Kenilworth Station Opening Delayed.

[boxy321]

XC will not be stopping at Kenilworth, I think. The route's already heaving since it's so much faster than buses or cars between Coventry and Leamington (never mind the long distance passengers on there).

A good deal of Kenilworth people work at Warwick University and the bus ride from the station is horrendous (3 miles in 30 mins), so it'll mainly be people going to work at the council that train it in.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ha, just read the piece on the link, Martin Frobisher is the route director not programme. Not sure why anyone expected it to be ready before the Dec timetable change anyway. Still waiting to see what LM rob the 153 from to run it.

Will the existing LM franchise be at an end before the December 2017 timetables become operational?

 

[Ianno87]

No, same place.

Ha, just read the piece on the link, Martin Frobisher is the route director not programme. Not sure why anyone expected it to be ready before the Dec timetable change anyway. Still waiting to see what LM rob the 153 from to run it.

Presumably the previous plan was related to the D-Train freeing up the unit from Coventry-Nuneaton, or something?

 

[ChrisHogan]

Will the existing LM franchise be at an end before the December 2017 timetables become operational?

Yes, London Midland disappears in October 2017. The new West Midlands franchise should be in operation for December 2017.

 

[HLE]

Presumably the previous plan was related to the D-Train freeing up the unit from Coventry-Nuneaton, or something?

Apparently not, no. Rumours are LM never wanted the 230's in the first place

 

[LesF]

Apparently not, no. Rumours are LM never wanted the 230's in the first place

Yes, no TOC wants to operate one or two trains that are different from the rest of their stock. But when the forthcoming WM franchise operates a fleet of 230's serving Cov-Nuneaton, Cov-L Spa, Stourbrige Junc-Town, and maybe a few others, it will be worthwhile, and will release some stock. A single 153 would not have enough capacity for Cov-L Spa while there's plenty of 230's to lengthen trains when necessary. Once they get over their little problem with their external combustion engines.
A question: if some of the single track between Cov and L Spa is to be redoubled as part of the Kenilworth station project, why would this not allow the second XC to be rerouted from L Spa-Solihull (without stopping) -New St to run instead Cov-International, as long aspired to by the rail industry? Apparently there's space in the Cov-New St timetable.

 

[The Planner]

No it wont.

 

[Ianno87]

Apparently there's space in the Cov-New St timetable.

Let's see (Up departures from New Street, off-peak standard hour)...

xx.10 Euston Pendolino, followed by...
xx.13 LM stopper to Coventry/Northampton (all stations exc. Adderley Park), gets to Coventry just in front of...
xx.30 Euston Pendolino, followed by...
xx.33 LM semi-fast to Northampton, followed by...
xx.36 ATW to Birmingham International, followed by...
xx.39 LM to Birmingham Int'l (all stations exc. Marston Green), gets to Int'l just in front of...
xx.50 Euston Pendolino, followed by...
xx.53 LM semi-fast to Northampton, which gets caught up at Coventry by:
xx.03 XC via Coventry/Leamington, which is followed by
xx.10 Euston Pendolino, etc...

Nope.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A fleet of 230's.

I wondered when someone would come up with a collective noun for these units...

 

[Mag_seven]

A question: if some of the single track between Cov and L Spa is to be redoubled as part of the Kenilworth station project, why would this not allow the second XC to be rerouted from L Spa-Solihull (without stopping) -New St to run instead Cov-International, as long aspired to by the rail industry? Apparently there's space in the Cov-New St timetable.

Why not run both XC services via Solihull in exchange for a half hourly Leamington-Coventry-Nuneaton service?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I can't imagine XC would be too pleased about that, nor Coventry or Birmingham Airport / NEC losing direct services to Oxford, Reading, Southampton, Stafford, Stoke and Manchester; half of its Wolves services and basically obliterating anything other than the linear London-Birmingham corridor through the two. If anything I'd say the emphasis is more on trying to get every possible XC service routed that way (hence so many go that way on Sundays already), instead of being a fresh air express via Solihull.

 

[The Planner]

Why not run both XC services via Solihull in exchange for a half hourly Leamington-Coventry-Nuneaton service?

Because of what Midnight Flyer has said, XC dont want to go via Solihull at all and even if they didnt go via Coventry you are still highly unlikely to join the Leamington Coventry Nuneaton services up.

