INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview August 2021
INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview August 2021
This month’s column continues my detailed analysis of the Williams Shapps Plan (WSP). I’m aiming to work through the Plan in coming issues, focusing on what it means for different aspects of the railway.
Rolling stock - Williams Shapps Plan creates vacuum
Lessons from record run
Electrification metric re-discovered
MTIN vs 701(D) – if it ain’t broke?
This month the WSP topic covered is rolling stock. A quick search and find of the WSP document reveals only three references to ‘rolling stock’. And when I raised the subject with Keith Williams himself, he confirmed that the review had largely ‘left rolling stock alone’.
Search for ‘train fleets’, however, and you get four mentions, one of which contains the key policy. Procurement of train fleets and maintenance by independent train-leasing companies will continue.
But nowhere does the Plan address how any new rolling stock will be procured or, of more immediate importance, how existing fleets will be managed. However, change seems certain.
As discussed last month, the Passenger Service Contracts (PSC), which will replace the now-terminated Franchise Agreements, will remove most of the responsibilities of the original Train Operating Companies (TOCs). Great British Railways (GBR) will provide the timetable, staff the stations, set fares and take the revenue. In effect, train operation is being out-sourced.
A PSC will be a hollowed-out TOC. One outcome of the Plan could be that, along with the timetable and fares, the PSC will also be provided with the rolling stock GBR thinks necessary to run its services.
Indeed, with an entirely new structure for the railway, why should a concession, which is just there to run the trains have responsibility for specifying and procuring rolling stock fleets with a potential 35 year life and costing hundreds of millions of pounds? Equally, Government procurement of rolling stock has shown the pitfalls of pandering to political imperatives.
Procurement of train fleets by those raising the hard cash to buy them should introduce the incentive to think long term. When the initial lease runs out, will a train still be attractive to the operator – whoever that may be?
Fortunately, we are unlikely to need, or be able to afford, any new rolling stock in significant quantities this side of 2023. And GBR will need a year or so to settle in before it has the capability to plan, let alone implement, a long-term rolling stock strategy.
However, we do need to start thinking about the WSP’s ‘options to ensure reliable delivery and value for money’ for existing fleets. If PSCs are to run the trains they are allocated by GBR, centralisation of leases has a number of advantages.
As the TOCs with current National Rail Contracts hand over to the PSCs, individual leases within large rolling stock fleets could transfer to GBR and be incorporated within an overall master lease. A single lease would also simplify conversion programmes, plus cascades, as electrification releases DMUs.
Of course for the fleet owners looking to generate an additional long term revenue stream, once you have a common pool of trains, there is the option for a ROSCO to form a joint venture company with the manufacturer and offer a Train Service Provision deal. This new company would take over maintenance depots and handle examinations and overhauls, as has already happened with new-build fleets.
With GBR determining future rolling stock policy and procurement, its first task will be to develop a strategy aligned with the rolling programme of electrification, combining existing fleets and the new generation of electric stock.
Benefits from Avanti’s record run
Since I joined Modern Railways, I have taken part in numerous record runs. But I can’t remember thinking at the time ‘why are we doing this’? However the attempt to break the December 1984 London-Glasgow record set by a Pre-Series Advanced Passenger Train (APT-P) was so out of kilter with these austere, turbulent times that, as I followed its progress on Real Time Trains, just that question came to mind.
Avanti’s attempt was timed to run non-stop, while observing the current 125 mile/h maximum. In the event, despite averaging 103 mile/h, the record was missed by 21 seconds.
However, failure by seconds was not seen as a disgrace by the media, garnering valuable positive coverage. But what else was the run about?
Covid recovery was the primary focus. With reduced timetables and few passengers, train operators have been reporting record levels of punctuality and reliability.
That advantage is gradually fading and the aim must be to maintain the current level of performance as the railway gets busier, both in terms of returning to pre-lockdown timetables and having increasing numbers of passengers getting in the way of running a railway. A record run was a practical way to remind operating staff at all levels of the importance of right-time performance and attention to detail.
With the Williams Shapps Plan still fresh, organising the run was also a graphic demonstration to Government that the industry was already capable of working together. For example, other operators on the route moved their trains to provide a clear path.
There was also support for the campaign for a rolling programme of electrification which Modern Railways is leading. I received details of the nine-car Pendolino’s energy consumption for the run.
Net energy used for the journey was 7,863kWh after regenerative braking returned 13% to the supply, an average consumption of 12.2kWh/km. This compares with the pre-Covid average of around 14 kWh/km with regenerative braking savings of around 15%.
In the virtual race with APT-P, the Pendolino was ahead approaching the border but this was not sufficient to overcome APT-P’s advantage of then being able to run faster over lines which, unlike the southern end of the WCML, have not enjoyed the speed upgrades further south, such as at Stafford and Crewe.
