Alliance Rail GNWR Services Approved

[gazthomas]

Why don't Open Access operators go the "extra mile" and suggest new stations or lines? Seems an obvious next step to me.

 

[WatcherZero]

Because it would cost hundreds of millions and take decades (in the order of 30-50 years at least) to make back, a lot of risk for a company to undertake speculatively.

 

[najaB]

Why don't Open Access operators go the "extra mile" and suggest new stations or lines? Seems an obvious next step to me.

The idea of reopening closed stations on existing lines is almost in the realm of possibility (well, in the same postcode area). New lines, forget it. The Borders railway has taken ten years and nearly (over?) £300M to build. It would take an OAO many, many years to make money on a project of this size, particularly as the incumbent TOCs would be able to bid for paths!

 

[gazthomas]

I'm just wondering that if business is in place to make profit then it should pay for infrastructure. I accept it is a different argument for not-for-profit.

 

[najaB]

I'm just wondering that if business is in place to make profit then it should pay for infrastructure. I accept it is a different argument for not-for-profit.

In the days of old, the railway company would own its tracks. So if you wanted to serve two cities - e.g. Edinburgh and Glasgow - you would build lines between the them. And since they were your lines you had the option to grant or deny other operators rights over your metal. That's how we ended up with multiple routes between cities (I think E to G had a total of five routes).

While a simple model, it was very wasteful of resources (again, E to G had five routes!), and it doesn't work in today's railway where the metals are owned by a single entity - Network Rail. If the OAO paid Network Rail to build and operate the route then it would be available for any TOC to bid for paths - well done, you've spent hundreds of millions of pounds and your competitors get access for (nearly) free.

If the OAO didn't get Network Rail involved then they have to manage the construction, and more importantly, the running of the rails. Now not only are they a train operator, they're also the infrastructure operators. What's that Mr EU? Vertical integration isn't allowed? Oh sh***.

 

[Class 170101]

Surely an OAO could get whoever they wished(including NR) to build the tracks / Stations and maintain them as the OAO dictates - paying a price for it. As they own the track and stations they decide who runs on them>

 

[najaB]

Surely an OAO could get whoever they wished(including NR) to build the tracks / Stations and maintain them as the OAO dictates - paying a price for it. As they own the track and stations they decide who runs on them>

As I understand it (and there's a good chance I'm wrong) if NR maintains and operates the route then anyone can bid for paths. If the OAO owns, maintains and operates the route then they get into the complexities of EU directives that come with vertical integration.

 

[Class 170101]

So what trade offs do you make?

Currently the EBW services serve Rugby at xx.03, Watford at xx.23 and Milton Keynes at xx.43 out of Euston. The xx.43 is an Anglo-Scot so one would assume you keep that, so who loses out, Watford or Rugby? or do you add those stops to the other trains thus increasing journey time and decreasing the value of the franchise?

Rugby would drop out in your example. Remember if you lost one service to Manchester and one to Birmingham but gained one to Scotland and the other to Liverpool the quuntum number of departures from Euston would remain the same. So Rugby would still retain a fast service to London and the faster LM service between New Street and Rugby are between 3 and 9 minutes slower. Peanuts really.

How do you solve Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham International losing a fast service an hour to Birmingham? The only benefit it unlocks is the second XC going via Cov, which would have to pick up the slack in a Voyager.

How about another 110mph combination leaving Euston? First train for Trent Valley via Weedon, second train via Northampton but calling at Rugby, Coventry, International and New Street ONLY after Northampton?

 

[The Planner]

So Rugby would still retain a fast service to London and the faster LM service between New Street and Rugby are between 3 and 9 minutes slower. Peanuts really.

Try telling that to a TOC/DfT accountant..... 1 minute is worth a considerable amount of money.

How about another 110mph combination leaving Euston? First train for Trent Valley via Weedon, second train via Northampton but calling at Rugby, Coventry, International and New Street ONLY after Northampton?

Again, devalues the WCML long distance franchise by swapping it to the inter regional, DfT is unlikely to swallow it. Like I have said before, in the short term I don't expect a lot to happen, unless they go for a combined WCML and devolved West Mids arrangement. 2026 is where it is all up for grabs.

