IEP - Capacity shortfall or plenty of seats?

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

Much of what I predict is known to be true,

Predicting the future to be known ?

Sorry for the poor grammar, I should perhaps have said "much of what I have formerly predicted is now known to be true"  in regards to the new trains.

[CCTV99]

We also know as a virtual certainty that most of the seats (as in more than half) will be bus style without tables, this is as shown on the drawings published.

For the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) Order yes. You have no clue how the additional order is to be configured which will be to the operators wishes, with no DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) input as they're privately financed. And it's well known that half the population (ie women) prefer the privacy of these airline (not bus) seats to table seating where men play footsie.

It is true that a fair number of passengers prefer the airline style layout to facing seats with tables. Not just females either.
Wasn't there a study that showed that the first seats taken on a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train), paricularly during the peaks, were those closest to the carriage ends and the doors, followed by the airline style seats. Table seats tended to be avoided by solo travellers.
Conversely, groups of 3 or 4, or families, tended to go for the tables first.

Regarding finance, the IEP train order (i.e. the cost of the actual trains) is also privately funded. HSBC are heading up a group of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and overseas investors, who are providing the finance to pay for the trains and support infrastructure. The UK government will not be buying them, or paying for them.

The lack of luggage space is a reasonable inference to be made from the scarcity of table seats (no space for bags between seat backs) and the absence of power cars and the luggage space therein.

luggage space is like road provision - you supply it & it'll generate its own traffic. You could never have too much even if each seat came with its own luggage space instead of a seat beside it 0- that would still fill. Better to stop people using them to move house....:-)

I can't say I've ever seen people placing their luggage in a HST power car. Maybe I'm just not observant enough?
The IEP spec detailed the required minimum baggage space. If it's mostly at the carriage ends, in or near the vestibules, that brings its own issues of security and passenger confidence.
Again, it's no use speculating until we can see what the end result turns out to be.

[ChrisB]

I don't think pax are allowed to put luggage in HST^▸ (High Speed Train) power cardms. On summer weekends, luggage is loaded into wire cages on platforms which staff then load into the power cars

[IndustryInsider]

It is true that a fair number of passengers prefer the airline style layout to facing seats with tables. Not just females either.
Wasn't there a study that showed that the first seats taken on a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train), paricularly during the peaks, were those closest to the carriage ends and the doors, followed by the airline style seats. Table seats tended to be avoided by solo travellers.
Conversely, groups of 3 or 4, or families, tended to go for the tables first.

Table seats are still popular with some solo travellers and couples (though I've seen many looks of horror when someone dares to join them!), and are obviously popular with groups, which is why I think that 8 tables per carriage, as proposed, is a sensible compromise - and of course a big improvement on the current layout.

[broadgage]

I don't think pax are allowed to put luggage in HST^▸ (High Speed Train) power cars. On summer weekends, luggage is loaded into wire cages on platforms which staff then load into the power cars

Agree, passengers are not normally allowed to place luggage in HST power cars. However as you point out, at busy times luggage is indeed placed in large wire mesh sided trolleys and loaded into the power cars by staff.
This is a very valuable facility which will be lost with the downgrade to DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) operation.
What is to be done in the future ? advise those with luggage to go by road ?

Some way back in the main IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) thread a respected member of these forums cast doubts over the luggage capacity of the proposed new DMUs on services to/from the far West. The reply was along the lines of "don't worry about surfboards and other bulky luggage, HSTs are being retained for the longer distance services" This was no doubt true when posted, but it now seems probable that even the long distance services are being downgraded to DMU operation.
Summer weekends will be interesting !

[4064ReadingAbbey]

Regarding finance, the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train order (i.e. the cost of the actual trains) is also privately funded. HSBC are heading up a group of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and overseas investors, who are providing the finance to pay for the trains and support infrastructure. The UK government will not be buying them, or paying for them.

While that is accurate, it's not quite the full story!

Firstly, while the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will pay for the train service provision, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has guaranteed these payments for the 27.5 years of the Train Service Provision deal. I'd be quite happy with a guaranteed income for the next 27.5 years!

