Extra Virgin West Coast services rejected by NR

[SprinterMan]

If paths are being ruled out on the WCML by Network Rail, what would seriously be wrong with having the following;

Wrexham-Gobowen-Shrewsbury-Ludlow-Hereford-Abergavenny-Bristol Parkway-Reading-London Paddington

OK, Telford loses out but it opens up a new possibility for Shrewsbury.

I believe there's a bit of track in the Maindee area of Newport which would allow running from Abergavenny through to Bristol Parkway without having to go into Newport and reverse out.

It is a nice idea, but would just be WSMR all over again. No one would use it for the full journey, and it would be at least 1 or 2 hours slower from SHR to London than going via BHM and changing. It has been done before, and it's continued existence wasn't warranted then, so I highly doubt it will be now.

Adam

 

[jones_bangor]

What do you mean a pointless publicity stunt, I dont think endless meetings with stakeholders including NR staff was a stunt.

I note you have stayed clear of the VT line from Holyhead to Euston where some of the VT early morning services are almost empty to Chester calling at towns a fraction of the size of Telford & Shrewsbury, & yes I know its in the TOCs franchise agreement that the North Wales VTs have to run.

Hang on here...who says these North Wales VT are almost empty? I note that this is yet more unsubstantiated and anecdotal ramblings....nothing new there, but come on! North Wales coast gets a regular VT service because (1) there's a demand for it (most importantly) and (2) it's an international rail route. Maybe I should retort that the only empty VT service I've seen recently is the service leaving Chester for WRexham!!

You seem to demonstrate a misunderstanding of how modern railways operate....most people drive to their local station, park there and "hop on". The size of the town is rather irrelevant if there's a large catchment....

 

[anti-pacer]

It is a nice idea, but would just be WSMR all over again. No one would use it for the full journey, and it would be at least 1 or 2 hours slower from SHR to London than going via BHM and changing. It has been done before, and it's continued existence wasn't warranted then, so I highly doubt it will be now.

Adam

Yes, thinking about it and working out the timings, it would be a long old haul wouldn't it?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Hang on here...who says these North Wales VT are almost empty? I note that this is yet more unsubstantiated and anecdotal ramblings....nothing new there, but come on! North Wales coast gets a regular VT service because (1) there's a demand for it (most importantly) and (2) it's an international rail route. Maybe I should retort that the only empty VT service I've seen recently is the service leaving Chester for WRexham!!

But I think you would agree that a 10-car set is not required west of Chester except at peak ferry/holiday times? Certainly not west of Llandudno Jn.
I think North Wales is very peaky, more so than other WCML destinations. Quiet midweek, and then rammed when weekends/holidays/ferries/business traffic coincides.
Although you can do the round trip to Euston easily in a day, it's not (yet) "day-trip" territory in the same way as Manchester/Liverpool/Preston/Chester is.
Among other things, it's why the peak ticket restrictions are less restrictive than elsewhere.

 

[tbtc]

Hang on here...who says these North Wales VT are almost empty? I note that this is yet more unsubstantiated and anecdotal ramblings....nothing new there, but come on! North Wales coast gets a regular VT service because (1) there's a demand for it (most importantly) and (2) it's an international rail route

...albeit a relatively quiet international rail route, if the passenger figures for Holyhead are to be trusted.

Is every service to Hull an "international train" Or do only some lines need a trumped up description?

 

[merlodlliw]

Hang on here...who says these North Wales VT are almost empty? I note that this is yet more unsubstantiated and anecdotal ramblings....nothing new there, but come on! North Wales coast gets a regular VT service because (1) there's a demand for it (most importantly) and (2) it's an international rail route. Maybe I should retort that the only empty VT service I've seen recently is the service leaving Chester for WRexham!!

You seem to demonstrate a misunderstanding of how modern railways operate....most people drive to their local station, park there and "hop on". The size of the town is rather irrelevant if there's a large catchment....

