West Coast Franchise speculation

[The Planner]

The Pretendolino didn't run to time, it used up engineering allowances on the way. It never caused delay incidents as it didn't lose enough time in a section.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Pretendolino didn't run to time, it used up engineering allowances on the way. It never caused delay incidents as it didn't lose enough time in a section.

A high acceleration EMU might lose less. Pendolinos are not that quick off the mark - typically if one ends up in a "race" with a Class 350 on departure the 350 normally wins until it tops out at 100/110 when the Pendolino comes back past.

 

[All Line Rover]

Also of note, Virgin have already looked into reducing the three trains an hour (between Birmingham and Euston) down to two in the middle of the day.

What is your source for this?

 

[HSTEd]

There are 21 5-car tilting 125mph units available. With XC.

Just give XC some power-door short HSTs in exchange and the job is done.

 

[Chester1]

There are 21 5-car tilting 125mph units available. With XC.

Just give XC some power-door short HSTs in exchange and the job is done.

The tilting mechanisms were removed about 10 years ago, theres no guarantee they could be put back in and work reliably. There is no chance of making more HSTs PRM-TSI compliant prior to 2020, there is no capacity left to do EMTs HSTs. New bi modes for XC and extra Voyagers for WCP makes more sense than new stock though as they could do WCML services from something like 2022 to 2026. I guess its possible that 4-5 could be modified and transferred to make sure all services between Chester and London are run by double units (perhaps taking the Stafford stop from Liverpool services).

 

[HSTEd]

There is no chance of making more HSTs PRM-TSI compliant prior to 2020, there is no capacity left to do EMTs HSTs.

They don't have to be PRM-TSI compliant by 2020, they can get a temporary waiver to operate pending reconstruction.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

taking the Stafford stop from Liverpool services

I will naturally be biased, travelling from Stafford a lot of the time, but the loss of London-bound fast services would be a heavy blow for Stafford. The WMT services take 50% longer at the best times of day, start much later and stop much earlier. As for getting Voyagers, I'm sure Staffordians are plenty happy with their current Pendolinos!

 

[Chester1]

I will naturally be biased, travelling from Stafford a lot of the time, but the loss of London-bound fast services would be a heavy blow for Stafford. The WMT services are 50% slower at the best time of day, start much earlier and stop much later. As for getting Voyagers, I'm sure Staffordians are plenty happy with their current Pendolinos!

I was suggesting boosting the capacity of the London-Chester/Holyhead services. The addition of a stop at Milton Keynes and the slower speed of Voyagers means that London-Crewe is 10 minutes slower than on the non stop Manchester services. I am not convinced that more stock is needed to last until 2026 and certainly not after but switching 4-5 Voyagers from XC to WCP and reinstalling tilt mechanisms would make more financial sense than new tilting trains. I am sure Staffordians prefer Pendolinos to Voyagers but Stafford is less important than Liverpool and there are limited cheap options for increasing capacity for the latter.

 

[geoffk]

Not sure if this is the right discussion or if it's come up elsewhere, but Real Time Trains is showing Blackpool getting three Pendolinos a day to and from Euston in the May 18 timetable. I've not seen confirmation of this anywhere else (e.g. on Virgin's website). Are these trains approved or are they just paths for which Virgin has applied.

 

[pt_mad]

Not sure if this is the right discussion or if it's come up elsewhere, but Real Time Trains is showing Blackpool getting three Pendolinos a day to and from Euston in the May 18 timetable. I've not seen confirmation of this anywhere else (e.g. on Virgin's website). Are these trains approved or are they just paths for which Virgin has applied.

Yes 3 trains each way to/from Blackpool. But only two out of the three are Pendolinos. The other will be a Voyager as previously.


Back to ideas about extra stock for WCP. If it's not worth procuring brand new stock, what about some of the class 360s which I believe will be going off lease soon? Presumably these could be adapted to 110mph by Siemens fairly easily as the 350s have, and seating re-jigged to 2+2 long distance?

With their acceleration presumably they could achieve section times if they ran only the Euston - Birminghams (one an hour of the three).

 

[edwin_m]

They don't have to be PRM-TSI compliant by 2020, they can get a temporary waiver to operate pending reconstruction.

That is far from certain. It might be possible somewhere like EMT to allow non-compliant trains to continue in service for a limited period so people who can't access the trains will be unable to for a longer period. However I have a feeling replacing more accessible trains by less accessible ones under a derogation, even though only temporary, would go down much less well. It would effectively be denying travel to some people who have come to expect that they can use a particular service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes 3 trains each way to/from Blackpool. But only two out of the three are Pendolinos. The other will be a Voyager as previously.