 

[Camden]

Rugby would drop out in your example. Remember if you lost one service to Manchester and one to Birmingham but gained one to Scotland and the other to Liverpool the quuntum number of departures from Euston would remain the same. So Rugby would still retain a fast service to London and the faster LM service between New Street and Rugby are between 3 and 9 minutes slower. Peanuts really.


How about another 110mph combination leaving Euston? First train for Trent Valley via Weedon, second train via Northampton but calling at Rugby, Coventry, International and New Street ONLY after Northampton?

I actually think what is being overlooked is the net effect not simply of better using those two paths, but what it actually means in terms of overall line capacity to not have to send trains every 20 minutes to each of the two destinations.

The exact beneficial effect on the available capacity of the west coast line would have to be modeled, but I think it could be significant, rather than just enabling those two services to go to where they would be more useful.

 

[Class 170101]

Try telling that to a TOC/DfT accountant..... 1 minute is worth a considerable amount of money.

Stuff the accountants

Again, devalues the WCML long distance franchise by swapping it to the inter regional, DfT is unlikely to swallow it. Like I have said before, in the short term I don't expect a lot to happen, unless they go for a combined WCML and devolved West Mids arrangement. 2026 is where it is all up for grabs.

Given the number of passengers in terms of loadings (as described above for Manchester and Birmingham) could other markets like Liverpool and Scotland make up for this potential loss.
A second train along the Trent Valley must have some benefit as far as passengers are concerned.

 

[Camden]

An interesting point of view and another angle. I doubt passenger numbers from Manchester would drop if they went from three to two trains an hour, but I certainly expect passenger numbers from Liverpool would rise if they went from one train an hour to a train every half an hour. I really don't hear any good arguments coming back as to why it should stay the way it is.

 

[Philip C]

An interesting point of view and another angle. I doubt passenger numbers from Manchester would drop if they went from three to two trains an hour, but I certainly expect passenger numbers from Liverpool would rise if they went from one train an hour to a train every half an hour. I really don't hear any good arguments coming back as to why it should stay the way it is.

Perhaps you could set out your proposal, the wisdom of which has seemingly escaped those who have run the railway over the last several years, in more detail so that detailed comment could be made upon it.

 

[Camden]

Perhaps you could set out your proposal, the wisdom of which has seemingly escaped those who have run the railway over the last several years, in more detail so that detailed comment could be made upon it.

Yeah OK I get it, you don't appreciate the idea of cutting a train to Manchester and sending it somewhere else. Sorry for whatever reason that seems to offend you.

But also to remind you this is a public forum and people can say things if they want to...

 

[The Planner]

An interesting point of view and another angle. I doubt passenger numbers from Manchester would drop if they went from three to two trains an hour, but I certainly expect passenger numbers from Liverpool would rise if they went from one train an hour to a train every half an hour. I really don't hear any good arguments coming back as to why it should stay the way it is.

What would you drop to allow the second Liverpool? Again thinking of the trade offs. The Crewe train removes Wilmslows direct link, which may be palatable off peak, and means Stockport goes to 2tph, which may be ok as that doesnt really connect into anything in either direction at Crewe but shunts people onto the ATW services.

 

[Camden]

What would you drop to allow the second Liverpool? Again thinking of the trade offs. The Crewe train removes Wilmslows direct link, which may be palatable off peak, and means Stockport goes to 2tph, which may be ok as that doesnt really connect into anything in either direction at Crewe but shunts people onto the ATW services.

It's the third Manchester and Birmingham trains per hour. I'm talking about ending Virgin High Frequency and going to half hourly trains. With respect to Wilmslow, a small town doesn't necessarily warrant a direct link to London. It could be argued that a more frequent run between Crewe and Manchester might be a better service. The space on the west coast line is the key.

 

[Philip C]

Yeah OK I get it, you don't appreciate the idea of cutting a train to Manchester and sending it somewhere else. Sorry for whatever reason that seems to offend you.

But also to remind you this is a public forum and people can say things if they want to...

You seem to misunderstand me.

How would you intend to serve Stoke, Macclesfield, Wilmslow etc. Where would the cuts be? What would you propose as stopping patterns? Perhaps someone on the forum would like to comment on your ideas as they affect the Potteries?

You are perfectly entitled to "say things if you want to" but without a good understanding of what you have in mind how can I, and others, sensibly respond?

