New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[Kite159]

Could be through removing Woking and Basingstoke stops! Have a look at the Attachment 1, Part 1 document

Removing the Basingstoke stop probably isn't wise, unless you want passengers from the likes of Whitchurch/Overton having to do a rather large double back via Clapham in order to visit Reading or Winchester

But if I'm reading that document right, suggests that the Hampshire villages will be getting 1tph on Sundays from 2018, up from the current skip-stop pattern of 1tp2h

 

[313103]

I would also expect to see some change on Metro services; currently, unlike elsewhere on the SW network, the guards are not "commercial" and this is where the new trains will be going. Plus I wouldn't expect any new rolling stock not to be DCO capable - if only that it would make it more transferable in future. I would, however, in light of what has happened elsewhere, be very surprised if it involved removal of the guards.

Plus, I quote the ITT:



Stations, I agree that we will see changes in function, with less staff in ticket offices. This is something that I expect to see in most bids going forward. But it's going to be driven more by 'Smart' ticketing (including barcodes) than more TVMs.

The ITT certainly had lots of requirements around Smart ticketing.

Well we have seen the removal of the guard from Southern services that were not already doo before this dispute started, we will see if merseyrail get their way the complete removal of the Guard, and on parts Northern Rail we will see the removal of the guard from many routes. A case of history repeating itself with every new franchise commitment.

I am sorry if i sound like a broken record but Driver Controlled Operation and Driver Only Operation are one and the same thing, its the rssb amongst others who have muddied the waters by creating this nondescript Driver Controlled Operation saying, in order that it doesnt sound as drastic as it really is, why cant they just be honest and tell it what it really is. At the moment DCO is not mentioned even the RSSB's own rule book.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I read at as an hourly service between Farnham and Guildford, with Camberley - Guildford dropping to hourly to accommodate it. Presumably the other Camberley - Aldershot service will start/stop short at Aldershot.

"35 services a day" = 17/18 each way = hourly.

You could be right. I would have thought though that the most sensible to provide a Guildford-Farnham service would have been to simply route the Ascot-Guildford services via Farnham, calling at Aldershot twice en route.
On the current timetable, the trains typically wait for 13-14 minutes at Aldershot. So if you put in a fairly quick turnaround at Farnham, you could in principle do that without adding more than a few minutes to Camberley/etc. - Guildford journeys. Not sure how paths might fit in between the Alton trains though.

On another topic, would anyone care to speculate on how the proposed 12 minutes-faster Hounslow-London journeys might be achieved? That clearly implies there are going to be trains at Hounslow that skip quite a few other stations on their way to London. My best guess is they are thinking of routing some Windsor, or perhaps some Reading, trains via the Hounslow loop (and therefore that the 12 minute saving will be only for Hounslow itself - not for any other stations along that line).

 

[northwichcat]

I am sorry if i sound like a broken record but Driver Controlled Operation and Driver Only Operation are one and the same thing, its the rssb amongst others who have muddied the waters by creating this nondescript Driver Controlled Operation saying, in order that it doesnt sound as drastic as it really is, why cant they just be honest and tell it what it really is. At the moment DCO is not mentioned even the RSSB's own rule book.

The term 'Driver Only Operation' can be misleading to passengers as most would presume that means a train with a driver and no other member of staff on board, which in the case of Northern shouldn't be the case except possibly in an emergency. 'Driver Controlled Operation' implies the driver is in charge of the operation without implying he/she is the only person on board.

There seems to be a lot of objection to the term DCO because of it not being in a rule book but do LM or EMT guards object to being called 'Senior Conductors' or do Virgin ones object to being called 'Train Managers'?

 

[zoneking]

Will the timetable be improved to speed up services by reducing dwell times? Currently, the 1754 from Guildford to Fratton spends 4 minutes at Guildford. Most Alton to London services spend at least 2 minutes at Woking.