No, there are 3 Pendolinos plus the existing Voyager (M-F).
On Saturday there are 3 Pendolinos (one of which starts from Birmingham).
Nothing on Sundays.
Only the Voyager stops at Poulton and Kirkham.
Still subject to ORR approval I think.

 

[B&I]

I was suggesting boosting the capacity of the London-Chester/Holyhead services. The addition of a stop at Milton Keynes and the slower speed of Voyagers means that London-Crewe is 10 minutes slower than on the non stop Manchester services. I am not convinced that more stock is needed to last until 2026 and certainly not after but switching 4-5 Voyagers from XC to WCP and reinstalling tilt mechanisms would make more financial sense than new tilting trains. I am sure Staffordians prefer Pendolinos to Voyagers but Stafford is less important than Liverpool and there are limited cheap options for increasing capacity for the latter.

Is it really beyond all possibility ro rustle up a single further set per hour ? What's currently being thought of for open access services to Blackpool, and why couldn't that solution be applied ?

 

[Chester1]

Is it really beyond all possibility ro rustle up a single further set per hour ? What's currently being thought of for open access services to Blackpool, and why couldn't that solution be applied ?

The paths Alliance / Grand Central are trying to use are off peak only. They were granted paths dependent on 125mph running but have since reapplied and want to use Mark IV sets at 110mph but they may not succeed. Since Norton Bridge work completed there has been spare off peak capacity for 2tph. 1tph will need to stay unused for timetable resiliance, which means regardless of whether or not the new Alliance application is granted there will be only a handful of paths spare each day and none at peak times between London and Crewe.

There is no cost effective solution to the problem as things stand. It seems to be a matter of making do until 2026. Some extra Voyagers might be the least bad idea for extra stock but even then there are not that many extra services they could run. I doubt WCP could make use of more than another 10-12.

 

[whhistle]

What is your source for this?

:P Nice. Ha ha.
I don't have one, but I'll message you.

 

[The Ham]

Thinking out load here, if WCP were to get more, new, tilting trains then in 2026 (early CP7) would there, assuming all the CP5 projects were finished (including Southampton/Basingstoke 25Kv conversion) could it be likely that XC would be looking for EMU's? In which case getting some 25ish year old 390's could be a good deal for them.

IIRC, it should be possible to run Manchester to Southampton via Coventry. By swapping the end point on the Newcastle services with the Manchester services XC. Especially if XC could gain the second train per hour path to Southampton.

As a minimum that would require 9 units. That could mean that new stock for WCP of 18*6 coach units (108 coaches) could still be needed, even without replacing any of the 221's (which could be a further 60 coaches).

Those 390's for XC could then replace the HST, even if some new/additional stock was acquired by XC in this franchise, with a bit of an overlap and/or an allowance for HS2 not releasing them exactly in 2026. They would also provide a bit more capacity than a like for like basis.

However as pointed out before, once Manchester gains is HS2 services there's likely to be a switch from XC to HS2 for those traveling between Birmingham and Manchester. As such if the HST's were kept until then and then withdrawn, it could then allow XC to reduce capacity on that section if required on the other (to SW) services.

 

[edwin_m]

However as pointed out before, once Manchester gains is HS2 services there's likely to be a switch from XC to HS2 for those traveling between Birmingham and Manchester. As such if the HST's were kept until then and then withdrawn, it could then allow XC to reduce capacity on that section if required on the other (to SW) services.

I'd have thought the existing 2TPH would still be needed for journeys such as Stoke to Manchester or Birmingham. There's also the question of what happens to XC's longer distance services. Running the HS2 service to Bristol would need electrification and a classic connection in the Birmingham area, and truncating them at Birmingham means passengers would have to change stations and nullify most of the time saving from using HS2 on Birmingham-Manchester. Therefore something like the existing XC service would probably remain, to cater for the various journeys that HS2 can't provide. Hopefully HS2 would take the major flows, Manchester-Birmingham in this case, leaving space on the classic services for Stoke passengers and the like. Much the same applies to the NE-SW route in relation to the eastern leg of HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd have thought the existing 2TPH would still be needed for journeys such as Stoke to Manchester or Birmingham. There's also the question of what happens to XC's longer distance services. Running the HS2 service to Bristol would need electrification and a classic connection in the Birmingham area, and truncating them at Birmingham means passengers would have to change stations and nullify most of the time saving from using HS2 on Birmingham-Manchester. Therefore something like the existing XC service would probably remain, to cater for the various journeys that HS2 can't provide. Hopefully HS2 would take the major flows, Manchester-Birmingham in this case, leaving space on the classic services for Stoke passengers and the like. Much the same applies to the NE-SW route in relation to the eastern leg of HS2.