Secondly, because of the structure of the contract between Agility Trains and the DfT and its financing, the monthly payments per coach will be much higher than for an equivalent type of train, specifically the 140mph capable and tilting Pendolino. I wrote to my MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) about the IEP contract and he forwarded me a reply from Claire Perry, the railways Minister at the DfT, in which she stated that fares will not rise because of the use of the Super Express Trains. As it is known that the monthly payments will be considerably higher this means that, all other things being equal, either a higher subsidy will be required to operate the trains or the Government will have to accept lower premium payments.

In either case the taxpayer takes the hit

[Rhydgaled]

I wrote to my MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) about the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) contract and he forwarded me a reply from Claire Perry, the railways Minister at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), in which she stated that fares will not rise because of the use of the Super Express Trains. As it is known that the monthly payments will be considerably higher this means that, all other things being equal, either a higher subsidy will be required to operate the trains or the Government will have to accept lower premium payments.

In either case the taxpayer takes the hit

Or, the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) increases revenue by cramming more passengers onto the trains. That, supposedly, is how Virgin East Coast intend to make their payments to government after IEP arrives. And is the government policy still RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context))+1% fare rises? If so, fares will (regrettably) rise anyway (which would help pay for IEP) across all TOCs giving the government the excuse to say the fare rises are not because of IEP.

I don't think pax are allowed to put luggage in HST^▸ (High Speed Train) power cars. On summer weekends, luggage is loaded into wire cages on platforms which staff then load into the power cars

Agree, passengers are not normally allowed to place luggage in HST power cars. However as you point out, at busy times luggage is indeed placed in large wire mesh sided trolleys and loaded into the power cars by staff.
This is a very valuable facility which will be lost with the downgrade to DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) operation.
What is to be done in the future ? advise those with luggage to go by road ?

Some way back in the main IEP thread a respected member of these forums cast doubts over the luggage capacity of the proposed new DMUs on services to/from the far West. The reply was along the lines of "don't worry about surfboards and other bulky luggage, HSTs are being retained for the longer distance services" This was no doubt true when posted, but it now seems probable that even the long distance services are being downgraded to DMU operation.
Summer weekends will be interesting!

No, summer weekends will be a nightmare, IF it goes ahead. Here's hopeing whoever is elected only approves the 7x 9-car units of First's proposed order and instructs First to retain 20ish IC125 sets instead of procuring the extra 5-car sets.

[broadgage]

I suspect that there will be a hidden fare increase to pay for the new very expensive shorter DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit).
If a senior figure has stated "no fare increases to pay for the new trains" then I doubt that headline fares will rise by more than the usual RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) plus 1%.
I can forsee a number of ways whereby fares can be increased in less obvious ways.

 Adjust the peak hours such that the full fare becomes payable at times during which an off peak ticket may be used at present.

Reduce the NUMBER of discounted tickets sold for each train, keep the super saver at say ^50 but sell 2 such tickets per train rather than 50

Tweak the timetable to maximise revenue, for example if "off peak" means arrival into London after 09-30, then make an 09-35 arrival into an 09-25 arrival. This can be touted as a great improvement "look the new trains cut 10 minutes off the time"

A bright manager should be able to think of more subtle but generally similar tricks.

And yes I expect that the design will be tweaked to cram more passengers into each vehicle, the famous "thousands of extra seats"

[grahame]

The discussion has set me thinking on capacity ...  please excuse examples using a service where the figures are easily seen / calculated.


I recon there's some half million seats (250k each way) between Swindon and Westbury each year - that's 10 carriages each way Monday to Saturday, with a few less on Sundays, and with around 75 seats per carriage.  And on current reconning around 100,000 occupied each way.  Gives us 40% utilisation.  That's a rather higher seat occupancy rate than other services where it's easy(ish) to make such an approximation, cerrainly better that typical car travel that's between 25% and 30% (guess through personal observation) - and I would love to know figures for town buses, long distance trains, long distance coaches and airline flights.  Just because you (or I) may travel on busy services all the time doesn't mean that the average is "busy" - 100 opinions of 'it's busy' are formed on a 1 coach train carrying 100 people, but only 20 opinions of 'it's quiet' if there are FOUR other services each carrying 5.

