Alliance Rail GNWR Services Approved

[The Planner]

They have only got approval for 6 services per day which might make things easier, originally they were trying to get paths for 12 services per day (6 x Blackpool and 6 x Leeds via Warrington.)

Can't see how it makes a difference, it is a standard hour timetable, if it doesnt work in one hour it isnt going to work in the next.

 

[northwichcat]

Can't see how it makes a difference, it is a standard hour timetable, if it doesnt work in one hour it isnt going to work in the next.

Virgin don't run the same number of services every hour throughout the day.

 

[The Planner]

What changes off peak then, which the standard hour is? It is still 2 Birmingham, 1 Birmingham/Scotland, 3 Manchester, 1 Chester, 1 Glasgow/Edinburgh, 1 Liverpool?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's a mention in November Modern Railways that Virgin is looking at stopping "one or two" more trains in the Trent Valley - presumably existing off-peak ones.
Given new capacity via Norton Bridge, but no new trains, I can see the interest in doing this.
It does impinge on the Alliance plans though.
So which of the via Crewe services (Glasgow/Manchester/Liverpool/Chester) might get an extra stop?
The Glasgow is probably too full, the Manchester might upset Stockport pathing, and inserting one on the Liverpool would take it back to the pre-VHF stopping pattern.
Off-peak Chesters are fairly quiet (but only 5-car Voyagers).
The original idea was a new hourly Euston-Preston, but half the paths have already gone to Alliance, and there won't be new trains for several years (if at all pre-HS2).

 

[northwichcat]

What changes off peak then, which the standard hour is? It is still 2 Birmingham, 1 Birmingham/Scotland, 3 Manchester, 1 Chester, 1 Glasgow/Edinburgh, 1 Liverpool?

Standard pattern for Virgin services only occurs between 10:39 and 16:30 at Euston on a Monday. The 10:32 arrival from Lancaster and the 16:33 departure for Blackpool are both services which are additional to the standard pattern services.

Trying to fit in 6 Blackpool trains with a 2 hourly frequency GNWR can fit in 3 of them during the standard pattern window.

Trying to fit in 12 trains with an hourly frequency GNWR can fit in 5 of them during the standard pattern window.

So with 12 per day they've still got 7 services to try and fit in at times when Virgin won't be running their standard timetable, with 6 per day they only have 3 to fit in at such times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's a mention in November Modern Railways that Virgin is looking at stopping "one or two" more trains in the Trent Valley - presumably existing off-peak ones.
Given new capacity via Norton Bridge, but no new trains, I can see the interest in doing this.
It does impinge on the Alliance plans though.
So which of the via Crewe services (Glasgow/Manchester/Liverpool/Chester) might get an extra stop?
The Glasgow is probably too full, the Manchester might upset Stockport pathing, and inserting one on the Liverpool would take it back to the pre-VHF stopping pattern.
Off-peak Chesters are fairly quiet (but only 5-car Voyagers).
The original idea was a new hourly Euston-Preston, but half the paths have already gone to Alliance, and there won't be new trains for several years (if at all pre-HS2).

It does kind of reverse previous Virgin changes where they were boasting faster services between the main cities (as a result of removing stops.)

Virgin must also realise how high the loadings have become on LM's Crewe to Euston service, which probably wouldn't exist as a regular service if Virgin served more stations and didn't have such expensive peak fares.

 

[The Planner]

So they have a chance of 3 slots, more than likely the xx.33 (which people are sniffing around at for the E-W path too), that will give them one stop before Rugby or Nuneaton before they get caught by the Manchester. It is still all fairly moot as I've not seen them jumping up and down saying "we have ordered trains"

 

[DarloRich]

So they have a chance of 3 slots, more than likely the xx.33 (which people are sniffing around at for the E-W path too), that will give them one stop before Rugby or Nuneaton before they get caught by the Manchester. It is still all fairly moot as I've not seen them jumping up and down saying "we have ordered trains"

Would a longer stop at MK or Rugby help with timetable space?

