First / MTR win South Western franchise 2017 - 2024, and CMA raises competition concerns (merged topic)

[whole diary]

[devonexpress]

One subject that has not been broached is that of train reliability. Over the last few years the train fleets used by South West Trains have had exceptionally good reliability as demonstrated in the annual 'Golden Spanners' awards run by Roger Ford of Modern Railways based on internal industry statistics. Commonly SWT^▸ (South West Trains) had half or more of the ten most reliable fleets in the country - including the most reliable trains in the country, the 25 year old Class 158 and 159 diesel trains maintained by Salisbury depot.

This achievement did not happen by accident - SWT identified the issues that would happen if trains regularly sat down across the Waterloo throat in the rush hours and Christian Roth drove through the changes in the maintenance departments  which made it possible. Mr Roth left SWT a few weeks ago.

The reliability of First Group's trains are, at best, average. Admittedly GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has some quite old stock but Roth has shown what can be done. For example, the Class 165 and 166 trains are newer than SWT's diesels, the maintenance depot is similarly located close to a major traffic node, yet their published miles per technical incident is a factor 10 or more lower.

I hope that First Group can maintain SWT's standards - but it is a hard act to follow.

Im sorry to be blut, but this is really a load of rubbish.  I'm getting sick of hearing about dear old Stagecoach compared to First, and how SWT will be missed. Whilst yes the 158/159s are very reliable, SWT performance for punctuality is poor.  I used to hate commuting with them waiting around on a cold station platform, with a shelter smaller than a bus stop. Whilst SWT was good at keeping rail enthusiast happy and just general running trains, when it gets to the nitty gritty stuff, I would put them in the bottom 3 of train companies. 

[PhilWakely]

Im sorry to be blunt, but this is really a load of rubbish.  I'm getting sick of hearing about dear old Stagecoach compared to First, and how SWT^▸ (South West Trains) will be missed. Whilst yes the 158/159s are very reliable, SWT performance for punctuality is poor.  I used to hate commuting with them waiting around on a cold station platform, with a shelter smaller than a bus stop. Whilst SWT was good at keeping rail enthusiast happy and just general running trains, when it gets to the nitty gritty stuff, I would put them in the bottom 3 of train companies. 

To be fair, the vast majority of punctuality problems on the SWT West of England line are down to infrastructure problems beyond the control of SWT. My gripe with SWT, though, is that I cannot recall any day recently when catering between EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) and WAT has not been reduced due to staffing problems.

[stuving]

Paul Clifton was just saying on South Today that the new franchise will be not only buying new trains - lots of them - but discarding much of the existing SWT^▸ (South West Trains) fleet: meaning 458s, what looked like 455s, and even those 30 brand new 707s.

What that means in further ramifications I don't know - it would depend on what ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)' contracts say about it, I guess.

[devonexpress]

Paul Clifton was just saying on South Today that the new franchise will be not only buying new trains - lots of them - but discarding much of the existing SWT^▸ (South West Trains) fleet: meaning 458s, what looked like 455s, and even those 30 brand new 707s.

What that means in further ramifications I don't know - it would depend on what ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)' contracts say about it, I guess.

Doesn't say anything about that of First Group website, fake news or another person spreading rumors??

[LiskeardRich]

It'll be rumours.

The only rolling stock news officially confirmed is the 442s coming out of storage.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

One subject that has not been broached is that of train reliability. Over the last few years the train fleets used by South West Trains have had exceptionally good reliability as demonstrated in the annual 'Golden Spanners' awards run by Roger Ford of Modern Railways based on internal industry statistics. Commonly SWT^▸ (South West Trains) had half or more of the ten most reliable fleets in the country - including the most reliable trains in the country, the 25 year old Class 158 and 159 diesel trains maintained by Salisbury depot.

This achievement did not happen by accident - SWT identified the issues that would happen if trains regularly sat down across the Waterloo throat in the rush hours and Christian Roth drove through the changes in the maintenance departments  which made it possible. Mr Roth left SWT a few weeks ago.

The reliability of First Group's trains are, at best, average. Admittedly GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has some quite old stock but Roth has shown what can be done. For example, the Class 165 and 166 trains are newer than SWT's diesels, the maintenance depot is similarly located close to a major traffic node, yet their published miles per technical incident is a factor 10 or more lower.

I hope that First Group can maintain SWT's standards - but it is a hard act to follow.

Im sorry to be blut, but this is really a load of rubbish.  I'm getting sick of hearing about dear old Stagecoach compared to First, and how SWT will be missed. Whilst yes the 158/159s are very reliable, SWT performance for punctuality is poor.  I used to hate commuting with them waiting around on a cold station platform, with a shelter smaller than a bus stop. Whilst SWT was good at keeping rail enthusiast happy and just general running trains, when it gets to the nitty gritty stuff, I would put them in the bottom 3 of train companies. 

The data are not rubbish - they are collected on a consistent basis across all TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) and reflect the engineering performance of the trains. You may be assured that they are accurate.

You are referring to operating performance which is a different matter and does not affect what I wrote. Do not conflate the two - although if the fleet performance was worse than it is you would have had even more grounds for complaint.

