Extra Virgin West Coast services rejected by NR

[merlodlliw]

Pity the line to Shrewsbury isnt wired maybe then London Midland could run a class 350 on the Shrewsbury - Birmingham local services as well as a few faster services per day which continue to London after attaching to one of London Midlands Birmingham - London services.

Its a pity there isnt any room for Chiltern to run some of their services to Shrewsbury again especially with the Chiltern line having been upgraded. If Shrewsbury wants direct trains to London, maybe a 5 carriage IEP attaching to another 5 carriage unit at Newport. (This is meant as a joke )

But LM never on a Sunday, I have just been told by a colleague there is a Network Rail conference tomorrow(Thur), for stakeholders, Shrewsbury area reps are going to ask for more information.

 

[Proud Salopian]

It seems to me that NR have used the Shrewsbury-London link as a pawn in the "we need HS2" game.

 

[Geezertronic]

They may well have made a different decision, but thats not the point. Virgin want to sue NR for perceived poor performance. Some of the reasons given by Virgin seemingly quite unfair. So obviously this must be Virgin saying that they want NR to do more, not less. Virgin should have been the ones to scrap plans for the extra services. The fact they didnt shows they expect everything given to them, but to give nothing back in return.

First Group have not threatened unfair legal action. They seemingly fairly happy. So no reason to scrap a Shrewsbury plan if it is them wanting it.

You cannot expect to threaten legal action, asking for NR to do more to improve performance, then complain when they give themselves the breathing space to do more. It wont exactly look good in court if NR admitted they couldnt care less, and were doing nothing to improve. Virgin should be extremely happy with this outcome. It shows NR have listened, and taken the threat of legal action onboard, and are wanting to do something about it.

I don't think there is any "perceived" or "unfair" about it, surely the figures speak for themselves. VT (like any train operator) want to run an efficient and on time service but due to the WCML South problems in particular, they have been unable to. As a service provider, surely NR should be living up to their contractual obligations in the service they provide.

VT did what was expected of them and requested additional paths for additional services (way before the threat of legal action). Whether NR are rejecting the Shrewsbury and Blackpool requests as part of a plan to secure more funding, or to save paths in the event of any subsequent issues, or to push for HS2, or as a direct result of the threat of legal action is anyones guess. Either way as a passenger I want my train to be on time and when there are frequent delays and cancellations due to infrastructure issues outside of the TOCs control they should be able to escalate this as they see fit.

 

[WatcherZero]

Came up in PMQ's, PM said 'Thats why we are building HS2'.

 

[43074]

Well, Virgin and Network Rail are clearly not the best of friends at the moment are they? With Virgin threatening legal action of NR for infrastructure and then Network Rail refusing Virgin paths to Blackpool and Shrewsbury, whatever next? :roll:

Surprised the bearded one hasn't commented yet though, I'd have thought he'd try to woo Network Rail to give his company the paths on the basis that he is a ''nice guy''.

Still, a lost opportunity for Shrewsbury and Blackpool. With regards to Shrewsbury, it makes me wonder why they didn't apply to do the logical thing which was to extend some of the London to Wolves services to through Shrewsbury.

Is there any more news on the combined London to Birmingham and Birmingham to Scotland services?

 

[Eagle]

Still, a lost opportunity for Shrewsbury and Blackpool. With regards to Shrewsbury, it makes me wonder why they didn't apply to do the logical thing which was to extend some of the London to Wolves services to through Shrewsbury.

I don't know why people still think this is a logical thing to do.

Until Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury gets OHL electrified, it's really not.

 

[Starmill]

All this talk of spite and tit for tat... makes me feel like Network Rail are going to turn around and say some of the existing services need to be cancelled to improve reliability!

 

[northwichcat]

All this talk of spite and tit for tat... makes me feel like Network Rail are going to turn around and say some of the existing services need to be cancelled to improve reliability!