 

[nuneatonmark]

There's a mention in November Modern Railways that Virgin is looking at stopping "one or two" more trains in the Trent Valley - presumably existing off-peak ones.
Given new capacity via Norton Bridge, but no new trains, I can see the interest in doing this.
It does impinge on the Alliance plans though.
So which of the via Crewe services (Glasgow/Manchester/Liverpool/Chester) might get an extra stop?
The Glasgow is probably too full, the Manchester might upset Stockport pathing, and inserting one on the Liverpool would take it back to the pre-VHF stopping pattern.
Off-peak Chesters are fairly quiet (but only 5-car Voyagers).
The original idea was a new hourly Euston-Preston, but half the paths have already gone to Alliance, and there won't be new trains for several years (if at all pre-HS2).

I will believe it when I see it. Virgin have said similar things in the past about re-instating stops at Nuneaton and it's come to nothing. Funny how Virgin are suddenly so interested given the success of the LM services and an open access operator being so interested. Re-instating regular off-peak fast services at Nuneaton should be 'no-brainer'. I'd rather see Alliance get the stops, it will serve Virgin right.

 

[DarloRich]

I will believe it when I see it. Virgin have said similar things in the past about re-instating stops at Nuneaton and it's come to nothing. Funny how Virgin are suddenly so interested given the success of the LM services and an open access operator being so interested. Re-instating regular off-peak fast services at Nuneaton should be 'no-brainer'. I'd rather see Alliance get the stops, it will serve Virgin right.

As i have said before the passenger figures suggest otherwise. The market for Virgin is elsewhere now.

 

[The Planner]

I will believe it when I see it. Virgin have said similar things in the past about re-instating stops at Nuneaton and it's come to nothing. Funny how Virgin are suddenly so interested given the success of the LM services and an open access operator being so interested. Re-instating regular off-peak fast services at Nuneaton should be 'no-brainer'. I'd rather see Alliance get the stops, it will serve Virgin right.

It woudnt though. Virgin if they wanted could quite easily apply for the same contingent rights, or firm ones if they really wanted to stop more at Nuneaton now. They would have a big big advantage due to what I have said in my last post, Alliance don't have any trains or any paths. Doesn't mean they would get them though.

 

[pt_mad]

There's a mention in November Modern Railways that Virgin is looking at stopping "one or two" more trains in the Trent Valley - presumably existing off-peak ones.
Given new capacity via Norton Bridge, but no new trains, I can see the interest in doing this.
It does impinge on the Alliance plans though.
So which of the via Crewe services (Glasgow/Manchester/Liverpool/Chester) might get an extra stop?
The Glasgow is probably too full, the Manchester might upset Stockport pathing, and inserting one on the Liverpool would take it back to the pre-VHF stopping pattern.
Off-peak Chesters are fairly quiet (but only 5-car Voyagers).
The original idea was a new hourly Euston-Preston, but half the paths have already gone to Alliance, and there won't be new trains for several years (if at all pre-HS2).

By "one or two" extras stopping in the Trent, do they not mean literally one or two individual workings? Eg. 1A17 weekday mornings for example.
Could see them stopping 1 x off peak London bound service at Nuneaton to cream off a bit of the day tripper business, but not an hourly off peak stop on every diagram.

Also could do with a 1900 (Nuneaton) drop off from London on a Saturday evening to fill in the gap.

 

[driver_m]

What changes off peak then, which the standard hour is? It is still 2 Birmingham, 1 Birmingham/Scotland, 3 Manchester, 1 Chester, 1 Glasgow/Edinburgh, 1 Liverpool?

Give or take a few minutes it's roughly standard times from about 7am out of Euston or the NW/Midlands until about 8pm. 3 brums (one towards Scotland p.h). 3 mancs, 1 Liverpool, 1 Preston bound, 1 Chester bound and also a few fast paths for LMs. If off peak starts to look like the peak hour with the 33 or 57 slots being used then it's going to be fun and games for you lot trying to get any slight delays back to normal. Our 18xx departures out of Euston can start getting delayed for even being slightly out of kilter i.e non tilt or engines derating on a voyager.

 

[jayiscupid]

I remember Virgin trademarked the Voyager nose when they were built to the extent the class 222 meridian's had a different front end.
Does anybody know if they also trademarked the Pendolino nose in which case I'm guessing Alliance will have a different front end.

 

[Bungle965]

I remember Virgin trademarked the Voyager nose when they were built to the extent the class 222 meridian's had a different front end.
Does anybody know if they also trademarked the Pendolino nose in which case I'm guessing Alliance will have a different front end.

