Alliance Rail application for paths between Waterloo and Southampton rejected

[yorksrob]

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.

It sounds as though whatever happens, Hook could become a more important stop in the near future.

 

[HH]

I can see another reason that this won't happen. Rumours are that the 442s have already found a home...

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Yes, for those who have consistent journeys, which I guess would be most commuters, the idea of a "club train" with a guaranteed seat could be very attractive, even more so if they can select the seat.

 

[sprinterguy]

I can see another reason that this won't happen. Rumours are that the 442s have already found a home...

All of them? I don't believe that this proposal is any more likely to go ahead than anyone else, but if it were to it surely wouldn't need a particularly large fleet.

 

[wibble]

Hook Parkway

With nowhere for people to park!

 

[HH]

Apart from anything else, how do we know that the new franchise hasn't put in extra services and taken those paths? The TT will surely have changed in any case, plus there will probably be new trains. Yeowart appears to be a bag of wind.

 

[The Ham]

With nowhere for people to park!

If you know where to look there is lots of free, legal parking in Hook (not that the locals will like you parking there!) within a few minutes walk of the station.

If you are willing to pay; The Raven (PH with a car park closer to the station building than some of the station car park) charges people less for parking (including options for season tickets) than the station car park.

In reality, most people who live in Hook don't drive to the station as most areas of Hook are within a 15 minute walk of the station and those outside of it are then within a 15 minute easy cycle ride (even allowing for time to lock up the bike at each end). As such, if the car park got busier it would just mean that less locals would drive to the station.

 

[dgl]

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.

Surely there is an option for longer trains, which are going for scrap (i.e. cheap), built to a long distance spec. (so comfortable), has a buffet car and can (with reinstatement of removed equipment) work natively off a 3rd rail supply.
But the length and power draw would be a massive problem.

 

[swt_passenger]

Apart from anything else, how do we know that the new franchise hasn't put in extra services and taken those paths? The TT will surely have changed in any case, plus there will probably be new trains. Yeowart appears to be a bag of wind.

The ITT timetable changes required are almost all on the Windsor side. We must not forget that the entire mainline timetable is based on overall capacity at Woking, as well as terminal capacity at Waterloo. Many of the route study capacity improvements (in terms of long distance paths) require Woking and Basingstoke grade separation as pre-requisites. West of Basingstoke capacity is limited in the off-peak by freight paths. The XC paths are all but 'set in stone', as they have to work at Reading and New St.

I wouldn't expect anything radical in either of the bidder's proposed timetables for the main line side, and I expect they'll just do what is asked on the Windsor side.

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

Surely there is an option for longer trains, which are going for scrap (i.e. cheap), built to a long distance spec. (so comfortable), has a buffet car and can (with reinstatement of removed equipment) work natively off a 3rd rail supply.

Fairly academic if there are no paths (on the SW division) to run them in, because after the 707s arrive there will be an internal shuffle round so that there'll be NO mainline trains running at less than maximum length, whether that is 10.444 or 12.450.

That is already known to be happening based on SWT's current plans.

 

[The Ham]

Fairly academic if there are no paths (on the SW division) to run them in, because after the 707s arrive there will be an internal shuffle round so that there'll be NO mainline trains running at less than maximum length, whether that is 10.444 or 12.450.

That is already known to be happening based on SWT's current plans.

Does that mean that all the WofE services will be 10 coaches too?

Joking aside, I assume it's that no peak hour services will be short trains inwards of certain locations (such as Basingstoke, Farnham, and Guildford) but will allow the shortening of trains for during the day and the outer edges of the network.

 

[swt_passenger]

Does that mean that all the WofE services will be 10 coaches too?

Joking aside, I assume it's that no peak hour services will be short trains inwards of certain locations (such as Basingstoke, Farnham, and Guildford) but will allow the shortening of trains for during the day and the outer edges of the network.

Yes it is still peaks only in or out of Waterloo. We discussed it in a different thread a couple of months back and it is getting quite difficult to find many trains that can be lengthened in the morning high peak into Waterloo. I think one of the SWT insiders who posts here came up with quite a short list of shoulder peak trains; so it will be tweaks such as a 12.450 replacing a 10.444, then that 10.444 replaces an 8.450; IYSWIM. A straightforward 10.444 lengthening a 5.444 was just about impossible to find.

I suspect there could be still be some strengthening on the WofE, perhaps a very last 6 to 9 maybe? They are already down to the bare bones of DMUs that run on third rail only diagrams, (such as the Lymington shuttle), and have permanently lost the 2 units to GW and EMT, so there's little flex in the DMU fleet now.

