Hands off our cheiftain!!

[Aictos]

Personally I dont think the Inverness or Aberdeen services should be included in the East Coast franchise when its relet,
The paths and rolling stock should be offered to open access operators. Any subsidy required I imagine it would be quite a bit would be the reponsibility of the scottish parliament.

I disagree strongly, they are well used and should be left with the current operator in this case East Coast, however the daily Hull service which East Coast has should be transferred to Hull Trains if not for the fact it too is a popular service.

 

[paul1609]

That wouldn't bother me if the paths were safe. But whoever runs the east coast franchise would not be happy about losing paths nor sharing revenue at York, Newcastle and Edinburgh. The would get orcats of course and we have Grand Central again. On the same note why do assume it makes a loss north of Edinburgh. The sets are normally full from experience on arrival at Haymarket. They are not all on £10AP tickets either.

I dont think it would bother the new franchisee at all as long as it was known at the time of bidding.
I think the economics of running a few high speed trains a day over various scottish branchlines ( I know they are called mainlines in Scotland) must be horrendous- thats without having to fund replacement rolling stock.
Lets face it these trains along with the highland sleepers are run for purely political reasons theres noeconomic case whatsoever.

 

[ObservationCar]

I dont think it would bother the new franchisee at all as long as it was known at the time of bidding.
I think the economics of running a few high speed trains a day over various scottish branchlines ( I know they are called mainlines in Scotland) must be horrendous- thats without having to fund replacement rolling stock.
Lets face it these trains along with the highland sleepers are run for purely political reasons theres noeconomic case whatsoever.

I am more than happy to hear the pros and cons of keeping or scrapping such a service, but I think your comments are a bit off the wall. I take it there are no mainlines in say Denmark because there are only 5 million people live there.

Economics are not too bad either, an HST at half capacity north of Edinburgh paying an average of £20 single a each works out as £5000 in the farebox for Inverness to Edinburgh, This train is hard to get a seat 4 months of the summer but working it out at half capacity all year round this would put £3,610,000 in the kitty, which i'm sure pays for this train to go north of Edinburgh. There is Staff accomodation, track access, fuelling movements, restaurants etc.. to pay for, but I'm sure it breaks even, and requires no subsidy. Overall (although not calculated as such) the West Coast daily services pays for the sleepers, but why shouldn't the profitable lines pay for the less profitable ones. Money made on Railways should be re-invested in Railways.

Using your branchline strategy, why not close pointless stations like Appledore, it only serves a couple of Orchards, in fact close the line, its only a branchline, Ore Tunnel is too expensive too maintain ]. Doesn't add up, attitudes such as this would have a railway with only cattle vans running between profitable stations to London. Oh yeah, thats what happens in the south east anyway!

Serious I do not have any bias against the South East even if you think that nowhere north Watford exists. I am pro railways, and I encourage and support any development and improvement in the Railways providing its worthwhile and serves a purpose. But theres no economic sense in backward steps. Come up to the Highlands sometime, you will be plesantly suprised.

 

[route101]

Only Catering crews go the full London - Edinburgh route. Drivers and guards change at Newcastle on most trips.

There seems to be a suggestion that XC takeover the running of Inverness & Aberdeen services which really is complete nonsense. For a start the talk of these services being withdrawn is because of the rolling stock being replaced. XC would be no exception and would also likely lose their HST's.

Transferring the running of the service to another operator makes no difference to the situation at all as this is not an issue with affordability of the running of the service to the operator but a matter of affordability of replacing the rolling stock.

To add to this story it has already been strongly hinted (in the last few days) that getting rid of these services is not on the cards as it's recognised as a very valuable service even if the IEP is partially or fully scrapped. It has also been strongly hinted that the current rolling stock will be heavily refurbished and new replacement power cars/locomotives will be a shorter-term option. At the moment there is a lot of work going on which suggest a heavy refurbishment is on the cards for the future.