So - how busy (really) are the trains?  And how can we [society, industry] do more to make best use of the under-utilised timeslices without adding pressure to the ones which are already oversubscribed?   Sort this out - get utilisation of transport up to 60% utilisation - and at very little extra expense you'll be able to increase your income dramatically without having to raise the fares for exisiting travellers.   Or if there's no extra huge flow of new passengers, how about even-ing the out so that fewer carriages but with more passengers (average) on each still give everyone a comfortable, seated ride?

I may grumble about overcrowding on the 19:30 off Paddington - but was the incoming train that formed the service full and standing?   I may press for the 17:36 to be strengthened (and look forward to that in 2 years time, with a hope for intermediate relief too), but I also just wish that the mechanisms that generate traffic would let us encouraged (carrot, not stick) more people onto the (2 car already!) 06:12.

[ChrisB]

Regarding finance, the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train order (i.e. the cost of the actual trains) is also privately funded. HSBC are heading up a group of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and overseas investors, who are providing the finance to pay for the trains and support infrastructure. The UK government will not be buying them, or paying for them.

While that is accurate, it's not quite the full story!

Firstly, while the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will pay for the train service provision, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has guaranteed these payments for the 27.5 years of the Train Service Provision deal. I'd be quite happy with a guaranteed income for the next 27.5 years!

Secondly, because of the structure of the contract between Agility Trains and the DfT and its financing, the monthly payments per coach will be much higher than for an equivalent type of train, specifically the 140mph capable and tilting Pendolino. I wrote to my MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) about the IEP contract and he forwarded me a reply from Claire Perry, the railways Minister at the DfT, in which she stated that fares will not rise because of the use of the Super Express Trains. As it is known that the monthly payments will be considerably higher this means that, all other things being equal, either a higher subsidy will be required to operate the trains or the Government will have to accept lower premium payments.

In either case the taxpayer takes the hit

We're discussing the add-on AT300s that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are proposing they privately finance, not the IEPs you are referring to here!

[CCTV99]

While that is accurate, it's not quite the full story!

Indeed, it isn't the whole story.
The very expensive procurement process has incurred the sort of eye watering costs usually associated with government procurement exercises.

Firstly, while the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will pay for the train service provision, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has guaranteed these payments for the 27.5 years of the Train Service Provision deal. I'd be quite happy with a guaranteed income for the next 27.5 years!

The guarantee doesn't cost anything, other than the legal and administrative costs of setting up the deal, unless the payments are not met, or there's a default on the leasing contracts.

.....As it is known that the monthly payments will be considerably higher this means that, all other things being equal, either a higher subsidy will be required to operate the trains or the Government will have to accept lower premium payments.

In either case the taxpayer takes the hit

The taxpayer would indeed take at hit, but only if those eventualities are realised.
If the TOC's increase their revenue and meet their contactual arrangements to pay the "promised" premiums to the government, then the taxpayer will not be paying.
On the other hand, passengers, MAY end up paying more for the service provided.
Again, it isn't as simple as that though.

[Rhydgaled]

Posted elsewhere:
They replied to my FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) request and initially rejected it on the grounds that it was planned for future publication and FirstGroup hadn't finished redacting the commercially sensitive parts yet. They have now released the franchise agreement (FA) (available here) but I also asked for the Service Level Commitment (SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment)) which doesn't appear to be available yet.
-----
Now, I asked for the FA and SLC because I want to know whether the Pembroke Dock - Paddington services are safe. The only mention of Pembroke in the FA is on the list of permitted destinations under "The Franchisee shall not without the prior written consent of the Secretary of State operate Passenger Services other than on the following routes (and in the event of disruption, any reasonable diversionary route):" Does the inclusion of Pembroke Dock on the list mean the SLC is the same as at present, or could it be included on that list despite being removed from the SLC?

[ChrisB]

It might be purely an option (whether seasonal or not).

You'll have to await the SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) to be sure.

[ellendune]

They have now released the franchise agreement (FA) (available here) but I also asked for the Service Level Commitment (SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment)) which doesn't appear to be available yet.

The SLC seems to available on the same link! Or have I missed something.  Ah yes the dates; it is the current 2013- 2015 one updated in May 2015 - what does this mean? Is the SLC staying the same?

Oh and of course Paddington - Pembroke Dock services are included.

[ChrisB]

It means that its yet to be published