This added a political message to the lessons from the record attempt. A ‘levelling-up’ of the northern section of the WCML is overdue. The final message from the run is that if HS2 is to realise its full potential, planning for the West Coast Route Modernisation (North) needs to start now, both for journey time reductions and reliability.
Prioritising the rolling programme
I recently went back to the 2009 Network Rail Electrification Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS). Re-reading the RUS provided the answer to something I had been mulling over for some time – how to prioritise the rolling programme on the basis of its contribution to decarbonisation, rather than the business case alone. The RUS had proposed that the ratio of the number of vehicle miles which can be converted from diesel to electric operation to track miles to be electrified would provide an initial indication of the relative benefit: cost ratios of options.
A couple of days after looking up the RUS I received the sad news that Richard Eccles had died. At Network Rail he had been the architect of the Electrification RUS and I thought that an appropriate tribute would be to call this the Richard Eccles Factor (REf).
Getting a handle on what an REf looks like is not that simple, since you need to relate current diesel train miles to single track km of wiring. However in the column I give some approximate examples.
Meanwhile, Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) remains in limbo – or purgatory – as far as Government action is concerned. Rail Minister Chris Heaton-Harris said at the RIA Innovation conference back in April that the Government’s response will make industry ‘very happy’. But he didn’t say when!
At a trade press briefing in June, Network Rail Chief Executive Andrew Haines gave an update on progress with the TDNS at the Department. Despite the competing demands for funding, Andrew believes that ‘we are on the cusp of some material unlocking because it makes economic sense’ As for timing, Mr Haines reckons that the Government would want to get confirmation of the initial programme before the Climate Change Conference (COP26) which opens in Glasgow on 1 November. I am not so sure.
In terms of PR newsworthiness and perception, an announcement that the Government is going to fund a pilot fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell multiple units, is far sexier than saying you are going to string up a few wires. And the funding decision may also have to wait for the next Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), which is expected to be published in November, but after COP26.
MTIN vs 701(D) – if it ain’t broke?
Being puzzled by the rationale for the change from Miles per Technical Incident Number (MTIN) to Miles per 701D Code (Mp701D) for recording fleet reliability, I asked the Rail Delivery Group, which is responsible for Fleet Challenge, for some background. Mark Molyneux, RDG’s National Fleet Performance Manager, duly obliged with an interview.
Mark took me through the reasons for the change. There is a precedent: a decade ago MTIN supplanted Miles per 5 Minutes Delay and in the column I have a couple of tables comparing the impact of both changes on the reliability data.
Despite my helpful discussion with Mark, I have yet to be convinced that Mp701D is a change for the better. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next year or so. Meanwhile, we will be publishing both figures in TIN-Watch, with new fleets ranked on MTIN MAA for continuity.
However, in addition to the usual TIN-Watch reliability data, there is separate table ranking the new train fleets on their Mp701D MAA performance and comparing their positions from the MTN MAA figures. I’m not sure what this tells us, if anything, but I thought it worth publishing for readers to consider.
Roger’s Blog
Those of you who follow our monthly video preview of the magazine’s contents on the Modern Railway’s website will have seen that I did indeed escape from the conservatory to film my contribution for the July edition. It was a lovely sunny, if windy, day and our local leisure park and nature reserve provided the ideal location beside the East Coast Main Line with real trains in the background. In the excitement I said ‘West Coast Main line’, which was spotted only at the very last moment – so we let it go. No teasing comments yet from readers.
For the IRSE/Siemens online conference ‘Returning to Rail – The Challenge’ event on 28 June, I produced a simple PowerPoint presentation and then used Share Screen in a recorded solo Zoom meeting. Tidied up by the IRSE’s IT Elves, it wasn’t too bad.
To follow up the recorded presentations there was a webinar where I was one of the panellists. According to IRSE ‘the attendance far exceeded our expectations’.
Out of the 420 people who registered for the conference, online attendance for the webinar peaked at 276 viewers with a total of 30 questions posed. Pretty impressive for such an event I gather. But sitting in the office talking to a screen lacks the excitement of a face-to-face audience.
I’ve been sceptical of claims emanating from the East Coast Main line ETCS programme that conventional signalling renewal is unaffordable. Siemens’ new contract for resignalling the network in Devon and Cornwall appeared to support my doubts.
As a result, Siemens has organising a briefing for me on their updated approach to affordable signalling renewals. This has moved on from the original low-cost Modular Signalling concept I saw at Chippenham a while back. Should be interesting.
After the success of videoing on location, with thanks to Mrs F for directing, we had an afternoon recce of other potential sites. I’ve found a couple and, assuming the weather is kind, my contribution for the August issue will be recorded at a station ‘somewhere in Hertfordshire’.
That’s all for this month. Time to continue grappling with the imponderables in the WSP
Roger
