Routes/Services you think should be transferred to a different TOC

[JonathanH]

I wouldn't support this necessarily, but one thing that could be done if it went to LO would be to rejig the layout at Watford and run it to St Albans.

Without a passing loop that isn't going to work and even then it would be unreliable because of the perils of runninh onto a single line - the case for sorting out any sort of through running to St Albans Abbey is non existent. (Mind you, in the current circumstances, it is difficult to see a case for infrastructure spending of any kind unless it saves more running costs than the cost of doing the work over a short-term payback period or is associated with carbon saving.)

 

[Bald Rick]

I wouldn't support this necessarily, but one thing that could be done if it went to LO would be to rejig the layout at Watford and run it to St Albans.

Through running simply isn’t a sensible thing to do for the Abbey line. Indeed running anything at all is looking shaky at present - I used it in peak time this week and every passenger could easily have fit in a mini bus.

 

[cle]

I would say P10 only for those LO services. Anything currently terminating there could head onwards to Tring. Was there not talk of reviving the 5th platform at Hemel also? If Tring is full.

Bletchley could be better used, and will become more of a hub in time. Hopefully with plenty of development too.

 

[JonathanH]

I would say P10 only for those LO services. Anything currently terminating there could head onwards to Tring. Was there not talk of reviving the 5th platform at Hemel also? If Tring is full.

How could Tring be full if it only has to reverse a half hourly service?

The future should all be about making the most of the infrastructure that already exists, given the much lower demand. Hence, Clapham Junction services terminating at Watford Junction, the stopper terminating at Tring (with early services coming into service at Bletchley) and the semi-fast terminating at Milton Keynes / Northampton and everything operating half hourly.

Removing any notion of extra services in (what used to be) the peak is as important as striving towards one operator on as many routes as possible in addressing costs.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Crewe is a Welsh place name.

So (probably) is London.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Through running simply isn’t a sensible thing to do for the Abbey line. Indeed running anything at all is looking shaky at present - I used it in peak time this week and every passenger could easily have fit in a mini bus.

The Abbey line for all sorts of reasons , is at the bottom of it's experience and history at the moment.

Cayonistas love the idea of through running to the branch - but the business the branch generates towards Euston is pretty low I regret to report. A bit from Bricket Wood maybe . A small bit.

In any case , the move from Pf 10 or off the branch towards London , on the up slow . unless materially changed from my day is pretty awkward due to signal spacing and long track circuits.

To get back to the inevitable question on the MK - East Croydon service , an excellent and useful service. Why tamper with it ? - the whole world is not an all stations metro.

 

[JonathanH]

To get back to the inevitable question on the MK - East Croydon service , an excellent and useful service. Why tamper with it ? - the whole world is not an all stations metro.

I can think of plenty of reasons to axe the Milton Keynes to East Croydon service:
1) it involves an operator running many miles off its core network
2) north of Watford that provision simply duplicates the services the incumbent operator provides
3) many of the connections it provides on the wider network can be made via Euston / St Pancras
4) the 377s released can be used to remove old rolling stock on the Southern network
5) LO now has spare 5-car 710s because the services they were bought to provide won't be needed
6) one operator on the West London Line fits the one operator mantra which is an ideal for the railway
7) Southern doesn't need to maintain dual voltage 377s if they no longer operate the route and can isolate the equipment reducing servicing costs

I'm sure there are more. A connection between Watford Junction and Clapham Junction is a useful link on the west of London but it doesn't need to go beyond those points and once cut back doesn't fit with Southern.

 

[PTR 444]

7) Southern doesn't need to maintain dual voltage 377s if they no longer operate the route and can isolate the equipment reducing servicing costs

Though they might be needed again once Uckfield and Marshlink are (eventually) electrified!

 

[JonathanH]

Though they might be needed again once Uckfield and Marshlink are (eventually) electrified!