I believe it could well become a situation for the future franchise holder to replace the rolling stock in a longer 15-20 year East Coast franchise.

Pretty sure ive had London Crew on a service from Glasgow.

 

[scotsman]

Personally I dont think the Inverness or Aberdeen services should be included in the East Coast franchise when its relet,
The paths and rolling stock should be offered to open access operators. Any subsidy required I imagine it would be quite a bit would be the reponsibility of the scottish parliament.

1 - Lovely idea - offer some pretty important mainline services up for the highest bidder with the advantage of little regulation.

2 - Subsidy? Aye, transfer the stock and paths to Holyrood first though?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pretty sure ive had London Crew on a service from Glasgow.

Probably have, I've never - but since working hours and route knowledge don't come into the equation I can't imagine it not happening.

 

[Failed Unit]

I am sure Scotrail would snap the hands off DFT should they decide that the service is not needed to be in the East Coast franchise. Remember however the HSTs doing these services are also diagrammed to Hull and Skipton so I guess they should be removed from the franchise.

Use the 222s to replace the hst if you must once mml is electric.

If it is ok for West Coast to have diesel trains operation diagrams 100% under the wires then it should be ok for east coast to have services that are under the wires for 2/3 of the journey. As Inverness and Aberdeen are a good distance from Edinburgh.

When west coast is relet Holyhead should go under the same Logic.

 

[4SRKT]

I recently used the Chieftain from Perth to Inverness even though the 17:10 ScotRail service was at a slightly more convenient time for me. This was simply because the East Coast advance single was £6.70 instead of £9.80 for the same ticket on the ScotRail service.

 

[PhilipW]

Scrapping The Chieftain is just an idea going the rounds not a plan or a proposal. As such, I don't for one minute think it will ever see the light of day.

Bear in mind that the MP for Inverness is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury who has already spoken out in public in support of the service.

I think that anyone who now puts forward a definate proposal to scrap the service could only be described as "bonkers". Politically it would be disastrous to axe the service -- so it won't be. It's as simple as that.

 

[Bittern]

scottish branchlines ( I know they are called mainlines in Scotland)

Well, yeah, they're called 'main lines' because they are main lines, and are certainly not branch lines.

 

[Invincibles]

It is quite interesting to read the very emotive comments about the Chieftain and the idea that maybe it is not the best use of a HST.

I wonder what the effect would be if you put a HST on say Liverpool to Newcastle a couple of times a day. No doubt it would become the most used train as everyone would love the extra capacity between some pretty large cities. The resultant 185 that was released could go to Hull/Cleethorpes duties and the 170 could go to scotland. No doubt no one who uses the Chieftain likes that idea very much. The path from London to Edinburgh could be run using the seemingly daft Newark diagrams for a few hours (extending the York terminator north)

I think it will be a political decision to keep it, and the result will not be too much of a disaster. I just really feel a simplification of the east coast franchise along the same lines as the west coast could have a lot of benefits.

 

[Failed Unit]

Is running to Holyhead on the west coast simple? Using voyagers and pendos when an enlarged pendo fleet would do the job simple? We are talking about what happens once the hst is gone. Remember it arrives at Edinburgh at 1630 so doesn't have time to return South. Likewise the 1130 would have been sat in Edinburgh anyway doing nothing hence why BR created the service in the first place. Get more use from their HSTs.

 

[Zoe]

If you withdraw the through service I expect some people will tranfer to road or air.

 

[gordonthemoron]

If you withdraw the through service I expect some people will tranfer to road or air.

air yes, road I doubt

 

[Invincibles]

Is running to Holyhead on the west coast simple? Using voyagers and pendos when an enlarged pendo fleet would do the job simple? We are talking about what happens once the hst is gone. Remember it arrives at Edinburgh at 1630 so doesn't have time to return South. Likewise the 1130 would have been sat in Edinburgh anyway doing nothing hence why BR created the service in the first place. Get more use from their HSTs.

