Alliance Blackpool service to be run by Grand Central and start in 2021

[SeanM1997]

http://www.alliancerail.co.uk/images/blackpoolconsultation/blackpool-form-p.pdf

From the above track application. Screenshots of the application timings from the above document:


Bearing in mind at least some timings may have changed due to odd clashes with Northern services and a Network Rail train on certain days (according to a letter linked to earlier by another poster ^^, clashes had or were being addressed.) Plus also bearing in mind the VT Blackpool services have since been introduced with on the face of it one or more potentially conflicting movements (1033 Dep from Euston?).

All rights to content remain with Alliance Rail Holdings / GNWR, and/or The Office of Rail and Road.

View attachment 54080 View attachment 54081

I still think this service should call at Crewe. Would allow passengers to connect onto services to Chester/Shrewsbury/Stoke/Wilmslow/Liverpool, and relieve some pressure on VT services. Crewe is the main hub on the WCML, its stupid how poor connections are between Preston and Crewe, and Nuneaton and Crewe, which this could have helped rectify

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still think this service should call at Crewe. Would allow passengers to connect onto services to Chester/Shrewsbury/Stoke/Wilmslow/Liverpool, and relieve some pressure on VT services. Crewe is the main hub on the WCML, its stupid how poor connections are between Preston and Crewe, and Nuneaton and Crewe, which this could have helped rectify

Its purpose isn't to provide connectivity onto the existing network - its purpose is to make money for its shareholders!

The best solution for connectivity from the north WCML to Crewe would be to extend the LNR Euston-Crewe service to Preston, which has been proposed a number of times but never actually happened. That, or introduce the Crewe-Carlisle stopping service FNW proposed (but had no EMUs for) using Class 319s.

 

[swt_passenger]

I still think this service should call at Crewe. Would allow passengers to connect onto services to Chester/Shrewsbury/Stoke/Wilmslow/Liverpool, and relieve some pressure on VT services. Crewe is the main hub on the WCML, its stupid how poor connections are between Preston and Crewe, and Nuneaton and Crewe, which this could have helped rectify

Calling at Crewe would probably negatively affect the abstraction test though.

 

[furnessvale]

The video claims its 91110 and 91111 - I think it's extremely unlikely that either of them will go to GNWR as both have been designated for the National Collection.

So trains that could be out there carrying passengers and earning money will not do so because they are to go in a museum?

 

[DanNCL]

So trains that could be out there carrying passengers and earning money will not do so because they are to go in a museum?

There are 31 class 91s - only a small number would be needed for this open access operation, the rest all have no home to go to after LNER have finished using them in 2020, so yes, they can go to a museum.

 

[Darandio]

So trains that could be out there carrying passengers and earning money will not do so because they are to go in a museum?

The locomotives don't carry passengers. It's generally accepted that the Mk4's are in a suitable enough condition to carry on, most likely hauled by other locomotives. The Class 91's on the other hand are dying.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Calling at Crewe would probably negatively affect the abstraction test though.

It would augment the lamentable service north from Crewe up the WCML.

 

[pt_mad]

Its purpose isn't to provide connectivity onto the existing network - its purpose is to make money for its shareholders!

The best solution for connectivity from the north WCML to Crewe would be to extend the LNR Euston-Crewe service to Preston, which has been proposed a number of times but never actually happened. That, or introduce the Crewe-Carlisle stopping service FNW proposed (but had no EMUs for) using Class 319s.

Unfortunately though, afaik the DFT placed a restriction on LM and the West Midlands franchise in general that they can only run two trains per hour north of Crewe in each direction, and they must go off via Weaver Junction to and from Liverpool. So as far as I can see it's outside the operator's control.

Calling at Crewe would probably negatively affect the abstraction test though.

Great point. Alliance will have had to choose only calls which fit the paths, timings and pass the revenue tests. If it was to be deemed that a Crewe stop would take away more revenue from current operators than new revenie that it would generate, then it's a fail.

So trains that could be out there carrying passengers and earning money will not do so because they are to go in a museum?