In that case, transfer of the 377/2s provides the necessary rolling stock. 'Robbing Peter to pay Paul' type strategies are one of the things the railway needs at the moment to reduce overheads and simplify operations.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I can think of plenty of reasons to axe the Milton Keynes to East Croydon service:
1) it involves an operator running many miles off its core network
2) north of Watford that provision simply duplicates the services the incumbent operator provides
3) many of the connections it provides on the wider network can be made via Euston / St Pancras
4) the 377s released can be used to remove old rolling stock on the Southern network
5) LO now has spare 5-car 710s because the services they were bought to provide won't be needed
6) one operator on the West London Line fits the one operator mantra which is an ideal for the railway
7) Southern doesn't need to maintain dual voltage 377s if they no longer operate the route and can isolate the equipment reducing servicing costs

I'm sure there are more. A connection between Watford Junction and Clapham Junction is a useful link on the west of London but it doesn't need to go beyond those points.

We are all entitled to our own views.

Funny really how transformational even Thameslink was in daring to cross the Thames all those years ago - even though "connections to he wider network could be made at the then Kings Cross or Euston"

 

[JonathanH]

Funny really how transformational even Thameslink was in daring to cross the Thames all those years ago - even though "connections to he wider network could be made at the then Kings Cross or Euston"

There is a bit of a difference though isn't there. Thameslink was first predicated on being able to redevelop Holborn Viaduct and reduce the overall train fleet by eliminating turnaround time at London terminals. Even the Thameslink work most recently helped with being able to run longer trains into London without having to provide more platforms at Kings Cross.

Also, all that stuff happened pre-March 2020. I might not have had the same opinions in March 2020 but everything now needs to be about cutting back to a lean, efficient railway which matches passenger capacity to demand and more importantly revenue (plus available subsidy) for the near term. This might include cutting back peripheral operations which equate to duplication.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There is a bit of a difference though isn't there. Thameslink was first predicated on being able to redevelop Holborn Viaduct and reduce the overall train fleet by eliminating turnaround time at London terminals. Even the Thameslink work most recently helped with being able to run longer trains into London without having to provide more platforms at Kings Cross.

Also, all that stuff happened pre-March 2020. I might not have had the same opinions in March 2020 but everything now needs to be about cutting back to a lean, efficient railway which matches passenger capacity to demand and more importantly revenue (plus available subsidy) for the near term. This might include cutting back peripheral operations which equate to duplication.

Thameslink's wider connectivity was a bit more than redeveloping the Holborn Viaduct / what is know City Thameslink "bomb sites" -and a lean , efficient use of rolling stock and paths was a key element. Odd how NSE could see these things for a very modest infrastructure spend coupled with a good new fleet which scrapped a load of worn out stock elsewhere , and cascaded other stock elsewhere to good effect.

In any case , the present operation grew from the ideas of Connex in attempting to bridge the gap from South to North , and I would personally opine what is there now , is a good and valued service. As I said before - we are all entitled to our own views.

 

[tbtc]

TPE's Scotland via WCML route to... Avanti West Coast

I agree. Plus other TPE services as follows:

• ECML services to Newcastle/Middlesbrough to the ECML franchise
• Other Standedge route services to Northern
• Manchester-Cleethorpes to East Midlands Trains

I'd certainly agree with giving the WCML bit of TPE to Avanti and the Cleethorpes service to EMR (or Northern, at a push), the only problem is what to do with the remaining bit (the Leeds routes) - if seems quite small for a stand alone franchise (albeit we've got Caledonian Sleeper/ C2C and previous had franchises like Valley Lines/ Gatwick Express/ Island Line!) - but giving it to Northern would make the already unwieldy Northern franchise even more complicated (I get the hypocrisy of me saying this after mentioning that the Cleethorpes route could go to Northern if it didn't got to EMR, but that's a much smaller route than the six trains per hour at Huddersfield)

Maybe the Lancashire - Huddersfield - East Coast services could be incorporated into XC, if they lost the ex-Central Trains services? Since XC already operate at Manchester, Leeds, York, Newcastle etc there's a good bit of shared mileage/ bases (plus it would be a sneaky way of putting Liverpool back on the XC map, which might quiet that regular grumble!)