Is that not the point though, if it is not a HST it can do a lot of things. Certainly there is plenty of opportunity for it to come south, there is no reason why it can not be a 1800 and arrive in Kings Cross at 0020 say (I can not remember if there is a 1800 southbound, but there is a possibility there)

If the diagrams are right it could form a later service from Edinburgh to Newcastle (push each unit back so they have longer turn around times, not just hold the one train for a long time) then it has the chance to run south from there in the morning. Or it could form an earlier train from Newcastle to Edinburgh which could then be the 1130 south. There are a lot of possibilities.

What time does the Leeds to Aberdeen get into Edinburgh (since we are also talking about removing through Aberdeen trains) that could form the 1130 south.

 

[me123]

Air, definitely. It's already by far the fastest way of getting from the Highlands to London. Probably the best, if not the only, incentive for travelling by rail would be the Cheiftain.

And Failed Unit is right; the HST likely wouldn't be doing anything else anyway if it remained with East Coast. Keeping it makes sense, brings significant benefits for the communities it serves; and realistically, scrapping it won't really bring any benefits to anyone else anywhere else.

 

[sprinterguy]

Examining the East Coast timetable, there's a bigger gain in rolling stock made available by withdrawing the Glasgow trains, as is going to happen, than by withdrawing the north of Edinburgh HSTs, as the HSTs are making use of marginal time where they would otherwise be unused for a portion of the day, as has been said above. Most of the HST diagrams are also bolstering the core ECML services during the day by working Kings Cross to Leeds and Newcastle services at various points, as well as a few Edinburgh-Kings Cross services. Without sufficient replacement electric stock to operate these services (and I don’t think that withdrawal of the Glasgow trains would free up enough 225s) that are completely under the wires, East Coast is still going to need most of its’ HSTs. Admittedly a couple would most likely no longer be required for EC, but there’d still be a need for an East Coast HST fleet to fill these gaps, even without the Aberdeen and Inverness services.

 

[scotsman]

I recently used the Chieftain from Perth to Inverness even though the 17:10 ScotRail service was at a slightly more convenient time for me. This was simply because the East Coast advance single was £6.70 instead of £9.80 for the same ticket on the ScotRail service.

I've done the 1710 a few times so that I could get a *free* lift up to Broomhill on the diner. It's usually full from Perth and often standing from Kingussie.

 

[philjo]

Through London-Highlands trains escape DfT axe

See this article posted today in Rail News:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/10/25-through-londonhighlands-trains-are-spared.html

 

[ObservationCar]

Well Done and Thank You to everyone who signed the petition to save the Highland Cheiftain, the service has now officially been saved

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11847067

Thanks again, this service is more than just a train, it serves so many purposes and deserves to be kept as it is.

Electrification to Inverness anyone?!!!

 

[Bittern]

Electrification to Inverness anyone?!!!

Ew no no no!

 

[Aictos]

Ew no no no!

Yes, Yes, Yes,

 

[ainsworth74]

Indeed then wires to Aberdeen which would make life much easier for future ECML stock acquisition.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed then wires to Aberdeen which would make life much easier for future ECML stock acquisition.

Wires to Aberdeen are easy to justify, you have a up to eight trains an hour each way over the Forth Bridge, half hourly service from Edinburgh to Dundee, half hourly from Dundee to Aberdeen, the numbers can justify it on internal Scottish routes alone. Add in the justification of also "saving" the diesel units running under the wires south of Edinburgh too and it makes sense.

However, Perth to Inverness is only a train every couple of hours which is harder to justify wiring (especially when 100mph of electrification elsewhere in the UK could save dozens of units). Even if the line is doubled there won't be as much demand for Inverness

So I could see electrification to Aberdeen but not to Inverness

 

[ainsworth74]

So I could see electrification to Aberdeen but not to Inverness

Well yes the case for Aberdeen is indeed much stronger! I was just being lazy and not bothering to properly put across how electrification north of Edinburgh should probably be carried out

 

[ObservationCar]

Indeed then wires to Aberdeen which would make life much easier for future ECML stock acquisition.

