Grand Union Trains bought by First Group?

[Meerkat]

The proposed 802s are going to be maintained by Hitachi at North Pole and Stoke Gifford.
Is there really capacity for that, both physically and engineering wise - I got the impression they were struggling to turn out GWRs units to spec?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Its interesting that its a different legal name to the existing Lumo & proposed Rochdale services which is East Coast Trains Limited vs the Carmathan and Paignton services being First Rail Wales and Western Limited. Is the Stirling service also likely to be Lumo?

Yes, but it is another legal name. Lumo is the FG one class OA brand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2024 ==

The proposed 802s are going to be maintained by Hitachi at North Pole and Stoke Gifford.
Is there really capacity for that, both physically and engineering wise - I got the impression they were struggling to turn out GWRs units to spec?

Where Hitachi will maintain them is up to them. These are indicative locations pending FG and Hitachi finalising the details of the TSA, if track access is granted by the ORR.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Yes, but it is another legal name. Lumo is the FG one class OA brand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2024 ==



Where Hitachi will maintain them is up to them. These are indicative locations pending FG and Hitachi finalising the details of the TSA, if track access is granted by the ORR.

Is it likely Stirling operations will become Lumo?

 

[stevieinselby]

Torbay is a big town in its own right, I suspect the local outbound market is much more important than the inbound tourist market now. I'd definitely use a lumo service from Paignton to London, over driving to Totnes for GWR.

How about the 3 daily GWR trains that already run from Paignton to London, or the 1–2 trains per hour you can get by catching a local train from Paignton and changing at Exeter? I am not sure why Totnes comes into it at all...

 

[renegademaster]

the upgrade price is reasonable enough,

You'll get to the point where the upgraded price < 2 standard seats. It's true for Greater Anglia , they probably only have it because their franchise terms say they have to

 

[BayPaul]

How about the 3 daily GWR trains that already run from Paignton to London, or the 1–2 trains per hour you can get by catching a local train from Paignton and changing at Exeter? I am not sure why Totnes comes into it at all...

I have to drive anyway to reach a station, so I may as well go for Totnes, despite it being a slightly longer drive, for a regular direct train.
With a more regular lumo service, Paignton would become my first choice. Especially if prices are better than GWR

 

[vuzzeho]

If First Groups contract for GWR continues until it’s official end date of 25th June 2028, as upposed to it’s “core term” expirey date, then they cannot run the Carmathen services as this would be competing against themselves. Surely this would be against the competition rules?

I know we've moved past this (sorry) but... can FG terminate their contract early?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Is it likely Stirling operations will become Lumo?

Stirling will become Lumo.

I know we've moved past this (sorry) but... can FG terminate their contract early?

No. The decision is only made by the DfT but they are going to terminate the GWR contract well before Carmarthen starts. They need to - they are paying out a lot of money in fees!

 

[brad465]

This may have been mentioned already in this mixed up thread, but more Paignton services, if approved, would also improve the overall capacity through Devon and Somerset, on a route which is struggling with available rolling stock on both GWR and XC, especially on the Bath/Bristol-Taunton-Exeter section. It's a shame though that Bridgwater is being ignored, as this is a growing large town that only has an hourly local service, so could do with more services (although maybe this was left off as it could overload demand relative to capacity).

 

[fireincairo]

On the South Wales services - whilst the "competition" with the current TOC will be useful, the loss of the proposed enhanced interior layouts with 2+1 in standard is a shame. Whether that was just a pipe dream from GU or they had modelled it to be profitable who knows..

I've also been wondering about platform lengths at Severn Tunnel and places like Gowerton, would that constrict the number of coaches to 5 as in the current ECML trains, similar to the GWR splitting services? Or is that just due to loadings on the GWR services.

 

[Pete_uk]

We really need to move beyond 5 carriage train on long distance/ 'intercity' services.

 

[Mainliner]

We really need to move beyond 5 carriage train on long distance/ 'intercity' services.