Indeed it leaves Chester at around 0635 having picked up staff on platform three then runs VT staff only to Wrexham to form the 0700 Wrexham to Euston, there are some 50 to 60 getting on board to Chester when it leaves Wrexham,I am surprised you were on Chester station at 0635 to witness this.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

...albeit a relatively quiet international rail route, if the passenger figures for Holyhead are to be trusted.
Is every service to Hull an "international train" Or do only some lines need a trumped up description?

The Holyhead route has TEN-T status as a priority for EU development funding.
The UK/IR conventional rail TEN-T list is:
WCML
Hull-Liverpool
Felixstowe-Nuneaton
Crewe-Holyhead
Cork-Dublin-Belfast

The conventional TEN routes are about freight.
The high-speed TEN routes are about passengers and only cover HS1 in the UK.
Not much sign of rail freight development at Holyhead...

 

[Gareth Marston]

The Holyhead route has TEN-T status as a priority for EU development funding.
The UK/IR conventional rail TEN-T list is:
WCML
Hull-Liverpool
Felixstowe-Nuneaton
Crewe-Holyhead
Cork-Dublin-Belfast

The conventional TEN routes are about freight.
The high-speed TEN routes are about passengers and only cover HS1 in the UK.
Not much sign of rail freight development at Holyhead...

Don't see much eu funding being spent on them though!

Re the quite n Wales trains its because the depots at holyhead they have to start somewhere likewise atw stable overnight there so theres a bit of a procession eastbound early doors. The Cambrian has everything bar 1 unit at Pwllheli stabled at Machynlleth so theres some early morning turns to Aberystwyth and late night returns to Mach

 

[Eagle]

The general gist is that a company "limited by guarantee" is one where, instead of shareholders, you have "members" who agree to pay a fixed amount if the company is wound up.

This fixed amount can be very small. For instance my students' union, which became a company limited by guarantee in 2011, set it at £1.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Would take forever that way.

Would it (going via Hereford and the Newport avoider/GWML) be THAT much slower than the VT proposal to reverse at Stafford and crawl round Oxley chord though? It really depends what you think is more important- one or two direct trains or good connections at a nearby 'hub' station.

To take GC's West Riding services as a comparison, they call at both Brighouse and now Mirfield to serve Huddersfield- I'm not sure how many passengers choose to travel this way as opposed to changing at Leeds or Wakefield for the much quicker and more frequent EC service- but I do imagine that if GC had a service that called at Huddersfield and then still ran via the slow Askern line to Doncaster they'd probably capture more of the Huddersfield-London market. If you have to change anyway then you'd take the quickest and most convenient route- but a direct service will still win people over even if it's slower- simply because of the convenience of not having to change. Of course enthusiasts generally have less of an issue about changing trains than the average 'occasional' passenger though.

 

[The Planner]

Considering the fastest Newport Paddington is 1hr 45, then you have Shrewsbury to Newport, that is going to be 1hr 30. Couldn't ever see a non-stop run being much less than 3 hours.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Don't see much eu funding being spent on them though!

I think you could argue the WCML has had a few bob spent on it over the past decade.
Felixstowe-Nuneaton is being upgraded, TP for Liverpool/Olive Mount etc.
The trouble is these are corridors, and cover the parallel roads and ports.
The Crewe/M6-Holyhead corridor investment has all gone into the A55.

EU funding, I think, is matched with local funds, so if the DfT don't put up any plans, there will be no money (or it will go elsewhere).
The rail industry seems to have decided that Liverpool is the Irish Sea port.

 

[merlodlliw]

I think you could argue the WCML has had a few bob spent on it over the past decade.
Felixstowe-Nuneaton is being upgraded, TP for Liverpool/Olive Mount etc.
The trouble is these are corridors, and cover the parallel roads and ports.
The Crewe/M6-Holyhead corridor investment has all gone into the A55.

EU funding, I think, is matched with local funds, so if the DfT don't put up any plans, there will be no money (or it will go elsewhere).
The rail industry seems to have decided that Liverpool is the Irish Sea port.