Your right, even without electrification to Inverness (as i can't see how they can get the knitting through Killiecrankie Tunnel). All we need for is one loco, just one 3000+hp loco to be based at Perth that could haul an electric train 100 or so more miles. It could even be timed to be the 67 that comes off the sleeper. This would be much cheaper than making non standard trains for one wee route.

 

[tbtc]

Well yes the case for Aberdeen is indeed much stronger! I was just being lazy and not bothering to properly put across how electrification north of Edinburgh should probably be carried out

Ah, okay, I was getting confused by thinking you meant Inverness should be done and *then* Aberdeen (as a lesser priority) - apologies

Its a shame that the times don't currently work to allow a 67 to do the Cheiftan "drag" northbound, sleeper southbound, sleeper northbound and the next morning's Chieftan "drag" southbound:

Perth 18.00
Inverness 20.08

Inverness 20.46
Edinburgh 01.00

Edinburgh 04.00
Inverness 08.31

Inverness 07.55
Perth 09.56

(Inverness - London service would need pushed back to run at least an hour later)

 

[Aictos]

Wires to Aberdeen are easy to justify, you have a up to eight trains an hour each way over the Forth Bridge, half hourly service from Edinburgh to Dundee, half hourly from Dundee to Aberdeen, the numbers can justify it on internal Scottish routes alone. Add in the justification of also "saving" the diesel units running under the wires south of Edinburgh too and it makes sense.

However, Perth to Inverness is only a train every couple of hours which is harder to justify wiring (especially when 100mph of electrification elsewhere in the UK could save dozens of units). Even if the line is doubled there won't be as much demand for Inverness

So I could see electrification to Aberdeen but not to Inverness

I like your proposals,

However are the MK4s fitted with SDO especially when they're likely to go onto the Aberdeens when you take the stations which have short platforms into account.

I mean the HSTs won't be used on these services forever and once wired up makes sense to use the 91s provided of course that the wiring can support them and is not a cheap effort as the Skipton route proves where a 91 could be used but the wiring cannot support them hence a HST has to be used.

 

[tbtc]

I like your proposals,

However are the MK4s fitted with SDO especially when they're likely to go onto the Aberdeens when you take the stations which have short platforms into account.

I mean the HSTs won't be used on these services forever and once wired up makes sense to use the 91s provided of course that the wiring can support them and is not a cheap effort as the Skipton route proves where a 91 could be used but the wiring cannot support them hence a HST has to be used.

91s on the Aberdeen service would be fantastic

Trouble is, as you're suggesting, they do stop at a lot of stations which may struggle with their size (ScotRail can skip places like Kirkcaldy/ Arbroath/ Montrose/ Stonehaven on certain services, but there'd be a predictable outcry if they lost their London service)

 

[sprinterguy]

I like your proposals,

However are the MK4s fitted with SDO especially when they're likely to go onto the Aberdeens when you take the stations which have short platforms into account.

I mean the HSTs won't be used on these services forever and once wired up makes sense to use the 91s provided of course that the wiring can support them and is not a cheap effort as the Skipton route proves where a 91 could be used but the wiring cannot support them hence a HST has to be used.

I’m assuming the HSTs currently have grandfather rights to call at the short platforms they are booked to stop at on the Aberdeens (And hence would not be applicable to Mark 4s)?

 

[Aictos]

I’m assuming the HSTs currently have grandfather rights to call at the short platforms they are booked to stop at on the Aberdeens (And hence would not be applicable to Mark 4s)?

So would the only choice would be to either have new build trains ie IEP or use 90s and Mk3s, pity the 90s can't be upgraded to 125mph running!

That being said, surely they could take a leaf out of FGW's book and have the last three coaches plus DVT on the platform and have passengers board/disembark that way?