-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Alliance Rail application for paths between Waterloo and Southampton rejected
- Thread starter KashmireHawker
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Well it's on their Facebook page!
https://www.facebook.com/AllianceRail/posts/1339803572717316
[For those that cannot or do not want to access link the text is the same as the OP]
D1009
Established Member
The existing open access operators don't run services into or out of London in the peaks, the only one that comes close is Hull Trains morning service from Beverley, and for many years this was looped between Grantham and High Dyke Jn to allow the franchised operators services to overtake.
It remains lunacy in my opinion under the current regime.
Is there any paths available if they avoided London, as in only ran elsewhere. I'm not saying that would be viable for them as a business.
As mentioned, quite often congestion exists in the peaks. Sometimes it is heavily promoted and other times not but if you look at the individual running times of the trains, it's there.
So this idea wouldn't work. If a forum member suggested this some other members would think them as living in fantasy land.
Would there by any capacity south of Guildford, were anyone to suggest such an idea?
What is the capacity like between Basingstoke and Brighton these days or up to Ipswich?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
As mentioned, quite often congestion exists in the peaks. Sometimes it is heavily promoted and other times not but if you look at the individual running times of the trains, it's there.
So this idea wouldn't work. If a forum member suggested this some other members would think them as living in fantasy land.
Would there by any capacity south of Guildford, were anyone to suggest such an idea?
What is the capacity like between Basingstoke and Brighton these days or up to Ipswich?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Thanks for confirming that. In which case I'm at a loss as to why Hook and not "and Winchfield".
One crazy question, would there be a better chance of a path if the trains turned off to head north just before Weybridge? The only reason for asking is that it would fighting for paths that TfL rail would want to use and so wouldn't necessarily impact the future franchise's paths. As such it could argue that it wasn't going to impaxt future franchises, it wouldn't also mean that it wasn't "strictly" mirroring existing franchise services. It would of course be in real terms splitting hairs, but could it be enough for it to wiggle through?
Of course all the franchise bidders need to do to stop it is to offer the same service pattern on some services.
godfreycomplex
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 1,755
Hook station is about 3 minutes drive from the M3
pdeaves
Established Member
Connected driver advisory system. It advises drivers on optimal speed at a given point (not necessarily line speed).
sprinterguy
Veteran Member
Arriva Traincare already operate a servicing facility at Eastleigh. If trains early in the day head to London and the last trains of the day start out from London, matching primary demand, then using a maintenance facility already managed by the Arriva group towards the "country" end of the route would make a lot of sense.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,306
That's exactly what I thought they'd do, and would actually suggest that depot facilities will be the very least of their worries, however I'd also reserve the position that the overall service is primarily abstractive and won't be allowed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Capacity on the route via the Byfleet Curve (hence through Chertsey and Staines) is already limited, the Network Rail paper about southern access to Heathrow which was linked to a few days ago mentioned that the existing Weybridge service would probably have to make way for Heathrow services.
But if this was as a proposed route to Waterloo, wouldn't it take too long compared to the direct route, and still get in the way of the already intended Windsor side service increases expected in the new franchise, such as the 4 tph to Reading?
Last edited:
Masbroughlad
Established Member
Fantastic news. Good luck to them and I hope they get the go ahead. More new, innovative services can only be a good thing.
Taking up valuable paths with trains that carry fewer passengers, reduce the resiliance of the wider service and abstract revenue from the route franchise? Fantastic?
It'll never even get to be a submission to the ORR and even if it does it'll take the ORR a short minute to refuse.
Ahh I see, many thanks.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,306
Sounds like 'innovative' must be the new word for cherry picking...
Masbroughlad
Established Member
Longer, comfortable trains. As far as I am concerned, as long as we have franchises (indeed the whole railway in private hands), a bit of competition and innovation has to be a good thing.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
That's all well and good but on an already congested railway, if the capacity isn't there...then what can I say?
JamesRowden
Established Member
The Wessex Route Study shows that there will be capacity for a 12tph service to Waterloo via Richmond. The South Western Franchise Invitation to Tender only requires a 10tph peak service to Waterloo via Richmond. The difference effectively being that the 2tph Aldershot-Ascot-Richmond-Waterloo service in the Wessex Route Study is not in the Invitation to Tender.