 

[59CosG95]

I can't imagine XC would be too pleased about that, nor Coventry or Birmingham Airport / NEC losing direct services to Oxford, Reading, Southampton, Stafford, Stoke and Manchester; half of its Wolves services and basically obliterating anything other than the linear London-Birmingham corridor through the two. If anything I'd say the emphasis is more on trying to get every possible XC service routed that way (hence so many go that way on Sundays already), instead of being a fresh air express via Solihull.

As an aside, do you have any evidence for them saying that they want to run all services via Int'l? (Might be a tad useful for the dissertation!)

 

[LesF]

Cross Country Trains have had an interest in Kenilworth since early in their franchise: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7331352.stm
The Planner advises us that they would not now want to stop at Kenilworth unless they were told to - so tell them, and pay them to stop there! It will be a lot cheaper than creating a complete new local shuttle between L Spa and Cov with its own diesel stock and crew, taking up paths at the turn-back stations. The extra two minutes journey time will probably be compensated by eliminating delays on the single-track sections. And a Southampton to Newcastle service will be a lot more use to Kenilworth (and to Coventry and International) than a local shuttle. XC don't run any stations so Kenilworth is best run by the forthcoming WM franchise. The path freed by taking the Newcastle XC away from Solihull will be used to improve services on the Snow Hill lines. Next, I'm going to have to explain how the extra XC can fit in between Cov and New St.

 

[LesF]

Cross Country are the only TOC to stop at Willington (30,000 pax p.a.), South Wigston (75,000 pax p.a.) and other stations, so there's nothing wrong with stopping at Kenilworth where the pax should be a lot more.

 

[HLE]

Platform length maybe to short?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Cross Country are the only TOC to stop at Willington (30,000 pax p.a.), South Wigston (75,000 pax p.a.) and other stations, so there's nothing wrong with stopping at Kenilworth where the pax should be a lot more.

Nothing wrong? Only if you don't care about the longer journey times that long distance passengers will suffer, or about the possible impact of adding passengers to what I gather from other discussions here are already very crowded trains.

As for your examples: South Wigston is - as far as I can work out - served by local Leicester-Birmingham trains. Those may be operated by Cross Country, but they are clearly not the same thing as the long-distance services that currently run past Kenilworth - so that's not comparable.

Willington is more comparable, but it gets only a very infrequent service, which is probably not what Kenilworth residents would want, and it's very arguable that even that timetable is not appropriate: It's a case of, a few of the passing long distance services stopping when really there should be a better local commuter service instead.

 

[The Planner]

As an aside, do you have any evidence for them saying that they want to run all services via Int'l? (Might be a tad useful for the dissertation!)

They have told us many many times, it should be in the West Mids and Chilterns route study too.

 

[The Planner]

Cross Country Trains have had an interest in Kenilworth since early in their franchise: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7331352.stm
The Planner advises us that they would not now want to stop at Kenilworth unless they were told to - so tell them, and pay them to stop there! It will be a lot cheaper than creating a complete new local shuttle between L Spa and Cov with its own diesel stock and crew, taking up paths at the turn-back stations. The extra two minutes journey time will probably be compensated by eliminating delays on the single-track sections. And a Southampton to Newcastle service will be a lot more use to Kenilworth (and to Coventry and International) than a local shuttle. XC don't run any stations so Kenilworth is best run by the forthcoming WM franchise. The path freed by taking the Newcastle XC away from Solihull will be used to improve services on the Snow Hill lines. Next, I'm going to have to explain how the extra XC can fit in between Cov and New St.

Oh please do explain how the second fits in down the Cov corridor! Your plan of stopping the XC at Kenilworth will add at least 3 minutes in and on the down means the Manchester clashes with the LM to New St.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Nothing wrong? Only if you don't care about the longer journey times that long distance passengers will suffer, or about the possible impact of adding passengers to what I gather from other discussions here are already very crowded trains.

As for your examples: South Wigston is - as far as I can work out - served by local Leicester-Birmingham trains. Those may be operated by Cross Country, but they are clearly not the same thing as the long-distance services that currently run past Kenilworth - so that's not comparable.

Willington is more comparable, but it gets only a very infrequent service, which is probably not what Kenilworth residents would want, and it's very arguable that even that timetable is not appropriate: It's a case of, a few of the passing long distance services stopping when really there should be a better local commuter service instead.