 

[infobleep]

Removing the Basingstoke stop probably isn't wise, unless you want passengers from the likes of Whitchurch/Overton having to do a rather large double back via Clapham in order to visit Reading or Winchester [emoji38]

But if I'm reading that document right, suggests that the Hampshire villages will be getting 1tph on Sundays from 2018, up from the current skip-stop pattern of 1tp2h

Might help increase the revenue as they would need to increase the ticket prices to go via Clapham Junction

Alternatively it could be used to create cheaper fares for other passengers who understand the routing guide

 

[infobleep]

Will the timetable be improved to speed up services by reducing dwell times? Currently, the 1754 from Guildford to Fratton spends 4 minutes at Guildford. Most Alton to London services spend at least 2 minutes at Woking.

Would you make the 2 minuets wait at Woking, 1 minute? I see 7.52 Woking to Waterloo, which starts from Alton and often runs late, only has 1 minute.

 

[313103]

Post Deleted

 

[HH]

This what what Stagecoach say they have done or are committed to delivery in the case of the 30%...

So South West Trains were committed to a capacity increase by 2018 and First are committed by 2020. Were South West Trains being unrealistic?

I'm not sure that Stagecoach are promising the same thing as First/MTR. And neither are promising a 30% increase in actual physical vehicles. What it could be made up of is:

1. An actual increase in physical vehicles. I doubt that this could be achieved by December 2018 from new build RS and there's not much suitable existing RS out there going spare.

2. An increase in availability. I expect that both will have promised this. Whether they can deliver it every day is another matter. Won't be a huge change (5% max).

3. Increasing the number of passengers per unit - and the biggest gains on this come from "metroisation", i.e. removing seats.

4. Changing the timetable; you may be able to eke out a bit of efficiency, but it may also be a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul", i.e. if the high peak gets more trains, the bits either side may get less.

I'm guessing that Stagecoach may have been including the current incoming Class 707s in their 30%, while First have not.

 

[TEW]

442 introduction is due by December 2018, so that's where some of the extra capacity comes.

 

[HH]

The rule book still states the term Guard to mean a member of staff who for whatever reason the tocs call their Guards like Conductor, Senior Conductor or Train Manager, its an illusion to make it look they are something they are not.

The term Conductor certainly goes back to BR days.

 

[LowLevel]

Guard is a job role, senior conductor/train manager etc are job titles. The latter carry out the duties of the former as part of their job, with other duties included as well. I am a senior conductor but generally refer to myself as the guard because it's much quicker. Much the same as commercial guard is a job title. My company has never shown any objection to using either.

It's not to make me look like something I'm not - a large part of my job is commercial and customer service duties and I work inter regional trains so senior conductor doesn't seem an unreasonable title, even if I personally dislike it somewhat.

 

[DY444]

How will they manage to do the retractioning whilst Bomo are busy with the 455s and will be for the foreseeable?

455 retractioning is being done at Eastleigh

 

[infobleep]

I'm not sure that Stagecoach are promising the same thing as First/MTR. And neither are promising a 30% increase in actual physical vehicles. What it could be made up of is:

1. An actual increase in physical vehicles. I doubt that this could be achieved by December 2018 from new build RS and there's not much suitable existing RS out there going spare.

2. An increase in availability. I expect that both will have promised this. Whether they can deliver it every day is another matter. Won't be a huge change (5% max).

3. Increasing the number of passengers per unit - and the biggest gains on this come from "metroisation", i.e. removing seats.

4. Changing the timetable; you may be able to eke out a bit of efficiency, but it may also be a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul", i.e. if the high peak gets more trains, the bits either side may get less.

I'm guessing that Stagecoach may have been including the current incoming Class 707s in their 30%, while First have not.

If that is the case then the combine percentage increase could be higher.

442 introduction is due by December 2018, so that's where some of the extra capacity comes.

For First / MTR capacity increase at least that could be the case.

 

[The Ham]

You could be right. I would have thought though that the most sensible to provide a Guildford-Farnham service would have been to simply route the Ascot-Guildford services via Farnham, calling at Aldershot twice en route.
On the current timetable, the trains typically wait for 13-14 minutes at Aldershot. So if you put in a fairly quick turnaround at Farnham, you could in principle do that without adding more than a few minutes to Camberley/etc. - Guildford journeys. Not sure how paths might fit in between the Alton trains though.