Personally I'm skeptical that switching one train per hour from Manchester to Liverpool would lead to anything other than very quiet Liverpool trains (even after some growth) and extremely busy Manchester trains. I point out that Liverpool trains were recently deemed quiet enough to have a Crewe stop added. Liverpool is not Manchester is not Liverpool. The cities are very different, the catchment areas for their trains are very different, the alternatives (planes, connecting trains, coaches) are very different. For whatever reason we currently have 3tph to one and 1tph to the other. I happen to think that that isn't that wrong; but please feel free to persuade me otherwise. You might not persuade me but you might persuade others - that could also be called a victory!

All I was asking was that you explain your ideas in more detail. I think I'm allowed to ask the question, whether you reply is up to you.

 

[The Planner]

It's the third Manchester and Birmingham trains per hour. I'm talking about ending Virgin High Frequency and going to half hourly trains. With respect to Wilmslow, a small town doesn't necessarily warrant a direct link to London. It could be argued that a more frequent run between Crewe and Manchester might be a better service. The space on the west coast line is the key.

But what service would you cull, it is all very well saying it only needs 2tph on each route, but what mitigation are you suggesting for the losses? I am with Philip C here with his post. Why doesn't Wilmslow warrant a service? I expect it makes a fair whack from wealthy Cheshire residents in its catchment area, more than say Runcorn would ever do.

 

[Camden]

You seem to misunderstand me.

How would you intend to serve Stoke, Macclesfield, Wilmslow etc. Where would the cuts be? What would you propose as stopping patterns? Perhaps someone on the forum would like to comment on your ideas as they affect the Potteries?

You are perfectly entitled to "say things if you want to" but without a good understanding of what you have in mind how can I, and others, sensibly respond?

Personally I'm skeptical that switching one train per hour from Manchester to Liverpool would lead to anything other than very quiet Liverpool trains (even after some growth) and extremely busy Manchester trains. I point out that Liverpool trains were recently deemed quiet enough to have a Crewe stop added. Liverpool is not Manchester is not Liverpool. The cities are very different, the catchment areas for their trains are very different, the alternatives (planes, connecting trains, coaches) are very different. For whatever reason we currently have 3tph to one and 1tph to the other. I happen to think that that isn't that wrong; but please feel free to persuade me otherwise. You might not persuade me but you might persuade others - that could also be called a victory!

All I was asking was that you explain your ideas in more detail. I think I'm allowed to ask the question, whether you reply is up to you.

Yes I do know the cities are very different thank you I actually work in both. I wonder how many times you are in either? Is it every week, like me? I don't need belief or to defy skepticism to tell me what I experience from my own journeys. Tomorrow mid morning booking today it will cost me £35 to get to Manchester, but £70 or £80 to Liverpool. You tell me which trains are running on empty, the one with three off-peak trains an hour or the off-peak one train an hour. Suffice to say I'm starting my working week in Manchester before going over to do my Liverpool bits on the local service the next day. Which isn't the order I would prefer, but it's the one which was the most cost effective so I'm stuck with it.

I already said on the other page the overall beneficial line capacity effects of going to two trains an hour to each Manchester and Birmingham would have to be modelled to get a full view. My own gut instinct tells me that a train every 20 minutes to each could be a premium which may cost a disproportionate amount line space.

I'm not after a victory I'm not into belligerence and that isn't what discussion is about, I was simply tossing ideas around along with other people.

But what service would you cull, it is all very well saying it only needs 2tph on each route, but what mitigation are you suggesting for the losses? I am with Philip C here with his post. Why doesn't Wilmslow warrant a service? I expect it makes a fair whack from wealthy Cheshire residents in its catchment area, more than say Runcorn would ever do.

It's not that I think Wilmslow doesn't deserve a service, but that if it's on the line to Crewe if you're cutting one train an hour you have to decide which line it comes from. So do you reduce one line from two trains an hour to one, or cut the line with one train an hour and leave the other at two. It's not something which I'd really take a call on, but what I have said is that whichever way you do it line capacity could probably be better used and that serving a small town which can connect through an interchance versus optimal line capacity usage it should be the line capacity that wins out.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Purely on my observations, the WCML route with the most crowded trains seems to be that to Preston.
Much busier than Liverpool trains, even with first stop Warrington.
I wouldn't say the 3tph Manchesters are any emptier than the others, and there's a high proportion of business travellers.
Can't speak for the 3tph Birminghams because I don't see enough of them, but there's a need for more than one through train to Wolverhampton.
There's a massive local flow Coventry-Birmingham-Wolverhampton, for which the VT services provide a major part of the capacity.
Turn up and go is a major marketing pitch.

