The top speed of the Chiltern line is 100, but they won't be able to do 100 despite this post hinting that they can, but you claim 158s are not reliable enough - is there any evidence to support this claim, such as mpc (miles per casualty) figures?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
NR responce to ORR/ ATW LONDON
- Thread starter merlodlliw
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
87015
Established Member
The Salisbury 158s are reliable, the rest not so much...
ATW has the next best fleet reliability wise though, although still less reliable than your average 165/168/170/171 fleet. 175s much better aswell.
True but they still could never have been ready by May even if they had been given the go ahead when they applied, as many folks on here know they are not the best TOC in the country and are even worse at organising anything
tbtc
Veteran Member
Gloucester to Cheltenham is an extension of an existing ATW service outside Wales
Birmingham International to Marylebone would be an extension of an existing ATW service outside Wales
What's the difference?
I'm all for this - I think that Aberystwyth and the coast are a bigger draw than Wrexham, and the service could work well in getting tourists/ business from England to Wales (rather than the WMSR service which is, to all intents and purpose, for days out to London).
Good to see a TOC taking a risk and investing in a new service, rather than relying on handouts and DFT instructions
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Isn't it optistmic to expect Chiltern to help out in the event of a failure?
In contrast when a Northern 142 failed at Chester Northern had a spare 142 at Chester but their staff didn't know the layout of Chester. ATW staff refused to give instructions or accompany Northern staff in to 'their area' and said they couldn't move the 142 themselves as they didn't sign 142s. That caused peak time disruption for some Northern services.
In contrast when a Northern 142 failed at Chester Northern had a spare 142 at Chester but their staff didn't know the layout of Chester. ATW staff refused to give instructions or accompany Northern staff in to 'their area' and said they couldn't move the 142 themselves as they didn't sign 142s. That caused peak time disruption for some Northern services.
I understand the proposed timetable is geared towards morning departures from Aberystwyth and afternoon returns from London. If I am correct in this, it would also be primarily for days out in london from mid Wales.
Also, from the point of view of Welsh residents, it looks as though ATW is using stock that would be better used to improve services within the franchise area for a speculative foray into London which is designed to abstract revenue from other TOC's.
Now, I'm in two minds about this. Onm the one hand I would support any move to improve the service along the Cambrian as I don't think a train every two hours is sufficient in the 21st Century to get people out of their cars. I cna also see the advantage of providing a through service between mid Wales and London as well as Birmingham.
However, and ignoring the 'ATW are crap, 158's are crap' arguments, I've always had a problem with ORCATS raids, which is what this proposal looks like. As witht he former Wales and West service between Plymouth and Portsmouth, it could be the case that someone at ATW has calculated that their share of the revenue from Shrewsbury may be enough to cover the operating costs of the trains even if no one travels on them! At the same time, ATW say they have no stock to strengthen overcrowded services in other parts of Wales!
I really can;t decide whether Is hould support this initiative!
Also, from the point of view of Welsh residents, it looks as though ATW is using stock that would be better used to improve services within the franchise area for a speculative foray into London which is designed to abstract revenue from other TOC's.
Now, I'm in two minds about this. Onm the one hand I would support any move to improve the service along the Cambrian as I don't think a train every two hours is sufficient in the 21st Century to get people out of their cars. I cna also see the advantage of providing a through service between mid Wales and London as well as Birmingham.
However, and ignoring the 'ATW are crap, 158's are crap' arguments, I've always had a problem with ORCATS raids, which is what this proposal looks like. As witht he former Wales and West service between Plymouth and Portsmouth, it could be the case that someone at ATW has calculated that their share of the revenue from Shrewsbury may be enough to cover the operating costs of the trains even if no one travels on them! At the same time, ATW say they have no stock to strengthen overcrowded services in other parts of Wales!
I really can;t decide whether Is hould support this initiative!
87015
Established Member
The Cheltenham extension doesn't utilise any extra resources - it just uses up the turnaround time at Gloucester. Going to London will tie up both units and traincrew.
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
Shame it is all out and back on the same day.
Just think how the 158s would be if Chiltern were contracted to engage in the maintenance of units on behalf of the open access operator...