…although Lumo appear to have got it right on the ECML, with most trains being well or fully loaded (but not overloaded), which has probably encouraged FG to try to repeat the formula on other routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

…although Lumo appear to have got it right on the ECML, with most trains being well or fully loaded (but not overloaded), which has probably encouraged FG to try to repeat the formula on other routes.

In profit terms much better to turn people away and run full creating artificial scarcity and thus higher prices - that works for Lumo (and "Eurostar Red") but isn't necessarily best use of a taxpayer funded resource.

 

[LUYMun]

From this month's edition of RAIL Magazine (no. 1025; pages 6 and 7), Ian Yeowart has resurrected his Grand Southern Railway idea, this time as an Open Access Operation on the Fawley branch, reopening Marchwood station and have alternate trains continuing to/from London. This rendition is being planned under his Alliance Rail company.

Excerpts from the article:

Alliance Rail (Southern) is starting an industry consultation to run an hourly service between Marchwood and Southampton Central, with every other train continuing to London Waterloo. All trains would call at Totton, while intermediate stops to Waterloo would be Southampton Airport Parkway, Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke and Hook. Additional stops at Woking and Wimbledon are also being considered.
(...)
Alliance Rail intends to use Class 769 DC/diesel bi-mode units with 2+2 Standard and 2+1 First seating. A single four-car set would be used between Southampton and Marchwood, while pairs working as eight-car trains would travel to Waterloo. In total, a fleet of eight sets would be needed, leased from Porterbrook (which is already undertaking gauging work).

Alliance Rail has submitted its form to Network Rail for internal consultation in mid-December. A seven-year access period is being requested. If approved, Alliance Rail has a three-phase plan, beginning with reopening the disused Marchwood station. After that, it would look to relocate to a site where a car park can be added, before bringing the rest of the line up to scratch and extending to Hythe and Fawley.

 

[800001]

From this month's edition of RAIL Magazine (no. 1025; pages 6 and 7), Ian Yeowart has resurrected his Grand Southern Railway idea, this time as an Open Access Operation on the Fawley branch, reopening Marchwood station and have alternate trains continuing to/from London. This rendition is being planned under his Alliance Rail company.

Excerpts from the article:

So that will be another for First Group to purchase if and when Grand Southern gets authorised.

 

[swt_passenger]

From this month's edition of RAIL Magazine (no. 1025; pages 6 and 7), Ian Yeowart has resurrected his Grand Southern Railway idea, this time as an Open Access Operation on the Fawley branch, reopening Marchwood station and have alternate trains continuing to/from London. This rendition is being planned under his Alliance Rail company.

Excerpts from the article:

If anyone doesn’t already know, this proposal has its own thread here:

New Open Access Application: London - Southampton - Marchwood

Lengthy article in The Times today about why Alex Hynes is a leading contender to be GB Railway's first CEO. But tucked away at the end of the article is this interesting development...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[185]

FirstGroup couldn't run a train past 8.15pm tonight on their flagship London-Manchester service - the line was open, other operators were running on the entire length of it. (Stoke Route).

Open access should be banned if the applicants can't even commit to run their contracted services.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Your hatred of FG knows no bounds - FG aren’t contracted to run services through engineering blocks!

With the ongoing work at Crewe, NR has been co-ordinating services all over the North West but the Stoke route wasn’t open to passenger traffic all night (effectively the cut off time was a 2300 arrival at Stoke) so the last train you mentioned was the last train that Avanti could run via Stoke.

I believe there were a couple of LM ECS workings that went through after 2300 but that was it until the route re-opened to traffic mid morning.

 

[Towers]

So that will be another for First Group to purchase if and when Grand Southern gets authorised.

This is very much the future shape of Britain’s rail network I suspect, unless GBR/government chooses to find a mechanism to slow down an inevitable explosion of Open Access operations across any profitable route. It’ll certainly be interesting to see what the response is, but an influx of private operators on a newly nationalised network will certainly be a rather curious concept!

 

[Bungle965]

FirstGroup couldn't run a train past 8.15pm tonight on their flagship London-Manchester service - the line was open, other operators were running on the entire length of it. (Stoke Route).

Open access should be banned if the applicants can't even commit to run their contracted services.

