Potential TOC swaps

[Royston Vasey]

Maybe have the GN Moorgate services as Thameslink then Thameslink would have all Desiro City fleet of 700s and 717s?

They're already maintained by the same staff at the same depot by the same TOC. Your proposal amounts to changing some stickers on the sides of the trains.

 

[Agent_Squash]

It’s a route crying for bi-modes, but not InterCity bi-modes. Instead of 195s and 331s, Northern should have ordered a single compatible fleet of regional bi-modes, all of 3 and 4 cars. Now, I would redeploy 175s to Barrow/Windermere as the most suitable things already in existence to run there, given that it’s the route they were designed for, despite emissions likely being worse. It may have a positive effect though if displaced 195s can replace Sprinters.

The problem would then be ensuring that there isn’t a downgrade in quality of service - they were the only Northern Connect routes required as they were ex TPE.

With the amount of diagrams required, it would be easier to do a bolt on the 802 order that’s expected from TPE - yes they’re overkill, but less complicated than introducing another type of stock to Northern.

 

[jamieP]

They're already maintained by the same staff at the same depot by the same TOC. Your proposal amounts to changing some stickers on the sides of the trains.

700s are maintained by Siemens and the 717s by GTR.

There's been a very long on going rumours at my place of the GN brand going to LNER, GN inners to Tfl and the Thameslink staying as they are running through the core. Personally I can never see it happening.

 

[507020]

The problem would then be ensuring that there isn’t a downgrade in quality of service - they were the only Northern Connect routes required as they were ex TPE.

With the amount of diagrams required, it would be easier to do a bolt on the 802 order that’s expected from TPE - yes they’re overkill, but less complicated than introducing another type of stock to Northern.

The 175s are arguably more comfortable than 195s despite being older and I have found the ride quality on 195s to be worst on the WCML. Barrow/Windermere were TPE 185s, but before that they were FNW 175s, which would still seem to be the most suitable with end doors etc. The Arriva franchise agreement requiring Northern Connect is no longer in force, so that isn’t a problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem would then be ensuring that there isn’t a downgrade in quality of service

I can't see many people thinking a 175 would be a downgrade on a 195. End doors on Castlefield may be an issue, but the overall comfort (with a decent tarting-up and maybe some luggage rack additions as the overheads are small) is unrecognisably better, and the seated capacity is a bit higher too.

 

[507020]

the GN brand going to LNER

Isn’t that what happened in 1923? Perhaps they would like it to repeat for the 100th anniversary…

 

[LittleAH]

The problem would then be ensuring that there isn’t a downgrade in quality of service - they were the only Northern Connect routes required as they were ex TPE.

With the amount of diagrams required, it would be easier to do a bolt on the 802 order that’s expected from TPE - yes they’re overkill, but less complicated than introducing another type of stock to Northern.

If there's a bolt on order for 802s at TPE (which I imagine there will be), they'll be making use of the route upgrade and cascading the 185s over to Northern. And Northern are looking at Bi mode 195s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there's a bolt on order for 802s at TPE (which I imagine there will be), they'll be making use of the route upgrade and cascading the 185s over to Northern. And Northern are looking at Bi mode 195s.

No, they are looking at hybrid 195s, they would only run off diesel but have batteries to e.g. allow regenerative braking.

 

[507020]

If there's a bolt on order for 802s at TPE (which I imagine there will be), they'll be making use of the route upgrade and cascading the 185s over to Northern. And Northern are looking at Bi mode 195s.

Some 185s could well end up going to EMR to run Lime Street - Nottingham instead of it transferring to TPE. They already run Siemens stock on St Pancras - Corby.

 

[LittleAH]

Some 185s could well end up going to EMR to run Lime Street - Nottingham instead of it transferring to TPE. They already run Siemens stock on St Pancras - Corby.

More likely TPE will run those services.

 

[507020]

More likely TPE will run those services.

I’d say it’s equally likely at this point, but I do just want to see the 185s in purple livery.

 

[Agent_Squash]

If there's a bolt on order for 802s at TPE (which I imagine there will be), they'll be making use of the route upgrade and cascading the 185s over to Northern. And Northern are looking at Bi mode 195s.

Northern aren’t looking at bi-mode 195s, which is what Windermere/Barrow would need. No point replacing diesels with more diesels.

I can't see many people thinking a 175 would be a downgrade on a 195. End doors on Castlefield may be an issue, but the overall comfort (with a decent tarting-up and maybe some luggage rack additions as the overheads are small) is unrecognisably better, and the seated capacity is a bit higher too.

It would be an iffy one - the 195s do seem a ‘new’ train. No doubt that a 175 could be refurbished well enough to return to their old stomping ground - but equally, no point running diesels under 90% wires when a bolt on of a few existing bi-mode units would work.