(I've always liked the 158s, shame that some operators haven't maintained them to a high standard).
Just think how the 158s would be if Chiltern were contracted to engage in the maintenance of units on behalf of the open access operator...
(I've always liked the 158s, shame that some operators haven't maintained them to a high standard).
ATW has agreed to set down only at Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton on the 6.30 train to Marylebone to avoid taking revenue from WSMR's 7.23 service from Wrexham.
merlodlliw
Established Member
Last edited:
My point is that the set-down only agreement has mitigated the ORCATs issue you raised.
The document quoted admits that the business case is abstractive. by this I understand that the case is based upon abstracting revenue from other TOC's, rather than attractign new users to the railway.
The fact that ATW has agreed in principle, to set down only at Shrewsbury on one train might mean that they are confident that their share of the revenue based on one train will be sufficient to make the scheme worthwhile!
I don;t know much about how ORCATS works, but I recall W&W admitting in the late 1990's that running a through train between Plymouth and Portsmouth meant that their share of revenue for that particular flow increased by more than the cost of putting the train on!
The fact that ATW has agreed in principle, to set down only at Shrewsbury on one train might mean that they are confident that their share of the revenue based on one train will be sufficient to make the scheme worthwhile!
I don;t know much about how ORCATS works, but I recall W&W admitting in the late 1990's that running a through train between Plymouth and Portsmouth meant that their share of revenue for that particular flow increased by more than the cost of putting the train on!
The business case for ATW is nearly all abstraction, the main users will be from Shrewsbury & Telford, this in turn is abstracting from WSMR, it in my opinion is spoiling tactics as WSMR are making a good go of things now the dust gas settled. As for using 158's, agreed the ATW ones are a BOS. ATW have no money to improve the service they have without going to the WAG but can find money for the Aber London? It just does not add up. Now the most logical thing for ATW is to retimetable their Aber services to connect with the WSMR services this will help both companies, more pax on the Abers and more on the WSMR with ATW receiving a cut on the ATW Aber - London tickets? I am not a business man but this in my opinion would work well, a lot better than the risk of a 158 on evergreen 3 100mph lines.
tbtc
Veteran Member
This is an extension of an existing ATW service to a station ATW don't currently serve, same as the Cheltenham extension in that principle. Yeah, it'll mean more stock needed, but
As for the franchise not saying that ATW can use their resources outside the "core" area, I'm puzzled by what you mean here. Would you have a problem if they decided passenger numbers on the Manchester - Llandudno service justified an additional hourly Manchester - Chester service?
Aberystwyth is a draw for both students and tourists, and I can imagine a number of people using this service to get there, bringing money to the Welsh economy (maybe not as day trippers, admittedly). Surely that's a good thing?
A 158 could not reach 90mph even out of Leamington Spa until the other side of Harbury tunnel as they just do not have the grunt, they would also not make 90mph leaving Bicester North on the down untill after Ardley tunnel, I have driven both 158's and 67's with 4 coaches & DVT on the same routes in places and there is just no comparison. As for reliability, 158's are reasonably reliable in comparison to the 168's however it is their performance that is not up to the job
tbtc
Veteran Member
I'm not convinced that all of the Chiltern trains will be running at 100mph (or that its 100mph all the way from Birmingham to London)...
There's plenty places where 158 run (or ran) on 100mph (or faster) track. Thinking about it, there's places where 150s/ Pacers have run on the same line...
Agreed but with TOC franchise agreements in place, this is an open access application and ATW are not supplying stock that can enhance the service already there from Shrewsbury, WSMR ran on EPS125 track over the weekend and didn't delay any booked services and this was solely down to the performance of the sets beinag able to reach 110mph quickly and maintaining it. I cannot personally see how ATW with the 158's can run this service all the way to Marylebone without delaying something on the way! Now, if they decided to use leased HST's from XC then that would be a different matter (tounge in Cheek)
tbtc
Veteran Member
...and careful timetabling...
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,748
Like tbtc said, the only reason WSMR didnt cause carnage over the weekends is the way they were planned, the same way any other train would be. The fact they can do 110mph down the WCML is neither here or there, if there was space you could plan a 150 at 75mph.
