GNWR application to Network Rail

[Eagle]

So I was browsing the Track Access requests on Network Rail's website (which are now accessed via the tiny link that says "documents"), seeing what changes might be coming up at the next timetable when I found Alliance Rail's official application for GNWR.

Euston–Leeds/Bradford

Euston–Blackpool/Barrow and Carlisle

Basically they seem to be saying they know there's a tenth IC path per hour possible between London and Crewe and they want it reserved for their West Yorks services, and that at the next WCML recast find more slots for their Cumbria services. This seems a bit premature and must be timed to predate the upcoming ICWC refranchising. I'm still unconvinced by their claim to be building all their own ultramodern bimodal tilting trains in time for services in December 2013 (and I still can't work out where the money's coming from).

I would love to see GNWR eventually run these routes at the proposed levels (1tp2h Leeds, 1tp2h Bradford, 5tpd Blackpool, 3tpd Barrow and Carlisle), but this seems to be too much too fast at the moment.

Thoughts? Can they pull this off or are they being way too ambitious?

 

[AlterEgo]

I find most of Alliance Rail's proposals very ambitious indeed - but I thought that about Grand Central some years ago too!

They mention using new rolling stock in 2013 - what form will this take? Surely it won't be ready from the outset - will they be starting off with loco hauled services?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

So I was browsing the Track Access requests on Network Rail's website (which are now accessed via the tiny link that says "documents"), seeing what changes might be coming up at the next timetable when I found Alliance Rail's official application for GNWR.

Euston–Leeds/Bradford

Euston–Blackpool/Barrow and Carlisle

Basically they seem to be saying they know there's a tenth IC path per hour possible between London and Crewe and they want it reserved for their West Yorks services, and that at the next WCML recast find more slots for their Cumbria services. This seems a bit premature and must be timed to predate the upcoming ICWC refranchising. I'm still unconvinced by their claim to be building all their own ultramodern bimodal tilting trains in time for services in December 2013 (and I still can't work out where the money's coming from).

I would love to see GNWR eventually run these routes at the proposed levels (1tp2h Leeds, 1tp2h Bradford, 5tpd Blackpool, 3tpd Barrow and Carlisle), but this seems to be too much too fast at the moment.

Thoughts? Can they pull this off or are they being way too ambitious?

CSRE and CSR have been supporting Alliance for some time and the Polaris design is very well advanced. Don't worry about the time-scales, they are being well managed by the involved parties.

 

[anthony263]

perhaps they are, although that said they did have their proposal rejected a few months agao togetehr with grand central although they must havs some hope as they are talking to some manufacturers about orderinga fleet of Bi-mode trains.

Grand central did look at ordering some CSRE polaris trains a few years agao but that has gone very quiet and there has been rumours flying around that CSRE may build a protoype polaris train to trial in the uk not sure what is happening with that though i do wish them luck

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Alliance have plans to operate two-hourly services, according to this document, on two main west and east routes, from London Euston, commencing in the December 2013 timetable, utilising path capacity that could not be found in the December 2011 timetable.

In this posting, I only refer to the transpennine sections of the proposed two routes, viz:-

Euston to Leeds, via Stockport, Guide Bridge and Dewsbury

Euston to Bradford Interchange, via Newton-le-Willows and Rochdale

Section 18 refers to the Monday to Friday service and Section 17 refers to the weekend service. There is a section footnote that states the contract is for a period of five years, commencing with the principal changes commencing in December 2013.

There has been much debate on this forum concerning transpennine service provision and I wonder if forum members would also comment on these services using path availability on both the Caldervale line and the Standedge line that will be required, considering existing proposals in the pipeline of a recent RUS document concerning transpennnine routes, as this proposal surely cannot be considered in isolation.

 

[185]

Good luck to them, competition and choice is always good

The disgraceful monopoly on the West Coast has gone on for too long. I bet the same people who tried to prevent Grand Central from happening will desperately try to stop them again, ATOC & the TOCs the ORR, NR etc.

