Open Access again: Opinions required...

[The Planner]

At present the next nearest suitable would probably be one loco and three coaches, and knowing NR they would probably insist on two locos and five coaches, completely inappropriate

Why would NR insist on anything ? We dont tell TOCs what they can use, GC wanted to use 67s and coaches, nothing was specced by NR. If they wanted to use a 153 then its up to them, they wouldnt have got paths and the ORR would have laughed at them, but we couldnt do anything about it.

 

[Clip]

Is there any free platform space @ St Pancras during the day anyway? Everytime ive travelled from there of late the platforms have all been packed with trains.

 

[mumrar]

I know of a potential and once-genuine (by which I mean pre-Beeching) route that could connect with this idea quite well. If the north are sick of Scarborough and Blackpool, they can change at Luton AP for Brighton

You KNOW of a potential based on IF the north are sick of Scarborough and Blackpool? Those two words don't sit well in a statement together.

 

[Lampshade]

Its funny how I made a thread with my Cone- Manchester- London service which passed through Darwen aswell. That secondary route obviously has potential!

I also thought of a similar one a quite a few months back:

Colne > Burnley > Accrington > Blackburn > Bolton > Manchester Oxford Road > Manchester Airport > Lichfield Trent Valley > Tamworth > Northampton > Watford Junction > London Euston

 

[TDK]

(Luton to Southend, calling at both towns' airports, Stratford, and others, using 350 stock).

Why would you want to call at both the airports? Surely there will not be a passenger base from Southend to Luton airport. The only way any OA company will work and that is to utilise the WCML with 125mph stock, this will never happen as VT and the Dft have the WCML completely sewn up. Without government subsidy and bail outs if it goes wrong any OA company not on a profitable route will fail just like WSMR unfortunately did. I think it is best to leave the railway to the TOC's

 

[Popper]

I think we should kick the restriction on Open Access were they are not allowed to run services which could in anyway possibly compete with other operators. Its what Privatisation was for, growth by competition wasn't it?

 

[Class172]

I think we should kick the restriction on Open Access were they are not allowed to run services which could in anyway possibly compete with other operators. Its what Privatization was for, growth by competition wasn't it?

Virgin would probably get up in arms about an OAO planning to use a 10mile stretch of the WCML. WMSR should never have gone

 

[TDK]

I think we should kick the restriction on Open Access were they are not allowed to run services which could in anyway possibly compete with other operators. Its what Privatization was for, growth by competition wasn't it?

Yes, but privatisation has it's flaws, too many TOC's running bits and pieces services. We need 7 or at most 8 major toc's with network rail owned and run by the consortium. We need scotland, wales, GWR, Soutern, Central, Northern and cross country, that is the max to really improve the railways.

 

[Class172]

Why not even go back to the 'Big Four' but with crosscountry as well

 

[Aictos]

Rather then having yet another Open Access Operator running into London, I rather see one run between Cambridge and Oxford challenging the existing Stagecoach X5 bus service and what would also offer a choice over Chiltern and London Midland not to mention a improvement in service being provided by offering more services.

This is of course when the full route is complete and as much as it would be nice to be electrified to permit trains to travel between the Midland Mainline, West Coast Main Line and the East Coast Line avoiding London then refurbished 319s or 321s could be used but DMUs would be acceptable to start off with and not 125mph stock but rather 75mph stock.

 

[Popper]

Why not even go back to the 'Big Four' but with crosscountry as well

and OAOs

 

[tirphil]

Why not even go back to the 'Big Four' but with crosscountry as well

Big Four for Inter City and local/inter urban within England. Scottish and Welsh local/inter urban as seperate entities and finally a Cross Country company. Sounds about right as TDK (I think?) mentioned along those lines also.

 

[Ivo]

Yes, but privatisation has it's flaws, too many TOC's running bits and pieces services. We need 7 or at most 8 major toc's with network rail owned and run by the consortium. We need scotland, wales, GWR, Soutern, Central, Northern and cross country, that is the max to really improve the railways.

What happened to East Anglia (c2c, NXEA, GN/FC)? It doesn't fit any of those.

 

[martinsh]

I know it's indirect, but by choosing a more direct route many of the non-London flows - primarily those involving Sheffield - are lost. I wouldn't expect much of a market for London to/from Blackburn anyway (even the route you have suggested is slower than travelling with Virgin), but there is a large market for everything else..

What flows involving Sheffield are you referring to ? The only ones I can see that aren't currently possible are Stalybridge, Bolton and Blackburn. I wouldn't have thought there was a large market for any of those.

Have you considered stopping at Alfreton ?

PS thanks for identifying a path on the MML, I'll submit my alternative proposals soon.