IEP - Capacity shortfall or plenty of seats?

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

It means that its yet to be published

Then why publish the old one again with a May update?

[ChrisB]

See what you mean, I think. Good question

[Rhydgaled]

It means that its yet to be published

Then why publish the old one again with a May update?

I've no idea why the old SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) has been updated in May 2015, but:

• that May update was published a while ago, it was there before I sent my FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) request (in fact I downloaded a copy which my computer has date-stamped at 28 ‎March ‎2015)
• that May update has on the first page the words "13th October 2013 to 19th September 2015" which I would think clearly indicates that the document does not apply beyond the end of the current direct award
• the new FA refers to four seperate SLC documents: SLC1 (until May 2017 timetable change), SLC2 (May 2017-Dec 2018), SLC3(a) and SLC3(b). I believe the latter two are different options for the service after Dec 2018.

[stuving]

I've no idea why the old SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) has been updated in May 2015, but:

• that May update was published a while ago, it was there before I sent my FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) request (in fact I downloaded a copy which my computer has date-stamped at 28 ‎March ‎2015)
• that May update has on the first page the words "13th October 2013 to 19th September 2015" which I would think clearly indicates that the document does not apply beyond the end of the current direct award
• the new FA refers to four seperate SLC documents: SLC1 (until May 2017 timetable change), SLC2 (May 2017-Dec 2018), SLC3(a) and SLC3(b). I believe the latter two are different options for the service after Dec 2018.

On the last page, it says:

Department for Transport
December 2007 PCD (Revised December 2008 PCD)
(Up dated May 2009 SCD/December 2009 PCD/
May 2010 SCD/December 2010 PCD/May 2011 SCD/December 2012 PCD May
2013 SCD/October 2013 STA, May 2014 SCD, December 2014 PCD, May 2015
SCD)

That suggests that the new SLC will be a revision of this one. Which isn't much help, if you want to know exactly what changes.

[a-driver]

I haven't read the full details of how the FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s privately funded AT300 will work but from the little bits of information I have read I just wonder how the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) will react to this deal, should it go ahead.
If it goes ahead then a precedent has surely been set for all other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to fund the purchase of their own trains (unlikely I know), but where does that leave the ROSCO's because ultimately that's eating into their business and profits.  I wonder if they would have any kind of legal case?
On the other hand, it could be the kick up the backside that they need!

[4064ReadingAbbey]

I haven't read the full details of how the FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s privately funded AT300 will work but from the little bits of information I have read I just wonder how the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) will react to this deal, should it go ahead.
If it goes ahead then a precedent has surely been set for all other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to fund the purchase of their own trains (unlikely I know), but where does that leave the ROSCO's because ultimately that's eating into their business and profits.  I wonder if they would have any kind of legal case?
On the other hand, it could be the kick up the backside that they need!

If First Group buys the trains itself than it will have to have quite deep pockets. The current financial situation of First implies that it would have to pay a (slight) premium on the interest for the capital it may need to borrow compared to other companies.

It is much more likely that First will arrange funding through a ROSCO, but it doesn't have to be Eversholt, Angel or Porterbrook, other ROSCOs are available! For example Voyagers and Class 68s and Class 88s are owned by other ROSCOs. As Hitachi has a significant presence in the business of supplying capital to businesses, and private individuals, it would not surprise me if the AT300s are financed through a Hitachi subsidiary - though probably not through Agility Trains.

[MartinH]

Having had a look through the new First Great Western franchise agreement (as link to previous) it appears that their have been alterations to the amount of standard and first class seats that will be on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) class 800s & 801s when compared to the quantities shown in the original draft seating layouts (pages 145 to 148).

A 5 car 800 will now have 290 seats in standard class. This is a 20 seat gain over the 270 seats shown in standard class on the draft 5 car layout. This is the result of a 9 seat reduction in first class seats to 36 seats from 45 shown in the draft layout.

A 9 car 801 will now have 576 seats in standard class. This is a 50 seat gain over the 526 seats shown in standard class on the draft 9 car layout. This is the result of a 30 seat reduction in first class seats to 71 seats from 101 shown in the draft layout, and is the same amount of first class seats as can be found on the current HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

[IndustryInsider]

Well spotted, MartinH.  Probably not a great surprise that the ratio of first to standard will be similar to what FGW^▸ (First Great Western) currently think is the most appropriate.

Here's what that does to the spreadsheet I presented at the beginning of that thread (which is in itself now out of date after the recent timetable change).  Original table first, then revised table.

