Alliance Rail (GNWR) gets Network Rail approval

[infobleep]

Queens Park disused platforms looked immaculate when I last went passed them. Nice CRT screens to give out train times. No trains stopping of course.

Could they ever be brought back into use? Given that the London Midland Euston to Tring services are already always running late, I doubt it. Even though those might not stop there, the trains that do might conflict with the late running Tring services.

 

[Holly]

They aren't. Winsford has been dropped as a calling point.

That's bad.
There are people who presently drive from mid-Cheshire to Crewe who would happily use Winsford station needing only a good sized car park and a better service pattern.

 

[stockport1]

That's bad.
There are people who presently drive from mid-Cheshire to Crewe who would happily use Winsford station needing only a good sized car park and a better service pattern.

I just knew "winsford parkway" with connections direct to London,enhanced facilities and extended platforms was too good to be true

 

[northwichcat]

I just knew "winsford parkway" with connections direct to London,enhanced facilities and extended platforms was too good to be true

I asked Alliance about it a few years back and I got a response from Ian Yeowart which sounded like it was an option which would be considered with many constraints to overcome opposed to a firm plan.

If the LM services get revised then Winsford could still a direct service to London as part of an extension of the London-Crewe service instead of the current Birmingham-Liverpool service.

I think the main short term objective for Winsford should be getting an additional service stopping there between the 15:34 Liverpool-Birmingham and the 17:04 Liverpool-Birmingham.

 

[bb21]

If the LM services get revised then Winsford could still a direct service to London as part of an extension of the London-Crewe service instead of the current Birmingham-Liverpool service.

Does anyone seriously want a direct service which takes much much longer between Crewe and Stafford?

Currently the connection at Stafford is reasonable so I'm not sure what benefits you are getting out of it in exchange for a direct service.

 

[northwichcat]

Does anyone seriously want a direct service which takes much much longer between Crewe and Stafford?

Currently the connection at Stafford is reasonable so I'm not sure what benefits you are getting out of it in exchange for a direct service.

Would it be much longer between Crewe and Stafford?

This option has two stages:

Stage one diverts the existing London Euston to Crewe interurban service from Stafford direct to Crewe via the WCML, not calling at Stone, Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Alsager giving a journey time saving.

Stage two extends the service to Liverpool Lime Street via Runcorn to optimise fleet utilisation.

Anyway, it seems some people from Cheshire are already travelling on much slower services to make significant savings on ticket prices.

If you need an arrival at Euston between 10:00 and 11:00 tomorrow you could leave Winsford at 08:08, change to Virgin at Crewe and pay £123.50. Alternatively, you could leave at 07:06 and take LM all the way and pay £37.00.

 

[bb21]

Would it be much longer between Crewe and Stafford?

It's about 50 minutes compared to 20 minutes. The connection at Stafford is about +15 so I guess it is only about 15 minutes in real time.

That said, would you really want to add another 15 minutes to a 2 hour 30 journey on a 350, even longer if the train goes via Northampton? Possibly in First Class this is bearable but on a 350/2 via Northampton this would be quite uncomfortable.

There may be demand for it, but I think it may well be quite small. Perhaps a couple of peak services each way would be sufficient. The current change at Stafford is fairly straight-forwards and provides a leg-stretching opportunity.

Also if the LM service is diverted away from Stoke, who will be serving Stone, etc?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Also if the LM service is diverted away from Stoke, who will be serving Stone, etc?

One of the direct Birmingham-Liverpools is supposed to be rerouted via Stoke.

 

[northwichcat]

One of the direct Birmingham-Liverpools is supposed to be rerouted via Stoke.

Network Rail's plan A is actually extending the Manchester-Stoke stopper to Birmingham via Stone. LM didn't propose changing the route of Crewe-London or taking over Northern's service in their proposals.

 

[cle]

Queens Park disused platforms looked immaculate when I last went passed them. Nice CRT screens to give out train times. No trains stopping of course.

Could they ever be brought back into use? Given that the London Midland Euston to Tring services are already always running late, I doubt it. Even though those might not stop there, the trains that do might conflict with the late running Tring services.

Are all the Tring services 8 car? As Queen's Park's platforms can only take 8 cars.

But yes would be very handy as an interchange for the Bakerloo. Very quick change and high frequency, with many trains originating at QP. Could act as good Euston relief, as Finsbury Park/Vauxhall etc.... QP itself is a very busy station (busiest on the Bakerloo north of Paddington and on DC line after Euston) and would attract decent patronage.