 

[The Ham]

I suspect there could be still be some strengthening on the WofE, perhaps a very last 6 to 9 maybe? They are already down to the bare bones of DMUs that run on third rail only diagrams, (such as the Lymington shuttle), and have permanently lost the 2 units to GW and EMT, so there's little flex in the DMU fleet now.

From 2018/19 it could be possible to use some 185's to run off peak/contra peak services so as to free up 15x's.

That could lead to some capacity enhancements on those services run by the 185's (i.e. a 6 coach 159 train with 344 standard class seats replaced with a 9 coach 185 train with 462 seats), whilst freeing up the existing fleet to run more 10 coach trains (even if it involves doing a uint swap with other services/TOC's so as to get more 2 coach units so as to be able to run 10 coach trains).

However, we are fairly off topic with such discussions.

 

[RobShipway]

Surely capacity though for longer trains will increase once the old Eurostar platforms are brought into use within Waterloo International, whilst platforms 1 to 7 are extended to be 12 coach platforms?

 

[HH]

The ITT timetable changes required are almost all on the Windsor side. We must not forget that the entire mainline timetable is based on overall capacity at Woking, as well as terminal capacity at Waterloo. Many of the route study capacity improvements (in terms of long distance paths) require Woking and Basingstoke grade separation as pre-requisites. West of Basingstoke capacity is limited in the off-peak by freight paths. The XC paths are all but 'set in stone', as they have to work at Reading and New St.

I wouldn't expect anything radical in either of the bidder's proposed timetables for the main line side, and I expect they'll just do what is asked on the Windsor side.

I don't expect radical, but it's not impossible that a bidder might go beyond the ITT requirements - this ITT wasn't as heavily specified as, say, the TSGN one.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely capacity though for longer trains will increase once the old Eurostar platforms are brought into use within Waterloo International, whilst platforms 1 to 7 are extended to be 12 coach platforms?

Terminal capacity will improve, but it doesn't actually increase route capacity (paths) on the mainline side, which is already maxed out.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Yeowart appears to be a bag of wind.

Nonetheless, he has (I think?) got more Open Access services up and running than anyone else, so I wouldn't necessarily discount this one...

 

[Chester1]

Nonetheless, he has (I think?) got more Open Access services up and running than anyone else, so I wouldn't necessarily discount this one...

I expect NR would be persuaded by a voluntary contribution to infrastructure improvements. Alliance must have done their sums on abstraction and think the stopping pattern avoids being primarily abstractive. I would rather they concentrated on getting the WCML service running. 2 years away and no rolling stock order!

 

[HH]

Nonetheless, he has (I think?) got more Open Access services up and running than anyone else...

That wouldn't be hard! He's also had more rejected by the ORR than anyone else - by some margin.

 

[tbtc]

Alliance must have done their sums on abstraction and think the stopping pattern avoids being primarily abstractive. I would rather they concentrated on getting the WCML service running. 2 years away and no rolling stock order!

Agreed - though I can't see how a Southampton - Waterloo service wouldn't be abstractive. I don't make the rules though...

Blackpool - Euston sounded more interesting, before Virgin started their box ticking service.

But, what I can't understand (in this crazy expensive modern world, where it seems to cost a million pounds to repaint a bin on a platform - okay, slight exaggeration but certainly it costs millions of pounds just to bid for a franchise) is where Alliance find the money for all of these speculative bits of crayoning.

Are OAOs really that lucrative?

Still, nice to see a thread with a silly idea for re-using 442s finally make it onto the Forum

 

[J-2739]

They must have a 'plate in their 'ed'...

 

[RobShipway]

Terminal capacity will improve, but it doesn't actually increase route capacity (paths) on the mainline side, which is already maxed out.

Mmmmm....okay thanks.

Agreed - though I can't see how a Southampton - Waterloo service wouldn't be abstractive. I don't make the rules though...

Blackpool - Euston sounded more interesting, before Virgin started their box ticking service.

But, what I can't understand (in this crazy expensive modern world, where it seems to cost a million pounds to repaint a bin on a platform - okay, slight exaggeration but certainly it costs millions of pounds just to bid for a franchise) is where Alliance find the money for all of these speculative bits of crayoning.

Are OAOs really that lucrative?

Still, nice to see a thread with a silly idea for re-using 442s finally make it onto the Forum

For me it is crazy that they are only going as far as Southampton, surely the path would also be there to travel on to Bournemouth at least, if not on to Poole or Weymouth?

 

[HH]

Agreed - though I can't see how a Southampton - Waterloo service wouldn't be abstractive.

I can't see it either and I've checked the NPA model in the past. The only possibility is around a huge increase at Hook, but that looks like a very hard sell to me.

