Alliance Rail

[Aictos]

I wouldn't say Operation Eureka was unambitious.



Whoever gets them should be forced to run the service they say they will, whether that is franchisee or OAO. I suppose DafT generally have more clout with a franchisee.

Either way, that Newark "short" is a waste of a path.

I agree with about the Newark Northgate services either they should be extended to York providing a hourly all stations service calling Stevenage, Peterborough then all stations to York which would enable the Scottish services to be speeded up even more although they would still call at Peterborough and Doncaster for connections or introduce two more Lincoln services in the opposite direction to the existing services so you would have a service depart London about 8am and departing Lincoln in the afternoon about 4pm.

 

[tbtc]

Worth bearing in mind that DOR have been much less ambitious than NXEC were going to be, which may explain why they are able to focus more money on paying premiums (e.g. no risky services to Lincoln off-peak)

I wouldn't say Operation Eureka was unambitious

Its a lot less ambitious than what NXEC planned - e.g. regular Lincoln services, proposed Harrogate services (which is why DOR didn't need the 180s that NXEC had stockpiled)

Whoever gets them should be forced to run the service they say they will, whether that is franchisee or OAO. I suppose DafT generally have more clout with a franchisee.

Either way, that Newark "short" is a waste of a path.

The Newark "short" is a good bit longer than London - Nottingham or London - Birmingham.

Ideally there'd be enough stock to allow it to become a full hourly London - York semi-fast, but at the moment the hourly London - Newark service (with bi-hourly extension to York) allows services from London to Leeds/ Newcastle etc to be sped up (by covering stops at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark).

 

[BantamMenace]

Once stock is available it should become hourly to York with a bihourly extensions to Harrogate and Middlesbrough. I'm working on such a timetable proposal for my university studies so all suggestions welcome

 

[tbtc]

Once stock is available it should become hourly to York with a bihourly extensions to Harrogate and Middlesbrough. I'm working on such a timetable proposal for my university studies so all suggestions welcome

Since Middlesbrough may lose some/all of its direct services to Leeds/ Manchester (when the TPE line is electrified) and there will be a lot more IEP coaches than the size of the current EC franchise, I'd expect to see some regular Middlesbrough - London service before the end of the decade.

Harrogate could be a bit trickier, given the single track west of York (and the problems with scheduling a longer distance train along it).

 

[BantamMenace]

Since Middlesbrough may lose some/all of its direct services to Leeds/ Manchester (when the TPE line is electrified) and there will be a lot more IEP coaches than the size of the current EC franchise, I'd expect to see some regular Middlesbrough - London service before the end of the decade.

Harrogate could be a bit trickier, given the single track west of York (and the problems with scheduling a longer distance train along it).

Any scope in the coming years for a doubling and electrifying of the whole Harrogate "loop". Surely it would thrive like the Airedale and wharfedale lines

 

[northwichcat]

Since Middlesbrough may lose some/all of its direct services to Leeds/ Manchester (when the TPE line is electrified) and there will be a lot more IEP coaches than the size of the current EC franchise, I'd expect to see some regular Middlesbrough - London service before the end of the decade.

Or based on today's news, about York-Middlesbrough electrification being considered by DfT, what's currently pencilled in as an Airport-York service could run through to Middlesbrough.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Or based on today's news, about York-Middlesbrough electrification being considered by DfT, what's currently pencilled in as an Airport-York service could run through to Middlesbrough.

Certainly think so, as far as i am aware NR are pushing Middlesbrough electrification quite hard.

 

[AndrewP]

Once stock is available it should become hourly to York with a bihourly extensions to Harrogate and Middlesbrough. I'm working on such a timetable proposal for my university studies so all suggestions welcome

I know that a lot of businesses in Harrogate and Knaresborough are pushing for some of the York stoppers to be extended. I am sure this will work considering how many people transfer to the Harrogate locals at York, the affluence of the area and a new park and ride at the A1(M)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any scope in the coming years for a doubling and electrifying of the whole Harrogate "loop". Surely it would thrive like the Airedale and wharfedale lines

The line from Knaresborough to York is being doubled and will be electrified if the business case is approved (which seems likely). The line is already thriving but needs more trains.

 

[TDK]

They haven't got a chance in my opinion. Where are these paths for 140mph trains?

It actually quotes "The proposals are for tilting, rolling stock capable of up to 140 mph running on a curved track.
It does not say they will run at 140mph only that the stock is capable of it.