Your hatred of FG knows no bounds - FG aren’t contracted to run services through engineering blocks!

With the ongoing work at Crewe, NR has been co-ordinating services all over the North West but the Stoke route wasn’t open to passenger traffic all night (effectively the cut off time was a 2300 arrival at Stoke) so the last train you mentioned was the last train that Avanti could run via Stoke.

I believe there were a couple of LM ECS workings that went through after 2300 but that was it until the route re-opened to traffic mid morning.

There was an idea to run later services in the week from Manchester to London and I'm pretty sure it was one of the reasons the 23:00 from Euston was sacrificed. It never materialised however.

Veering off topic now admittedly.

 

[800001]

This is very much the future shape of Britain’s rail network I suspect, unless GBR/government chooses to find a mechanism to slow down an inevitable explosion of Open Access operations across any profitable route. It’ll certainly be interesting to see what the response is, but an influx of private operators on a newly nationalised network will certainly be a rather curious concept!

Maybe that is what they want!
Private operators put all money in and take all the risk.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

So that will be another for First Group to purchase if and when Grand Southern gets authorised.

Do you really expect First to want to tarnish their rapidly rising Lumo brand with a service ran with 769s of all things? I suppose by the time they did that they might order some form of replacement, a bi mode DC 385 variant if their brotherhood with Hitachi is anything to go by.

 

[800001]

Do you really expect First to want to tarnish their rapidly rising Lumo brand with a service ran with 769s of all things? I suppose by the time they did that they might order some form of replacement, a bi mode DC 385 variant if their brotherhood with Hitachi is anything to go by.

No not 769, but by the time this does or if it reaches fruition, another roc may have an order for dc stock, that first could tag an order on to.
Southeastern currently out to tender? Be interesting to see which companies bid.

 

[185]

Your hatred of FG knows no bounds - FG aren’t contracted to run services through engineering blocks!

With the ongoing work at Crewe, NR has been co-ordinating services all over the North West but the Stoke route wasn’t open to passenger traffic all night (effectively the cut off time was a 2300 arrival at Stoke) so the last train you mentioned was the last train that Avanti could run via Stoke.

There were no engineering blocks on that particular route. Trains had run all day London-Stoke-Manchester.

A 2015 departure off Euston does not add up to 2300 at Stoke. Stoke is 73 or 90 mins away with stops. Clearly, alongside the landslip, there's also a black hole slowing the universe down in the field near Polesworth.

- Avanti did abandon one of the nation's most important services over an hour earlier than they should have. No strike, no excuse.

Their intentional damage to DfT contracted services should be enough to ban FirstGroup from bidding to run any competing private service which will financially benefit from their disgraceful shortcomings at Avanti. It's very clear - a serious conflict of interest.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Your hatred of FG knows no bounds - FG aren’t contracted to run services through engineering blocks!

With the ongoing work at Crewe, NR has been co-ordinating services all over the North West but the Stoke route wasn’t open to passenger traffic all night (effectively the cut off time was a 2300 arrival at Stoke) so the last train you mentioned was the last train that Avanti could run via Stoke.

I believe there were a couple of LM ECS workings that went through after 2300 but that was it until the route re-opened to traffic mid morning.

Does anyone like First Group, really?

 

[Clarence Yard]

There were no engineering blocks on that particular route. Trains had run all day London-Stoke-Manchester.

A 2015 departure off Euston does not add up to 2300 at Stoke. Stoke is 73 or 90 mins away with stops. Clearly, alongside the landslip, there's also a black hole slowing the universe down in the field near Polesworth.

- Avanti did abandon one of the nation's most important services over an hour earlier than they should have. No strike, no excuse.

Their intentional damage to DfT contracted services should be enough to ban FirstGroup from bidding to run any competing private service which will financially benefit from their disgraceful shortcomings at Avanti. It's very clear - a serious conflict of interest.

You are wrong, again. Stoke after approx. 2300 on a Saturday night is meant to be a no trains period. It shouldn’t open up again for traffic until the following morning. Other days of the week (with the Crewe block on) it’s currently a 24 hour railway. A 2115 departure off Euston puts it after 2300 at Stoke (2310 to 2315 approx.) and NR were not going to wear that - having to keep the whole route open for that one train? Please read the EAS for route 5009, look at the section closure times for Sat night/Sunday morning and you can instantly see the issue.