Matched funding does not always mean £, that why many call it funny money.
Luckily Stenna & Irish Ferries dont think Liverpool,

 

[tbtc]

The Holyhead route has TEN-T status as a priority for EU development funding.
The UK/IR conventional rail TEN-T list is:
WCML
Hull-Liverpool
Felixstowe-Nuneaton
Crewe-Holyhead
Cork-Dublin-Belfast

The conventional TEN routes are about freight.
The high-speed TEN routes are about passengers and only cover HS1 in the UK.
Not much sign of rail freight development at Holyhead...

Holyhead gets roughly 350 passengers departing there a day.

Now, if these Voyagers that connect with ferries are as busy as some lead us to believe on here (and a single Voyager with 200ish seats cannot cope with all of these important international passengers) then that must mean a lot of empty services west of Bangor too.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I use the 16:10 VT EUS-Bangor service once a week, it is never more than half full up to Chester and a lot less full thereafter. I have also used the 7:10 & 15:10 services to Chester which are even less full.

 

[IanD]

Indeed it leaves Chester at around 0635 having picked up staff on platform three then runs VT staff only to Wrexham to form the 0700 Wrexham to Euston, there are some 50 to 60 getting on board to Chester when it leaves Wrexham,I am surprised you were on Chester station at 0635 to witness this.

What about the 2022 Chester to Wrexham arr 2038?

 

[merlodlliw]

What about the 2022 Chester to Wrexham arr 2038?

I meet this train often, It replaced a local Wolverhampton service & always has good numbers on board from Chester,usually between 30 & 50,the down side is pax for Ruabon/Chirk/Gobowen have to change at Wrexham. Of course the majority are using the service from Crewe & Chester. It would be mischief making to say this train runs empty to Wrexham, only the 0635 ex Chester VT runs empty to Wrexham as diagrammed.

When VT withdrew this service on Bank Holiday Mondays,it left many pax stranded at Chester,however after a long battle(SCRUA) managed to get the 2022 reinstated by ATW all stations Chester to Shrewsbury due to large numbers having to wait up to two hours on Chester station for the 2122.VT even now refuse to show the 1810 Wrexham section as Bank Holidays Excepted.

The majority choice would prefer the VT replaced by ATW to prevent having to change at Wrexham both Up & Down, A Manchester service would be of more use locally at 0700.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I use the 16:10 VT EUS-Bangor service once a week, it is never more than half full up to Chester and a lot less full thereafter. I have also used the 7:10 & 15:10 services to Chester which are even less full.

The 1610 is the one North Wales train of the day back from Euston on which off-peak returns are not valid (beyond Chester).

 

[Muzer]

This fixed amount can be very small. For instance my students' union, which became a company limited by guarantee in 2011, set it at £1.

Interestingly enough, my students' union did the same thing recently, I believe for 10p. The worrying thing is how they can make all the students guarantors for a year (effectively, due to other terms in the contract and the way the system works) without any form of permission...

 

[35B]

If we are going down that road then Hereford gets Malvern, Worcester and Moreton-in-Marsh too :P Telford gets the equivalent of 2tph to London with only 1 change, and there is not a big enough market to warrant more trains than this, as InterCity, Virgin and WSMR have all found out over the years.

Adam

Really? Tell that to the people who drive to Stafford rather than change at Wolves or New St. Or ask why Telford has so many town centre hotels. The town had a hell of a lot of office jobs & the travel that goes with them, plenty enough to make Telford at least as good a destination as Shrewsbury. It needs the right service, properly promoted.

 

[TDK]

I meet this train often, It replaced a local Wolverhampton service & always has good numbers on board from Chester,usually between 30 & 50,the down side is pax for Ruabon/Chirk/Gobowen have to change at Wrexham. Of course the majority are using the service from Crewe & Chester. It would be mischief making to say this train runs empty to Wrexham, only the 0635 ex Chester VT runs empty to Wrexham as diagrammed.

When VT withdrew this service on Bank Holiday Mondays,it left many pax stranded at Chester,however after a long battle(SCRUA) managed to get the 2022 reinstated by ATW all stations Chester to Shrewsbury due to large numbers having to wait up to two hours on Chester station for the 2122.VT even now refuse to show the 1810 Wrexham section as Bank Holidays Excepted.