Willington is only served by the Cardiff/Birmingham-Nottinghams, the old Central Trains regional services, much as South Wigston (and Wilnecote, University, Ashchurch etc): none of the traditional cross-country services call, as would be the case for Kenilworth.

 

[The Planner]

Any update on this Les? As if you solve the Cov corridor then I know a few people who will give you a job.

 

[LesF]

Any update on this Les? As if you solve the Cov corridor then I know a few people who will give you a job.

Don't want a job thanks; I left the rail industry in 1963.
Tell me if you find a snag with this (apologies for scruffy format due to composing on a different screen then copying and pasting):
add the Newcastle XC and extend the ATW Aberystwyth to Marylebone, as proposed by Arriva but refused because of competition with WSMR and WCML Moderation of Competition rules. Both of those have gone. Since ATW and Chiltern are both owned by DB, they should try again when more stock is available. It would give a second Cov-L Spa service given redoubling of the track. That eliminates the disruptive turn-back at Int. and solves the crowding of the hourly L Spa-Cov.

xx.04 XC ex Manch Int xx.16***************Cov xx.27 plat 2
xx.10 Pendo****************Intxx.20************* Cov xx.30 Plat 1
****xx.17 freight from Stechford**Int xx.24************ Cov xx.41 Plat 2
xx.13*350 LH xx.22,*MG xx.26, Int xx.29, HiA xx.32, Berk xx.37, Tile Hill xx.40, Cov xx.44 Plat 1
xx.27 XC ex*Newcastle****** Int xx.37***************Cov xx.47 Plat 2
xx.30 Pendo**************** Int xx.40***************Cov xx.50 Plat 1
xx.33*350*arr. A P xx.37, Stech xx.40, MG xx.45, Int xx.49, HiA xx.52,
TH xx.58, Can xx.01,********** Cov xx.04 Plat 1
xx.36 ATW******************Int xx. 52************** Cov xx.07 Plat 2 (for Marylebone)
xx.50 Pendo*****************Int xx.00,**************Cov xx.10 Plat 1
xx.53*350 Stech xx.59, LH xx.02, MG xx.06,*Int xx.09, Berk xx.14,
TH xx.17, Can xx.20,******* Cov xx.23 Plat 1
xx.04 XC ex*Manch***********Int xx.16***************Cov xx.27 Plat 2

Note the Bham-Int local has gone. It was useful when it was Walsall-Int but it runs now only to aid skip-stopping of minor stations.
Freight needs paths at Cov to get from Nuneaton to L Spa. There's space between xx.30 and xx.41, and between xx.10 and xx.23.
I haven't attempted the return timetable. The expresses that take 20 mins from NS to Cov are given typically 23 mins for the return run. There could be a problem with the extra XC crossing the down track from Cov plat 2 to the L Spa line.
The line speed is no more 110mph between New St and Cov so LM 350's can match the speed of Pendo's. In the noughties there was one 323 Saturday service from Cov-New St that was timetabled to take 19 mins compared with the typical 23 mins allowed for Pendo's. I travelled on it and it was on time. So it can be done.

It will be cheaper to pay XC to stop at Kenilworth than to introduce a completely new L Spa-Cov shuttle, and a lot more use. The loss of three minutes for the Kenilworth stop can be largely compensated by less congestion at L Spa, Cov and the line between them with no trains turning back.

 

[The Planner]

Still doesn't work, you need to find 5 minutes out of the Newcastle Reading to get it to depart New St at xx.27. It currently arrives then and needs the 5 for the changing of ends. There are no station stops to steal either as its Sheffield Derby New St.

 

[Ianno87]

I haven't attempted the return timetable. The expresses that take 20 mins from NS to Cov are given typically 23 mins for the return run. There could be a problem with the extra XC crossing the down track from Cov plat 2 to the L Spa line.

*Always* do both directions on the Coventry corridor. A perfect solution one way will seldom work in the other!

You've effectively lost the hourly New St-Int'l shuttle and redistributed its stops into the remaining 3tph LM service. That might squeeze/bust the standard LM turnround at New St once you consider putting the Down stops in to balance.

Lea Hall and Stechford get less even - being in the 13/39 today they are reasonably close to an even service 26/34 minute interval - your plan makes it 20/40 interval ish

And you've slowed down Northampton-Birmingham too with the extra stops.

