ECML extra services - ORR conclusions

[swt_passenger]

The ORR have published their conclusions about proposals for additional ECML services following ECML Co's withdrawal of the 2 hourly Lincoln service.

To sum up, there won't be any open access extras, because DfT have said that there is no 125 mph stock available. The ECML 180s are going to be reallocated to franchised operators for use elsewhere apparently...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/ecml-orr-letter-110810.pdf

 

[Lampshade]

A sensible decision, let's hope they allocate them where they're needed.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Arent they putting a two hourly service into Newark NG instead ?

 

[swt_passenger]

Arent they putting a two hourly service into Newark NG instead ?

Yes, but ECML were going to use existing stock, HST or Mk4, not the 5 x 180s they'd taken on specially for the Lincolns. ORR then thought those paths could be better used than that so they asked for new bids for the paths. But it turns out there's no stock that anyone can use.

 

[Aictos]

A sensible decision, let's hope they allocate them where they're needed.

But where though?, that's the million pound question.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Yes, but ECML were going to use existing stock, HST or Mk4, not the 5 x 180s they'd taken on specially for the Lincolns. ORR then thought those paths could be better used than that so they asked for new bids for the paths. But it turns out there's no stock that anyone can use.

So - to answer simply - Has the 2-hourly Newark NG service been scrapped?

 

[me123]

But where though?, that's the million pound question.

Well, surely one of the options has to be Scotland-Manchester services. I don't know how many 180s would be available, but even a handful would provide an (arguably) greater degree of comfort on this long distance route and, more importantly, release 185s elsewhere on the Transpennine network to strengthen existing services.

However, because London does not directly benefit from this, it's unlikely to happen.

 

[swt_passenger]

So - to answer simply - Has the 2-hourly Newark NG service been scrapped?

Not as far as I can see. The 2 hourly Newark was ECML Co's 'Plan B' if you like, and ORR thought there might be a better use for the paths. But none have come up, thanks to DfT's statement, so I guess Plan B continues?

 

[rail-britain]

To sum up, there won't be any open access extras, because DfT have said that there is no 125 mph stock available. The ECML 180s are going to be reallocated to franchised operators for use elsewhere apparently...

Poor excuse that really, what if someone found some suitable 125mph rolling stock!
Equally, why couldn't an open access operator use other rolling stock for other routes that use the ECML, such as a DMU, EMU, or loco and 100mph Mk2 coaches

 

[swt_passenger]

Well, surely one of the options has to be Scotland-Manchester services. I don't know how many 180s would be available, but even a handful would provide an (arguably) greater degree of comfort on this long distance route and, more importantly, release 185s elsewhere on the Transpennine network to strengthen existing services.

Should be five become available, including the 3 temporarily with Northern. You'd presumably only have four diagrams due to maintenance needs, so how much of a dent would that make in TPE's Scottish services? Maybe it would do all the Edinburghs?

 

[Lampshade]

But where though?, that's the million pound question.

You're right, if it was 5x 158s going spare it'd be easy, as it stands there's nowhere ideal to run the 180s. Some could be put on the semi fast Liverpool - Manchester Airport services, freeing up some 156s that Merseytravel distastefully collared and doomed GM and Lancashire to 142s.

Then there's the old chestnut, TPE could use them for the Scottish services or the Newcastle runs, then they could take advantage of the 125mph top speed. They could continue using portions as they have SDO, although Northern's politics got in the way of that.

 

[swt_passenger]

Poor excuse that really, what if someone found some suitable 125mph rolling stock!

Er... isn't the complete lack of stock the reason for the letter I quoted above? Maybe they should just go out and shake a 'rolling stock tree' a bit harder?

Equally, why couldn't an open access operator use other rolling stock for other routes that use the ECML, such as a DMU, EMU, or loco and 100mph Mk2 coaches

It has to be 125 mph to run on the Southern ECML - that's where the paths are. And diesel stock, because if it was electric it couldn't run off the ECML, so would make no better use of the paths in question than the Newark service.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Should be good terminating stuff from the south at NNG, they'll have to put it into 3, they won't let it occupy the only northbound platform 1, and reverse there and leave. It could potentially stay there up to 1hr to leave on the passenger service back south. So Lincoln EMT services will have to fit around this, as this also uses 3, so connections to Loincoln could be poor

 

[Aictos]

You're right, if it was 5x 158s going spare it'd be easy, as it stands there's nowhere ideal to run the 180s. Some could be put on the semi fast Liverpool - Manchester Airport services, freeing up some 156s that Merseytravel distastefully collared and doomed GM and Lancashire to 142s.

Then there's the old chestnut, TPE could use them for the Scottish services or the Newcastle runs, then they could take advantage of the 125mph top speed. They could continue using portions as they have SDO, although Northern's politics got in the way of that.

That's the thing, how many 185s actually are required for the TPE Scottish services?

 

[Drsatan]

The five unwanted 180s should be returned to FGW where they could be used on Cardiff-Portsmouth services, releasing 158s for use elsewhere. I say this because even three car 158s are too short for what is technically an intercity service, and they lack a proper buffet.

Moreover, FGW has looked after 180s in the past at St Phillips Marsh, so maintaining them shouldn't be too difficult.

Ideally they'd be used in conjunction with a new express service on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route calling at the following points: Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Temple Meads, Bath, Westbury, Salisbury, Southampton Central, Fratton, Portsmouth Harbour. However this would require infrastructure improvements so it's a long way off

 

[swt_passenger]

The five unwanted 180s should be returned to FGW where they could be used on Cardiff-Portsmouth services, releasing 158s for use elsewhere. I say this because even three car 158s are too short for what is technically an intercity service, and they lack a proper buffet.

FGW couldn't wait to get rid of the 180s. First Group bought up every spare HST they could lay their hands on specifically to replace the 180s.

Have enough FGW top management been moved on to avoid the embarrassment of asking to take them back? I don't think so.

Cardiff - Portsmouth 'technically intercity'? That must explain why BR were using 156s in the late 80s... :roll::roll:

 

[Lampshade]

Liverpool to Norwich needs sorting out before Cardiff - Portsmouth. It's a long journey, doesn't make it intercity.

 

[tbtc]

No point in wasting good stock on yet more speculative Open Access operators when we struggle to give everyone a seat on existing train services

As I've said elsewhere, the biggest "attraction" of the 180s is that they are five-car, not the 125mph. Not much point in having them on 125mph track if they are diagrammed to run at the same speed as a Sprinter (since there aren't enough 180s to guarantee one on that duty). Handy for catching up, but a luxury when we can't provide sufficient seats on other train services

 

[EWS 58038]

To quote ant Elaine: "180's... over my dead body". She got it on the right end this time as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I feel sad for Grand Central who opted to operate the service at a profit... This would bring a lot of benefits to Lincoln area and DafT wouldn't have to spend a penny on it.