 

[swt_passenger]

For me it is crazy that they are only going as far as Southampton, surely the path would also be there to travel on to Bournemouth at least, if not on to Poole or Weymouth?

Not necessarily. It may be recalled that some years ago Southern (i.e. South Central at the time) ran their Victoria service through to Bournemouth, and that service was removed to reduce congestion west of Southampton. Signalling block sections are much longer west of Southampton, so it follows that capacity must also be reduced.

 

[RobShipway]

Not necessarily. It may be recalled that some years ago Southern ran their Victoria service through to Bournemouth, and that service was removed to reduce congestion west of Southampton. Signalling block sections are much longer west of Southampton, so it follows that capacity must also be reduced.

Mmmm...okay...thanks.

 

[DerekC]

I have always wondered why Micheldever doesn't get a thought when this kind of new service is being discussed. It would make a fantastic park and ride - close to the M3 and the A303 and with lots of spare land. Admittedly the station would need a rebuild, but it might be worth it. If NR goes ahead one day with its plan to 4-track between there and Wallers Ash then the platforms could be re-sited on the slow (extended loop) lines.

 

[infobleep]

That's all well and good but on an already congested railway, if the capacity isn't there...then what can I say?

Maybe Alliance could fund all the capacity improvements and then run additional services. Wouldn't ever happen that they fund capacity improvements though.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

From Woking all the stopping services eventually join the fast lines north of Surbiton during morning peak. In the evening peak two services run fast to Surbiton then switch to the slow lines. From Guildford to Cobham line services in the morning do likewise after Surbiton. In the evening it's just one.

There is even 2 fast services in the evening peak that run fast from Surbiton to Woking on the slow lines.,i don't think that happens in the morning peak.

Thus I think it highlights, even if space existed south of Woking, once you hit Surbiton your out of luck.

Fairly academic if there are no paths (on the SW division) to run them in, because after the 707s arrive there will be an internal shuffle round so that there'll be NO mainline trains running at less than maximum length, whether that is 10.444 or 12.450.

That is already known to be happening based on SWT's current plans.

Lets not forget the 455 and 456s running fast north of Surbiton. Wouldn't want them to feel left out! They are 10 cars of course. I wonder what they capacity is compared to a 450.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Monty]

Maybe Alliance could fund all the capacity improvements and then run additional services. Wouldn't ever happen that they fund capacity improvements though.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Unfortunately for Alliance Rail we are probably talking sums of money that is well beyond what they could possibly afford to invest. The whole proposal is a complete non starter I'm afraid and any existing new capacity that is created in the near future is very likely to be used up by the existing South Western franchise holder to bolster it's existing services. Even after all that any open access operator would likely have to compete with freight operators for any excess paths west of Basingstoke.

In short, to fit all that in you would need to four track to Southampton and that would require reboring five tunnels, demolish a countless number of bridges and rebuild them, and do the same to at least six stations.

Not in a month of Sundays.

 

[The Ham]

I have always wondered why Micheldever doesn't get a thought when this kind of new service is being discussed. It would make a fantastic park and ride - close to the M3 and the A303 and with lots of spare land. Admittedly the station would need a rebuild, but it might be worth it. If NR goes ahead one day with its plan to 4-track between there and Wallers Ash then the platforms could be re-sited on the slow (extended loop) lines.

Partly because it has about 0.163 million passengers with little scope of this increasing any time soon (i.e. no large scale developments proposed).

Which when compared to Hook, makes Hook like a very good option: with 0.775 million passenger (4.6 times the number of passengers), it would be the fastest service to London from Hook (so could attract a significant number of passengers to use it) and an anticipated increase in population to Hook of potentially over 2,000 new residents (assuming 5% use rail that alone would be an extra 100 people using rail).

 

[hwl]

Partly because it has about 0.163 million passengers with little scope of this increasing any time soon (i.e. no large scale developments proposed).

Which when compared to Hook, makes Hook like a very good option: with 0.775 million passenger (4.6 times the number of passengers), it would be the fastest service to London from Hook (so could attract a significant number of passengers to use it) and an anticipated increase in population to Hook of potentially over 2,000 new residents (assuming 5% use rail that alone would be an extra 100 people using rail).

There might also be issues with the Micheldiver site due to its history as a node and storage location on the fuel pipeline network. Also M3 access isn't great if coming from the south as you have to turn of the M3 at the A34 turn then along the A33 for several miles.

 

[swt_passenger]

Lets not forget the 455 and 456s running fast north of Surbiton. Wouldn't want them to feel left out! They are 10 cars of course. I wonder what they capacity is compared to a 450.

After the cascades they might use different stock though, potentially 450s as well as there are going to be 30 x 4 car units to spread around somewhere...