Well if there were less Manchester and Birmingham to London Virgin services then people and groups from some of the other cities would probably complain less - like the complaint that Manchester has 3 times what Liverpool has.

Would going back to more slow and less fast services on the WCML help?

 

[Goatboy]

they expect everything given to them, but to give nothing back in return.

I see.

Do Virgin not pay track access charges currently then?

 

[43074]

All this talk of spite and tit for tat... makes me feel like Network Rail are going to turn around and say some of the existing services need to be cancelled to improve reliability!

Well it did happen in 2002/2003 after Cross Country introduced their operation princess timetable and reliability plummeted...

However, I don't see it happening again though. Punctuality is at an all time high (so Network Rail say) so it would be an unnecessary move.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know why people still think this is a logical thing to do.

Until Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury gets OHL electrified, it's really not.

Well, reversing at Stafford and running at 15 mph around the Oxley Chord isn't that logical. For a start, you use up paths reversing in the platform at Stafford and spend more time under the wires from London to Stafford and then back to Wolverhampton than you would going via Birmingham.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

There is always a way in my book!!
Running more trains together, eg a Pendolino, and a 'baby' Pendolino together and splitting at Stafford for Shrewsbury, and Preston for Blackpool for example.
Investment in the railways needs a serious increase.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I see. Do Virgin not pay track access charges currently then?

It may not be the current value, but this week's Rail (p16) shows an access charge figure for VT of £523m for 2014/15 (the first year of CP5).
NR's LNW Route's overall access charge income for the same year is £1054m (from all operators).
Both these figures are the highest on the network.
EC pay £340m, FGW £360m.
NR also get a large direct grant from DfT for maintenance work.

 

[Eagle]

Well, reversing at Stafford and running at 15 mph around the Oxley Chord isn't that logical. For a start, you use up paths reversing in the platform at Stafford and spend more time under the wires from London to Stafford and then back to Wolverhampton than you would going via Birmingham.

I agree neither makes much sense, and it's certainly not worth it for only serving Shrewsbury and Telford, which are hardly teeming metropoles. But replacing a Pendolino with a Voyager on Euston to Birmingham is definitely a very bad thing.

(I'd argue that using a Voyager at all prevents it being cascaded to diesel routes that might need it in the future, which is not a good idea. London to Blackpool services using EMUs are sensible once the wires are up, even if the main purpose of those services is to increase the service level between Crewe and Preston.)

 

[transmanche]

[On extending a London-Wolverhampton service to Shrewsbury.]

I don't know why people still think this is a logical thing to do.

Probably because that's how it used to be done, with a loco-swap at Wolverhampton.

Idle thought. Does the layout still make it easy to attach/remove a loco at Wolverhampton? Perhaps they could drag one Pendolino a day to/from Shrewsbury?

 

[Trog]

[On extending a London-Wolverhampton service to Shrewsbury.]
Idle thought. Does the layout still make it easy to attach/remove a loco at Wolverhampton? Perhaps they could drag one Pendolino a day to/from Shrewsbury?

The engine? siding between platforms 1 and 2 has gone.

 

[dk1]

Perhaps Shrewsbury should just give up on as london link. Seems jinxed.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . only serving Shrewsbury and Telford, which are hardly teeming metropoles. But replacing a Pendolino with a Voyager on Euston to Birmingham is definitely a very bad thing. (I'd argue that using a Voyager at all prevents it being cascaded to diesel routes that might need it in the future, which is not a good idea.

Voyagers were designed to be very similar to Pendolinos from the passenger perspective, and I understand that with tilt remaining on the Virgin examples there would be no difference in performance. A twin unit Voyager would have around the same passenger capacity as an 11-car VP, so apart from general objection to diesels running under the wires, I can't see any significant rational reasons why Voyagers couldn't substitute on some Euston-Birmingham-Wolverhampton services in order that the whole or part of the train might continue beyond the wires to and from Shrewsbury.

