Extra Virgin West Coast services rejected by NR

[Pumbaa]

Links beneath. NR have vetoed the planned Shrewsbury services. Suspected to be toy throwing from perambulator according to some industry bods following the threat of legal action as they'd previously been content to progress it.

 

[transmanche]

http://www.shropshirelive.com/2013/06/11/network-rail-reject-direct-shrewsbury-to-london-link/

Network Rail has today rejected plans by Virgin Trains to provide a direct rail link from Shrewsbury to London.

The application by Virgin Trains was turned down by Network Rail who said it would have an impact on performance of the West Cost (sic) line.

 

[Pumbaa]

Thank you! It's fiddly to do it on mobile!

 

[transmanche]

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...rect-shropshire-to-london-rail-link-rejected/

[Quote="Shropshire Star]A Network Rail spokesman said: "Today there are twice as many trains using the West Coast Main Line as a decade ago and, just like a busy motorway during rush hour, more trains mean that if something goes wrong, the knock-on effects can be significant.

"We have acknowledged that performance on the West Coast line is not good enough and we are taking steps to improve performance on the route. However, adding more services onto what is already the busiest mixed use railway line in the UK mean would mean a trade off with punctuality. It would have a significant negative impact on performance for the thousands of other passenger and freight services that rely on this route every day."[/Quote]

 

[ainsworth74]

You know I do have a bit of sympathy for NR in this case. They're being sued by Virgin for failing to provide a reliable enough railway and yet at the same time Virgin are still asking for even more trains to be run meaning that it's even harder to keep the route reliable!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Link when I have it. NR have vetoed the planned Shrewsbury services. Suspected to be toy throwing from perambulator following the threat of legal action.

Is this just a quid pro quo for the VT action against NR over WCML performance, or is it serious?
If the latter, there's no chance for any other new VT or Open Access services until the next timetable recast/Norton Bridge upgrade.
Nothing on the ORR web site yet.

 

[Rich McLean]

The only way round it would be to extend a couple exisiting services from wolves and use voyagers vice pendo's on those jouneys. Easier said than done, and with this I doubt that would happen either

 

[The Planner]

Paths worked, LNW route didnt like it from what I hear.

 

[Geezertronic]

Is there any detail about what the route and stopping pattern involved?

I suppose if it was wired it would make it easier to extend some Wolves services (if not already extended for use for BHM-Scotland) without substituting 221s for 390s

 

[merlodlliw]

In my opinion this is a direct result of VTs action against NR,at all stages of discussion prior to this NR was in favour.

So will Blackpool be next to be shelved by NR.

No doubt the local MPs will be playing hell,and quiet right too.

But the ORR can overide NR if it wants to,but as quangos go,little chance

 

[IrishDave]

As I recall (can't find the thread at the moment), the Shrewsbury services would have called at Rugby, Stafford, Telford Central, Wellington and Shrewsbury, reversing at Stafford and then using the Oxley chord to avoid Wolverhampton (at all of about 15mph), and would have been timed for 221s.

The Shrewsbury story has been picked up by the BBC (see here). Any word on the Blackpool services? Have LNW killed those off on punctuality grounds too?

I'm surprised given the weight that the DfT threw behind the direct Shrewsbury services in particular - McLoughlin won't be happy tonight...

 

[pete_m911]

Safe to say this has come as a surprise. The Birmingham-Scotland extenders announced a couple of weeks ago released a number of Voyagers, so one would presume Virgin were extremely confident about their bid. Bizarre Blackpool wasn't announced at the same time as well. Given Virgin's recent appeal success I wouldn't be surprised if this is overturned!!

 

[anthony263]

Little doubt network rail are going to be seen as the villian in all of this especially if Mr Branson decides to use it as an opportunity.

 

[Starmill]

Is this a case of Virgin and Network Rail squabbling: who loses out? The passengers.

Or is my analysis over-simplistic?

 

[MCR247]

Well tbh I don't think VT have ever really gotten on with the DfT...

 

[tbtc]

You know I do have a bit of sympathy for NR in this case. They're being sued by Virgin for failing to provide a reliable enough railway and yet at the same time Virgin are still asking for even more trains to be run meaning that it's even harder to keep the route reliable!

Agreed - can't have it both ways!

NR can't provide Virgin with a reliable enough railway, but can you just squeeze in this additional service (in a non-standard path)?

will Blackpool be next to be shelved by NR

If the Blackpool services were just extensions of Preston terminators (or instead of Lancaster terminators) then presumably they'd be okay without disrupting things further south (?)

 

[pjnathanail]

You know I do have a bit of sympathy for NR in this case. They're being sued by Virgin for failing to provide a reliable enough railway and yet at the same time Virgin are still asking for even more trains to be run meaning that it's even harder to keep the route reliable!

Totally agree, Virgin are being unreasonable and hypocritical

I don't think they can expect NR to push the boat out to minimise engineering work and create extra train paths, when they are sueing them at the same time.

