Would this help?

[SprinterMan]

The platforms are already long enough; 450s are used at weekends and previously 4 car slam door units were used before the final two 3 car CIGs saw out their days there.

It was my understanding that 450s run with 1 car locked out of use :P

 

[Schnellzug]

They used VEPs before they decided to dedicate the 3 CIGs, didn't they?

 

[SprinterMan]

They used VEPs before they decided to dedicate the 3 CIGs, didn't they?

I'm not sure tbh, probably.
If the platforma are long enough, does anyone know why the 450 runs with a car locked out of use?

 

[whhistle]

I applaud the level of your post - it must have certainly taken time to make

However, I'd be looking to merge franchises together where possible to make it a little simpler.

All Airport connecting trains would be under one franchise, one livery and if possible one type of stock.

Cross Country would be given a lot more. Not sure if they have it now but the Stansted Airport - Liverpool service would be theirs for sure. A lot of the East Midlands Trains franchise would also be given to Cross Country or a new "Regional" franchise, therefore allowing EMT to concentrate on the trunk London - Nottingham/Derby.

 

[sprinterguy]

There's plenty of excellent points made by the opening post of this thread.

I'm in agreement that the "Greater Anglia" franchise should encompass NXEA, C2C (Which is intended to be the case already isn't it?) and the parts of the GN that won't be consumed by the extended Thameslink operation, which primarily consists, AFAIAA, the longer distance Cambridge services being proposed to be worked by IEP trains.

I'd very much like to see the fourteen 332s moved to Northern to join their 333 bretherin and allow the 321s & 322s to go to Anglia, though as others have stated I'm not sure how easy this would be with their different lease arrangement to the majority of other stock. Perhaps this would be possible after Crossrail is launched if that service was adapted to serve the Airport.

Virgin should certainly receive enough additional Pendolinos to at least cover the Birmingham to Scotland route, and maybe the London to North Wales services as well, with infill electrification as far as Chester. Continuing the Pendolino build to 390072 should be sufficient to cover both of these routes and allow VTs' 221s to go to XC.

If Chiltern were to be merged with anyone, other posters have convinced me that it would be best for them to be absorbed into the FGW franchise. Though in the medium term Chiltern taking over the Snow Hill lines local operation would be an excellent idea.

London Midland would sit best with the West Coast franchise if it were absorbed, although this raises questions over whether the Birmingham to Hereford/Shrewsbury and Cross City line electric services would be better placed with an expanded FGW operation if they absorbed Chiltern, or with the West Coast franchise.

As for Pacer replacement, especially concerning Northern, I am wedded to the idea of extensive electrification projects, although I admit this is probably not realistic within the available timeframe when the currently announced electrification projects that are going ahead take us up to almost the end of the decade already.

 

[Minstral25]

Hello, I think this is the right pace in the forum for this.
The other day I was thinking about all the various franchises and how they overlap, and was wodering if the following would make the railways better. I haven't taken into account IEP, Crossrail and all the new electrification so please look at this as if those things weren't happening, or will be sorted later :P

Southern, SouthEastern, FCC
Merge Southern , SouthEasten and Thameslink routes into larger Southern franchise. Run the Milton Keynes trains through to Brighton and brand both Bedford & Milton Keynes routes as Thameslink and timetable them to connect with WCML and MML services. Remove Gatwick Express, it is a rip-off and not particularly fast, and replace it with a new 1/4 hourly "Premier" service calling Victoria - Clapham Junction - East Croydon - Gatwick Airport - Haywards Heath - Brighton/Eastbourne, using pairs of 442s, splitting the train at Haywards Heath. Electrify Marshlink and Uckfield lines and give 171s to TPX. Classify 3 car 375/377s as Class 375 and 4 car 375/377s as Class 377. Stop Wandsworth - Kensington Service.

As this is my local area I can comment

Merge the South London Franchises - in terms of passenger miles, numbers, trains run and stock these are three of the largest franchises and you propose merging them. I think not - this size of Franchise would be hard to Finance properly and senior management would be too divorced from the workings of teh franchises (they are already) plus would remove the competition element on these routes. so simply NO!!!

Why not add SWT into that conglomeration as well!!

Milton Keynes - Brighton; There is no room south of Gatwick for any more paths so it's a non-event. Whilst I think extending the service to Gatwick would be good (presumably through Redhill so it doesn't cross to the fast lines) there is not the paths

Gatwick Express - I agree this train service has become a waste of precious resources. I think the best solution would be to integrate it into the Brighton timetable using 12 coach 377's with some seats swapped for luggage racks. Four trains per hour - 2 calling Vic-Clapham jnct-Gatwick-Haywards Heath-Brighton and 2 calling Vic-CLJ-Gatwick and then local stations to Brighton, East Croydon can be missed as Thameslink provides ECR-Brighton service.