 

[northwichcat]

It actually quotes "The proposals are for tilting, rolling stock capable of up to 140 mph running on a curved track.
It does not say they will run at 140mph only that the stock is capable of it.

Indeed. Virgin claimed they'd introduce 140mph capable trains and they did but they are limited to 125mph because the necessary track work to allow them to go at 140mph wasn't undertaken.

 

[Masbroughlad]

So have their other GNER plans gone by the wayside? Thought they would be all mentioned together in the plan?

 

[Oscar]

Brochure now on the Alliance web site: http://www.alliancerail.co.uk/Edinburgh_Briefing_Document.pdf

Hourly service King's Cross-Edinburgh calling only at Newcastle, journey time 3h43m.
Apart from local depots they are proposing to use the current Alstom Wembley and Polmadie depots for maintenance.
£300m investment apparently.
9-coach Pendolinos, 217m length. Needs new platform at Edinburgh.
They will fund TASS on the curvy sections of the ECML (north of Darlington).
They want 15 years of access rights to make it worthwhile.

Alliance argues that open-access competition is hugely beneficial: fares have risen less steeply and numbers of passenger journeys have increased. However, I wonder how many of these extra journeys (presumably mostly made using Advance tickets) are discretionary journeys and how many are modal shift. To a large extent, cheap Advance tickets encourage additional and in the long term unsustainable travel. Cheaper Off-Peak tickets would encourage more car users onto rail who are currently put off by high walk-up prices and are unwilling to plan ahead and sacrifice flexibility. There's a basic choice to be made between sustainable travel and development and maximum economic growth now.

However, faster ECML and WCML services as suggested by Alliance could be almost as fast as a proposed High Speed 2 services, delivering the same benefits in modal shift from air. Apart from this, High Speed 2 intends to boost the economy by allowing demand for travel to continue to grow. Rail already dominates London markets and has a very poor market share elsewhere. Investing in better nationwide networks therefore means much greater potential for modal shift from road to rail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once stock is available it should become hourly to York with a bihourly extensions to Harrogate and Middlesbrough. I'm working on such a timetable proposal for my university studies so all suggestions welcome

Is increasing the number of direct services to/from London the right model for the railways? A more robust East Coast timetable, 5-10 minute interchanges to/from fast trains at York/Darlington and regular interval half-hourly services to/from Harrogate and Middlesbrough would provide provide faster journey times to/from London. One change currently puts off some passengers, but if services were more reliable (due to a more regular pattern providing better use of capacity) and passengers were given platform numbers and access to a plan of the station when booking and regular passengers became used to the change (always to/from same platforms), then the negative impact of the change could be reduced. Services running to/from London would typically also be less punctual between York and Harrogate/Middlesbrough than services running to/from York and may also add unnecessary extra services to the hourly/half-hourly pattern of local services. Running off the East Coast Mainline is also a waste of Intercity stock which cannot run at their potential speeds. Making a half-hourly service more attractive may be more beneficial than a few services per day. Running regularly to/from Lincoln is also a waste of a path, as Lincoln connections can be provided by a well-timed shuttle and the path can be used for a Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh service. There is the advantage of convenience to such through services, but it needs to be weighed and quantified against other factors.

 

[Stats]

Alliance Rail (they'll never be GNER to me) claim that the proposal is not primarily abstractive because it will generate enough growth to outweigh any abstractive nature. I don't see how.

1. They are proposing an hourly service between 0600 and 1900 comprising of 500 seat train sets. There are not 6,500 seats to London by air from Edinburgh or Newcastle.
2. Anybody who currently travels on East Coast services from Edinburgh or Newcastle to London where time is a factor will want to travel on Alliance Rail's service being quicker.
3. Alliance Rail will be able to offer cheaper TOC only tickets which, I understand, East Coast cannot do being the fare setter for the route. Thereby, for anybody where price is important they will want to travel on Alliance Rail's services.

So where is this passenger growth going to come from? If existing travellers are attracted to the quicker, cheaper Alliance Rail services then who is going to travel on the franchised operator's services. Not people who don't currently travel by train, otherwise they already would be.

To fill their trains the franchise operator will need to flood the market with cheap Advance fares forfeiting revenue from flexible open tickets, and/or offer a much better service than Alliance Rail which all costs money.

Whichever way you look at it, the proposal abstracts revenue from the franchise operator.