(all of this is assuming that franchises carry on broadly similar to as now - many of the other services discussed here may be imperfect but have to be run from somewhere - e.g. Reading - Gatwick was run by the same 165/166s that Thames Trains/ FGW/ GWR ran other Reading-based services with, so their depot at Reading seemed the best place for it, even though it could obviously have been part of SWT/SWR or Southern- the alternative would be to chop more services up at "boundaries", and whilst I'm generally in favour of a "tidier" railway map than a "messier" one, I think that most of the services discussed here are worth retaining, even though we could argue whether they are better operated from one end of the other or even a TOC in the middle)

 

[HamworthyGoods]

all of this is assuming that franchises carry on broadly similar to as now - many of the other services discussed here may be imperfect but have to be run from somewhere - e.g. Reading - Gatwick was run by the same 165/166s that Thames Trains/ FGW/ GWR ran other Reading-based services with, so their depot at Reading seemed the best place for it, even though it could obviously have been part of SWT/SWR or Southern- the alternative would be to chop more services up at "boundaries", and whilst I'm generally in favour of a "tidier" railway map than a "messier" one, I think that most of the services discussed here are worth retaining, even though we could argue whether they are better operated from one end of the other or even a TOC in the middle)

Indeed, couldn’t agree more.
It is often quoted the North Downs would better be run by SWR but they only have limited stabling facilities at Guildford that are already full every night and nothing at the Reading end with many trains going ECS to/from Farnham CSD this would be non-sensical.

Having the service run largely from the Reading end where it can be serviced by the adjacent depot makes far more sense!

 

[sk688]

I do often think the Pompey-Cardiff & Brighton-Malvern routes would be better off under XC ? , but that one might be a bit contentious

 

[JonathanH]

I do often think the Pompey-Cardiff & Brighton-Malvern routes would be better off under XC ? , but that one might be a bit contentious

In what sense would they be better off? It is difficult to see what Cross Country would bring to those routes. Brighton / Weymouth to Malvern is a stopping service.

Having said that, if we were looking for one operator around Cheltenham, perhaps by binning through London services, XC could run Bristol to Gloucester / Malvern, Swindon to Cheltenham and Newport to Gloucester locals alongside their longer distance services.

Is that what was driving your thinking?

 

[sk688]

In what sense would they be better off? It is difficult to see what Cross Country would bring to those routes. Brighton / Weymouth to Malvern is a stopping service.

Having said that, if we were looking for one operator around Cheltenham, perhaps by binning through London services, XC could run Bristol to Gloucester / Malvern, Swindon to Cheltenham and Newport to Gloucester locals alongside their longer distance services.

Is that what was driving your thinking?

My thinking was more along the lines of the length of the routes and the journey times , as well as the fact that they do cover quite a wide geographical area (Brighton/Pompey and the Solent is hardly GWR territory)

A franchise similar to regional railways privatisation would be best for services like these imo , although could be a financial basket case

Can't see binning the Cheltenhams being too popular !

 

[DelW]

I can think of plenty of reasons to axe the Milton Keynes to East Croydon service:
1) it involves an operator running many miles off its core network
2) north of Watford that provision simply duplicates the services the incumbent operator provides
3) many of the connections it provides on the wider network can be made via Euston / St Pancras
4) the 377s released can be used to remove old rolling stock on the Southern network
5) LO now has spare 5-car 710s because the services they were bought to provide won't be needed
6) one operator on the West London Line fits the one operator mantra which is an ideal for the railway
7) Southern doesn't need to maintain dual voltage 377s if they no longer operate the route and can isolate the equipment reducing servicing costs

I'm sure there are more. A connection between Watford Junction and Clapham Junction is a useful link on the west of London but it doesn't need to go beyond those points and once cut back doesn't fit with Southern.

It provides a useful service for leisure travellers between the WCML and the southern home counties and south coast. If you have luggage (and may not be too nimble on your feet), then changing at MKC and CLJ is far preferable to hauling said luggage up and down multiple escalators to and from the Northern or Victoria Line. For those users it needs to go to MKC as Avanti have cut out so many Watford Junction calls.

Indeed, couldn’t agree more.
It is often quoted the North Downs would better be run by SWR but they only have limited stabling facilities at Guildford that are already full every night and nothing at the Reading end with many trains going ECS to/from Farnham CSD this would be non-sensical.

Having the service run largely from the Reading end where it can be serviced by the adjacent depot makes far more sense!