The only people who don't get listened to are the people who subsidise all those quangos and businesses, us - the taxpayer.

 

[The Planner]

Alliance have plans to operate two-hourly services, according to this document, on two main west and east routes, from London Euston, commencing in the December 2013 timetable, utilising path capacity that could not be found in the December 2011 timetable.

I was under the impression the ORR told them to bog off on the Blackpool runs they wanted on abstraction issues, the paths were there.

 

[tbtc]

If there's an additional path on the WCML it really ought to be for Liverpool, no offence to people in Stalybridge etc.

In fact, the proposal to run from Stockport to Stalybridge would mean the "Parliamentary" service might not be needed any longer?

 

[Eagle]

In fact, the proposal to run from Stockport to Stalybridge would mean the "Parliamentary" service might not be needed any longer?

Then what would happen to Reddish South and Denton? GNWR certainly won't stop there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Then what would happen to Reddish South and Denton? GNWR certainly won't stop there.

Would the line from Stockport to Guide Bridge need much in the way of upgrading should a regular passenger service be introduced?

I should imagine the tight curve at the junction when leaving Guide Bridge to go to Stalybridge would be as unpopular with a new train company as it currently is with First TPE. One good thing to come out of the Ordsall Chord project is the fact that the line at Miles Platting junction via Ashton under Lyne would be used instead of the current one via Guide Bridge.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Would the line from Stockport to Guide Bridge need much in the way of upgrading should a regular passenger service be introduced?

I should imagine the tight curve at the junction when leaving Guide Bridge to go to Stalybridge would be as unpopular with a new train company as it currently is with First TPE. One good thing to come out of the Ordsall Chord project is the fact that the line at Miles Platting junction via Ashton under Lyne would be used instead of the current one via Guide Bridge.

Is there any proposal in the Ordsall Chord / Northern Hub scheme to add any more through lines at Piccadilly? If not, Platforms 13 & 14 will become an even greater bottleneck than they have been for at least the past 30 years.

 

[ukrob]

Yes, 15 and 16.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the National Rail document "Manchester Hub Rail Study" that was recently published, on page 49, there is reference to this matter under 5.11.4 (Cross Manchester Flows) which states:-

On the Castlefield corridor, provision of two new through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly immediately south of the existing platforms 13 and 14, hence known as 15 and 16, allows trains to arrive in one platform whilst another train is departing in the same direction from another.

This intervention with minor works at Manchester Oxford Road to operate in the same manner increases the effective capacity to allow trains to be planned to run three minutes apart, rather than the existing four minutes apart.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

In the National Rail document "Manchester Hub Rail Study" that was recently published, on page 49, there is reference to this matter under 5.11.4 (Cross Manchester Flows) which states:-

On the Castlefield corridor, provision of two new through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly immediately south of the existing platforms 13 and 14, hence known as 15 and 16, allows trains to arrive in one platform whilst another train is departing in the same direction from another.

This intervention with minor works at Manchester Oxford Road to operate in the same manner increases the effective capacity to allow trains to be planned to run three minutes apart, rather than the existing four minutes apart.

So, the answer to my original question (additional through lines), is in fact no. This is particularly relevant to Alliance, who have no desire to (and would not be allowed to, as they would be accused of being ORCATS raiders) stop at Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[simonmpoulton]

With the current financial status of Europe in general at present I am absolutely appalled that any operator in this country would even consider giving more money off to China when we have lay-offs at Derby and numerous other financial problems across the EU. Keep the new stock orders within Europe imo and forget this CSRE nonsense.

 

[anthony263]

With the current financial status of Europe in general at present I am absolutely appalled that any operator in this country would even consider giving more money off to China when we have lay-offs at Derby and numerous other financial problems across the EU. Keep the new stock orders within Europe imo and forget this CSRE nonsense.

But what If CSRE go ahead a build a factory in the UK as they have stated they are interested in doing?

There would have been layoff at Derby anyway, and in some respect Bombardier are at fault for some things.