 

[Class 170101]

Whilst XC wants to serve Coventry and Birmingham International twice an hour it should not forget the route via sollihull as its diversionary route.

 

[The Planner]

Doubt they would, can easily send first and last trains that way like they do with their other diversionary routes.

 

[The Ham]

I expect that there will be at least 20 reasons why this won't work, but rather than running a shuttle between Coventry and Leamington Spa, why not just extend a GWR service from Banbury to Coventry. Although in timetable tend you may want to show it as a separate service run by a different company (potentially using non GWR staff) so that Chiltern or LM don't feal like that GWR are impinging on their patch.

However it would mean that there would be no need to turn back trains at Leamington Spa and would make getting from Oxford/Reading to Leamington Spa and Coventry easier than it is at present. Which could take the pressure off of XC in the area.

As I said there likely to lots of problems with it, but what do people think?

 

[LesF]

As for your examples: South Wigston is - as far as I can work out - served by local Leicester-Birmingham trains. Those may be operated by Cross Country, but they are clearly not the same thing as the long-distance services that currently run past Kenilworth - so that's not comparable.

Willington is more comparable, but it gets only a very infrequent service, which is probably not what Kenilworth residents would want, and it's very arguable that even that timetable is not appropriate: It's a case of, a few of the passing long distance services stopping when really there should be a better local commuter service instead.[/QUOTE]

S Wigston is served only by XC though managed by EMT. It's on the Nottm-Cardiff route so it's a long distance service.
So is Willington and I'd like it to be served instead by a Manch-Buxton-Matlock-Derby-Burton-Leics service alternating with an hourly Manch-Buxt-Matlock-Derby-Nottm in the peak hours. The two services would share the minor stations so they all get an hourly call. Off-peak on weekdays, the Leics service would shrink to Derby-Burton-Leics and the Nottm service would be an all stations stopper sharing the line with limestone freight from Buxton to the south, returning with landfill to restore the disused quarries to their original topography. At w/e and bank hols, Peak Rail would use the spare paths. But that's another story.

 

[LesF]

Still doesn't work, you need to find 5 minutes out of the Newcastle Reading to get it to depart New St at xx.27. It currently arrives then and needs the 5 for the changing of ends.

Point taken. Some XC's have 10 mins to turn back at NS and I was counting on reducing that assuming a crew change there. But other XC's seem to have no turn round time at NS so how do they do it?

The idea of extending an existing service to L Spa-Cov sounds a lot better than a dedicated shuttle like the Wolves-Walsall one that was scrapped. LM will disappear this year so the field is open to TfWM to find a TOC.

Easier still, stop the hourly Manch XC at Kenilworth. No need for extra stock that isn't available anyway. No new staff. No effect on LM staff's TUPE rights on transfer to a new employer. Plats designed as 102m. 5 car XC = 115m. Lengthen them to 120m. Job done.

Then when Kenilworth is established and diesel stock becomes available, extend the ATW from Int to Marylebone. A train starting from Aberystwyth early morning will not arrive at M'bone until after the peak congestion is finished.

 

[HowardGWR]

I expect that there will be at least 20 reasons why this won't work, but rather than running a shuttle between Coventry and Leamington Spa, why not just extend a GWR service from Banbury to Coventry. Although in timetable tend you may want to show it as a separate service run by a different company (potentially using non GWR staff) so that Chiltern or LM don't feel like that GWR are impinging on their patch.

However it would mean that there would be no need to turn back trains at Leamington Spa and would make getting from Oxford/Reading to Leamington Spa and Coventry easier than it is at present. Which could take the pressure off of XC in the area.

As I said there likely to lots of problems with it, but what do people think?

My bold. If that is the true state of how franchises are dictating service provision, then it would appear we are in a worse situation than we were in the Grouping days!

I see lots of comments here on UK Rail (certainly not you The_Ham, on the contrary) that ignore the fact that railways are joined by switches and crossings but see them as (e.g.) 'GWR' or 'Chiltern'. The job of DfT and NR should be to ensure that this does not occur. The RUS procedure tends to confirm this faulty approach. Sorry, a wider point, but seemed appropriate here. Clearly, it is desirable to push trains through New Street as fast as can be achieved with as little reversal as possible.