This change would release capacity North of Gatwick so that more local trains can be put on and maybe extend Milton Keynes trains to Gatwick

The 442's could move to Eastbourne/Ore and Littlehampton services where there door issues are not such a problem

Electrify Marshlink - although its nice I don't think this is a valuable use of limited money nor is the electrification of Reigate to Wokingham on the North Downs. I'm less sure of Uckfield as it is a busy service needing longer trains now

 

[SprinterMan]

I applaud the level of your post - it must have certainly taken time to make

Thank you very much

However, I'd be looking to merge franchises together where possible to make it a little simpler.

All Airport connecting trains would be under one franchise, one livery and if possible one type of stock.

Cross Country would be given a lot more. Not sure if they have it now but the Stansted Airport - Liverpool service would be theirs for sure. A lot of the East Midlands Trains franchise would also be given to Cross Country or a new "Regional" franchise, therefore allowing EMT to concentrate on the trunk London - Nottingham/Derby.

I was very tempted to give EMTs local routes to Northern/LM/NXEA and then merge MML and ECML service but i decided against it in the end :P.

There's plenty of excellent points made by the opening post of this thread.

Thankyou very much, and sorry for sort of stealing your name, I hadn't seen any of your posts when I called myself that :P

If Chiltern were to be merged with anyone, other posters have convinced me that it would be best for them to be absorbed into the FGW franchise. Though in the medium term Chiltern taking over the Snow Hill lines local operation would be an excellent idea.

London Midland would sit best with the West Coast franchise if it were absorbed, although this raises questions over whether the Birmingham to Hereford/Shrewsbury and Cross City line electric services would be better placed with an expanded FGW operation if they absorbed Chiltern, or with the West Coast franchise.

I considered giving just giving Chiltern the Snow Hill Lines but this would giving Birmingham 2 local operators instead of 1 and I was trying to simplify.

This would leave the opportunity for new services using the WSMR stock such as:

Worcester-Droitwich-Kidderminster-Stourbridge-Snow Hill-Moor Street-Warwick-Leamington-Marylebone

Worcester-Droitwich-Bromsgrove-University-New Street-B'ham Int'l-Coventry-(New Station at Kenilworth)-Leamington-Marylebone

Shrewsbury-Wellington-Telford-Wolverhampton-Sandwell & Dudley-Smethwick Galton Bridge-New Street-B'ham Int'l-Coventry-(New Station at Kenilworth)-Leamington-Marylebone

I was Thinking, to create even larger franchises we could merge as following:

NXEA/C2C/FCC(GN)/EMT(MML)/EMT(Local)/EC/Northern(former ATN) - "Eastern Express"

SET/SOU/SWT/FCC(TL) - "Southern"

FGW/HCC/HEx/Virgin/Chiltern/LM/Northern(former FNW) - "North Western International"

XC/TPX/EMT(Norwich-Liverpool) - "TransAlbion Railways"

Keep Scotrail as they are.

Brand ATW as WalesRail or Welsh Express.

Keep MerseyRail and LOROL as they are.

The 442's could move to Eastbourne/Ore and Littlehampton services where there door issues are not such a problem

What door problems do the 442s suffer from?

Electrify Marshlink - although its nice I don't think this is a valuable use of limited money nor is the electrification of Reigate to Wokingham on the North Downs. I'm less sure of Uckfield as it is a busy service needing longer trains now

I did this purely to give TPX a bigger fleet without sending Northern's 156s to ScotRail (and in turn giving Northern a larger 172 order) to swap for 170s as teh Scottish government would not allow this.

 

[sprinterguy]

Thankyou very much, and sorry for sort of stealing your name, I hadn't seen any of your posts when I called myself that :P

Not a problem, I pretty much just pulled my username out of the air when I signed up to this forum, I had to identify myself as something!

 

[IanXC]

Re the LM Hereford problem, a suitable division could be achieved by routing them to Moor Street. This removes a TOC interface between LM\WC\CH franchises.

 

[Minstral25]

What door problems do the 442s suffer from?



I did this purely to give TPX a bigger fleet without sending Northern's 156s to ScotRail (and in turn giving Northern a larger 172 order) to swap for 170s as teh Scottish government would not allow this.