The majority choice would prefer the VT replaced by ATW to prevent having to change at Wrexham both Up & Down, A Manchester service would be of more use locally at 0700.

It has been known for the VT to be late and the Shrewsbury service to depart just a minute before the VT arrives leaving the passengers to wait for next one. I do not know the politics behind this though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

only the 0635 ex Chester VT runs empty to Wrexham as diagrammed.

This is an ECS move and not timetabled as a passenger service.

 

[merlodlliw]

It has been known for the VT to be late and the Shrewsbury service to depart just a minute before the VT arrives leaving the passengers to wait for next one. I do not know the politics behind this though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


This is an ECS move and not timetabled as a passenger service.

I agree on several occasions the ATW Evening Shrewsbury service out of Wrexham General platform three, supposedly to convey Ruabon/Chirk/Gobowen pax off the VT & others boarding at Chester, has indeed left one or two minutes prior to the VTs arrival ,thus causing Pax an hours wait at Wrexham, a strange happening as this ATW 150 is on its last duty of the day.

You are correct, I should have put ECS.

 

[WatcherZero]

Hmm, I suppose the NR rejection doesnt really mean the final say, its ORR that makes the final determination and they could overrule NR. I wouldnt be surprised if they decide the Blackpool services at least should go ahead anyway being simple extensions.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Hmm, I suppose the NR rejection doesnt really mean the final say, its ORR that makes the final determination and they could overrule NR. I wouldnt be surprised if they decide the Blackpool services at least should go ahead anyway being simple extensions.

Well they are not extensions are they (at least as reported).
Like the Shrewsburys and the peak extras they will use the nn33 paths out of Euston.
I think ORR could turn Virgin down even if NR was happy, but not the other way round.
Unless the paths change (possible), or VT accepts a lower PPM (unlikely) I should think NR effectively has a veto.
Forgetting NR, I think Shrewsbury is more likely to be approved by ORR because there is no other application.
Blackpool also has the Alliance bid (although they have no trains) and judging how to handle the competition issues might cause a lot of trouble, as with GC on the ECML.
My guess was that if VT got approval it would only be until the next WCML timetable rewrite (2015/16?).

Edit 1:
Application detail and correspondence is now on the ORR web site:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1258

Edit 2:
Fascinating.
The ORR material consists of the original application and the consultation responses from everybody except, crucially, Network Rail.
There is no pronouncement one way or the other from ORR.
The application is on an Open Access basis (not part of a service specification).
It is written to expire with the initial VT franchise extension date of November 2014 (so only covering 11 months of operation).

The text in the application is:

The Train Operator is proposing to introduce two services a day in each direction, Monday to Saturday, and one train in each direction on Sundays to both destinations. The Shrewsbury services depart at 0706 and 1506, calling at Telford Central, Wellington, Stafford and Rugby, with arrivals at Euston at 0918 and 1718 respectively. The return services from Euston depart at 1133 and 1837, calling at the same points and arriving at Shrewsbury at 1350 and 2057 respectively. The Blackpool North services depart at 0636 and 1403, calling at Kirkham & Wesham, Preston, Wigan North Western, Warrington Bank Quay, Stafford and Rugby, with arrivals at Euston at 0933 and 1654 respectively. The return services from Euston depart at 1033 and 1933, calling at the same points and arriving at Blackpool North at 1335 and 2218 respectively.

Alliance Rail take a dim view of it all, and complain that despite being Open Access, VT are using franchise (public) assets.
This was what torpedoed the ATW OA proposal for Aberystwyth-Marylebone.
They also objected to the Shrewsbury service as it proves there is spare capacity on the WCML which they were not allowed access to.
Apparently VT said they were using the Stafford route because the Birmingham route is "congested", but Alliance maintain it is not (and would not object to Salop if routed via Brum).
They also object to the fact that this is a last-minute application and never figured in the WCML capacity reviews (ESG).
Nevertheless, they seem to be prepared to let it go up to the Nov 2014 date (as they have no trains anyway).
But they do go on to reiterate their plan to order bi-mode EPS-capable stock for their services, given WCML paths.