The loco hauled set that Virgin uses runs in a Pendo path and loses on average 6 to 7 minutes without much problem as it cant match Pendo timings, if it was timetabled as a loco hauled set, it wouldnt.
The argument that a 90mph 158 would cause delay is nonsense and Ive raised it before without a reply from the doubters. Why dont LM stoppers cause delay down to Dorridge ??, why dont 60mph class 6 freights and 75mph class 4s cause delay on the line ?? why didnt WSMR cause delay when they could only run at 60mph between Bicester and Princes Risborough ?? Are we to ban the bin liners that run to and from Calvert ?
If a 158 can be planned compliently then why shouldnt it be there ??
The loco hauled set that Virgin uses runs in a Pendo path and loses on average 6 to 7 minutes without much problem as it cant match Pendo timings, if it was timetabled as a loco hauled set, it wouldnt.
The argument that a 90mph 158 would cause delay is nonsense and Ive raised it before without a reply from the doubters. Why dont LM stoppers cause delay down to Dorridge ??, why dont 60mph class 6 freights and 75mph class 4s cause delay on the line ?? why didnt WSMR cause delay when they could only run at 60mph between Bicester and Princes Risborough ?? Are we to ban the bin liners that run to and from Calvert ?
If a 158 can be planned compliently then why shouldnt it be there ??
merlodlliw
Established Member
As for the franchise not saying that ATW can use their resources outside the "core" area, I'm puzzled by what you mean here. Would you have a problem if they decided passenger numbers on the Manchester - Llandudno service justified an additional hourly Manchester - Chester service?
Manchester to Llandudno is within the All Wales Franchise,All Sunday trains
run Manchester to Chester, I would have no problem of any increase of service on this line, which in summer is chronic short of stock.
Aberystwyth is a draw for both students and tourists, and I can imagine a number of people using this service to get there, bringing money to the Welsh economy (maybe not as day trippers, admittedly). Surely that's a good thing?[/QUOTE]
I would have no problem if the entire route was open access, but it is not & stock that could be used to run an hourly service,will be used for the London adventure, if ATW acted like all other open access tocs in this adventure
and paid for the stock to be bought in,so be it, but this is not the case.
Of course some will use this service, but with the ongoing costs, I fail to
see it ever returning a profit, which is what open access is all about.
Manchester to Llandudno is within the All Wales Franchise,All Sunday trains
run Manchester to Chester, I would have no problem of any increase of service on this line, which in summer is chronic short of stock.
Aberystwyth is a draw for both students and tourists, and I can imagine a number of people using this service to get there, bringing money to the Welsh economy (maybe not as day trippers, admittedly). Surely that's a good thing?[/QUOTE]
I would have no problem if the entire route was open access, but it is not & stock that could be used to run an hourly service,will be used for the London adventure, if ATW acted like all other open access tocs in this adventure
and paid for the stock to be bought in,so be it, but this is not the case.
Of course some will use this service, but with the ongoing costs, I fail to
see it ever returning a profit, which is what open access is all about.
The thing that annoys me about this proposal is that it will utilise stock that could be used to provide a much more welcoming service on ATWs existing routes. Family members have travelled Manchester > Shrewsbury three times over the last two weeks and have had to stand or reported that others were standing for part of the journey. Extra 158 capacity on this route (and possibly others) would be welcome by many ATW customers.
merlodlliw
Established Member
agree about the chronic overcrowding, but its usually 175s on this old Western Region route, when trains were trains.
BOS,
As for the planner. Just check the log please and tell me how many times 1p01 has been delayed by 2h22, 1p13 by 6m55, or 1j84 by the BSW that runs infront of it? I know the BSW is a 168 so its a 100mph unit, but we all know 67's and set will easily out perform them, so how much help is a 158 going to be in the pathing? Or are you sugesting it they should be looped to let the faster trains past?
As for the WCML paths, the WSMR paths are made available due to as TDK quite rightly says, the performance of the 67's and sets. Yes you could get a 75mph 150 to london and back, but we both know your talking piffle if you think you could send it on the fast for the distance without it delaying anything.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,748
Were any of the trains that you mention running on time ?? if not then its not a valid argument, if those trains were delaying 1P01 everyday we would have heard about it by now and have been told to do something about it as we would be getting Q coded delays.