I'd imagine journeys from the WCML stations to Paddington, Marylebone, Baker St, Piccadilly Circus and arguably Charing Cross/Embankment/Waterloo might be quicker than from Euston.

And possibly to Bond Street, Westminster, Southwark and Canary Wharf via Baker Street's cross platform interchange.

 

[infobleep]

I think Wilsden Junction would make a good interchange. Oops they knocked it down.

Wonder why they kept Queens Park but demolished Wilsden Junction?

 

[cle]

Suppose it was years ago when the North London Line was barely viable and the WLL defunct. Now of course a very different situation.

Even still, the tube trumps those and at QP, there is higher frequency, originating services and the tunnel portal (perception of entering Central London?) so I still think it's worth a shot for an interchange.

And fundamentally, it's ready to go. Willesden Junction would take ages especially connecting everything - the station is a mess as is, and the best solution would not be the cheapest.

Perhaps both could be possible in future when the line is much more localised, as the fasts become so (due to HS2). But Trings could be heading to Crossrail.

 

[northwichcat]

Consultation responses are now on the ORR website: http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...-applications/new-contracts-section-17-and-18

I find the quote from TfGM amusing
"TfGM notes that this application is made by the Great North Western Railway Company Ltd, but that the address quoted and e-mail address are those of Alliance Rail Holdings. Therefore, TfGM presumes that these companies are related."

Obviously they are unfamiliar with subsidiaries!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Virgin is suitably dismissive.
It takes NR to task for apparently agreeing to GNWR paths before the results of the wider West Cost capacity and performance review is known.
It also ridicules the idea of reversing trains at Queens Park during HS2 construction at Euston.

By contrast, the DfT response is largely supportive of GNWR, and Open Access generally.
It even quotes the EU directive on enabling greater competition.
It scolds NR for suggesting that franchised services take precedence, saying that CP5 investment and Northern Hub in particular are "operator agnostic".
DfT could have put in a bid for post-2017 franchise paths but chose not to.
It even suggests that GNWR services would help reduce subsidy to TP and NT in particular by avoiding the need to fund extra rolling stock for them!

The two passenger franchised operators on the north trans-Pennine route are subsidised, so any additional services introduced by the two operators will require additional, not less, taxpayer funding. GNWR will provide new true ‘intercity’ rolling stock at no cost and no risk to the taxpayer whilst significantly increasing connectivity and providing some welcome but limited competition.

Looks like Go for GNWR to me...

 

[Manchester77]

The first group response appears to show the post electrification destinations as Middlesbrough & Scarborough are absent.

 

[northwichcat]

It even suggests that GNWR services would help reduce subsidy to TP and NT in particular by avoiding the need to fund extra rolling stock for them!

Looks like Go for GNWR to me...

So say instead of a standard hourly pattern we finish up with:

Hour 1:
2 x Liverpool-Newcastle
2 x Piccadilly-Selby/Hull
2 x Airport-York

Hour 2:
1 x Liverpool-Newcastle
1 x Liverpool-Piccadilly-Selby/Hull
1 x Piccadilly-Selby/Hull
1 x Airport-York-Newcastle
1 x Airport-York

to leave a path for a 2 hourly GNWR service between Victoria and Leeds, that would require 1 less train so not a huge saving if you're talking about cascaded trains but Network Rail seem to be referring to TPE purchasing brand new trains.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Looks like Go for GNWR to me...

I read the responses wrongly.
The DfT position is not supportive of the GNWR proposal and reserves its position on all points.
What I took to be a DfT letter supporting GNWR is in fact a Network Rail letter to DfT, defending its decision to agree a contract with GNWR (subject to ORR approval).
That changes the position a bit! Battle joined!

The affected TOCs all object to the application, the LM one being perhaps the best argued.
They all want to see the timetable that NR says shows that the GNWR paths are viable without affecting other TOC's rights.

 

[nuneatonmark]

The DfT are basically against anything that will harm the current Virginopoly especially if it means improving services for the all the stations that missed out as a result of VHF i.e. Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield. Wasn't one of the supposed positives of 'privatisation (NOT)' more competition? Not on the West Coast it seems.

I really hope that GNWR gets off the ground but I suspect something will derail it.

 

[HSTEd]

Competition is a bit pointless.
The railway competes with other modes of transport.

 

[Manchester77]

Competition is a bit pointless.
The railway competes with other modes of transport.

Indeed, why does there need to be three different operators to go from manchester to Huddersfield - it's a waste of resources.