Services that would be better suited with other TOCs

[53703]

Yesterday on my travels I went on the Reading to Redhill/Gatwick Airport service ran by Great Western and thought it might fit in better with the South Western network. We're having the Barton on Humber branch switching from Northern to East Midlands at some point, is there any more services that stand out?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

The Birmingham to Stansteads that XC operate, surely AGA or East Midlands would be a better fit.

 

[53703]

The Birmingham to Stansteads that XC operate, surely AGA or East Midlands would be a better fit.

Don't EMT even run some stations on that route but provide no services? Stamford, Hinckley, etc?

 

[mugam4]

Yesterday on my travels I went on the Reading to Redhill/Gatwick Airport service ran by Great Western and thought it might fit in better with the South Western network.

It needs DMUs, and GWR have a DMU depot at one end of the route. SWR only have one, in Salisbury, and at the other end GTR's is off in Selhurst, so GWR makes sense

 

[A Challenge]

EMT serve Melton Mowbray, Oakham and Stamford occasionally (not just diversion though), but they also operate South Wigston, Narborough, Hinckley, Burton-on-Trent and Willington, and WMT operate Water Orton, Wilnecote and Water Orton, of which neither of them serve any of them. XC operate no stations at all, but those are just served by no-one else!

 

[RichJF]

Now the timetable has changed & there are no direct trains to London, the Redhill-Tonbridge line would be better served back in SE's hands as a potential extension of the Strood/Maidstone West line.

It needs DMUs, and GWR have a DMU depot at one end of the route. SWR only have one, in Salisbury, and at the other end GTR's is off in Selhurst, so GWR makes sense

I've long thought the North Downs line would be better off in GTR's hands using the extra 170s up in Scotland they had earmarked at one point!

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Any Trans-pennine service that doesn't cross the pennines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Birmingham to Stansteads that XC operate, surely AGA or East Midlands would be a better fit.

Agreed - anything XC operate with a Class 170 is with the wrong TOC - XC should be about high capacity (ha!) fast long-distance services. These are nothing of the sort, they are regional expresses/local services.

 

[mallard]

Any Trans-pennine service that doesn't cross the pennines.

In that case, it's more that "Trans-Pennine" doesn't accurately reflect the real operations of the franchise, rather than the franchise having "extraneous" services. Calling it "Manchester-centered express/intercity trains" would be more accurate, but a bit of a mouthful.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Echoing other people’s thoughts perhaps but Southeastern should be operating Redhill-Tonbridge seeing as they already operate a lot of the services using their own crews and stock is stabled at Tonbridge Jubilee Sidings.

And I know this is unpopular but I do think that GWR Redhill-Reading services could be operated by GTR using Class 171. This could lead to longer trains being used, more efficient use of crew (all crew out of Redhill, perhaps supplemented by Selhurst drivers and Conductors) and the service can be properly integrated with the London-Reigate service and means all services at Gatwick are operated by GTR.

 

[DavidGrain]

Birmingham to Cardiff I would have thought would be better operated from the Welsh franchise. Every morning XC send two trains to Cardiff at 5.00am or soon after which I suspect run almost empty and are really a positioning movement. Actually thinking about it, a much better idea would be a joint service with two TOCs co-operating. Before anyone mentions it, I know that these trains also serve the Birmingham to Nottingham route but this is mainly to avoid terminating services in New Street but quite a few XC services have to reverse in the station already. The route these Nottingham trains take, I am sure could develop a much better local service. The service to Tamworth is very poor considering that Tamworth developed as an 'overspill' town for Birmingham in the 1950s/60s

West Midlands Railway have a depot at Leamington yet most of their services between Birmingham and Leamington are at the beginning and end of daily service leaving Chiltern to operate the main local services during the day especially between Dorridge and Leamington.

 

[NorthKent1989]

And I know this is unpopular but I do think that GWR Redhill-Reading services could be operated by GTR using Class 171. This could lead to longer trains being used, more efficient use of crew (all crew out of Redhill, perhaps supplemented by Selhurst drivers and Conductors) and the service can be properly integrated with the London-Reigate service and means all services at Gatwick are operated by GTR.