 

[Camden]

Purely on my observations, the WCML route with the most crowded trains seems to be that to Preston.
Much busier than Liverpool trains, even with first stop Warrington.
I wouldn't say the 3tph Manchesters are any emptier than the others, and there's a high proportion of business travellers.
Can't speak for the 3tph Birminghams because I don't see enough of them, but there's a need for more than one through train to Wolverhampton.
There's a massive local flow Coventry-Birmingham-Wolverhampton, for which the VT services provide a major part of the capacity.
Turn up and go is a major marketing pitch.

Got to be people going to Scotland? I think there is a difference between Liverpool and Manchester trains and I think it's notable that the peak advance fares to Manchester are cheaper, including first class. With respect to Birmingham I'm only going off the public figures which suggest slightly lower use than Manchester. Of course they also have the trains by both chiltern railways into Marylebone and midland trains into Euston. I would say the west midlands is pretty well connected.

 

[najaB]

Got to be people going to Scotland?

Scotland trains are rarely heavily loaded beyond Carlisle.

 

[Camden]

Scotland trains are rarely heavily loaded beyond Carlisle.

Where are the people going? Lakes? I wonder if this is also bringing in another disproportionate service, which is transpennine. Would Virgin trains to Scotland be more heavily used after Preston and or Carlisle if they were the same price as transpennine trains?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Scotland trains are rarely heavily loaded beyond Carlisle.

I wouldn't say that about Edinburgh services, or TPE services.
It is a very peaky route, quiet at some times of day/week and packed out on others.
Trains are significantly busier than they were 2-3 years ago.
Preston has a big exchange of passengers to/from all parts.
The via Birmingham services are just as busy as the directs, but sometimes have to squash into a single Voyager.
The Alliance capacity will help Preston-London, but the RUS aim is for a full half-hourly service from Preston taking Wigan/Warrington stops out of the directs.

 

[Camden]

It's like a plate of spaghetti working out where people are actually coming from and going to. When I'm going to Liverpool I'm often given times for Manchester trains changing at Crewe. I never do that as I just want to get there direct and do my work on the train but I wonder how many people do. High numbers at Preston for Scotland has got to be Liverpool passengers who don't have a direct service, and I noticed that the scottish transport body made that point and made a case for direct services in the ITT, but less explainable are large numbers of people going to Preston from London. Could it be used as a railhead for north Manchester and Liverpool areas? Where do they all disperse to if they are not still on the train when it departs Preston?

 

[najaB]

I wouldn't say that about Edinburgh services, or TPE services.
It is a very peaky route, quiet at some times of day/week and packed out on others.
Trains are significantly busier than they were 2-3 years ago.
Preston has a big exchange of passengers to/from all parts.
The via Birmingham services are just as busy as the directs, but sometimes have to squash into a single Voyager.
The Alliance capacity will help Preston-London, but the RUS aim is for a full half-hourly service from Preston taking Wigan/Warrington stops out of the directs.

Pretty much agree with what you say, I was speaking specifically about Virgin's London-Scottish services which, in my experience at least, are heaving between London to Preston/Lancaster and then pretty quiet from Carlisle to Glasgow/Edinburgh. I can't remember any time since the ash cloud that it's been standing room only north of Carlisle (I stood all the way from Edinburgh to Preston). As you say, when it's a single Voyager it can be a little cozy.

 

[Philip C]

Tomorrow mid morning booking today it will cost me £35 to get to Manchester, but £70 or £80 to Liverpool. You tell me which trains are running on empty, the one with three off-peak trains an hour or the off-peak one train an hour.

A quick look at the National Rail Enquiry site (@1450) shows that between 0930 and 1230 from Euston nine departures to Manchester of which three (1120, 1140 & 1220 departures) are on offer at £35 single with the others at £50 (1000 & 1120) or at £70 (0940, 1040, 1100 and 1200). For Liverpool there are the three direct trains (1007 @ £80.60, 1107 @ £70 & 1207 @ £75) with connecting services at £73 (0940, 1010 & 1110) and at £80.60 (at 1040, 1140 & 1210).