Whilst Telford and Shrewsbury clearly do not match the size of major British cities elsewhere, their potential importance as raiheads to a very large hinterland including the Welsh borders should not be overlooked.

 

[TDK]

[On extending a London-Wolverhampton service to Shrewsbury.]

Probably because that's how it used to be done, with a loco-swap at Wolverhampton.

Idle thought. Does the layout still make it easy to attach/remove a loco at Wolverhampton? Perhaps they could drag one Pendolino a day to/from Shrewsbury?

It wouldn't fit on any of the platforms

 

[transmanche]

The engine? siding between platforms 1 and 2 has gone.

Fair doos, don't think I've been that way since I was a kid.

Distant memories of an 8x being swapped at Wolverhampton for a 47 for the run to Shrewsbury; then exchanged for a pair of 37s at the other end for the trundle down to Aberystwyth...

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably NR don't give a stuff about service recovery if the original problem is attributed to TOC/FOC delay minutes?

Clearly I don't speak for everyone at NR, but there are quite a few of us who take professional pride in running trains on time, regardless of who causes delays.

And (almost) every single NR employee has a part of their bonus dependent on overall network performance. Put bluntly, if a TOC/FOC causes a delay, we get less cash.

So yes I do give a stuff.

 

[TDK]

Perhaps Shrewsbury should just give up on as london link. Seems jinxed.

It used to have one but unfortunately this company was muscled out by the big boys

 

[Eagle]

It used to have one but unfortunately this company was muscled out by the big boys

Are you talking about when Virgin ran services there in the late 1990s? The big boys being Railtrack, of course.

 

[dk1]

It used to have one but unfortunately this company was muscled out by the big boys

I think that lasted longer than many predicted.

 

[northwichcat]

I'd argue that using a Voyager at all prevents it being cascaded to diesel routes that might need it in the future

Remember the new WC franchise bid by Virgin had all the Voyagers released in 2016 and still included a Shrewsbury service.

Having Voyagers released doesn't necessarily guarantee much extra capacity on XC. Cascaded Voyagers could finish up doing another job - for one they are cheaper to run than 5 car HSTs so the HST operators may welcome cascaded Voyagers as HST replacement.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Network Rail are very much under scrutiny (see today's press for that)

Whatever the issue's are - a compromise can be worked out - note that the journey Salop to London can be done very quickly via Crewe - not much comfort in the short term , but an option post HS2 is a routing that way ..

No disrespect - to a fine part of the world - but the business on offer is probably not that massive. A case for wiring Wolves to Salop (and easy extensions of WC trains as appropriate and a good cross West Midlands EMU service has some merit) - in the medium term. Short term ????

 

[Gareth Marston]

Network Rail are very much under scrutiny (see today's press for that)

Whatever the issue's are - a compromise can be worked out - note that the journey Salop to London can be done very quickly via Crewe - not much comfort in the short term , but an option post HS2 is a routing that way ..

No disrespect - to a fine part of the world - but the business on offer is probably not that massive. A case for wiring Wolves to Salop (and easy extensions of WC trains as appropriate and a good cross West Midlands EMU service has some merit) - in the medium term. Short term ????

The 4 car DMU's ATW run as the semi fast between Salop and BHM INTL are often full beyond capacity in peak and well used in off peak, the Wolverhampton VT trains are virtually empty outside peak. I've always seen extending wires to Salop as not only restoring through trains but freeing up capacity on Stour valley by replacing ATW DMU's with extended West Coast train which then carries a good-ish load in off peak west of Birmingham.

 

[The Planner]

Don't think wires to Shrewsbury will ever wash its face in a business case. You'll need extra units to extend EBWs too and I would imagine it would cause a real imbalance.

 

[junglejames]

I don't think there is any "perceived" or "unfair" about it, surely the figures speak for themselves. VT (like any train operator) want to run an efficient and on time service but due to the WCML South problems in particular, they have been unable to. As a service provider, surely NR should be living up to their contractual obligations in the service they provide.