Alliance Rail is also proposing that anybody with an Advance ticket will be able to pay an excess if they don't travel on the train they are booked on. This is going to cause immense confusion. If someone buys an Alliance Rail Advance and then travels on an East Coast service they won't be able to pay the difference. Likewise I doubt AR are going to allow people travelling on an East Coast Advance to pay the difference if they end up travelling on an AR service. This will cause huge confusion and generate a lot of bad publicity to the rail industry discouraging any potential new passengers from using the route.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Thinking about it....Was somebody not kicked back for new Edinburgh to London service a few years ago?

 

[Moonshot]

Alliance Rail (they'll never be GNER to me) claim that the proposal is not primarily abstractive because it will generate enough growth to outweigh any abstractive nature. I don't see how.

1. They are proposing an hourly service between 0600 and 1900 comprising of 500 seat train sets. There are not 6,500 seats to London by air from Edinburgh or Newcastle.
2. Anybody who currently travels on East Coast services from Edinburgh or Newcastle to London where time is a factor will want to travel on Alliance Rail's service being quicker.
3. Alliance Rail will be able to offer cheaper TOC only tickets which, I understand, East Coast cannot do being the fare setter for the route. Thereby, for anybody where price is important they will want to travel on Alliance Rail's services.

So where is this passenger growth going to come from? If existing travellers are attracted to the quicker, cheaper Alliance Rail services then who is going to travel on the franchised operator's services. Not people who don't currently travel by train, otherwise they already would be.

To fill their trains the franchise operator will need to flood the market with cheap Advance fares forfeiting revenue from flexible open tickets, and/or offer a much better service than Alliance Rail which all costs money.

Whichever way you look at it, the proposal abstracts revenue from the franchise operator.

Alliance Rail is also proposing that anybody with an Advance ticket will be able to pay an excess if they don't travel on the train they are booked on. This is going to cause immense confusion. If someone buys an Alliance Rail Advance and then travels on an East Coast service they won't be able to pay the difference. Likewise I doubt AR are going to allow people travelling on an East Coast Advance to pay the difference if they end up travelling on an AR service. This will cause huge confusion and generate a lot of bad publicity to the rail industry discouraging any potential new passengers from using the route.

So why not just make the whole East Coast line just open access operation and forget about franchising??

 

[Simon11]

Because you would loose all the services on lines which don't make money along with no service at the end or start of the day. Alliance only want hourly trains from 6am to 7pm!

 

[Oscar]

The continental model of subsidised local services and (in theory) open-access (in reality, often simply lack of subsidy) for intercity routes does have its merits: encouraging competition where it is beneficial while building an integrated regional network. However, I agree with the above poster that it often means reduced services (there has been a reduction of train kilometres of around 10% on DB long distance services). It can also limit integration with regional services, so perhaps is not the best model.

 

[Moonshot]

Because you would loose all the services on lines which don't make money along with no service at the end or start of the day. Alliance only want hourly trains from 6am to 7pm!

But of course rail growth is around 6% per year, and at that rate, what it does mean is that on an individual basis , more and more services will actually turn in a profit? Virgin pretty much run services 18 hours a day on the West Coast....same as what East Coast do. East Coast also contribute premia payments to DFT.

 

[43074]

Thinking about it....Was somebody not kicked back for new Edinburgh to London service a few years ago?

Yeah, I think it was an OAO proposing to run additional Aberdeen to London services, non stop from Edinburgh using the then redundant 180s. And that was only going to be 4tpd at the most, so how Alliance intend to run hourly is anyone's guess.

Alliance's proposal seems rather overoptimistic IMO, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong in 4 years time.

 

[SkinnyDave]

The Driver Manager that was on Rail magazines recent Highland Chieftain piece mentioned that he was part of the Pendolino East Coast Mainline run.
He said the ECMl couldn't support the 390 but obviously and perhaps to be expected Alstom think otherwise..

Does anyone seriously think this will happen or be considered?

 

[Haydn1971]

A quick look at my train times app suggests that there's only three express trains an hour between Edinburgh and York - 140mph paths isn't really going to be an issue on the section north of Newcastle - plus it's entirely possible to have two 5 car IEP's running between Kings Cross and Doncaster, splitting to service less busy times and creating a spare 125mph path per hour south of say Peterborough where paths on the ECML are limited.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A quick look at my train times app suggests that there's only three express trains an hour between Edinburgh and York - 140mph paths isn't really going to be an issue on the section north of Newcastle - plus it's entirely possible to have two 5 car IEP's running between Kings Cross and Doncaster, splitting to service less busy times and creating a spare 125mph path per hour south of say Peterborough where paths on the ECML are limited.