Of course the other potential issue is that of the level crossing at Farnham needing to be closed for longer than at present.

It could be possible to route the existing services via Farnham in that off peak the Ascot train arrives xx:17 (just ahead of the xx:20 Alton service), you either re-time the Ascot train so that it arrives (say) 8 minutes later (so as to still miss the Reading trains at Guildford) or just hold it at Aldershot for about 5 minutes. Worst case that's getting to Farnham xx:35 with the next London bound train not due until xx:56, so plenty of time to turn it around, even if it's running a bit late.

It would mean that the trains from Ash would no longer connect with the London services, but that is unlikely to impact many as trains from Guildford to London tend to be faster so I would guess that relatively few heading to London go via Aldershot anyway.

 

[HH]

455 retractioning is being done at Eastleigh

Which would suggest that they do have "the gubbins"...

 

[BestWestern]

There seems to be a lot of objection to the term DCO because of it not being in a rule book but do LM or EMT guards object to being called 'Senior Conductors' or do Virgin ones object to being called 'Train Managers'?

These are merely name badges, all staff concerned will know very well that, in an emergency, they are a Guard and will use the term accordingly.

DCO is a nondescript term which means absolutely nothing different from DOO. A DCO train does not have a Guard, it is that which is relevant.

 

[hassaanhc]

You could be right. I would have thought though that the most sensible to provide a Guildford-Farnham service would have been to simply route the Ascot-Guildford services via Farnham, calling at Aldershot twice en route.
On the current timetable, the trains typically wait for 13-14 minutes at Aldershot. So if you put in a fairly quick turnaround at Farnham, you could in principle do that without adding more than a few minutes to Camberley/etc. - Guildford journeys. Not sure how paths might fit in between the Alton trains though.

On another topic, would anyone care to speculate on how the proposed 12 minutes-faster Hounslow-London journeys might be achieved? That clearly implies there are going to be trains at Hounslow that skip quite a few other stations on their way to London. My best guess is they are thinking of routing some Windsor, or perhaps some Reading, trains via the Hounslow loop (and therefore that the 12 minute saving will be only for Hounslow itself - not for any other stations along that line).

When engineering work via Richmond causes diversions via Hounslow, trains appear to do it in 30-35 minutes by calling at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Putney, Barnes, and Hounslow (need to double check the exact timings from last time now). I hope they stop at Brentford, the busiest station on the Hounslow Loop (almost 2 million passengers). Maybe Vauxhall and Putney get missed out? (Barnes almost certainly will, unless for pathing, as that stop only appears for connection with buses)

 

[HH]

If that is the case then the combine percentage increase could be higher.

I think it would roughly (very roughly) pan out something like:

Increase in Vehicles 10%
Additional capacity per vehicle 12%
Increased availability 3%
Timetable changes 5%

If I'm right, and Stagecoach were including the current 707s in their numbers, then that would add a little over another 10% to the numbers.

I'll bet the bids weren't actually that far apart in terms of capacity, because they both were designed to hit the same, DfT, targets. They'll probably have tried to exceed them a little, but cost (and the other limitations in place) would stop that being by very much.

 

[swt_passenger]

Which would suggest that they do have "the gubbins"...

455 retractioning is being done by the new traction system manufacturers in the works at Eastleigh, but it could basically be done in any suitable rail connected shed.

The only advantage a place on the DC network gives is that units can arrive and depart under their own power, but there are plenty of examples of DC units being hauled elsewhere in the country for major works, there's nothing special about Eastleigh (or Bournemouth for that matter).

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought the 442s weren't suppose to have enough seating capacity in them to run on the busy Portsmouth Direct Line or at least I thought I read someone post that in the 442 thread. Will they increase the sitting capacity with the refurbishment. Also what will they do to make them disabled compliant?

