DfT consult on new LM franchise

[the sniper]

I disagree. I think perhaps Northern might be asked to operate between Crewe and Stafford via Stoke by extending the Crewe to Manchester service.

I think it's far more plausible that the Walsall to Wolves stopper would be extended to Crewe via Stoke. The Planner suggested this theory a couple of months ago.

The consultation seems to suggest this idea too. From PR1Berske's post, post #7 on this thread:

Considering the information outlined above, which of these options would
you prefer and why?
●● Maintaining the current direct London Midland service from London
Euston to Crewe via Stoke-on-Trent; or
●● Operating the current Euston to Crewe service directly from Stafford to
Crewe, and providing an alternative service for stations between Stafford,
Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe which would provide new links to destinations
south of Stafford.

 

[pt_mad]

Given the kind of pledges and announcements we have seen with the Northern and TPE franchise awards, it seems likely that the service improvements for the next West Mids franchise will need to be drastic.

We are talking about a timetable and calling pattern that could take us well into the mid 2020s, so maintaining the status quo of what we have currently will be far from adequate.

TPE and Northern - Tens and tens and tens of new trains, routes and services. Well above the minimum they needed to provide.

I just can't imagine sticking with the current 1 tph (4 car unit) to the Trent Valley will be anywhere near what they are looking for. It is going to have to be something big. We KNOW the trains require extending to 8 coaches, just a matter of when.

But with the kind of announcements we've seen, its not way beyond expectations to think there could be plans for 2 x 8 car trains per hour along the Trent Valley route between 2017 and 2024 (one possibly via Northampton). Maybe even with new intercity style trains on the fast paths - given that the document states many people find the current stock to be basic, catering has also been mentioned.

Given that TPE will be having new 125mph trains for its Scottish route its surely not outrageous that a potential franchisee could pledge to run 125mph tilting stock on the Trent Valley route by 2024.

With the Northern Powerhouse, the Midlands after all is the engine for growth.

 

[northwichcat]

TPE and Northern - Tens and tens and tens of new trains, routes and services. Well above the minimum they needed to provide.

In the case of Northern the ITT required them to get 120 x brand new 'self-powered' vehicles and suitable EMUs for Regional Express services. It was envisaged Northern would keep the 323s at the time of the ITT being written and they would take on the 350/4s for Regional Express services. However, with Porterbrook deciding they didn't want to continue leasing 323s to multiple operators it meant Arriva had to find alternatives to 323s with 319s not really being suitable due to slower acceleration and doubled up formations not fitting on platforms. So that meant the idea of a new EMU order became viable.

At present we don't know the exact number of diesel and electric carriages for Northern. We know 281 new carriages will be ordered and they'll be 55 diesel trains in 2 and 3 car formations and 43 electric trains in 3 and 4 car formations. From that I'd guess at around 130 diesel (slightly more than the minimum required in the ITT) and 150 electric.

In the case of TPE it's complicated because of the electrification delay. Bidders were told to look at post-electrification stock and pre-electrification solutions for more capacity. However, with the delays they went for new electric and bi-mode alongside the 185s.

We also know Northern will take on DMUs released by FGW and Scotrail and they are expected to take on most of the ones released. It has been mooted Northern will take the remaining LM 150s (so that they have all the 150/1s) with LM getting additional 153s in lieu.

Without a new order that leaves the following for available for LM bidders to propose using:
* 10 x 350/4s
* 17 x 323s
* 8 x 172s (from London Overground)

With the mention of possible new stock for Euston-Crewe and Birmingham-Liverpool I can see bidders proposing using the same type of new stock that TPE acquire for Manchester Airport/Liverpool-Scotland services. Maybe the idea of LM running services to Preston might re-emerge, it's not mentioned in the consultation but Govia were very keen on the idea they just kept getting told to come back at the next WCML recast, which keeps getting pushed back.

 

[pt_mad]

Without a new order that leaves the following for available for LM bidders to propose using:
* 10 x 350/4s
* 17 x 323s
* 8 x 172s (from London Overground)

I'm sure any potential West Mids operator would be interested in the 350s from TPE. Also a new order wouldn't be out of this world considering?

There are always spare 350s sitting down at Northampton anyway. It seems the lack of doubling on Trent Valley sets is not down to rolling stock but the limits to 4 cars at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager.