Hopefully Bombardier will win the crossrail contract

 

[ainsworth74]

Hopefully Bombardier will win the crossrail contract

I would put a fiver on Bombardier winning Crossrail

 

[northwichcat]

(and I still can't work out where the money's coming from).

DB own a stake in Alliance Rail.

Then what would happen to Reddish South and Denton? GNWR certainly won't stop there.

Network Rail have put in an application to close Reddish South, based on the fact that Reddish is not large enough to have two stations and there is very few passengers using Reddish South (as there is no real service.) However, running a regular service between Reddish and Stockport could move a lot of passengers from buses to rail.

It does, however, leave the issue of Denton. Maybe Alliance could be persuaded to stop one Saturday service in each direction there, which would be be an improvement on the current situation and would then eliminate the need for the parliamentary.

 

[Eagle]

DB own a stake in Alliance Rail.

To put it more accurately, Arriva own a stake in Alliance.

 

[northwichcat]

Revised route map for GNWR on page 7 here: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...wcmltrackaccessrightsconsultationdocument.pdf

 

[Eagle]

Revised route map for GNWR on page 7 here: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...wcmltrackaccessrightsconsultationdocument.pdf

It mainly seems to be adding more station calls. The differences are as follows:

• Calls at Milton Keynes rather than Kings Langley
• Calls at Rugby and Lichfield in addition to ones at Nuneaton and Tamworth
• Some Leeds trains diverted via Macclesfield rather than Alderley Edge, and seem to terminate at Stockport
• Leeds services call at Stalybridge rather than Guide Bridge
• Bradford, Blackpool and Cumbria services call additionally at Warrington
• Bradford services call additionally at Todmorden
• Blackpool servies call additionally at Poulton-le-Fylde
• Cumbria services call additionally at Millom

 

[Skimble19]

With the current financial status of Europe in general at present I am absolutely appalled that any operator in this country would even consider giving more money off to China when we have lay-offs at Derby and numerous other financial problems across the EU. Keep the new stock orders within Europe imo and forget this CSRE nonsense.

What a load of drivel.. For one, what product does Derby offer that could possibly compete with the Polaris? A 125/140mph EPS dual-powered Turbostar - I'll pass on that ta! Quite why "numerous other financial problems across the EU" should stop a private company ordering trains that happen to be designed by a Chinese company I would love to know.. :roll:

I would put a fiver on Bombardier winning Crossrail

Bit generous, I'd give it £1

To put it more accurately, Arriva own a stake in Alliance.

Which is in turn now owned by DB.

 

[northwichcat]

[*]Some Leeds trains diverted via Macclesfield rather than Alderley Edge, and seem to terminate at Stockport

It's confusing: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...l(openaccess)trackaccesscontractsection18.pdf Page 79

Monday:
Euston-Leeds: 5tpd
Euston-Stockport: 1tpd
Euston-Crewe: 2tpd
Leeds-Euston: 6tpd
Leeds-Crewe: 2tpd
Crewe-Euston: 1tpd

Tuesday, Thursday:
Euston-Leeds: 6tpd
Euston-Stockport: 1tpd
Euston-Crewe: 1tpd
Leeds-Euston: 6tpd
Leeds-Crewe: 2tpd
Crewe-Euston: 1tpd

Wednesday:
Euston-Leeds: 5tpd
Euston-Crewe: 2tpd
Leeds-Euston: 5tpd
Leeds-Crewe: 2tpd
Crewe-Euston: 1tpd

Friday:
Euston-Leeds: 5tpd
Euston-Stockport 1tpd
Euston-Crewe: 1tpd
Leeds-Euston: 6tpd
Leeds-Crewe: 2tpd
Crewe-Euston: 1tpd

One Leeds-Euston per day will arrive in Euston in the morning peak. All other trains will be off-peak arrivals/departures from Euston.

No weekend service is proposed on this or any other service initially.