[Network SouthEast]

It's worth noting that Swansea will be served by an additional service to Cardiff and Newport post electrification, with the current Cardiff to Taunton service becoming a Swansea to Bristol EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) service.

Whilst not additional seats to Paddington, there will be a good number of seats remaining for local journeys.

[Rhydgaled]

It's worth noting that Swansea will be served by an additional service to Cardiff and Newport post electrification, with the current Cardiff to Taunton service becoming a Swansea to Bristol EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) service.

Whilst not additional seats to Paddington, there will be a good number of seats remaining for local journeys.

Is a Swansea-Bristol EMU service confirmed (in the new GW^▸ (Great Western) franchise agreement)? Or are local EMU services to be decided by the new ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) franchise? In the latter case any new electric service might meerly be a replacement for existing ATW diesel services.

[Rhydgaled]

From the Maidenhead station: where is the common sense gone? topic:

...there may be certain trains and certain times of the day when people still won't be able to find a seat.

When the upgrade in its current specification is complete, there's no reason why that has to be the end of improvements to capacity.  For example, Crossrail's underground stations themselves are designed with passive provision for extension of the trains to 240m from the current 200m, and Reading station has been designed to handle large increases in passengers for decades to come.  I hope a similar future-proofing will be made at locations such as Maidenhead and West Drayton during the major track alterations that have started to be constructed to allow for longer trains.  Bringing in those enhancements won't be cheap, but at least will be possible.

I think this illustrates two of my concerns with IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.). Firstly, one can perhaps except "certain trains and certain times of the day when people still won't be able to find a seat" if "certain trains and certain times of the day" is a handful of trains in and out of PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) in the high-peak if pepole are only having to between PAD and Reading at most, but having to stand off-peak out of London or at any time in/out of one of the regional cities (which are smaller than London)...

The second is that there doesn't appear to be much 'future proofing' in the IEP order. Sure, you could lengthen the 9-car sets to 10-car but the rest of the fleet has been ordered based on multiple-working which means some sets will already be the maximum 260m length thus you cannot lengthen many 5-car sets before ending up with surplus driving vehicles.

Does the desision to reduce first class suggest they are now feeling that they'll be pushed for capacity pretty soon after introduction?

Oh, and I tried asking the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) pepole for more information:

The occasional seasonal service to Pembroke Dock is currently under review because gauge clearances on the route from Camarthen are not compatible with the new Intercity Express Train fleet.  The Department will continue to work with the Welsh Government to find a solution.

What is the devolution settlement regarding rail at the moment? And does 'under review' mean they still haven't decided whether it will run next year? Or is it safe at least until May 2017 or Dec 2018?

[ChrisB]

They will order more trains the further the wires get extended, replacing the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) kept on.

[broadgage]

They will order more trains the further the wires get extended, replacing the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) kept on.

I thought that the latest thinking was NOT to retain any HSTs.

Was not the ORIGINAL plan to retain a relatively small sub fleet of HSTs for far west services.
But that the CURRENT plan is to withdraw all the HSTs and to order more, mainly shorter, DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) for the far west services. These being similar to those already ordered, but with uprated or more numerous underfloor engines in order to cope with the inclines.

If however more IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) vehicles ARE to be ordered, then I would hope that the priority would be to build more intermediate, non driving vehicles.
If say 25 vehicles are to be built, then IMO^▸ (in my opinion) rather than building another 5 half length trains it would be preferable to lengthen 5 or 6 existing half length trains into full length ones.
An intermediate non driving vehicle contains more seats than a driving vehicle, so 25 vehicles applied to lengthening existing trains to 9 or 10 car would provide more additional capacity than 10 driving vehicles and 15 intermediate vehicles formed into 5 short trains.
The intermediate vehicles should be cheaper to build, perhaps allowing 30 vehicles to be built instead of 25.

As electrification spreads, the extra vehicles should not need diesel engines if added to existing sets they would be converting 5 car bi-mode into  9 or 10 car electric (with limited diesel power for when the wires come down)

[Timmer]

I was hoping that the reduction of First class accommodation was only going to be a temporary thing until IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) came along. How wrong I was.

[broadgage]

I was hoping that the reduction of First class accommodation was only going to be a temporary thing until IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) came along. How wrong I was.

I have long held the view that a fleet of mainly shorter trains will be inadequate, and have previously forecast that the new trains would have no buffet (now confirmed) I think that I also forecast the reduction in first class (now confirmed), next no doubt will a "modernised" seating layout to "maximise capacity"

These "purpose designed inter city trains" are looking increasingly like, at best an outer suburban commuter train with minimal first class, no buffet, and of course much shorter.