I would assume that the model would be different anyway.
Sam

 

[pt_mad]

So has anyone caught a copy of Modern Railways which mentions the possible Virgin extra stops in the Trent Valley. And if so can any details be provided??

 

[pt_mad]

Separate thread detailing what was said in Modern Railways as regards Virgin looking to call additional trains in the Trent Valley from May:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2370786#post2370786

 

[Skimble19]

I remember Virgin trademarked the Voyager nose when they were built to the extent the class 222 meridian's had a different front end.
Does anybody know if they also trademarked the Pendolino nose in which case I'm guessing Alliance will have a different front end.

Surely that can't be true? Either way IMO the Meridians ended up the "better looking" train..

 

[Stats]

GNWR have now applied to convert the contingent rights between Queens Park and Euston to firm rights. They say the HS2 timetable working group has shown the services can be accommodated.

 

[swt_passenger]

Here's a couple of extracts from the track access application that presumably caused the post above by Stats:

The latest capacity analysis carried out by Network Rail’s timetable and platforming working group has confirmed that platform capacity exists and that the services can be accommodated on the approach tracks. Indeed a view was formed by the timetabling experts that the GNWR services terminating at Queens Park would be harder to timetable and have a greater impact on the services operating into London Euston.
[...]
The HS2 Steering Group has assessed the capability of the revised infrastructure (including platforms) resulting from HS2 at Euston. It assessed the 2014 timetable plus the GNWR services due to commence from December 2017.
The timetable and platforming working groups are chaired by Network Rail and include expert representatives from all train operators and from Network Rail’s capacity planning team. The majority of the analysis was undertaken by Glenn Kennedy of London Midland and Simon Pilkington of Virgin Trains.
The HS2 Timetable working group has minuted that “Work completed thus far has shown that the proposed layout can accommodate the specified quantum of services, including Alliance Rail services.”
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ghtsrevised final for consulation with nr.pdf

Interesting that GNWR/Alliance are quoting the chaps from London Midland and Virgin...

 

[absolutelymilk]

Any word on the rolling stock for these services?

 

[thenorthern]

Any word on the rolling stock for these services?

Was mention of Class 390 Pendolinos built by Alstom but I am not sure if they are going ahead with that still.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely that can't be true? Either way IMO the Meridians ended up the "better looking" train..

I'd agree, the Voyagers look like a cheap regional DMU pretending to be InterCity.

 

[The Planner]

Still no order of rolling stock that I have been made aware of.

 

[northwichcat]

Was mention of Class 390 Pendolinos built by Alstom but I am not sure if they are going ahead with that still.

The track access application was for c.390 paths so they'll need an alternative 125mph tilting train if they don't order 390s.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Still no order of rolling stock that I have been made aware of.

Provisional order has been made (so I hear) but Queens Park to Euston is still unresolved.

I think as a result GNWR (or their supporting ROSCO) has slots booked on the Alstom line at Savigliano, but hasn't yet exercised those rights. They won't do so until they get paths into Euston.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Provisional order has been made (so I hear) but Queens Park to Euston is still unresolved.

I think as a result GNWR (or their supporting ROSCO) has slots booked on the Alstom line at Savigliano, but hasn't yet exercised those rights. They won't do so until they get paths into Euston.

So if they don't get the paths into Euston then they will pull out?

 

[thenorthern]

So if they don't get the paths into Euston then they will pull out?

I think they have mentioned they will look into using Queen's Park as their London terminus if they don't get to use London Euston.

Be interesting to see though if it would work as if they offered cheaper fares would passengers switch to Queen's Park from London Euston?

 

[ainsworth74]

I think they have mentioned they will look into using Queen's Park as their London terminus if they don't get to use London Euston.

Well they have firm rights to Queens Park so it's not a case of looking that's what they're getting! They've been given contingent rights on from there to Euston dependent on their being sufficient capacity once the rebuild gets underway for HS2. So really they should be planning on the basis of Queens Park with Euston being a 'nice to have'.

 

[asylumxl]

I personally don't think it's too bad an option. Queen's Park has reasonable onward connections. I imagine if they can time it to connect well people will be willing to take the time penalty.

 

[miami]

I think they have mentioned they will look into using Queen's Park as their London terminus if they don't get to use London Euston.

Be interesting to see though if it would work as if they offered cheaper fares would passengers switch to Queen's Park from London Euston?

I'd pay more to go to queens park rather than Euston!