Franchise specification for rolling stock

[whole diary]

[John R]

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^▸ (United Kingdom) 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^▸ (Controlled Emission Toilet) 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^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) 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^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) 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.

[Network SouthEast]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^▸ (Invitation to Tender) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) 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!

[John R]

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).

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. 

[paul7575]

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

[anthony215]

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^▸ (Great Western) order as suggested by some

[Network SouthEast]

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. 

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.

[Rhydgaled]

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. 

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).

[John R]

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.

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

[4064ReadingAbbey]

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).

No you wouldn't. If you were writing the franchise specification you would be working for the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). 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^▸ (Member of Parliament) to get the DfT to change its ways and (b) be prepared to pay a lot more for your ticket.

Anything else is fantasy.

[Rhydgaled]

Specifying levels of comfort is not in the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s remit

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

I agree with you that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) have less freedom of action than BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) did in its final years.

[ChrisB]

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^▸ (Great Western) frankly.

[paul7575]

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

[ChrisB]

ouch!

[4064ReadingAbbey]

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

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.