You cannot plan a timetable to cover for trains running late for whatever reason, if you did that then you wouldnt have half the trains running you do now. You plan a timetable to the constraints you have.
Im not suggesting anything should be looped, if a 158 can be pathed between trains within headway and sufficiently apart from other services then whats the problem ?.
If a 67 is catching up other trains then it suggests the running times are too slack for the WSMR, and WSMR/Chiltern should be flagging that up so something can be done. They wont though as they know damn well its a performance buffer and will want to keep it. If it really is a problem, raise it and see if it gets passed down to us at NR, Id bet it doesnt.....
Thats not what I said, read my post again, I said the 67s didnt cause problems because they could be pathed between other services. The performance is not relavent which is why I quoted the example of the 150. I said if there was space you could plan a 150, I didnt say there is space.
Again, I'll ask the question, if a 158 can be pathed within other services compliantly then what is the issue ?? or is it the usual argument that the lovely cute puppy that is WSMR is about to get bitten by a nasty pitbull that is another TOC. Railways are now a business, if someone has a product that is now doing well, someone else is going to want a part of it.
thefab444
Established Member
I imagine it is. People rave about WSMR but seem very eager to stop it being open to competition. Surely if it is so brilliant they should have no problems in fending off ATW or Virgin?
tbtc
Veteran Member
I agree.
One minute people are saying that WMSR should be able to pick up passengers at places like Birmingham New Street and there should be no restrictions on competition (like there are in Virgin's WCML conditions)...
...the next they are complaining when anyone dares compete with WMSR
You can either have a railway where different operators are free to "compete" for paths and anyone can set up an Open Access operation, or you can have one where everything is controlled centrally and there is no competition between operators (and no scope for Open Access). WMSR knew the rules, they knew what they were getting into...
One of the reasons I can;t decide whether I;m in favour of the proposal is that I;m not sure how much of the 'no' argument is based on subjective likes and dislikes of the TOC's concerned! If WSMR/Chiltern were bidding to run from Aber to London to compete with an ATW service from Wrexham, would they still be against it?!
tbtc
Veteran Member
Good point.
I think the reaction would be different if/when Chiltern are sticking to 168s on the Wrexham service
merlodlliw
Established Member
Recieved this e mail from a North Wales listed member of The National Assembly Of Wales..
Dear
Thank you for this email and I will again take these concerns to the Deputy Minister.
Janet Ryder
My e mail contained the NR Response to the ORR.And use of stock, for A,Ms & M.Ps information
and another
Dear
Thanks for your email February 1st 2010 on the above and the issue with ATW and Wrexham and Shropshire. I was particularly in agreement with paragraph 4 on the shortage of rolling stock in Wales.
With best wishes
Eleanor Burnham AC/AM
Gogledd Cymru/North Wales
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ATW never had any intention Of running a London service from Wrexham, it is only after W/S came along, that ATW senior management have invented a service that with all due respect, will never pay. Also Wrexham station prior
to W/S was in a state of decay, this is not subjective but fact.
After reading a few threads, it is pretty obvious some wish W/S to be damaged.That is of course their opinion.
M
Dear
Thank you for this email and I will again take these concerns to the Deputy Minister.
Janet Ryder
My e mail contained the NR Response to the ORR.And use of stock, for A,Ms & M.Ps information
and another
Dear
Thanks for your email February 1st 2010 on the above and the issue with ATW and Wrexham and Shropshire. I was particularly in agreement with paragraph 4 on the shortage of rolling stock in Wales.
With best wishes
Eleanor Burnham AC/AM
Gogledd Cymru/North Wales
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ATW never had any intention Of running a London service from Wrexham, it is only after W/S came along, that ATW senior management have invented a service that with all due respect, will never pay. Also Wrexham station prior
to W/S was in a state of decay, this is not subjective but fact.
After reading a few threads, it is pretty obvious some wish W/S to be damaged.That is of course their opinion.
M
- Status