VT did what was expected of them and requested additional paths for additional services (way before the threat of legal action). Whether NR are rejecting the Shrewsbury and Blackpool requests as part of a plan to secure more funding, or to save paths in the event of any subsequent issues, or to push for HS2, or as a direct result of the threat of legal action is anyones guess. Either way as a passenger I want my train to be on time and when there are frequent delays and cancellations due to infrastructure issues outside of the TOCs control they should be able to escalate this as they see fit.

But werent Virgin mentioning problems which were very unfair to blame on NR? Also, Virgin are just wasting everybodies time. Why cant they work together with NR, instead of against them. Try and at least look like a unified railway. Unless NR have shut up shop and arent talking to anybody, then fine.

Anyway, either way, unfair or not, what NR have done is the correct course of action. Virgin complained about NR and the infrastructure. This shows NR have listened to Virgins problems, and have taken them onboard. For NR to help rectify any problems with the infrastructure, they need more time to look after it, not less.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I see.

Do Virgin not pay track access charges currently then?

You know what i mean. They want a perfect railway, but dont expect to have to give NR time to deliver it. Instead, they expect extra paths.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree neither makes much sense, and it's certainly not worth it for only serving Shrewsbury and Telford, which are hardly teeming metropoles. But replacing a Pendolino with a Voyager on Euston to Birmingham is definitely a very bad thing.

(I'd argue that using a Voyager at all prevents it being cascaded to diesel routes that might need it in the future, which is not a good idea. London to Blackpool services using EMUs are sensible once the wires are up, even if the main purpose of those services is to increase the service level between Crewe and Preston.)

2 voyagers in the place of a bendy pendy? Capacity may be slightly less, but is this really a problem with so many trains between London and Birmingham? I may be wrong, but i didnt think the Birmingham trains got too busy outside peak time.
Yes voyagers are s**t, and shouldnt be on the network full stop, but unfortunately thats what we have been shafted with. If you can replace a HST with a voyager, there is surely no problem replacing a bendy pendy with a voyager. (im thinking comfort wise with that last statement)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Remember the new WC franchise bid by Virgin had all the Voyagers released in 2016 and still included a Shrewsbury service.

Having Voyagers released doesn't necessarily guarantee much extra capacity on XC. Cascaded Voyagers could finish up doing another job - for one they are cheaper to run than 5 car HSTs so the HST operators may welcome cascaded Voyagers as HST replacement.

LOL. I doubt any current HST operators (bar XC) will be wanting to replace them with voyagers. FGW are adament HSTs are to keep running down to Penzance even once IEP arrives. They are showing absolutely no wish for voyagers. The stakeholders in Cornwall definitely dont want them either. I highly doubt EMT have any interest. Compared to the meridians and HSTs, voyagers are c**p. There is a reason Midland Mainline decided to make an awful lot of changes to the voyager design when they went for 222s.
As for EC. Again, can you really see it? Not a cat in hells chance.

Oh, and why do you mention 5 car HSTs? No HST operators have 5 car HSTs. Anyway, dont be too sure they would be cheaper to run than a 5 car HST. I dont reckon there would be a lot in it. As for comparing an 8 car HST and voyagers. Even if an 8 car voyager was enough (which it wouldnt be), the HST would still be cheaper to run. Less fuel, cheaper maintenance, similar access charges.
Nope, no other operators will be wanting to replace their HSTs with voyagers. The only chance is if it was forced on them by DFT.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It used to have one but unfortunately this company was muscled out by the big boys

Are you referring here to the Wrexham and Shropshire rail company services that sadly met their demise.

 

[DW54]

Are you referring here to the Wrexham and Shropshire rail company services that sadly met their demise.

DB Schenker - muscled out by the big boys? How much muscle?

Ah yes, restrictions on picking up in Virgin country - made the runs unprofitable.