They don't have the same capacity as a 12.450, and presumably still won't when modified. But that was a simple train for train comparison. If the new timetable includes more trains running on the full route from Portsmouth then that adds to overall line capacity.

Whatever the final timetable looks like, DfT must be happy with the end result anyway. AFAICS 2+2 442s is only the fast services, perhaps the semifast's will all be 2+3, and the fasts will be non-stop through Guildford or Woking?

 

[antharro]

Just caught up with this news. I did not expect this to happen but it looks like interesting times are ahead! Quite happy about the 442s, new traction kit or not. Would be nice if they could be returned to original interior spec - the snug was good and the standard class seats were quite comfy, not to mention first class! - but more seats is a good thing and I'm just happy they'll be out and about again.

 

[47802]

Is it really worse than the Northern franchise including the use of 150s until 2025?


?

You can argue that point but on the other hand SWT isn't a highly subsidised franchise like Northern and the Exeter route is a major long distance route, and even Northern are getting new trains for its longer distance services.

According to Tony Miles on WNXX the 707's are definitely going, if that's the case surely some deal has already been done for these trains to go elsewhere the prospect of Brand New trains sat in a siding isn't going to go down very well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just caught up with this news. I did not expect this to happen but it looks like interesting times are ahead! Quite happy about the 442s, new traction kit or not. Would be nice if they could be returned to original interior spec - the snug was good and the standard class seats were quite comfy, not to mention first class! - but more seats is a good thing and I'm just happy they'll be out and about again.

They are getting a bit tatty, and so I would hope for a completely new interior along the lines of the ATW Mk3s.

 

[Suraggu]

You can argue that point but on the other hand SWT isn't a highly subsidised franchise like Northern and the Exeter route is a major long distance route, and even Northern are getting new trains for its longer distance services.

According to Tony Miles on WNXX the 707's are definitely going, if that's the case surely some deal has already been done for these trains to go elsewhere the prospect of Brand New trains sat in a siding isn't going to go down very well.

It seems that First/MTR are not fond of the Class 707 from other murmurings in thr industry. It does not fit into their metro policy.

But they would not be stupid to order 8 car units when the suburban railway will soon be 10 car operation?

 

[Bletchleyite]

According to Tony Miles on WNXX the 707's are definitely going, if that's the case surely some deal has already been done for these trains to go elsewhere the prospect of Brand New trains sat in a siding isn't going to go down very well.

Who needs a load of third-rail EMUs? How easy is it to fit pantographs?

There's going to be a proper glut of EMUs soon...

Could GTR perhaps take them to replace 455s?

 

[Suraggu]

They are getting a bit tatty, and so I would hope for a completely new interior along the lines of the ATW Mk3s.

The 442's are going to recieve a full refurbishment as well as retractioning.

 

[Mikey C]

It seems that First/MTR are not fond of the Class 707 from other murmurings in thr industry. It does not fit into their metro policy.

But they would not be stupid to order 8 car units when the suburban railway will soon be 10 car operation?

If it their role to decide whether they like a train or not, or to have a Metro policy? It's only a 7 year franchise, and units are in service for 35/40 years, so surely the DfT/TfL etc would also have a say.

It does seem bizarre to replace a unit not even fully in service yet, surely when the 707 was ordered it matched with DfT thinking?

 

[Barn]

Who needs a load of third-rail EMUs? How easy is it to fit pantographs?

There's going to be a proper glut of EMUs soon...

Could GTR perhaps take them to replace 455s?

Or perhaps they could use them to replace the 377s with the crappy cameras, rather than upgrading them all?

(And then Southeastern can have the 377s to replace the Networkers. )

 

[TEW]

Who needs a load of third-rail EMUs? How easy is it to fit pantographs?

There's going to be a proper glut of EMUs soon...

Could GTR perhaps take them to replace 455s?

The first 2 units are being delivered with pantographs and tested on AC, so shouldn't be too difficult. Looks likely the 458s are off too, surely they will have much more trouble finding a new home.