National Express East Anglia To Hire Class 47's And Carriages

[whole diary]

[Lee]

National Express East Anglia is expected to lease carriages and two Class 47 locos to run from Norwich to Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7297219.stm

The firm would not confirm the deal, but Rail magazine said it was aware contracts were being drafted.

It is understood that if the anticipated two-year deal is signed, the trains could be brought into service by May.

Phil Haigh, Rail's business editor, said:

"There's a crying need for extra trains all over the country.

"First Great Western, Northern and National Express East Anglia need more trains, as does just about every part to the country."

Mr Haigh said despite the fact the carriages are older, being hauled by Class 47 diesel locomotives may be more comfortable for passengers, because diesel trains on local routes have engines under the floor that cause vibration.

He added:

"These will be trains that were got rid of a while ago, although they have been hired for summer Saturdays to cope with peak loads.

"It does provide extra seats, but its a very expensive option and that shows how desperate some of the rail companies are to provide more seats."

[swlines]

This is not particularly new. When under 'one', there were always summer London to Great Yarmouth services, hauled by a 90 to Norwich, and a 47 to Great Yarmouth. As I understand it, they are simply separating these services apart and providing connections into the Norwich services.

The summer additionals will be in place as per normal, as well.

[Btline]

I take it these carriages will be some of the Mk2s^▸ (Mark 2 coach) at Honeybourne.

[Andy W]

I take it these carriages will be some of the Mk2s^▸ (Mark 2 coach) at Honeybourne.

A rake of Mk2s were taken from Long Marston (Honeyborne) this week to go to New Zealand!!!
 

[swlines]

That is also not particularly new. 

[Btline]

I take it these carriages will be some of the Mk2s^▸ (Mark 2 coach) at Honeybourne.

A rake of Mk2s were taken from Long Marston (Honeyborne) this week to go to New Zealand!!!
 

That makes me angry- the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) has overcrowding, and perfectly good carriages are flying out to the other side of the world never to be seen again!

[John R]

Sailing actually (from Southampton).

[Timmer]

That makes me angry- the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) has overcrowding, and perfectly good carriages are flying out to the other side of the world never to be seen again!

Me too, its been going on for a couple of years now. Can't believe DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) are allowing it to happen as its stock that could be used again on the overcrowded UK rail network rather than being exported elsewhere.

[grahame]

Reading of the apparent absurdity of rolling stock going out of the country, and knowing that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) sign leases off when trains are leased by the RoSCos to the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s train operators ... I have a question.

Do the DfT have the ability to stop sales or leases of railway equipment stock owned by Angel and others so that they may run on railways outside the UK?  In other words if - fictional case - Porterbrook decided to sell 28 x 150 units (being released by [some company] as they took new stock) to the Austrian Railways, would there be anything to stop them?

[Lee]

Reading of the apparent absurdity of rolling stock going out of the country, and knowing that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) sign leases off when trains are leased by the RoSCos to the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s train operators ... I have a question.

Do the DfT have the ability to stop sales or leases of railway equipment stock owned by Angel and others so that they may run on railways outside the UK?  In other words if - fictional case - Porterbrook decided to sell 28 x 150 units (being released by [some company] as they took new stock) to the Austrian Railways, would there be anything to stop them?

Two reasons that I can think of :

1) Strongly adverse public/press opinion.

2) If (as I rather suspect) you are partly referring to the London Midland Class 150's, then it would be directly contrary to the DfT's Rolling Stock Plan, which envisages sending these units to Bristol :

Extract from the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport)'s long awaited rolling stock plan published today.

9. First Great Western would introduce additional class 150 DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) vehicles for regional services around Bristol cascaded from London Midland, as well as new DMU vehicles for London suburban services. Furthermore, the possibility of lengthening some existing HST^▸ (High Speed Train) sets to increase capacity on the Thames Valley route into Paddington is being investigated.

Total quoted is 52 coaches, but no indication of the split. This seems to confirm the cascade of Class 150s from London Midland that has been often quoted.

[grahame]

Do the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have the ability to stop sales or leases of railway equipment stock owned by Angel and others so that they may run on railways outside the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)?  In other words if - fictional case - Porterbrook decided to sell 28 x 150 units (being released by [some company] as they took new stock) to the Austrian Railways, would there be anything to stop them?

Two reasons that I can think of :

1) Strongly adverse public/press opinion.

2) If (as I rather suspect) you are partly referring to the London Midland Class 150's, then it would be directly contrary to the DfT's Rolling Stock Plan, which envisages sending these units to Bristol :

I would agree with you on both points (and chances are that it wouldn't happen for other reasons - like particular rules as to safety and locading gauge) but my reading is that the DfT's point of control is over the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) leases so that - in theory - the RoSCos can operate in a worldwide market. Yes - they would need to be brave to do so against the wishes of the DfT and against possible bad publicity, but neither of those, as I read it, is a legal constraint

Question was asked as a "principle" question but the number and type of units in my example does indeed correspond more or less with the units currently with LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise).   I'm not sure which company actually owns hem ...

[Lee]

Question was asked as a "principle" question but the number and type of units in my example does indeed correspond more or less with the units currently with LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise).   I'm not sure which company actually owns hem ...

All of London Midland's 150's are owned by Angel Trains, except for 150214 & 150216 which are owned by Porterbrook.

[Lee]

On a related note, HSBC is examining a sale of its train-leasing division (link below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/03/hsbc_weighs_up_sale_of_rail_ar.html#more

[eightf48544]

Do the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have the ability to stop sales or leases of railway equipment stock owned by Angel and others so that they may run on railways outside the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)?  In other words if - fictional case - Porterbrook decided to sell 28 x 150 units (being released by [some company] as they took new stock) to the Austrian Railways, would there be anything to stop them?

Two reasons that I can think of :

1) Strongly adverse public/press opinion.

2) If (as I rather suspect) you are partly referring to the London Midland Class 150's, then it would be directly contrary to the DfT's Rolling Stock Plan, which envisages sending these units to Bristol :

I would agree with you on both points (and chances are that it wouldn't happen for other reasons - like particular rules as to safety and locading gauge) but my reading is that the DfT's point of control is over the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) leases so that - in theory - the RoSCos can operate in a worldwide market. Yes - they would need to be brave to do so against the wishes of the DfT and against possible bad publicity, but neither of those, as I read it, is a legal constraint

Question was asked as a "principle" question but the number and type of units in my example does indeed correspond more or less with the units currently with LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise).   I'm not sure which company actually owns hem ...

It also wouldn't happen because Austrian railways are buying proper Desiro and Talent railcars, which are far superior to a 150. If they don't like those there's also all the offerings from Stadler as well. Cuba might want 150s but that's about the only place.