IIRC the North Downs line operation was transferred to Western Region in the 1970s largely because they had DMUs from Reading available to replace the inadequate cobbled together one-and-a-half-coach Tadpole units that Southern Region had used. If the money had been available no doubt SR could have procured more modern stock to run the line, but presumably transferring the operation to WR was cheaper.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Now East Midlands Rail has 170's I think the Birmingham-Stanstead service should transfer from XC along with XC 170's. EMR could improve the Birmingham-Leicester journey time by running the Stanstead service with one stop at Nuneaton and extending the Ivanhoe service from Leicester to Birmingham to pick up stops at smaller stations.

XC could have displaced 222's for Nottingham-Cardiff services.

 

[Sm5]

Southern

Victoria to Epsom Downs removed, Overground extended from West Croydon to Epsom Downs.

Thameslink
St Albans to Sutton removed from Wimbledon loop, instead divert to Epsom (or even Horsham).

Southern
Victoria to Sutton / Wimbledon loop via Wallington.

increases frequency on the Wallington and Wimbledon loop lines, gives Croydon-Wimbledon a direct train once more, takes some load off Northern / District towards London by removing Thameslink from its ghost trains from Streatham to Wimbledon (too slow to London, even when compared to the tube) it gives a faster route to Clapham & Victoria from Tooting, plus
it brings Epsom to a direct to central / north London route.

All pre-covid… post covid I wonder if Epsom Downs / Wimbledon loop even has a future.

 

[Chiltern006]

I've often found the line from Reading down to Gatwick Airport rather isolated from the rest of the GWR network.

Would probably make a bit more sense with South Western Railway, but as per the example in post #3, this likely won't ever happen unless the whole thing gets electrified.

Special mention to the Southern service to Milton Keynes too - also very isolated from the rest of the network. But don't know which operator would make the most sense to operate that route...

Thameslink would be best for MKC imo

 

[Kremlin Stooge]

I do often think the Pompey-Cardiff & Brighton-Malvern routes would be better off under XC ? , but that one might be a bit contentious

Not necessarily to XC but I would definitely prefer these (as well as the Weymouths, and the Bristol locals) to go back to the original franchise arrangement of being separate from the Great Western mainline services to and from London. Whenever there is delay or disruption the service doesn’t appear to get the management attention needed.

While we’re at it, strip out the London - Salisbury - Exeter service from South Western and include it with a ‘Severn and Solent’ franchise. The DMU’s operating all these routes are from the same generation and will all need replacing in a similar time frame, whether by extended electrification, hybrids, battery or bionic duckweed power.

 

[JonathanH]

While we’re at it, strip out the London - Salisbury - Exeter service from South Western and include it with a ‘Severn and Solent’ franchise. The DMU’s operating all these routes are from the same generation and will all need replacing in a similar time frame, whether by extended electrification, hybrids, battery or bionic duckweed power.

Maybe if they started at Basingstoke. I dont think anyone thinks two operators at Waterloo would be a good idea.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2021 ==

Thameslink would be best for MKC imo

It really is quite difficult to see why. East Croydon to Milton Keynes is entirely out of their area except at East Croydon and for the fact that night services use the line between East Croydon and Streatham Common.

On the other hand, it could be somewhere the spare 700s released by service cuts get sent to operate (but would the East Croydon to Milton Keynes service avoid corresponding cuts - I don't think it would).

 

[Clansman]

Caledonian Sleeper.

Keep the dedicated Sleeper branding and the marketing as is, but integrate it back with ScotRail operationally.

I suspect the franchise was to minimise the subsidy during the modernisation of the service and minimise the costs. Would hedge a bet on it going back to ScotRail when the current franchise expires.

 

[JamesT]

Caledonian Sleeper.

Keep the dedicated Sleeper branding and the marketing as is, but integrate it back with ScotRail operationally.

I suspect the franchise was to minimise the subsidy during the modernisation of the service and minimise the costs. Would hedge a bet on it going back to ScotRail when the current franchise expires.

Wasn’t the thinking behind the split that the sleeper gets somewhat neglected being a small part of a large franchise, whereas being its own franchise it has dedicated management? What would prevent that happening again if it was integrated? Is there any indication Transport Scotland have changed their minds about this?

 

[30907]

Southern

Victoria to Epsom Downs removed, Overground extended from West Croydon to Epsom Downs.

Does LO have units to spare for this?

Thameslink
St Albans to Sutton removed from Wimbledon loop, instead divert to Epsom (or even Horsham).

Every 15?

