Open access WCML proposals from Marylebone

[backontrack]

I couldn't help but wonder...when East-West rail has eventually opened between Aylesbury Vale Parkway and Bletchley...

Does anybody think we'll see the Ian Yeowarts of the world apply to run open access services from Marylebone up the WCML using bi-modes in order to get past ORR abstraction regulations?

Stranger things have happened, after all...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do that when they can do it from Euston and are doing?

 

[backontrack]

Why do that when they can do it from Euston and are doing?

Well, if HS2 ever does get built, then that will eat into Euston capacity for a start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, if HS2 ever does get built, then that will eat into Euston capacity for a start.

It won't, it will free up capacity, which is a very large part of the point of it. Euston HS2 is basically a new station next to the existing one.

 

[backontrack]

It won't, it will free up capacity, which is a very large part of the point of it. Euston HS2 is basically a new station next to the existing one.

Oh dear. Evidently I need to revise this area of the rail syllabus.

Apologies, I still thought that the Euston redevelopment had had the brakes put on it.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh dear. Evidently I need to revise this area of the rail syllabus.

Apologies, I still thought that the Euston redevelopment had had the brakes put on it.

It has.
So we get a brand new HS2 station next to essentially the existing Euston station, rather than a new station for all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh dear. Evidently I need to revise this area of the rail syllabus.

Apologies, I still thought that the Euston redevelopment had had the brakes put on it.

Yes, the redevelopment has, this would have had the whole station rebuilt. What's happening instead is that the existing station is staying as it is, but a new station is being built next to it for HS2. There will be some tweaking and connecting up of the two, but HS2 trains will not serve the "new" Euston and the approaches will be totally separate (at quite substantially different vertical heights). It'll look like many large airports where you have Terminal 1 right next to Terminal 2, built at different times, with a walkway between them and a different "look and feel" in each.

 

[backontrack]

Yes, the redevelopment has, this would have had the whole station rebuilt. What's happening instead is that the existing station is staying as it is, but a new station is being built next to it for HS2. There will be some tweaking and connecting up of the two, but HS2 trains will not serve the "new" Euston and the approaches will be totally separate (at quite substantially different vertical heights).

Ah, I see, thanks. I still remember the (justified) wailing and gnashing of teeth when someone said that trains from Scotland would be terminating at Queen's Park, which stuck in my memory; I'm glad the new station for HS2 will be built.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, I see, thanks. I still remember the (justified) wailing and gnashing of teeth when someone said that trains from Scotland would be terminating at Queen's Park, which stuck in my memory; I'm glad the new station for HS2 will be built.

Re HS2 you're probably thinking of Old Oak Common, and yes, I too think this would be a silly idea

 

[backontrack]

Re HS2 you're probably thinking of Old Oak Common, and yes, I too think this would be a silly idea

Oh dear, I think I am...thank you

 

[Bletchleyite]

A bit more on-topic for the thread, rather than Marylebone it was briefly proposed that Queen's Park could be used for classic WCML open access services but was later found that there was enough capacity for these at Euston even with 2 platforms (17-18) out of use for HS2 construction.

 

[backontrack]

A bit more on-topic for the thread, rather than Marylebone it was briefly proposed that Queen's Park could be used for classic WCML open access services but was later found that there was enough capacity for these at Euston even with 2 platforms (17-18) out of use for HS2 construction.

I remember that with GNWR's Blackpool application.

A reopened link between Aylesbury and Bletchley could prove useful in case of engineering works south of Bletchley, providing an alternative route to the Pentonville/Euston/Marylebone Road from the WCML. I wondered if an open access operator might choose to try and get a bi-mode application from Marylebone up to the WCML and to points further beyond; undoubtedly pie-in-the-sky stuff, but possibly a way of sneaking additional station stops, such as were removed from the Grand Central application to run to Blackpool (namely Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Crewe and Hartford), through the ORR vetting process.

Running Marylebone-High Wycombe-Aylesbury-Milton Keynes-Tamworth-Lichfield-Crewe-Hartford to a major northern city might make for an extremely lengthy service (and would likely be difficult to path through Little Kimble!) but could be an avenue potentially explored by a company such as Alliance who could argue that they were providing new transport links that were not "predominantly revenue abstractive" to Avanti or London Northwestern. It did cross my mind that they might attempt it, even thought it would be very likely to fail.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I remember that with GNWR's Blackpool application.

A reopened link between Aylesbury and Bletchley could prove useful in case of engineering works south of Bletchley, providing an alternative route to the Pentonville/Euston/Marylebone Road from the WCML. I wondered if an open access operator might choose to try and get a bi-mode application from Marylebone up to the WCML and to points further beyond; undoubtedly pie-in-the-sky stuff, but possibly a way of sneaking additional station stops, such as were removed from the Grand Central application to run to Blackpool (namely Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Crewe and Hartford), through the ORR vetting process.