It would make far more sense to serve these stations with an hourly local service, whether ran by West Mids operator or somebody else. The Trent Valley services are becoming busier and more high profile all the time, and it makes sense in the long term for shorter journey times to/from Crewe in both directions and there shouldn't be a restriction to 4 cars as there is now, as this will severely limit growth.

 

[The Ham]

I'm sure any potential West Mids operator would be interested in the 350s from TPE. Also a new order wouldn't be out of this world considering?

There are always spare 350s sitting down at Northampton anyway. It seems the lack of doubling on Trent Valley sets is not down to rolling stock but the limits to 4 cars at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager.

It would make far more sense to serve these stations with an hourly local service, whether ran by West Mids operator or somebody else. The Trent Valley services are becoming busier and more high profile all the time, and it makes sense in the long term for shorter journey times to/from Crewe in both directions and there shouldn't be a restriction to 4 cars as there is now, as this will severely limit growth.

Given how successful the ASDO has been on the 450's I wouldn't be suprised if this was repeated with the 350's.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm sure any potential West Mids operator would be interested in the 350s from TPE. Also a new order wouldn't be out of this world considering?

There are always spare 350s sitting down at Northampton anyway. It seems the lack of doubling on Trent Valley sets is not down to rolling stock but the limits to 4 cars at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager.

It would make far more sense to serve these stations with an hourly local service, whether ran by West Mids operator or somebody else. The Trent Valley services are becoming busier and more high profile all the time, and it makes sense in the long term for shorter journey times to/from Crewe in both directions and there shouldn't be a restriction to 4 cars as there is now, as this will severely limit growth.

I should have also mentioned they'll be more 319s up for grabs as well.

Like I said if new EMUs are procured for LM I imagine they'll be long distance ones for Crewe-Euston and Liverpool-Birmingham and possibly any services the next operator chooses to run which aren't required as part of the minimum service level.

Given LM only have a small number of 1980s DMUs and they'll be units released by electrification I can't see a new DMU order being justified for LM unless there's some master plan for Turbostars currently being used by LM to be used elsewhere.

 

[Class 170101]

There are always spare 350s sitting down at Northampton anyway. It seems the lack of doubling on Trent Valley sets is not down to rolling stock but the limits to 4 cars at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager.

How about leaving a unit at Stafford? I know LM did it for a short period but weren't keen however GN do this at Cambridge on an hourly basis with their Kings Lynn services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the kind of pledges and announcements we have seen with the Northern and TPE franchise awards, it seems likely that the service improvements for the next West Mids franchise will need to be drastic.

We are talking about a timetable and calling pattern that could take us well into the mid 2020s, so maintaining the status quo of what we have currently will be far from adequate.

TPE and Northern - Tens and tens and tens of new trains, routes and services. Well above the minimum they needed to provide.

I just can't imagine sticking with the current 1 tph (4 car unit) to the Trent Valley will be anywhere near what they are looking for. It is going to have to be something big. We KNOW the trains require extending to 8 coaches, just a matter of when.

But with the kind of announcements we've seen, its not way beyond expectations to think there could be plans for 2 x 8 car trains per hour along the Trent Valley route between 2017 and 2024 (one possibly via Northampton). Maybe even with new intercity style trains on the fast paths - given that the document states many people find the current stock to be basic, catering has also been mentioned.

Given that TPE will be having new 125mph trains for its Scottish route its surely not outrageous that a potential franchisee could pledge to run 125mph tilting stock on the Trent Valley route by 2024.

With the Northern Powerhouse, the Midlands after all is the engine for growth.

I would like to see a second service on the Trent Valley to / from London. However having had a quick look would require the xx13 path run 3 later to cross at Bourne End and run at 110mph. This would allow a 110mph departing xx13 and run as per the xx46 to Rugby waiting there (12 minutes) for the following Manchester and Glasgow services to pass.

However a 125mph tilting train would make pathing easier.

 

[The Ham]

How about leaving a unit at Stafford? I know LM did it for a short period but weren't keen however GN do this at Cambridge on an hourly basis with their Kings Lynn services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I would like to see a second service on the Trent Valley to / from London. However having had a quick look would require the xx13 path run 3 later to cross at Bourne End and run at 110mph. This would allow a 110mph departing xx13 and run as per the xx46 to Rugby waiting there (12 minutes) for the following Manchester and Glasgow services to pass.