Obviously the ideal solution is 3/4 car bi-modes which split/join en route, giving plenty of capacity through Castlefield while still working to reduce emissions.

 

[507020]

It would be an iffy one - the 195s do seem a ‘new’ train. No doubt that a 175 could be refurbished well enough to return to their old stomping ground - but equally, no point running diesels under 90% wires when a bolt on of a few existing bi-mode units would work.

Obviously the ideal solution is 3/4 car bi-modes which split/join en route, giving plenty of capacity through Castlefield while still working to reduce emissions.

What I suggested was the best existing rolling stock, rather than the ideal solution, which is obviously <125mph bi-modes so not 802s.

 

[Agent_Squash]

What I suggested was the best existing rolling stock, rather than the ideal solution, which is obviously <125mph bi-modes so not 802s.

But you’re still replacing diesel with a diesel.

Plus, if TPE still working on the project to allow 125mph running north of Preston non tilt (originally for the 397s, but equally could work for the 802s), then 125mph running wouldn’t be completely useless. You’d also have the nice benefit of having consistent running times between Preston and Lancaster.

Know I’m being somewhat crayonista, but it’s not the craziest idea thats been bandied around the forum! Especially since 802s now work some WCML services.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

700s are maintained by Siemens and the 717s by GTR.

There's been a very long on going rumours at my place of the GN brand going to LNER, GN inners to Tfl and the Thameslink staying as they are running through the core. Personally I can never see it happening.

That almost certainly wont happen.

I cant see any toc swaps in general.

 

[james_the_xv]

Avanti Euston - Birmingham services being transferred into LNWR? Amend all 9Gxx and 1Bxx services to call at Milton Keynes and Rugby services and that would 100% fit in as an LNWR service.

 

[JonathanH]

Avanti Euston - Birmingham services being transferred into LNWR? Amend all 9Gxx and 1Bxx services to call at Milton Keynes and Rugby services and that would 100% fit in as an LNWR service.

It should be the other way round if anything. The Trent Valley service could be transferred to Avanti to have all services via Weedon run by Avanti.

 

[Philip]

It should be the other way round if anything. The Trent Valley service could be transferred to Avanti to have all services via Weedon run by Avanti.

Does it matter much whether all services through Weedon are run by the same operator? There are no stations and the lower line speed through Kilsby tunnel is most appropriate for 350s, so it wouldn't seem to make any difference.

 

[Snow1964]

To me, this rather raises the question of whether the aim should be ‘one city, one operator’.

Of course this can’t be perfectly obtained (if nothing else how would trains between cities work if the cities at each end of a service were with different operators?) but now that operators aren’t taking the fare box risk, do the network benefits of co-operation between services on a route outweigh the gains from competition between operators?

There might be something in this, say there is a half hourly service between 2 cities, each served mainly by one Operator.

Would it be such a bad thing if they alternately worked the service and customer had a choice of Operator A or Operator B or tickets or any Operator. If A or B wanted to offer cheaper tickets or better service to get more passengers then is it bad.

If had 2 cross country Operators (including some of the longer secondary routes not currently operated by XC) each operating a 2 hourly service alternating with the other, do you think customers would benefit over today’s situation, I tend to think so

 

[JonathanH]

There might be something in this, say there is a half hourly service between 2 cities, each served mainly by one Operator.

Would it be such a bad thing if they alternately worked the service and customer had a choice of Operator A or Operator B or tickets or any Operator. If A or B wanted to offer cheaper tickets or better service to get more passengers then is it bad.

If had 2 cross country Operators (including some of the longer secondary routes not currently operated by XC) each operating a 2 hourly service alternating with the other, do you think customers would benefit over today’s situation, I tend to think so

How well does that principle work between Sheffield and Manchester?

 

[LittleAH]

There might be something in this, say there is a half hourly service between 2 cities, each served mainly by one Operator.

Would it be such a bad thing if they alternately worked the service and customer had a choice of Operator A or Operator B or tickets or any Operator. If A or B wanted to offer cheaper tickets or better service to get more passengers then is it bad.

If had 2 cross country Operators (including some of the longer secondary routes not currently operated by XC) each operating a 2 hourly service alternating with the other, do you think customers would benefit over today’s situation, I tend to think so

That doesn't really fit in with what GBR will surely be addressing. The competition element will surely subside.

 

[class397tpe]

How well does that principle work between Sheffield and Manchester?

In one regard pretty well with ticket prices - Northern have some very good advances.
In another regard it means a certain TOC doesn't have that much incentive to run a proper service because there's always another operator that can soak up the customers.

On a side note the hope valley line is has really improved the passenger experience in the past few years, with Northern's stoppers switching from 142s to nearly always 3-car 195s (and 5 or 6 cars some weekends). If TPE could be bothered to run a proper service it would also be an upgrade from 3-car to 6-car refurbished 185s every hour.