NR will now see it as the less trains running on the WCML the less Virgin can sue them about.

Such a shame that Virgin's unreasonable demands have led to a poorer quality of service for passengers (or at least the loss of an improvement).

 

[The Planner]

Not going to comment further (and can't for various obvious reasons) but Virgin do have a right to be slightly miffed by what has occurred with this in my opinion.

 

[SprinterMan]

Is this a case of Virgin and Network Rail squabbling: who loses out? The passengers.

Or is my analysis over-simplistic?

As far as I can tell this is correct. I hope VT try and fix things by suggesting a Shrewsbury to London service via Birmingham instead. I do pity Shrewsbury as a town as it does deserve a through service to London, far more so than Wrexham. Hell, VT could even extend their Wrexham trains to Shrewsbury, it would be better than nothing (although not, admittedly, by much).

If NR object to any part of VT's plan, I could imagine it would be the reversing at Stafford, as this movement blocks the entire WCML in one direction. I do hope SHR gets its London service one day soon though.

Adam

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The backstory is that both VT and NR are in negotiations with their "customer" (DfT for VT and ORR for NR) which will determine their operation over the next 4-5 years.
It doesn't do NR any harm to put the shutters up until they get the funding they want for maintaining the WCML.
VT wants a good deal for its franchise extension. Approval would be fine, but rejection is not terminal - at least they tried.
LM must also be watching the outcome closely. Their extra 110mph paths were the last addition to the timetable.

Yet another angle is that it demonstrates that the WCML is indeed "full".
Doesn't harm the HS2 case, does it?

Maybe as things unfold there will be an accommodation, but "messages will have been sent".
Or is this just too much conspiracy theory?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

As I recall (can't find the thread at the moment), the Shrewsbury services would have called at Rugby, Stafford, Telford Central, Wellington and Shrewsbury, reversing at Stafford and then using the Oxley chord to avoid Wolverhampton (at all of about 15mph), and would have been timed for 221s.

The Shrewsbury story has been picked up by the BBC (see here). Any word on the Blackpool services? Have LNW killed those off on punctuality grounds too?

I'm surprised given the weight that the DfT threw behind the direct Shrewsbury services in particular - McLoughlin won't be happy tonight...

That was my first thought, could a minister or the ORR overrule NR in these instances?

 

[Philip Elliott]

Yet another angle is that it demonstrates that the WCML is indeed "full".
Doesn't harm the HS2 case, does it?

Which part of 'paths worked' did you miss? This is nothing more than NR throwing it's toys out of the pram.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which part of 'paths worked' did you miss? This is nothing more than NR throwing it's toys out of the pram.

Well it mustn't be about paths then.

 

[Rich McLean]

Yes, there are paths there, however, when the brown sticky stuff hits the fan, NR would rather have those paths free, in order to speed up service recovery and reduce the overall delay minutes.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Network Rail would rather there were no trains running on their tracks at all. Would save a lot of bother, not to mention wear & tear.

 

[D1009]

Paths worked, LNW route didnt like it from what I hear.

"Paths worked" presumably means "Paths complied with the Timetable Planning Rules". If this is the case, it would be interesting to know exactly what the Route were unhappy with.

 

[northwichcat]

In my opinion this is a direct result of VTs action against NR,at all stages of discussion prior to this NR was in favour.

So will Blackpool be next to be shelved by NR.

I think Blackpool may have a stronger business case. Extra Warrington-Crewe services are needed, while the Scottish Pendolinos carry a lot of local traffic so moving that on to other services can reduce any overcrowding and speed up journey times between Scotland and London, if some stops can be omitted.

 

[Chris125]

Which part of 'paths worked' did you miss?

At no performance risk to the WCML? With Network Rail now expecting legal action over poor reliability this really shouldn't be a surprise.

Chris

 

[merlodlliw]

As far as I can tell this is correct. I hope VT try and fix things by suggesting a Shrewsbury to London service via Birmingham instead. I do pity Shrewsbury as a town as it does deserve a through service to London, far more so than Wrexham. Hell, VT could even extend their Wrexham trains to Shrewsbury, it would be better than nothing (although not, admittedly, by much).

If NR object to any part of VT's plan, I could imagine it would be the reversing at Stafford, as this movement blocks the entire WCML in one direction. I do hope SHR gets its London service one day soon though.

Adam

Until 2015 VT can not get any slots between Wrexham & Chester, as for the VT Wrexham service, well we all know why that was put on, likened to the idiotic ATW Aberyswyth to London service idea with a two car 158.
Anyhow as Wrexham is the biggest town in North Wales,it deserves a London service more than some of the small towns in North Wales getting multi VT calls, my opinion only.
I am sure NR will be leaned on heavily after agreeing paths with stakeholders.

 

[northwichcat]

Network Rail would rather there were no trains running on their tracks at all. Would save a lot of bother, not to mention wear & tear.

Then there would be no track access charges to collect so where would the business (Network Rail) get any money from?