So would the current Victoria to Reigate service be extended all the way to Reading then? That would be interesting, very circuitous though but might be useful fo some stations on the line that have no direct service to a London Terminal

 

[53703]

Another one I've come up with is Doncaster to Lincoln currently with East Midlands Trains, probably fit in better with Northern considering Sheffield - Lincoln will be a "Connect" route soon and also the upcoming service to Gainsborough Central. Although virtually every Lincolnshire service should be looked at being improved but that's another thread....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Birmingham to Cardiff I would have thought would be better operated from the Welsh franchise.

I agree, that's the other one that is a very poor fit.

 

[2HAP]

Redhill - Tonbridge and Ashford - Hastings from Southern to Southeastern. Strood - Tonbridge extended to Redhill. Charing Cross - Hastings extended to Ashford with electrification of Ore - Ashford.

 

[700007]

Romford to Upminster should have been part of Crossrail - even if it isn't a direct service to the core, but a 'local link' connecting with passengers from Romford using mini 345s or the like would have made more sense than the weird LO service in an area where LO doesn't operate near.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Romford to Upminster should have been part of Crossrail - even if it isn't a direct service to the core, but a 'local link' connecting with passengers from Romford using mini 345s or the like would have made more sense than the weird LO service in an area where LO doesn't operate near.

Yeah the ‘Romminster’ shuttle is a rather strange anomaly on the map especially since most of the Overground is connected al together in some way, there are two distinct blocs: The Orbital rail and the surrounding branches and the West Anglian suburban lines, it should have been intergrated into Crossrail rail, if possible

 

[PR1Berske]

In that case, it's more that "Trans-Pennine" doesn't accurately reflect the real operations of the franchise, rather than the franchise having "extraneous" services. Calling it "Manchester-centered express/intercity trains" would be more accurate, but a bit of a mouthful.

Scotland-Lancashire-Manchester/Airport is an odd one for both TPE and Northern. It's an Intercity service in all but name (perhaps with both small and large 'i'). I can't think of any workable alternative to TPE running it, mind.

 

[B&I]

This debate about whether some services fit with XC reflects to.me.a degree of confusion about what XC is meant to do. Is it supposed to be a top-line intercity operator, or a rag-bag of services that don't fit easily into other franchises ? Even if it is the former, I think there should be more services operated to that i ter-city standard, to cities not currently on the map, with rolling stock to suit.

Is there an argument that the commuter services around all the large English cities would be better suited to PTE-controlled operations, with other services left within larger regional operators ?

 

[Ianno87]

So would the current Victoria to Reigate service be extended all the way to Reading then? That would be interesting, very circuitous though but might be useful fo some stations on the line that have no direct service to a London Terminal

Interesting idea (would create useful direct links like Croydon-Guildford), but there almost certainly isn't space for additional 171s to be catered for at Selhurst. Other problem is that whilst you'd probably need 10 car formations at the London end of the route, it'd be ridiculous overkill beyond Reigate/Dorking, and there'd be a heck of a lot of platform extensions required.

I also understand 171s can't work into 15-19 at Victoria due to the positioning of the extractor fans in the station.

Romford to Upminster should have been part of Crossrail - even if it isn't a direct service to the core, but a 'local link' connecting with passengers from Romford using mini 345s or the like would have made more sense than the weird LO service in an area where LO doesn't operate near.

Problem is, you're creating a unique fleet requirement for Crossrail, whereas with LO its just ine extra unit upon the rest of the fleet, as odd on the map as it might look (but nothing that couldn't be solved with a bit of branding)

 

[700007]

Problem is, you're creating a unique fleet requirement for Crossrail, whereas with LO its just ine extra unit upon the rest of the fleet, as odd on the map as it might look (but nothing that couldn't be solved with a bit of branding)

Or even a 710 dedicated to the Elizabeth line - two units. It can be maintained from Ilford who are looking after the LO 710s as well.

 

[700007]

Yeah the ‘Romminster’ shuttle is a rather strange anomaly on the map especially since most of the Overground is connected al together in some way, there are two distinct blocs: The Orbital rail and the surrounding branches and the West Anglian suburban lines, it should have been intergrated into Crossrail rail, if possible

Obviously for infrastructure reasons it isn't possible but if there was a way of getting from the branch onto the LTS line then I think c2c could have suited the line too, especially giving Greater Anglia a run for their money from Romford into Essex.

 

[MarkyT]

Or even a 710 dedicated to the Elizabeth line - two units. It can be maintained from Ilford who are looking after the LO 710s as well.