Alliance's application will surely not be granted on a 140mph basis.
There is no way NR is in a position to offer that before CP6 and full ERTMS.
Even then the route will need strengthening for 140mph operation, with new OHLE.
The best Alliance can expect is a WCML-type solution with 125mph max, assisted by TASS/EPS north of Darlington to bring the speeds up closer to 125mph.

 

[jopsuk]

Generally speaking the franchise model is designed, with some subsidy support, in such a a way that operators are required to operate certain services (with low patronage) in return for being allowed to run busy ones. I'm not sure how much this applies with East Coast, as fr as I know most of the branches and extensions off the main King Cross-Leeds/Edinburgh routes are well used? Regardless, one of the parts of that is the protection that they get, that rail equivalents of the bus bandits can't move in to just run services in competition. The primary competition with the railways is the franchise process.

The idea of pitching up to run an Edinburgh-Kings Corss OA services is banditry of the highest order.

 

[Masbroughlad]

The Huddersfield to Kings X service seems to have disappeared from their planned GNER activity map. Was going to run via Meadowhall, Sheffield, Worksop and Retford. Anyone know why it has gone?

 

[jopsuk]

because it's nowhere near as potentially profitable as a full on raiding of the core ECML?

 

[DarloRich]

there is some serious wibble being written on this thread. This will not happen in this form ever.

It seems to me that this is simply a spoiler for the main franchise bidding process. If DB win then I expect GC/Alliance/Whatever to be rolled into the ECML franchise giving them more paths.

 

[northwichcat]

The Huddersfield to Kings X service seems to have disappeared from their planned GNER activity map. Was going to run via Meadowhall, Sheffield, Worksop and Retford. Anyone know why it has gone?

Maybe they want to focus on the Huddersfield-Stockport-Euston service?

 

[Stats]

I haven't seen mention of this: Alliance Rail has submitted a S17 application for their Yorkshire and Humber services.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse....28 - GNER West Yorkshire Services Section 17

They have applied for:
Kings Cross - Bradford Forster Sq via Hambleton West Junction and Leeds calling at Doncaster, East Leeds Parkway (new build), Leeds, Kirkstall Forge and Shipley. Trains will operate every 2 hours. One train will operate operate to Ilkley instead of Bradford and will call at Guiseley instead of Shipley. Service to commence December 2018.

Kings Cross - Cleethorpes via Doncaster and Scunthorpe calling at Doncaster, Scunthorpe, Habrough and Grimsby Town. 4 return services per day. Service to commence December 2017.

Services are proposed to be operated by 300 seat 5 car 125mph Hitachi SET units based at Doncaster (Cleethorpes Bi-mode, Bradford either Bi-mode or electric) to be delivered before services commence. Other 125mph rolling stock options are still being considered.

Up to 2 services each day will join/split at Doncaster.

 

[jopsuk]

Will the franchised operators have received their full SET allocations by December 2017? Can't see it being likely that an additional order, not yet placed, will be put ahead of the existing orders!

 

[WatcherZero]

The Newton factory is being built with room to increase production lines (by a quarter I think it was) if required, though not sure that a OAO order would be large enough to make it worthwhile. They say in their application that they expect all SET's to be delivered before service commenced.

The Application form says they are using SET for the application though other rolling stock of similar performance is still under consideration (Baby Pendolino?). SDO to be used at Guiseley and Habrough.

Says NR dont know for sure that capacity for more services will be available and they wont until they have finished construction, though Alliance assume it will be as a result of improvements, capacity would become apparant with planned recasts in December 2016 and December 2018.

Cleethorpes service requires bi-mode trains, Bradford would be with either electric or bi-mode sets.

Discussions with potential suppliers have been on-going for a significant period with pricing established for both rolling stock and maintenance. The draft contract is based on the use of 5-car Super Express Trains (SET) supplied by Hitachi.

Some services would start off with multiple working while others would become multiple operated if required by demand growth, they would split at Doncaster for Leeds/Grimsby Town (Grimsby Town is given as timing point rather than Cleethorpes). Attaching services are on average 10-20m slower than directs though theres one attaching service down as being 5 minutes faster than direct.

Main investment would be in East Leeds Parkway and the rolling stock, smaller funds would be available for improving other stations.