Intentional damage to an DfT contracted service? You do realise that if NR legally won’t give you the route or the access after a certain time, that’s it? The contract with the DfT doesn’t mean you can force your way in. The DfT doesn’t insist you run a normal service over a bank holiday period either.

Operating an OAO after you have handed back the management keys on a management only DfT operation is not a conflict of interest. If it was the CMA would be down on FG like a ton of bricks. Nobody at FG who were connected with Avanti knew what was coming. Same with the Carmarthen/Paignton operation and GWR.

You want punitive action on FG because you personally hate them. Your posts all over this forum have given us enough clues on that score. That’s the real reason.

 

[357]

You are wrong, again. Stoke after approx. 2300 on a Saturday night is meant to be a no trains period. It shouldn’t open up again for traffic until the following morning. Other days of the week (with the Crewe block on) it’s currently a 24 hour railway. A 2115 departure off Euston puts it after 2300 at Stoke (2310 to 2315 approx.) and NR were not going to wear that - having to keep the whole route open for that one train? Please read the EAS for route 5009, look at the section closure times for Sat night/Sunday morning and you can instantly see the issue.

Intentional damage to an DfT contracted service? You do realise that if NR legally won’t give you the route or the access after a certain time, that’s it? The contract with the DfT doesn’t mean you can force your way in. The DfT doesn’t insist you run a normal service over a bank holiday period either.

Operating an OAO after you have handed back the management keys on a management only DfT operation is not a conflict of interest. If it was the CMA would be down on FG like a ton of bricks. Nobody at FG who were connected with Avanti knew what was coming. Same with the Carmarthen/Paignton operation and GWR.

You want punitive action on FG because you personally hate them. Your posts all over this forum have given us enough clues on that score. That’s the real reason.

Fortunately these people don't run the railway.

I've witnessed a little bit of the requirements for a management contract to train drivers of an open access operator, and it honestly makes me laugh at some of the conspiracy theories posted on here.

Keep up the good work, @Clarence Yard

 

[The Planner]

There were no engineering blocks on that particular route. Trains had run all day London-Stoke-Manchester.

A 2015 departure off Euston does not add up to 2300 at Stoke. Stoke is 73 or 90 mins away with stops. Clearly, alongside the landslip, there's also a black hole slowing the universe down in the field near Polesworth.

- Avanti did abandon one of the nation's most important services over an hour earlier than they should have. No strike, no excuse.

Their intentional damage to DfT contracted services should be enough to ban FirstGroup from bidding to run any competing private service which will financially benefit from their disgraceful shortcomings at Avanti. It's very clear - a serious conflict of interest.

2018 is the last Manchester via Stoke in the WTT. Gets through at 2210. The 2101 off Euston goes via Crewe. Colwich to Stone is blocked from 2210 on a Saturday night.

 

[Class15]

You are wrong, again. Stoke after approx. 2300 on a Saturday night is meant to be a no trains period. It shouldn’t open up again for traffic until the following morning. Other days of the week (with the Crewe block on) it’s currently a 24 hour railway. A 2115 departure off Euston puts it after 2300 at Stoke (2310 to 2315 approx.) and NR were not going to wear that - having to keep the whole route open for that one train? Please read the EAS for route 5009, look at the section closure times for Sat night/Sunday morning and you can instantly see the issue.

I too am unconvinced that Euston-Stoke takes that long. Is the real issue that it is too risky in the case of delays and that it is not a risk worth taking?

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, it’s the section opening times. Have a look at 1H42 (2016 off Euston) for last Saturday night, add an hour and you will see what we mean.

Usually there is a bit of leeway built into the EAS times, to cater for late running trains (which is why NR don’t like to timetable any passenger train past 2300 at Stoke on a Saturday night) but the real problem here is the presentation time at Colwich. By the time any 2116 would turn up, the route is shut. It would be shut for a 2046 too.