If pricing reflects spare capacity this would support your contention that the Manchester trains are less heavily loaded than the Liverpool trains. However I draw attention to the 1140 which is priced at £35 Advance to Manchester but £80.60 Off-Peak to Liverpool! There ought to be a way of getting to Liverpool, via Crewe on this Manchester train, for somewhat less than the quoted fare!

So I looked at fares from Euston to Crewe by direct trains in the period from 0930 until noon and found the following: Travel by the three Liverpool trains (xx07) priced at £73.20, £73.20 & £65; travel by the three Chester trains (xx10) priced at £70, £65 & £65; and travel by the three Manchester trains (xx40) priced at £70, £65 & £65. Yes there is a premium for travel on the Liverpool trains but it is not enormous.

Perhaps someone more familiar with Virgin's pricing policies might like to interpret these figures in the context of what they might tell us about loadings on the respective services?

 

[JaJaWa]

Why don't Open Access operators go the "extra mile" and suggest new stations or lines? Seems an obvious next step to me.

Hull Trains are funding the Hull line electrification, and Alliance GNER have suggested new stations around Leeds.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So I looked at fares from Euston to Crewe by direct trains in the period from 0930 until noon and found the following: Travel by the three Liverpool trains (xx07) priced at £73.20, £73.20 & £65; travel by the three Chester trains (xx10) priced at £70, £65 & £65; and travel by the three Manchester trains (xx40) priced at £70, £65 & £65. Yes there is a premium for travel on the Liverpool trains but it is not enormous.

Perhaps someone more familiar with Virgin's pricing policies might like to interpret these figures in the context of what they might tell us about loadings on the respective services?

The Off Peak Return to Manchester/Liverpool/Chester is the same for all three at £81.60 (£53.85 with most railcards). Crewe is £74.20/£49.00.
This is a very democratic fare, choose your service on the 0940 or later (no time restrictions with railcards).
You can mix an Advance one way with an Off Peak Half the other, booking online.

The air competition is relevant.
BA goes London-Manchester, nobody goes London-Liverpool/Chester.

 

[Camden]

A quick look at the National Rail Enquiry site (@1450) shows that between 0930 and 1230 from Euston nine departures to Manchester of which three (1120, 1140 & 1220 departures) are on offer at £35 single with the others at £50 (1000 & 1120) or at £70 (0940, 1040, 1100 and 1200). For Liverpool there are the three direct trains (1007 @ £80.60, 1107 @ £70 & 1207 @ £75) with connecting services at £73 (0940, 1010 & 1110) and at £80.60 (at 1040, 1140 & 1210).

If pricing reflects spare capacity this would support your contention that the Manchester trains are less heavily loaded than the Liverpool trains. However I draw attention to the 1140 which is priced at £35 Advance to Manchester but £80.60 Off-Peak to Liverpool! There ought to be a way of getting to Liverpool, via Crewe on this Manchester train, for somewhat less than the quoted fare!

So I looked at fares from Euston to Crewe by direct trains in the period from 0930 until noon and found the following: Travel by the three Liverpool trains (xx07) priced at £73.20, £73.20 & £65; travel by the three Chester trains (xx10) priced at £70, £65 & £65; and travel by the three Manchester trains (xx40) priced at £70, £65 & £65. Yes there is a premium for travel on the Liverpool trains but it is not enormous.

Perhaps someone more familiar with Virgin's pricing policies might like to interpret these figures in the context of what they might tell us about loadings on the respective services?

And also not forgetting my 'contention' that I get on the damn things and what I experience when I'm trying to find a seat on the Liverpool train (that I'm using a walk up fare for don't forget) versus the more than ample seatage if there is such a word on the Manchester train.

Perhaps another thing to throw in there to ask someone as to why it might be do you think that they seem to always be pushing London to Manchester on the tube and in the standard rather than London to Liverpool? Perhaps because one needs pushing and the other needs demand management? Doesn't seem very balanced to me to have a flood on one side and a drought on the other.

Finding a way of using the cheaper Manchester train to get to Liverpool, it's often not me who books the trains I just have my diary worked around and people know I like to work on the trains. They might go for the cheapest overall routing but they're not going to sit around all afternoon trying to work out a cheaper way of getting me to Liverpool. It would be much easier if there were just two trains an hour, not much to ask really.