 

[bluenoxid]

Network Rail have put in an application to close Reddish South, based on the fact that Reddish is not large enough to have two stations and there is very few passengers using Reddish South (as there is no real service.) However, running a regular service between Reddish and Stockport could move a lot of passengers from buses to rail.

It does, however, leave the issue of Denton. Maybe Alliance could be persuaded to stop one Saturday service in each direction there, which would be be an improvement on the current situation and would then eliminate the need for the parliamentary.

Have you got a link for the Reddish closure?

The Stalybridge parly would have to remain as an OAO would not be able to undertake a franchise obligation as Chiltern Railways and WSMR proved.

 

[northwichcat]

Have you got a link for the Reddish closure?

It's in one of the RUS' but I can't remember which one. It's one of the North West RUS, the later Northern RUS and the Manchester Hub RUS. I've not got any of them saved to my computer so I can't easily just open them up and do a search for Reddish.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

With the current financial status of Europe in general at present I am absolutely appalled that any operator in this country would even consider giving more money off to China when we have lay-offs at Derby and numerous other financial problems across the EU. Keep the new stock orders within Europe imo and forget this CSRE nonsense.

OK, first ask yourself what the UK's public debt is currently running at (when I last looked, it was £1.38 Trillion, that's 1,380,000,000,000).

Then, ask yourself where all the world's money has gravitated to over the past ten years.

Then, consider whether the comments you made were very wise.

 

[Skimble19]

OK, first ask yourself what the UK's public debt is currently running at (when I last looked, it was £1.38 Trillion, that's 1,380,000,000,000).

Then, ask yourself where all the world's money has gravitated to over the past ten years.

Then, consider whether the comments you made were very wise.

Nevermind that, the fact is by "keeping it in Europe" that essentially limits it to Siemens and Bombardier (who are likely to close their only UK plant..!)

As a matter of interest, if CSRE were to gain orders, would you be building a plant in the UK?

 

[anthony263]

Nevermind that, the fact is by "keeping it in Europe" that essentially limits it to Siemens and Bombardier (who are likely to close their only UK plant..!)

As a matter of interest, if CSRE were to gain orders, would you be building a plant in the UK?

To answer your question from previous threads it has been stated that yes they would

 

[northwichcat]

If there's an additional path on the WCML it really ought to be for Liverpool, no offence to people in Stalybridge etc.

I think the paths on the WCML could be used more effectively than they are currently.

The LM Crewe-London service does not have to be a through service as part of the franchise, although Northampton-London is a franchise requirement.

Virgin could use the paths they have currently to run the following hourly pattern with more 11 car Pendolinos:
* Glasgow to Euston with additional call at Crewe to set down only southbound and to pick up only northbound. 11 car Pendolino.
* Manchester to London via Stoke with calls at Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke. 11 car Pendolino.
* Manchester to London via Wilmslow with calls at Stockport and Wilmslow and possibly call at Crewe to set down only southbound and to pick up only northbound. 11 car Pendolino.
* Stoke to London via Birmingham with call at Wolverhampton. 11 car Pendolino. (existing call pattern south of Birmingham)
* Birmingham to London x 2. 9 car Pendolinos. (existing call patterns south of Birmingham)
* Liverpool to London. 9 car Pendolino. (existing call pattern)
* Liverpool to London. 9 car Pendolino. Calling at Crewe and Milton Keynes Central.
* North Wales to London - remains same as now.

I could see the Alliance Euston-Stockport-Leeds service being well used for students getting to and from universities in Huddersfield and Leeds. It means some of the ones who go via Manchester Piccadilly can go via Stockport instead and get a less packed train to travel on and face an easier interchange as Stockport is a smaller station.

However, we then have the question of whether the service will be timed to suit the Huddersfield/Stalybridge/Alderley Edge to London market with having to fit around other WCML services. It might make more sense to run the service from Stockport to Birmingham or North Wales instead or maybe even Bristol avoiding Birmingham. The flows might not be as lucrative but might be more useful.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

To answer your question from previous threads it has been stated that yes they would

And I can confirm that "from the horse's mouth" so to speak.