Data from the Refocus programme were published in the January edition of Modern Railways. The data to which I referred show that the Miles per Technical Incident (MTIN) for SWT's fleet of Class 159/0 dmus achieved a Moving Annual Average value of 246,099 up to Period 7 of 2016. (A Technical Incident is something that happens that shouldn't which delays a train by 3 or more minutes - delays are captured automatically by the TRUST^▸ (Train Running System TOPS) system).

On the other hand GWR's fleet of Class 166 trains, which are newer, achieved a MAA^▸ (Moving Annual Average) MTIN figure of 9,153 miles. In other words the SWT fleet is 26 time more reliable than First's fleet although both have air conditioning, both have power doors and both have a maintenance depot right beside an operating node.

Of the seven fleets across the country which exceed 90,000 MTIN, FIVE are operated by SWT.

I wonder if train reliability was an entry in the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s spreadsheet?

Be careful what you wish for...

[IndustryInsider]

SWT^▸ (South West Trains) does indeed have some impressive reliability stats.  What they've done with their 15x is very impressive.  It's fair to say that the reliability stats do fluctuate wildly between data releases, especially within the diesel fleets.

[paul7575]

Doesn't say anything about that of First Group website, fake news or another person spreading rumors??

90 new trains consisting of 750 new carriages is on the First Group website.   The 18 x 5 car 442s is believed to be another separate 90 carriages.

http://www.firstgroupplc.com/about-firstgroup/uk-rail/improving-south-western-railway.aspx

You cannot possibly add that many trains to the existing fleet, there would be no paths to run them in, so it figures that a big chunk of the existing fleet really must be leaving the franchise.   I wouldn't like to propose which exact trains, but the 455s and 456s (approx 400 carriages) have been assumed to be on the way out for many months now, the hints are all there in the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender).

It is where they put the other 350 new vehicles that seems to be the debatable point.

Paul

[stuving]

The BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) TV report devoted most agitation to the fact that the trains mentioned were new or had been done up recently. That's not just new seat covers either - some of the 458s had their bodies hacked about, and the 455s have been retractioned.

I can't see how, as Paul Clifton put it, "Who's going to pay? We are." It was Porterbrook that paid £40M for the modern motors and IGBTs^▸ (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor) for the 455s, and I wonder whether they negotiated some form of guarantee. If not, it's a lot of money to lay out so close to the end of the franchise and so, presumably, their lease. Of course they may now go up the desirability scale and push some other units towards the breakers'.

For older trains not showered with goodies I can see no reason to pity the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) at all. They bought all their initial stock at prices that were nowhere near their lease value based on their remaining life, even if they have had to hold their lease prices down a bit to avoid press and parliamentary flak.

[John R]

If nothing else, it will make the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)'s much more cautious in future about any investment where there isn't a guaranteed future use for the stock. SO either they won't be willing to commit to any investment (what I would call mid-franchise paralysis), or they will price on a worst case scenario, which will probably make any enhancement unaffordable.

It can't be good for the industry that brand new stock is being left in the sidings.  Maybe Vivarail can think of a use for them.

[Surrey 455]

I have to ask about these new trains that First are talking about. How many of them were previously announced by Stagecoach SWT^▸ (South West Trains)?

[John R]

I have to ask about these new trains that First are talking about. How many of them were previously announced by Stagecoach SWT^▸ (South West Trains)?

I think that's the point. They appear to be ditching all the new stock that Stagecoach have been responsible for, including the 707's which have yet to turn a wheel in service and the heavily reengineered 458s.

[ellendune]

So are we now saying there will be a surplus of electric stock?  Presumable the newer stuff can also work 25kV as well.

[stuving]

If nothing else, it will make the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)'s much more cautious in future about any investment where there isn't a guaranteed future use for the stock. SO either they won't be willing to commit to any investment (what I would call mid-franchise paralysis), or they will price on a worst case scenario, which will probably make any enhancement unaffordable.

It can't be good for the industry that brand new stock is being left in the sidings.  Maybe Vivarail can think of a use for them.

Having just watched Paul Clifton's piece again I do wonder that he can go on about new trains being cheaper to buy and finance now than than they have been, without mentioning the ROSCOs who do the borrowing and owning. TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) may place orders, but I don't think First/MTR will making that kind of financial commitment for a 7-year franchise term.

And as for trains being immediately parked in sidings - any replacements won't happen until 2020, and there's a lot of additional diagrams to fill come August. Reading and Windsor need about twice the number of trains, for starters.

Do you think Angel Trains signed up to finance 30 Class 707s without noticing that the end of the franchise was so close? Of course not. There was a piece in Rail News at the time of the order than opined:

The trains are being built by Siemens and purchased by Angel Trains who will lease them to South West Trains or whoever is running the franchise in 2017. This is why the Government in the form of the Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) was part of the announcement as the DfT will be awarding the next franchise by 2017 when the trains are due to be delivered.

It now seems that, when we do finally find out what's happening (and clearly we don't yet), DfT didn't require 707s to be leased. But Angel will have known that - or else they don't know their business.

We haven't heard any announcement of what will happen to the 707s (or any others) when they do come off lease. That doesn't mean that nothing is being arranged!

[Richard Fairhurst]

I do wonder - without any supporting evidence at all - whether this is just a ruse to reduce the leasing cost on the 707s, and that it'll be announced in two months' time that SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) will be taking them after all. The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s animus towards the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) is well known, after all.