I meant the doors on the 442's are not suited to people with Suitcases and thus really shouldn't be the de facto unit for Gatwick express or replacement as I suggested.

It is doubtful the government would move stock around for convenience (they are not that bright) and the 171's would need major work to transfer as they are designed to work with the 377's (for rescue situations only not day to day running). I understand they cannot be connected to 170's without major modifications which is why they are designated a separate class.

 

[Clip]

I meant the doors on the 442's are not suited to people with Suitcases and thus really shouldn't be the de facto unit for Gatwick express or replacement as I suggested.

It is doubtful the government would move stock around for convenience (they are not that bright)

I think this is a little harsh(if a little true also) when you have to remember that the government have to think about all transport and not just the railways.

though one thing that does strike me as quite odd,is how many of you enthusiasts who have a dedicated hobby/interest in the railways actually have jobs in the places where these decisions are actually made and can try and influence the powers that be that your ideas are what would work best?

If not - then why not?

Cant really slate people who may or may not by trying their best to make things work within the constraints of what is dictated to them by the powers that be if your not really in a position to do much about it yourself IMO. I mean do we really know what is going on in these places of work?

 

[SprinterMan]

I meant the doors on the 442's are not suited to people with Suitcases and thus really shouldn't be the de facto unit for Gatwick express or replacement as I suggested.

It is doubtful the government would move stock around for convenience (they are not that bright) and the 171's would need major work to transfer as they are designed to work with the 377's (for rescue situations only not day to day running). I understand they cannot be connected to 170's without major modifications which is why they are designated a separate class.

I agree with the 442 thing, they do have very narrow doors, another reason why I prefer 444s over them. The Class 171s need their Dellner couplers repalced by BSI couplers and they will be Class 170s again. I think the government won't do anything due to cost, and they probably think it's best to leave something that, on the whole, is working ok alone.

I think this is a little harsh(if a little true also) when you have to remember that the government have to think about all transport and not just the railways.

though one thing that does strike me as quite odd,is how many of you enthusiasts who have a dedicated hobby/interest in the railways actually have jobs in the places where these decisions are actually made and can try and influence the powers that be that your ideas are what would work best?

If not - then why not?

Cant really slate people who may or may not by trying their best to make things work within the constraints of what is dictated to them by the powers that be if your not really in a position to do much about it yourself IMO. I mean do we really know what is going on in these places of work?

I would love to have a job in that neck of the woods but I am only just starting at university :P.

 

[Minstral25]

I agree with the 442 thing, they do have very narrow doors, another reason why I prefer 444s over them. The Class 171s need their Dellner couplers repalced by BSI couplers and they will be Class 170s again. I think the government won't do anything due to cost, and they probably think it's best to leave something that, on the whole, is working ok alone.

I know Wikipedia says otherwise about the 171's but I remember a thread where someone who said they worked on them commented that it was more complex than just the coupler and the one from SWT had a lot of work done on it to make it compatible

 

[tbtc]

though one thing that does strike me as quite odd,is how many of you enthusiasts who have a dedicated hobby/interest in the railways actually have jobs in the places where these decisions are actually made and can try and influence the powers that be that your ideas are what would work best?

If not - then why not?

Cant really slate people who may or may not by trying their best to make things work within the constraints of what is dictated to them by the powers that be if your not really in a position to do much about it yourself IMO. I mean do we really know what is going on in these places of work?

By the same "logic" we shouldn't criticise football teams for the players they buy/sell unless we have got a position in the boardroom? Or we shouldn't criticise the Government unless we've got ourselves elected?

 

[paulravuslante]

Are they not owned and operated exclusively by BAA? And didnt BAA pay an awful lot of money for these services to Heathrow themselves?*


*im not sure of the above but i thought it was them who paid for the line and stations and the trains and the right to run them

Pretty much correct. Class 332s and 360/2s are owned by Heathrow Express, a subsidiary of BAA, as is the tunnel infrastructure and stations at Heathrow.

As for other poster's comments regarding merging HEx / Connect / FGW: well HEx and Connect are already sort of merged as HEx operate, staff and maintain the trains and the service operates on behalf of FGW from Paddington to Hayes & Harlington. Don't forget that Connect will be scrapped as soon as Crossrail is ready to go.

Not sure how merging FGW (a franchised TOC) and HEx (a non franchised TOC) would work and whether it would bring any particular benefits.

 

[SprinterMan]

Don't forget that Connect will be scrapped as soon as Crossrail is ready to go.

Does than mean trains will run through from Shenfield to Heathrow Central?
Beacuse if that is true then that would be great :P