 

[dciuk]

Also I think there were past proposals for Wales & West/Wessex Trains to take over the West of England line from SWT - I could be wrong?

When Wales & West was split into Wessex Trains and Wales & Borders the Wessex Trains maps did show the Exeter to Waterloo service as a future service they would be running. My understanding as to why that did not end up happening is that (The DFT?) wanted most London terminals to be served by a single operator

 

[Fokx]

I’d say it’s equally likely at this point, but I do just want to see the 185s in purple livery.

The business case is in TPE’s favour.

No additional costs in opening traincrew depots, obtaining/refurbishing fleet and all depots west of Sheffield sign the route (and some diversions). There’s also the reliability element of not having your crew based so Far East on the route that guarantees service westbound (which is usually the first to be cut when things go wrong)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2022 ==

The Huddersfield stoppers back to Northern, though this is likely to happen once the route upgrade is finished.

I don’t massively see the logic in this at all. I can see it for the Leeds side of things but not for the west side

I know most passengers preferred TPE (after the mess of the 2018 timetable change and before the recent industrial action). They effectively replaced overcrowded pacer trains with modern units that could keep to the tight timetable, with greater accesibilty and mod-cons. If it were to go back to Northern they’d see the return of the 150’s, and no SSO calls from TPE when things go wrong.

 

[Philip]

The business case is in TPE’s favour.

No additional costs in opening traincrew depots, obtaining/refurbishing fleet and all depots west of Sheffield sign the route (and some diversions). There’s also the reliability element of not having your crew based so Far East on the route that guarantees service westbound (which is usually the first to be cut when things go wrong)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2022 ==



I don’t massively see the logic in this at all. I can see it for the Leeds side of things but not for the west side

I know most passengers preferred TPE (after the mess of the 2018 timetable change and before the recent industrial action). They effectively replaced overcrowded pacer trains with modern units that could keep to the tight timetable, with greater accesibilty and mod-cons. If it were to go back to Northern they’d see the return of the 150’s, and no SSO calls from TPE when things go wrong.

Northern would use 195s for Huddersfield line stopping services.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Northern would use 195s for Huddersfield line stopping services.

That's as much as a leap as suggesting it'll be back to 150s. Sure, if it switched at midnight tonight it'd be either Sprinters or 195s- but I wasn't suggesting an immediate transfer.
Once the upgrade is complete or close to it, it'll likely be EMUs for the Leeds but at this point that could be anything from a 323 to a 331 to something that doesn't exist yet.
On the West side, assuming that Mossley will be the last bit to get wired some sort of bi-mode or battery-hybrid would be a good bet, possibly the supposed CAF experiment (about which there's been lots of speculation and hot air, but little actual news).

 

[M-Train]

Another one being the West London Line services by Southern. should be transferred to Overground IMO

Though overall it is slow, the WFJ-HRW section still gets up to 90mph, so I’m not so sure of that!

 

[LittleAH]

I know most passengers preferred TPE (after the mess of the 2018 timetable change and before the recent industrial action). They effectively replaced overcrowded pacer trains with modern units that could keep to the tight timetable, with greater accesibilty and mod-cons. If it were to go back to Northern they’d see the return of the 150’s, and no SSO calls from TPE when things go wrong.

Also, those in Marsden/Slaithwaite get in effect a fast peak time direct service into/out of Leeds which is very attractive.

That's as much as a leap as suggesting it'll be back to 150s. Sure, if it switched at midnight tonight it'd be either Sprinters or 195s- but I wasn't suggesting an immediate transfer.
Once the upgrade is complete or close to it, it'll likely be EMUs for the Leeds but at this point that could be anything from a 323 to a 331 to something that doesn't exist yet.
On the West side, assuming that Mossley will be the last bit to get wired some sort of bi-mode or battery-hybrid would be a good bet, possibly the supposed CAF experiment (about which there's been lots of speculation and hot air, but little actual news).

From what I gather, Hillhouse at Huddersfield will become a Northern depot, so likely Hudds - Leeds stoppers return to Northern with electric rolling stock. Can't see Hudds - Manchester returning to Northern. Especially as TPE are likely to take over the Hudds - Wakefield service in due course.

 

[newguy]

I wonder if ScotRail inter7 routes should be given to a long distance operator like avanti or LNER.

I might be basing this on my recent terrible experiences on the Glasgow to Inverness route.

 

[MotCO]

With industrial relations as they are DfT might be more wary about transferring routes, staff or classes of stock between TOCs, in case there's a risk it precipitates disputes.

Similarly, if you have more than one TOC operating in an area, if one TOC's staff go on strike, the other TOC may still operate, providing some options for passengers.