Running Marylebone-High Wycombe-Aylesbury-Milton Keynes-Tamworth-Lichfield-Crewe-Hartford to a major northern city might make for an extremely lengthy service (and would likely be difficult to path through Little Kimble!) but could be an avenue potentially explored by a company such as Alliance who could argue that they were providing new transport links that were not "predominantly revenue abstractive" to Avanti or London Northwestern. It did cross my mind that they might attempt it, even thought it would be very likely to fail.

two problems capacity north of MKC and Non-primary abstractive test.

 

[backontrack]

two problems capacity north of MKC and Non-primary abstractive test.

Given as Alliance applied to run trains down the SWML to Southampton, I don't think they're concerned about capacity. And surely the entire point of this admittedly bizarre routeing would be to get it past the abstraction test?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Given as Alliance applied to run trains down the SWML to Southampton, I don't think they're concerned about capacity. And surely the entire point of this admittedly bizarre routeing would be to get it past the abstraction test?

There isn't many paths north of Milton Keynes Central (MKC). Depends on the benefits.

 

[backontrack]

There isn't many paths north of Milton Keynes Central (MKC). Depends on the benefits.

Oh, of course there aren't paths – but then that hasn't really stopped open access applications from being made, but from being passed.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Oh, of course there aren't paths – but then that hasn't really stopped applications from being made, only refused.

as soon as an application is made network rail then tries to find paths. It would not stop applications being made even if there are no paths. They can still be refused

 

[backontrack]

as soon as an application is made network rail then tries to find paths. It would not stop applications being made even if there are no paths. They can still be refused

Exactly my point – they might try an application like this was my thinking, and it'd likely get turned down.

 

[si404]

Princes Risborough (or Neasden) - Aylesbury - Bletchley is really rather slow. I don't think Aylesbury-Bletchley would be that quick either.

The Wrexham & Shropshire route to Wolverhampton seems a more logical play if the going to Marylebone is about avoiding the congested southern WCML.

 

[Ianno87]

The various single line sections along the way (e.g. Princes Risborough-Aylesbury) would be a pretty difficult constraint.

 

[MatthewRead]

Wonder what rolling stock would be suited for these services?

 

[Bald Rick]

I couldn't help but wonder...when East-West rail has eventually opened between Aylesbury Vale Parkway and Bletchley...

Does anybody think we'll see the Ian Yeowarts of the world apply to run open access services from Marylebone up the WCML using bi-modes in order to get past ORR abstraction regulations?

Stranger things have happened, after all...

Five main issues:

1) insufficient capacity between Neasden and Marylebone
2) persuading LU to grant track access on their section - AFAIK LU aren’t under an obligation to consider open access in the way NR are
3) insufficient capacity north of Bletchley
4) journey times would be horrendous, it would be at least 1h10 to MK, probably longer.
5) New Open Access has a very bleak future post virus / post Williams review. Even existing open access is going to struggle.

 

[Energy]

Wonder what rolling stock would be suited for these services?

Probably 802s/other class of AT300, the development costs have been taken on by the IEP so AT300s are comparatively cheap and have bimode available. The downsides are the rather high doors.

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn’t Marylebone station operating at full platform capacity anyway? Any extra services require the Old Oak Common planned platforms, but they are just for extra services, not to enable spare platforms at MYB.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Isn’t Marylebone station operating at full platform capacity anyway? Any extra services require the Old Oak Common planned platforms, but they are just for extra services, not to enable spare platforms at MYB.

yes thats the plan. I think it was 4tph down that route and it was only as extra's as Marylebone is at full capacity in both track capacity and passenger capacity

 

[PR1Berske]

A bit more on-topic for the thread, rather than Marylebone it was briefly proposed that Queen's Park could be used for classic WCML open access services but was later found that there was enough capacity for these at Euston even with 2 platforms (17-18) out of use for HS2 construction.

Yes I was going to say, I remember Queen's Park as the initial terminus for the Alliance/Great North Western Open Access service. Much will chop and change between now and the start of both OA and HS2 services around this part of London, no doubt!

 

[The Planner]

yes thats the plan. I think it was 4tph down that route and it was only as extra's as Marylebone is at full capacity in both track capacity and passenger capacity

Some would be diverted out of Marylebone, I seriously doubt the ability to get an extra 4tph north of Ruislip.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Some would be diverted out of Marylebone, I seriously doubt the ability to get an extra 4tph north of Ruislip.

there are plans to four track that sectionby that point as well I think.

 

[Bald Rick]

there are plans to four track that sectionby that point as well I think.

There aren’t, as it would serve no purpose.

 

[cle]

Journey times would be awful. Chiltern are better off with their 'golden triangle' of London, Birmingham and now Oxford - and growing opportunities out of those.

The latter especially has potential to grow (to Stratford/Birmingham, Cowley, EWR if it happens and they can get it) - plus Moor St will have some capacity, earmarked yes, once everything moves through to Snow Hill.

Longer term, wires at each end could really transform both commuter networks. But I can't see anything more running from Marylebone unless something drastic happens at OOC, and those are intended to be extra.