None of the other interested parties objected (except evidently NR), but VT forgot to inform many of them and there are complaints of poor consultation, including from DfT.

 

[neonison]

So how am I going to do Bushbury Junction - Oxley, Stafford Road Junction (131) CC05 now?

 

[The Planner]

Apparently VT said they were using the Stafford route because the Birmingham route is "congested", but Alliance maintain it is not (and would not object to Salop if routed via Brum).

Behave, love to see Alliance fit a train in from International to New St. They may just squeeze one in to Stechford and round the Grands but even that is doubtful.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its interesting that the way the application is worded is Virgin responding to the Secretarys announcement of new services in December rather than preceding it. Especielly considering the short turnaround for consultation and amendment of less than a year it looks rather like it caught Virgin on the hoof.

I wonder if the impetus for this was not the Government trying to save face from the franchise fiasco and the loss of the proposed new services by Virgin and First?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So how am I going to do Bushbury Junction - Oxley, Stafford Road Junction (131) CC05 now?

Wait for the Shrewsbury-Crewe resignalling to be commissioned.
When this happens there'll be ATW diversions of Cardiff-Manchester trains via Oxley (there have been a few already...).
You also get to ride the fast lines through Wellington.

 

[SprinterMan]

Well they are not extensions are they (at least as reported).
Like the Shrewsburys and the peak extras they will use the nn33 paths out of Euston.
I think ORR could turn Virgin down even if NR was happy, but not the other way round.
Unless the paths change (possible), or VT accepts a lower PPM (unlikely) I should think NR effectively has a veto.
Forgetting NR, I think Shrewsbury is more likely to be approved by ORR because there is no other application.
Blackpool also has the Alliance bid (although they have no trains) and judging how to handle the competition issues might cause a lot of trouble, as with GC on the ECML.
My guess was that if VT got approval it would only be until the next WCML timetable rewrite (2015/16?).

Edit 1:
Application detail and correspondence is now on the ORR web site:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1258

Edit 2:
Fascinating.
The ORR material consists of the original application and the consultation responses from everybody except, crucially, Network Rail.
There is no pronouncement one way or the other from ORR.
The application is on an Open Access basis (not part of a service specification).
It is written to expire with the initial VT franchise extension date of November 2014 (so only covering 11 months of operation).

The text in the application is:


Alliance Rail take a dim view of it all, and complain that despite being Open Access, VT are using franchise (public) assets.
This was what torpedoed the ATW OA proposal for Aberystwyth-Marylebone.
They also objected to the Shrewsbury service as it proves there is spare capacity on the WCML which they were not allowed access to.
Apparently VT said they were using the Stafford route because the Birmingham route is "congested", but Alliance maintain it is not (and would not object to Salop if routed via Brum).
They also object to the fact that this is a last-minute application and never figured in the WCML capacity reviews (ESG).
Nevertheless, they seem to be prepared to let it go up to the Nov 2014 date (as they have no trains anyway).
But they do go on to reiterate their plan to order bi-mode EPS-capable stock for their services, given WCML paths.

None of the other interested parties objected (except evidently NR), but VT forgot to inform many of them and there are complaints of poor consultation, including from DfT.

Thanks so much for this summary, for those of us who do not have the time or energy to sift through the document this is very useful indeed

It is interesting that Alliance dispute the services as well, but at this point in time do people still believe GNWR will ever operate?

Adam

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It is interesting that Alliance dispute the services as well, but at this point in time do people still believe GNWR will ever operate?
Adam

After a long silence and the takeover by Arriva/DB it's interesting they have surfaced with detailed comments.
I take this to mean that DB are staying with the Open Access sector.
I hope they are serious, because otherwise they are just queering the pitch for genuine improvements by established TOCs.
Sooner or later they will be asked by ORR to put up or shut up.
Residents of Shrewsbury and Blackpool (like those of Wrexham and Lockerbie) should also note that any VT services they get are OA and not in any sense guaranteed by the DfT