However a 125mph tilting train would make pathing easier.

Given that there are 4 tracks between Rugby and Nuneaton, couldn't it just switch to the slows while the faster trains passed it on that stretch?

 

[swt_passenger]

Given that there are 4 tracks between Rugby and Nuneaton, couldn't it just switch to the slows while the faster trains passed it on that stretch?

There are only three tracks on the down line for a short distance, (from Brinklow to just south of Nuneaton). The fast line is on the left of the slow through Rugby, and then on the right of the slow through Nuneaton, so the combined section at least sorts out the correct layout eventually.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are always spare 350s sitting down at Northampton anyway. It seems the lack of doubling on Trent Valley sets is not down to rolling stock but the limits to 4 cars at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager.

Reported in another forum that the 350/ and 350/3 are in a common pool of 40 units, with 38 daily diagrams. With only 2 for maintenance, where are all these spares?

Presumably Northampton depot looks a bit quieter in the peaks...

 

[Class 170101]

Many TOCs will have spare units between the peaks and at weekends.

 

[pt_mad]

Reported in another forum that the 350/ and 350/3 are in a common pool of 40 units, with 38 daily diagrams. With only 2 for maintenance, where are all these spares?

Presumably Northampton depot looks a bit quieter in the peaks...

Some at Northampton will be 350/2s. And lots of services run in multiple sets in the peaks (Birmingham and Northampton), but are then only 4 car through the day.

Presumably the spare units then go off to Northampton.

350/2s still crop up occasionally on the Crewe/Euston weekday services. Must be running 100mph through Weedon.


A better way of providing a second Trent Valley service every hour would be to run an 8 or 12 car from Euston - Northampton, split at Northampton with 4 cars going forward to Crewe via slow line and 4 going on to Birmingham. Still retain current 110mph service every hour.

Considering this will likely be a franchise stretching well into the mid 2020s, it makes total sense to get as much out of every path from Euston as the operator possibly can. I.e. run as 8 or 12 car (not 4) and split off at Northampton. Retain current fast Trent Valley service.

 

[Class 170101]

The problem with running via Northampton is that you will either end up with two Trent Valley services closely following each other out of Euston to ensure a reasonable split of services on the Trent Valley, or they will leave Euston reasonably well split but follow each other closely on the Trent Valley both for the same reason which is the journey time penalty via Northampton compared to the Weedon route.

 

[pt_mad]

The problem with running via Northampton is that you will either end up with two Trent Valley services closely following each other out of Euston to ensure a reasonable split of services on the Trent Valley, or they will leave Euston reasonably well split but follow each other closely on the Trent Valley both for the same reason which is the journey time penalty via Northampton compared to the Weedon route.

Hold the northbound service at Northampton for such a time that its 20 to 25 mins after the fast service between Rugby and Stafford. Run the slow service via Stone Kidsgrove and Alsager and allow the current 110mph service to go fast stafford to crewe.

 

[childwallblues]

Because of the Norton Bridge blockade on Monday (25th) services ran between Crewe and Liverpool only and were formed of 8 car trains. This was despite stations at Hartford and Liverpool South Parkway being unable to take trains of that length.

 

[northwichcat]

Because of the Norton Bridge blockade on Monday (25th) services ran between Crewe and Liverpool only and were formed of 8 car trains. This was despite stations at Hartford and Liverpool South Parkway being unable to take trains of that length.

I think you mean Winsford where a 4 car 350 only just fits. Hartford can take 11 cars from it's days of being served by Intercity services to and from Liverpool.

They can release the doors on one unit only and the 350s do have corridor connections so it would have been possible to have all 8 cars in use in passengers were given instructions about doors only opening on one unit at South Parkway and Winsford.

 

[childwallblues]

I think you mean Winsford where a 4 car 350 only just fits. Hartford can take 11 cars from it's days of being served by Intercity services to and from Liverpool.

They can release the doors on one unit only and the 350s do have corridor connections so it would have been possible to have all 8 cars in use in passengers were given instructions about doors only opening on one unit at South Parkway and Winsford.

Sorry meant Winsford.
Hartford platforms have recently been refurbished and appear to be about 8 car length.