Southern
Victoria to Sutton / Wimbledon loop via Wallington.

increases frequency on the Wallington and Wimbledon loop lines,

How?

gives Croydon-Wimbledon a direct train once more,

Slower than the tram!

takes some load off Northern / District towards London by removing Thameslink from its ghost trains from Streatham to Wimbledon (too slow to London, even when compared to the tube) it gives a faster route to Clapham & Victoria from Tooting, plus it brings Epsom to a direct to central / north London route.

Are you running Wimbledon-Tooting-Vic? Surely London Br would be better?

BTW WCR-WIM via Sutton introduces conflict at Sutton.

 

[adrock1976]

1) Kirkby - Wigan Wallgate, and Ormskirk - Preston from Northern to Merseyrail.

Both routes to initially use the battery capabilities of the 777s, and would also have a Sunday Service too for the first time in a good number of years. Liverpool - Preston via Ormskirk is the shortest route.

2) The Caledonian Sleeper to be incorporated with the InterCity West Coast franchise, as assuming the London Terminal will always normally be Euston, the depots at Wembley and Polmadie can look after the stock.

 

[Clansman]

Wasn’t the thinking behind the split that the sleeper gets somewhat neglected being a small part of a large franchise, whereas being its own franchise it has dedicated management? What would prevent that happening again if it was integrated? Is there any indication Transport Scotland have changed their minds about this?

That depends on what you mean by 'neglected'.

Under ScotRail, the only neglect in the service was that Mk2s and Mk3s were allowed to be thrashed up and down the Highlands and WCML as long as they were.

But the main advantage was that there were no dedicated crews, and so Aberdeen/Inverness/Perth/Dundee/Edinburgh/Glasgow Central/Dalmuir/Fort William all signed them - as well as the fact that there were more berths per coach which, during busier seasons, allowed for every last penny to be extracted by discounted rates (re 'bargain berths').

I am skeptical as to whether reducing the number of berths in exchange for better facilities (ie showers and double beds) at an increased price would have improved the uptake financially, but perhaps with the way some services were going (such as Aberdeen's decline in demand and Fort William's tourist market increase) it was a gamble worth taking to revolutionise the service.

Pre-Serco money was always needing pumped into the service to keep it going, including multi million quid stock and marketing enhancements to keep the service attractive. But with the ScotRail franchise it was part of spanning 2005-2015, any investment that was later realised to be needed on top of that would need to have needed to be fully funded by the Scottish Government and not by the franchisee. Hence why casting it off to its own franchise with its own dedicated contract and 15 year strategic plan allows, in theory, the private sector to take a brunt of the costs in the enhancements needed without the ScotRail franchise - which was being tendered for 2015 - asking too much of bidders so as to reduce the benefit to daytime services.

Whether in the long term, as the dust settles post Mk5s, the service stands a better chance under private ownership - I really doubt it.

That's as far as my thinking takes me. Although one thing is for certain, and it is that there is a consensus amongst front line staff that the service worked far better as part of ScotRail - regardless as to how tatty things got towards 2015.

 

[JonathanH]

2) The Caledonian Sleeper to be incorporated with the InterCity West Coast franchise, as assuming the London Terminal will always normally be Euston, the depots at Wembley and Polmadie can look after the stock.

The stock is already looked after by Alstom at Wembley and Polmadie. Nothing to do with InterCity West Coast.

Presumably GBRF would still have to provide drivers and locomotives so the only thing that the InterCity West Coast franchise would provide is guards.

Too peripheral to the day job really.

 

[nw1]

Assuming we can't combine franchises:

Birmingham to Scotland back to XC. This would allow through working from the south, ideally with bi-modes but Voyagers would do for now.

Contentiously, Waterloo-Exeter and Salisbury-Romsey-Southampton locals to GW, with all the 159s and 158s as well as the Salisbury depot transferred. Seems a bit strange to have this diesel microservice pattern on an electric TOC, while if these went to GW, it might allow more through working, eg the Dunbridge and Dean service could run through to say Swindon as a Trans Wilts route, or some Waterloo-Exeters could continue on to say Plymouth, Paignton or Barnstaple.

Might also make it easier to run the Waterloo-Exeter fast from Honiton to Exeter Central if all run in one franchise, with the small stops running as an additional hourly Honiton-Exeter local?