I think it makes sense to rebrand Romford-Upminster as an Elizabeth Line branch. It could still be part of the LO operation in terms of management, manning and maintenance, but I think it makes sense to segregate parts of LO into different sub-brands based on groups of routes, as a sea of orange everywhere without route numbers or anything apart from final destination to distinguish trains is just confusing. Its like all Underground lines being the same colour on the map!

 

[RichJF]

Interesting idea (would create useful direct links like Croydon-Guildford), but there almost certainly isn't space for additional 171s to be catered for at Selhurst. Other problem is that whilst you'd probably need 10 car formations at the London end of the route, it'd be ridiculous overkill beyond Reigate/Dorking, and there'd be a heck of a lot of platform extensions required.

I also understand 171s can't work into 15-19 at Victoria due to the positioning of the extractor fans in the station.

I'd envisage GTR using the current GWR patterns & using the 171s on Gatwick-Reading instead of running a London - Reigate/Dorking/Reading service. Since the 2018 timetable recasting I'd theorise there isn't much space/padding to accommodate diesel trains on the BML between Redhill & Croydon.

Extractor fans were built with Thumpers in mind!

Redhill - Tonbridge and Ashford - Hastings from Southern to Southeastern. Strood - Tonbridge extended to Redhill. Charing Cross - Hastings extended to Ashford with electrification of Ore - Ashford.

You're probably better off keeping diesel operations (in the near future) contained to one TOC in the SE & avoiding having micro-fleets of diesel units with different TOCs.

 

[DelW]

So would the current Victoria to Reigate service be extended all the way to Reading then? That would be interesting, very circuitous though but might be useful fo some stations on the line that have no direct service to a London Terminal

So far it's been impossible to achieve 3tph on the North Downs Line, so this would have to take over one of the existing services. Making Reading - Gatwick (and vice versa) passengers change at Redhill (with its awkward subway connections) would be unpopular, so you're left with extending the stopping Redhill terminators which would make for a very slow as well as circuitous route.

 

[B&I]

I think it makes sense to rebrand Romford-Upminster as an Elizabeth Line branch. It could still be part of the LO operation in terms of management, manning and maintenance, but I think it makes sense to segregate parts of LO into different sub-brands based on groups of routes, as a sea of orange everywhere without route numbers or anything apart from final destination to distinguish trains is just confusing. Its like all Underground lines being the same colour on the map!

The Greenford branch would seem like another suitable candidate for this treatment

 

[MarkyT]

The Greenford branch would seem like another suitable candidate for this treatment

I'd agree with that. The other Thames Valley branches would probably better be branded as part of a Thames Valley Metro network along with Heathrow Western Access and stopping trains on routes radiating west from Reading to Basingstoke, Newbury and Oxford (Although branded as a separate local network, that collection of services, worked by 387s and some other slower units for branches, could still remain as part of a GWR franchise or might be hived off from the the longer distance services that will use 80xs).

 

[53703]

The Greenford branch would seem like another suitable candidate for this treatment

Would it makes to have all rail services that operate wholly in the Oyster area to be operated by London Overground?

 

[DavidGrain]

Services operating wholly within the Oyster area may not all have direct rail connection with the London Overground network. The services may be provided by depots of TOCs outside of the Oyster area, The depots providing services may also provide the services which run outside the Oyster card area resulting depots having to be split or shared or even moved. Adding LO to the stations' list of TOCs may cause further complications at the Terminal stations. Most lines out of London would need to be shared between TOCs leading to conflicts.

Would it makes to have all rail services that operate wholly in the Oyster area to be operated by London Overground?

 

[transmanche]

Services operating wholly within the Oyster area may not all have direct rail connection with the London Overground network. The services may be provided by depots of TOCs outside of the Oyster area, The depots providing services may also provide the services which run outside the Oyster card area resulting depots having to be split or shared or even moved. Adding LO to the stations' list of TOCs may cause further complications at the Terminal stations. Most lines out of London would need to be shared between TOCs leading to conflicts.

Remember though that London Overground is not a TOC, it is a brand.

Whilst all LO services are currently operated by Arriva Rail London, there is no reason to suppose that will always be the case. In the future, it could be decided to have a hybrid TOC; with some services operated as a DfT-let franchise and other services operated as a TfL-let concession. (Of course, this would require co-operation between the DfT and TfL of a sort that we have not hitherto seen!)