 

[northwichcat]

Sorry meant Winsford.
Hartford platforms have recently been refurbished and appear to be about 8 car length.

There did used to be 11 car stop signs there. The only times I've used Hartford recently has been when it's been dark so I've not seen what's been done at the ends of the platforms but I think it would have been sensible to fence off part of the platform so no-one attempts to wait 100m from where the end of the train will stop.

 

[pt_mad]

Because of the Norton Bridge blockade on Monday (25th) services ran between Crewe and Liverpool only and were formed of 8 car trains. This was despite stations at Hartford and Liverpool South Parkway being unable to take trains of that length.

As has been stated, 8 car trains not being able to stop at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager is not because of short platforms, but because an 8 car train overhangs level crossings and a rail junction when stopping at these stations.

It cannot be solved. The trains must miss the stations out to run as 8 car. No other way.

 

[The Ham]

As has been stated, 8 car trains not being able to stop at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager is not because of short platforms, but because an 8 car train overhangs level crossings and a rail junction when stopping at these stations.

It cannot be solved. The trains must miss the stations out to run as 8 car. No other way.

Is it not more a case of as things stand 8 car trains cannot call there, presumably if the platforms were lengthened (at least on one side so that the rear coaches weren't blocking the junctions or the level crossing*) then 8 car trains could call there. (*as heading the other way the rear coaches would not be blocking anything)

Which leads to a related question, would it be possible (with ASDO) to run a train so that passengers had to leave from the rear "x" carriages rather than the traditional front "x" coaches? This would mean that the 8 car stop sign would have to away from a platform. I would guess that there could be driver access issues which is why it's probably not done.

Also, some stations with level crossings the barriers do not lift until the train (heading away from the crossing) has left the platform anyway, as such having to wait the extra time for the rear 4 coaches to move away probably wouldn't make much difference, especially as the main north south vehicle movements probably aren't using the level crossing anyway and as we are talking about once per hour it's hardly going to be significant.

 

[crehld]

As has been stated, 8 car trains not being able to stop at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager is not because of short platforms, but because an 8 car train overhangs level crossings and a rail junction when stopping at these stations.

It cannot be solved. The trains must miss the stations out to run as 8 car. No other way.

I can understand the junction issue, but I simply don't buy the level crossing excuse. I'm sure trains which are too long regularly overhang level crossings when stopping at stations. Indeed, when I used to commute between Portsmouth and London on 10 car 444s, and we stopped at Liss the train was too long and would overhang the level crossing (indeed, there was some sort of perverse pleasure to be gained from observing increasingly agitated drivers in a long queue of traffic while you visibly sat comfortably spending two minutes sipping a coffee and reading a book!). So it clearly can be done.

 

[323235]

Northern overhang bamber bridge crossing with 4 car services to avoid passengers trying to board the rear 2 coaches. I have also seen train stop post way past the platform so having different parts of the train overhanging is done . they just need proper SDO.

 

[setdown]

Sorry meant Winsford.
Hartford platforms have recently been refurbished and appear to be about 8 car length.

Something that confused me about SDO at Hartford. During the refurbishment works, trains stopped halfway down the platform so could only take 4 cars. When there was disruption and 8 cars ran, they could not stop at Hartford at all, but would then stop at Winsford with only 4 cars being unlocked. There was one summer saturday where there was a much reduced service because of staffing issues, so all trains were 8 cars. Hartford didn't have any service as a result, and a replacement bus was put on for Hartford to Crewe only so that people could get on the services. Is it not as simple as programming the train to only unlock 4 cars at certain stops?

 

[the sniper]

Something that confused me about SDO at Hartford. During the refurbishment works, trains stopped halfway down the platform so could only take 4 cars. When there was disruption and 8 cars ran, they could not stop at Hartford at all, but would then stop at Winsford with only 4 cars being unlocked. There was one summer saturday where there was a much reduced service because of staffing issues, so all trains were 8 cars. Hartford didn't have any service as a result, and a replacement bus was put on for Hartford to Crewe only so that people could get on the services. Is it not as simple as programming the train to only unlock 4 cars at certain stops?