I would guess that Alliance intend to fill these paths. The service would be slower than those that stick to the mainline, but perhaps they could offer cheaper tickets and claim that the service is not primarily abstractive due to the additonal peak capacity that it would be providing.
Sorry, got confused by the services which can travel via Brentford or Richmond. No spare capacity. Capacity being taken by peak only Waterloo to Shepperton via Richmond services
Then again, those Shepperton peak extras only have to arrive at Waterloo from 7:45 to 9:15 and leave Waterloo between 17:30 and 19:15 (but the franchise holder does have the option to run more services). So perhaps Alliance are looking to run peak services outside the high peak.
Last edited:
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,306
The idea of running via the Byfleet Curve was only my response to the earlier post made by The Ham in the discussion, it isn't meant to indicate that it's an option that Alliance might be looking at...
JamesRowden
Established Member
Just noticed that there is the `MC4' service which is an additional Portsmouth-Basingstoke-Waterloo service which:
Therefore perhaps Alliance can duplicate this path before 8:00 and before 18:00.
Therefore perhaps Alliance can duplicate this path before 8:00 and before 18:00.
...and I did state that it was a crazy question...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If that is their thinking, then the franchise could just run the services themselves.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,306
That spec is for 'at least one' additional Portsmouth via Eastleigh train to run in the peak tidal flow direction in those hours, but they actually run a few more than that already, and the same paths are used by the Poole semifasts every hour that the additional Portsmouths don't run. (These are the normal xx09 and xx39 semifast pair out of Waterloo.)
Put the other way around, in the hours that there are two Portsmouth via Eastleigh rather than the normal one; then the Poole semifast's role is achieved differently, by splitting or joining at Southampton Central. So the paths operate every hour between Waterloo and Eastleigh, in both directions, it is just what happens south of Eastleigh that is different, IYSWIM...
Last edited:
Errr...
Maximum lengths and seating capacity:
Class 442 2x5 car = 230m with 632 seats (Standard + First)
Class 444 2x5 car = 230m with 668 seats (Standard + First)
Class 450 3x4 car = 245m with 792 seats (Standard + First)
So no, not longer and not even more seats. As for comfort that is the most subjective of measures and I'd take a 450 or 444 over a 442 any day of the week.
What's their 'angle' on this out of interest ?
The First Edinburgh - London service is looking to tap a new market (low cost airline passengers) in spite of being on an existing route. Who is this service aimed at that isn't currently served ?
The First Edinburgh - London service is looking to tap a new market (low cost airline passengers) in spite of being on an existing route. Who is this service aimed at that isn't currently served ?
JamesRowden
Established Member
Looking on real time trains, during 0700-0759 there is presently 8tph arriving at Waterloo from via Basingstoke, the same as there presently is off-peak, with 10tph arriving during 0800-0859.
The highly lucrative Hook to London market?!?
The 442s are more comfy in Winter, as they tend to keep themselves warm.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
ainsworth74: You'd take a 3+2 seated unit over a 2+2 one? I'd take *any* 2+2 unit over *any* 3+2 unit, personally. Yes, even a 153 provided there were enough of them.
A 350/1 would probably beat a 442, but SWT haven't got anything with that layout.
A 350/1 would probably beat a 442, but SWT haven't got anything with that layout.
Last edited:
Yup! I dislike 442s and would take a 450 over one. That is my personal opinion.
And this is why 'comfort' is a terrible way of judging things as it is almost totally subjective.
Hook Parkway
Joking aside, Hook had enough housing given planning permission to increase the population of the village by about 20%, which will need to be started in the next three years (only one of several sites is large enough to justify sales being spread over more than two years).
As such it could be possible for there to be something like an extra 150,000 to 200,000 yearly rail journeys from Hook (yes that is probably only about 35 London season tickets). It would also make rail travel more attractive as there would be direct services over most of the day to Winchester, Eastleigh and Southampton (which are rare at present) and 3tph to/from Basingstoke for much the day. As such it could attract more people to use the trains.
On season tickets, if it is possible to book a seat (which was mentioned up thread as a possibility) and so possibly being able to always use a laptop on the train, I can see a lot of people taking that option (even if they are limited to selected services) over the existing services. Especially if the journey time is slightly lower and the season ticket price had any form of reduction.
- Status