Reading (and vice versa). If they have to run on the Mains in the peak periods because of some hiccup on the Reliefs then the service will be more disturbed than it need have been.

Crossrail should not have got any further west than Slough - or possibly, given a grade separated junction, Windsor.

Sorry I have not seen any designs for the cross rail trains so I am at a disadvantage here to those who have had some sort of preview of trains that the tenderers are still designing.  While I have seen the brief A4 briefing note issued by Cross Rail (rather short on detail) I have not seen the tender specification (which is only the minimum requirement) either,  Can anyone tell me where any of this detail is available.

Or is much of this pure speculation?

There isn't much in the public domain about Crossrail because the DfT isn't acting in the procurement, but TfL are.

However, there are reports that the winning Crossrail rolling stock bidder will be announced this week, so watch this space!

The Crossrail briefing note is my source - it clearly reports the requirement is for 450 seats per 10 car train, which would have to be predominantly 2+2 given 20m vehicles.  That's an average of 45 seats per carriage, most having more than 45 because the DDA carriages (probably 2) will have significantly less.  (In my opinion, by the way, those suggesting Crossrail will be 'just like an LO 378' are wrong because you can only get about 15-18 seats per side in a longitudinal layout like 378s have have.)

So 450 means a lower average number of seats per carriage than either the 8 car (416) or 12 car (654) published numbers for Thameslink.

Paul

So if there are 450 seats per 10 car train, how much of the route will passenger be standing.  If is was all the way then no one would get on at the inner sub=urban stations. 

Well the same fact sheet gives an overall capacity of 1500, so I assume the majority will always be standing.  I'm sure TfL are planning this on a similar basis to the tube generally, I don't think national rail norms will apply at all.   Another reason it is the wrong train for Reading.

Paul

But Crossrail trains are specified for the same top speed as the lines they run on. The GWML Relief lines are the fastest section of track they'll run on, so 90mph is the maximum they will need. It gives the best possible trade off between top speed and acceleration.

I don't see why they're the wrong train for Reading. All they're going to replace is Turbos, which hardly offer luxurious standards of comfort. Crossrail in effect replaces the current relief line service, except it doesn't because it terminates at Maidenhead. So it means that a half-hourly shuttle is needed between Slough and Reading. If you extend Crossrail through to Reading you remove the need for that shuttle. Extending Crossrail to Reading is only going to lead to marginally longer journeys on the trains, but any passengers using to Crossrail to Reading or Twyford may well be saved the need to change trains. Even if, hopefully, Crossrail extends to Reading it's never going to become the main Reading-London option. At most you'll be extending Maidenhead-Central London journeys to Twyford-Central London journeys, but I'm sure you wouldn't find Twyford passengers complaining about their new through trains to destinations across Central London.

Because they need seating?.....

Seating is now VERY last year !

I must say that I commend your sense of humour, broadgage - and your turn of phrase!  ;D

Standing is the new sitting, they say.

It may or may not be fashionable, but I must take a stand for sitting.

I'm glad somebody isn't taking this lying down.