I am not sure about that. Part C ii reads to me that its OK to nick another TOCs trains if there are sufficient suitable alternative trains for them.
It does sound that way, but Part C itself says:
AC or dual voltage electric multiple units, any locomotives, driving van trailers and coaching stock of any class that are leased by a Relevant Operator other than the current West Midlands and InterCity West Coast franchisees at the date of issuing this ITT
which appears to exclude DMUs. If I'm reading it right, Part C ii means they can nick EMUs, locos, DVT and hauled-coaches only if there are suitable alternatives available.
If W&B ITT has this clause then they could argue that the 185s that TPE have decided are surpless to requirements are a suitable replacements for the east midlands franchise after minor modifications e.g. removing first class. This would especially apply if it were confirmed in time that Liverpool to Nottingham was being transferred to TPE. I am sure the Rosco would love to sign a lesse for extra 158s to be used by the Wales and Borders franchise from 2019 to 2033.
That depends on the interpretation of this bit
must be capable of delivering comparable or better operational performance characteristics, and of achieving comparable or better levels of passenger satisfaction with the quality of rolling stock, than the stock it would replace within the donor franchise.
If the passenger they happen to ask is me, then I would not be satisfied if 3-car 185s replaced 4-car 158s. Even if the 185s were 2-car and operated as 4-car formations replacing 4-car 158s I would not be satisfied; 185s do not have UEGs and as such score lower on passenger-satisfaction counts than 158s. They also have a suburban door arangment; in terms of a long-distance service the 158 wins again. The only existing DMUs that I would consider a statisfactory replacment for a 158 that has to run in multiple is another 158 (or a 159, which might as well be a 158, or are there real differences?). If they didn't have to run in multiple, 175s would also be statisfactory replacments. The cascaded 185s not being fully available by Jan 1st 2020 is also a problem.
You won't get much extra between Wolves and New St without problems.
Which is where this came from:
Holyhead to Holyhead services via Crewe, Bescot Stadium, Birmingham New Street Aston, Bescot Stadium and Crewe
No need to run through Wolverhampton; just run via Bescot Stadium (without stopping, probably) instead until HS2 releases capacity to allow the services to call at Wolverhampton.
Regarding Craven Arms: a northbound Marches needs to stop at CA prior to the arrival of a southbound Heart of Wales service. A southbound Marches service needs to stop at CA to pick up passengers who have come off the Heart of Wales. That being so, these need to be the best fit service on The Marches - whether it be Holyhead or Manchester trains.
I think it would be better just to allow travel via Shrewsbury and print 'via Shrewsbury permissable' on the tickets; I don't think Craven Arms has a waiting room so isn't a great interchange (mind you, the old waiting room on platforms 4-6 at Shrewsbury wasn't big enough for the number of passengers using the station and the new one I think is smaller still although I haven't got off there since the refurbishment).
Personally I think the Manchesters should be developed towards
'INTERCITY' standards. I'm not sure if the passenger numbers would justify the full
'INTERCITY' treatment (hot meal service) but taking out as many stops as possible to try and attract passengers should be looked at. That means
- the south Wales services (ideally Swansea-MAN but there might not be the paths for it west of Cardiff) NOT stopping at Pyle, Cwmbran etc, possibly not even stopping at Abergavenny. Leominster and Ludlow would have to be served, as there's only likely to be one other train per hour and an hourly service is not enough, but they should run non-stop between Shrewsbury and Crewe.
- North Wales services running Holyhead, Bangor, Llandudno Junction, Rhyl, Fflint, Chester, Warrington, Earlestown XOR Newton-Le-Willows and Manchester stations
The peak-extra north Wales service though should run all-stations to/from Llandudno as Arriva's Standard Pattern Timetable does.
I think it would be highly desirable to have Caerleon station re-built as this is an important place for commuters into Newport & Cardiff as well as tourist potential the other way to the Roman sites. Clearly, the long distance express services cannot stop at Caerleon. Perhaps a local stopper going as far north as Abergavenny is the answer - with a bay platform created? That being so, this could also serve Cwmbran with passengers from the town heading northward using the stopper to Abergavenny before transferring to the express services. The stopper could also call at Pontypool & New Inn - which at present has relatively few trains calling. A more direct road link is needed here into a car park. With that in place, perhaps the residents if Usk could be persuaded to use it for commuting?
A turnback at Abergavenny is planned, but I think this would be a mistake. Instead, I think Caerleon should be served by an all-stops service from Cardiff to HEREFORD. That would allow passengers from Cwmbran etc. to change onto London Midland services to(wards) Birmingham etc. The other W&B service through Hereford would be a semi-fast (all stations except Caerleon and any other new stations) from Cardiff to Chester via Wrexham.