Nothing gets 'programmed'. On LM 350s at stations concerned the Guard operates a UDS (unit deselect) switch in the leading cab of the rear unit to lock out the rear unit. I'm not sure, but the case at Hartford may well be that during works the platform was only just long enough to accommodate the front four carriages, but couldn't accommodate the front cab of the trailing unit (i.e. front of the 5th carriage) from where the Guard would have to operate the UDS, step down from the platform, release the doors, the dispatch the train from when the train was due to depart.

 

[sd0733]

Winsford is only marginally ok for UDS as the leading cab of the back unit is halfway along the ramp on the down line especially so only just fits.
Hartford when the works were happening could have been UDS'd however all the signs were removed and it wasn't authorised at the shorter platform even though it could realistically have happened, it was purely a paperwork reason.
An 8-car did actually stop in the works time, the contractors were asked to come in one weekend and removed all the boarding and equipment for the 22:04 ex Liverpool to stop and it was then all put back Monday morning!

 

[pt_mad]

I don't know the full detail of it, but I believe the train would also overhang a rail pedestrian crossing at Stone. If anyone has got 10 mins to google earth Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager stations, it may shed a bit more light and detail on the situation. It may well be that the issue affects Kidsgrove and Stone only.

With the suggestion whether the front part of the train could overhang with only the rear 4 stopping in the station, would the signal not have to be moved if it is a starting signal?

We have to assume that the infrastructure part of the problem cannot be solved, as even the DFT are suggesting either these stations are included on another service, be it long distance or local, with the west mids operator or possibly another franchisee, with the possibility or euston to crewe services running main line stafford to crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another option would be to change fares - remove the LM Only fares and reduce the main WCML fares a bit (or add more Advances). I'm certain 4-car would be plenty for these services were it not for people being artificially attracted onto them by the incredibly low fares who would otherwise use VT, e.g. using Advances.

 

[The Planner]

I don't know the full detail of it, but I believe the train would also overhang a rail pedestrian crossing at Stone. If anyone has got 10 mins to google earth Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager stations, it may shed a bit more light and detail on the situation. It may well be that the issue affects Kidsgrove and Stone only.

The foot crossing at Stone has now been closed and replaced with a bridge.

 

[The Ham]

I don't know the full detail of it, but I believe the train would also overhang a rail pedestrian crossing at Stone. If anyone has got 10 mins to google earth Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager stations, it may shed a bit more light and detail on the situation. It may well be that the issue affects Kidsgrove and Stone only.

The platforms at Stone would (rough measure on Google maps) appear to have 130m long platforms with the pedestrian crossing appearing to be about 50m south. That should just be long enough to extend the platforms to take 170m trains allowing an 8 car 350 to call there. (it is not clear from Google where the signals are)

The platforms at Kidsgrove would appear to need limited lengthening (circa 30m) to allow an 8 car 350 to call there. With the signals appearing to be beyond this overbridge.

The platforms at Alsager would need to be lengthened up to the first overbridge (circa 50m) which looking at Google would appear to not include any signals within this length.

 

[pt_mad]

Did you notice on google the proximity of Stone station to the junction where the line splits off?


Re the possibility of removing LM only fares and lowering VT fares to lower demand on london mid services, does this really make business sense? Surely we should be planning a railway that meets today's demand, not plan to surpress the demand itself. There could be huge objections should an operator wish to remove all the LM only tickets.

If you look at it the other way, you could argue that rather than artificial demand being created by low fares, high fares are simply restricting and limiting the true demand of those who would use the railway to travel to work or leisure but are simply priced out.

 

[Bevan Price]

The platforms at Stone would (rough measure on Google maps) appear to have 130m long platforms with the pedestrian crossing appearing to be about 50m south. That should just be long enough to extend the platforms to take 170m trains allowing an 8 car 350 to call there. (it is not clear from Google where the signals are)

The platforms at Kidsgrove would appear to need limited lengthening (circa 30m) to allow an 8 car 350 to call there. With the signals appearing to be beyond this overbridge.

The platforms at Alsager would need to be lengthened up to the first overbridge (circa 50m) which looking at Google would appear to not include any signals within this length.

For northbound trains, the signal at Alsager station is part way along the platform, about 2 coach lengths before the level crossing.

For southbound trains, the signal is some distance on the Crewe side of the level crossing. Both platforms have "disused" sections at the south end, which could be used again with vegetation clearance and a bit of refurbishment.