Post HS2 I can see a lot of sense in the idea of switching the classic line Manc-Brum service to be more like the Liverpool one - a more frequent semifast service integrated with the local services. Perhaps 4tph in this case with skip stopping.

 

[The Planner]

The paths Alliance / Grand Central are trying to use are off peak only. They were granted paths dependent on 125mph running but have since reapplied and want to use Mark IV sets at 110mph but they may not succeed. Since Norton Bridge work completed there has been spare off peak capacity for 2tph. 1tph will need to stay unused for timetable resiliance, which means regardless of whether or not the new Alliance application is granted there will be only a handful of paths spare each day and none at peak times between London and Crewe.

That was the spin for Norton Bridge, I still don't see where two extra paths have appeared from as you are still reliant on what happens south of Rugby and nothing has changed there. The resiliance bit I am sceptical about too, if a path is compliant we would need a very good reason to say no to it.

 

[cle]

Weren't the Norton Bridge paths always going to be West Midlands -> NW paths? I don't think it ever specified there was capacity from the London direction. Wasn't a cross-Rugeley Manc/Brum service mentioned, for instance? Or maybe a Euston/Brum terminator can be extended to Manchester?

 

[SeanM1997]

Weren't the Norton Bridge paths always going to be West Midlands -> NW paths? I don't think it ever specified there was capacity from the London direction. Wasn't a cross-Rugeley Manc/Brum service mentioned, for instance? Or maybe a Euston/Brum terminator can be extended to Manchester?

It would be good if this service was a LNWR service between Crewe and Northampton calling at Stafford, Rugeley TV, Lichfield TV, Tamworth, Atherstone, Nuneaton, Rugby, Long Buckby and Northampton - and attaches to a Birmingham-Northampton-London service to continue to London. This would provide a half hourly service between Crewe and Rugby, reducing overcrowding on the faster Crewe-Trent Valley-London service, as well as providing a direct link to London

 

[B&I]

The paths Alliance / Grand Central are trying to use are off peak only. They were granted paths dependent on 125mph running but have since reapplied and want to use Mark IV sets at 110mph but they may not succeed. Since Norton Bridge work completed there has been spare off peak capacity for 2tph. 1tph will need to stay unused for timetable resiliance, which means regardless of whether or not the new Alliance application is granted there will be only a handful of paths spare each day and none at peak times between London and Crewe.

There is no cost effective solution to the problem as things stand. It seems to be a matter of making do until 2026. Some extra Voyagers might be the least bad idea for extra stock but even then there are not that many extra services they could run. I doubt WCP could make use of more than another 10-12.

Ah, the joys of 'no growth' (whether expressly stated or not) franchises.

At the risk of plunging into desperatio , have any Pendolino-like trains which would fit our gauge become available overseas ?

 

[The Ham]

I'd have thought the existing 2TPH would still be needed for journeys such as Stoke to Manchester or Birmingham. There's also the question of what happens to XC's longer distance services. Running the HS2 service to Bristol would need electrification and a classic connection in the Birmingham area, and truncating them at Birmingham means passengers would have to change stations and nullify most of the time saving from using HS2 on Birmingham-Manchester. Therefore something like the existing XC service would probably remain, to cater for the various journeys that HS2 can't provide. Hopefully HS2 would take the major flows, Manchester-Birmingham in this case, leaving space on the classic services for Stoke passengers and the like. Much the same applies to the NE-SW route in relation to the eastern leg of HS2.

I was thinking more along the lines of longer trains (i.e. a pair of Voyagers) Exeter to Manchester pre HS2 to Manchester and then truncate that to Exeter to Birmingham there after. As such it would mean that less units were needed, but two trains per hour would still exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, the joys of 'no growth' (whether expressly stated or not) franchises.

At the risk of plunging into desperatio , have any Pendolino-like trains whixb would fit our gauge become available overseas ?

There aren't many trains from overseas which would fit our gauge full stop, really, let alone 125mph tilting EMUs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Weren't the Norton Bridge paths always going to be West Midlands -> NW paths? I don't think it ever specified there was capacity from the London direction. Wasn't a cross-Rugeley Manc/Brum service mentioned, for instance? Or maybe a Euston/Brum terminator can be extended to Manchester?

No, it was specifically 2xLondon services (off-peak), 1xBirmingham service and 1xfreight.
All part of the business case.
This is from the CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan (as originally signed off by ORR in March 2014):

A fast line, standard off-peak hour timetable to deliver this has been developed by Network Rail and agreed by DfT in August 2009.
The project will deliver the capability for two additional, off peak, fast line paths from London to the North West (each direction), one additional path per hour on the Birmingham-Manchester axis (each direction) and one additional freight path per hour through Stafford, again in each direction.

What we got was one retimed XC service and (importantly) a significantly more punctual WCML.
Note the statement about a timetable having been developed and agreed by DfT.

 

[B&I]

I was thinking more along the lines of longer trains (i.e. a pair of Voyagers) Exeter to Manchester pre HS2 to Manchester and then truncate that to Exeter to Birmingham there after. As such it would mean that less units were needed, but two trains per hour would still exist.

With XC services extended from New Street to some westbound platforms attached to Curzon Street? If the underlying plan was to replace XC to Manchester with HS2 (and, dare I say it, to provide a fast Brum connection to Liverpool, and points further north, via HS2 as well), and if HS2's eastern leg is going to replace XC towards the East Midlands (from Toton northwards), Yorkshire and the north east, would this provide an opportunity to send HS2 services from the south west and south coast to Brum to existing or new destinations in (say) the rest of the East Midlands and East Anglia ?

 

[pt_mad]

That was the spin for Norton Bridge, I still don't see where two extra paths have appeared from as you are still reliant on what happens south of Rugby and nothing has changed there. The resiliance bit I am sceptical about too, if a path is compliant we would need a very good reason to say no to it.

If the Pretendolino could make section times then what's to stop one of the Birmingham's being planned in at 110mph?
I am guessing that the Pretendolino was quick enough to not hold any following trains up, but ended up failing it's performance at its destination due to being tined at 125mph?

Answer: time it at 110mph to it's destination and if the stock can still make section times it's a solution isn't it?


Acquire some of the class 360s which are coming off lease soon and ask siemens to do the mods required for 110 as on the 350s.

Or what about the 350/2s which are going off lease with LNR? Many are being converted to 110 at the moment so all that'd be needed would be refitted 444 style long distance interiors.

Or use 225 sets if they could make section times?

 

[The Planner]

With XC services extended from New Street to some westbound platforms attached to Curzon Street? If the underlying plan was to replace XC to Manchester with HS2 (and, dare I say it, to provide a fast Brum connection to Liverpool, and points further north, via HS2 as well), and if HS2's eastern leg is going to replace XC towards the East Midlands (from Toton northwards), Yorkshire and the north east, would this provide an opportunity ro send HS2 services from the south west and south coast to Brum to existing or new destinations in (say) the rest of the East Midlands and East Anglia ?

There isn't room to put platforms there on the gradient and with the tunnel and Proof House junction nearby, there also is no connection between HS2 and the existing network either.

 

[The Planner]

If the Pretendolino could make section times then what's to stop one of the Birmingham's being planned in at 110mph?
I am guessing that the Pretendolino was quick enough to not hold any following trains up, but ended up failing it's performance at its destination due to being tined at 125mph?

Answer: time it at 110mph to it's destination and if the stock can still make section times it's a solution isn't it?


Acquire some of the class 360s which are coming off lease soon and ask siemens to do the mods required for 110 as on the 350s.

Or what about the 350/2s which are going off lease with LNR? Many are being converted to 110 at the moment so all that'd be needed would be refitted 444 style long distance interiors.

Or use 225 sets if they could make section times?

You misunderstand what I meant, the Prentendolino didn't register delays in TRUST sections where delays would be recorded, I can't remember if it is 2 or 3 minutes in a section to do that on the WCML. It cannot meet 125mph sectional running times, that is a given. If you time it at 110mph there is no guarantee the path works.

 

[Chester1]

With XC services extended from New Street to some westbound platforms attached to Curzon Street? If the underlying plan was to replace XC to Manchester with HS2 (and, dare I say it, to provide a fast Brum connection to Liverpool, and points further north, via HS2 as well), and if HS2's eastern leg is going to replace XC towards the East Midlands (from Toton northwards), Yorkshire and the north east, would this provide an opportunity ro send HS2 services from the south west and south coast to Brum to existing or new destinations in (say) the rest of the East Midlands and East Anglia ?

There are no plans to have any normal rail services into Curzon Street and it would require extra spending. It will be next to Moor Street so that would be the obvious choice if the Camp Hill Chords are ever built.

Ah, the joys of 'no growth' (whether expressly stated or not) franchises.

At the risk of plunging into desperatio , have any Pendolino-like trains which would fit our gauge become available overseas ?

Its better to have no extra capacity until 2026 and then a huge increase than some increase before 2026 and nothing possible afterwards. HS2 has killed the business case for new tilting trains. Attempting to get some of the XC Voyagers to tilt again is probably the least bad solution *if* it is absolutely necessary to have extra WCP stock prior to 2026.