Do we have a source to say that these sets are going into preserved status anywhere?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I still think this service should call at Crewe. Would allow passengers to connect onto services to Chester/Shrewsbury/Stoke/Wilmslow/Liverpool, and relieve some pressure on VT services. Crewe is the main hub on the WCML, its stupid how poor connections are between Preston and Crewe, and Nuneaton and Crewe, which this could have helped rectify

It's the Virgin Blackpool 390s that should call at Crewe (or LNR extend to Preston as noted above).
It's not GNWR's job to fill in for franchise services.

 

[a_c_skinner]

It's the Virgin Blackpool 390s that should call at Crewe

Everything should stop at Crewe. Yes I know that isn't practical, but we could make inroads.

 

[pemma]

Everything should stop at Crewe. Yes I know that isn't practical, but we could make inroads.

The number of calls had to be reduced due to not using tilting stock, plus it had to provide a different calling pattern to existing Virgin services to/from London to satisfy the ORR on revenue subtraction criteria. The original proposal included calls at stations like Warrington and Winsford.

 

[pt_mad]

The locomotives don't carry passengers. It's generally accepted that the Mk4's are in a suitable enough condition to carry on, most likely hauled by other locomotives. The Class 91's on the other hand are dying.

Are they? The 86s are still pulling freight. 90s are still in hourly service. Surely the 91s have got yonks of life left in them?

It would augment the lamentable service north from Crewe up the WCML.

Many would agree with that, but any poor service north of Crewe isnt Alliance's fault or issue to solve. They put forward their business case and ORR passed it as viable.

It's the Virgin Blackpool 390s that should call at Crewe (or LNR extend to Preston as noted above).
It's not GNWR's job to fill in for franchise services.

Good point. If the service is poor north of Crewe then the WCP need to address this.

 

[pemma]

Good point. If the service is poor north of Crewe then the WCP need to address this.

There were a lot of objections when Virgin transferred the Crewe call from the Euston to Scotland service to the additional Euston to Manchester service, as it halved the frequency between Warrington and Crewe but other than that I've not heard of any specific objections to services missing Crewe.

 

[furnessvale]

The locomotives don't carry passengers. It's generally accepted that the Mk4's are in a suitable enough condition to carry on, most likely hauled by other locomotives. The Class 91's on the other hand are dying.

I was simply responding to the suggestion not only that 91s would be doing the job, but that 2 specific ones would not be allowed to work because they are destined for a museum. A sad state of affairs.

As far as I am concerned, operators should have first pick as to what to use. Museums can have what's left.

 

[Darandio]

Are they? The 86s are still pulling freight. 90s are still in hourly service. Surely the 91s have got yonks of life left in them?

90's are in service at LNER for this very reason, the 91's are struggling. Reliability and availability seems to be as bad as it has ever been.Some will suggest maintenance has been let go at this point because of the incoming Hitachi IEP.

I've never been a fan of comparing other classes, in this case because they are all electric locomotives. Very different uses/availability/maintenance.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The number of calls had to be reduced due to not using tilting stock

I understand that mk4s run on the ECML at more cant deficiency than allowed for non tilt on the WCML and that speeds for mk4s on the WCML might be reviewed. This isn't simply made up but please don't ask where I heard it. Meanwhile 1TPH Preston to Crewe is lamentable.

 

[The Planner]

Good point. If the service is poor north of Crewe then the WCP need to address this.

WCP will address what the DfT have specified them to provide. Unless there is cash in it for them they won't do it.

 

[The Planner]

I understand that mk4s run on the ECML at more cant deficiency than allowed for non tilt on the WCML and that speeds for mk4s on the WCML might be reviewed.

Not before GNWR start they won't, and even then I doubt it will happen unless they stump up the cash for NR to look at it.

 

[pt_mad]

WCP will address what the DfT have specified them to provide. Unless there is cash in it for them they won't do it.

And presumably the DFT will have specified the service they think is required and necessary and will take into account the passenger rail survey. So it comes back to the DFT deems that the minimum service spec for the WCP north of Crewe is adequate without any open access operator.

 

[a_c_skinner]

So it comes back to the DFT deems that the minimum service spec for the WCP north of Crewe is adequate

Yes, clearly, but they are wrong. Crewe is a place to change trains, reduce the service, changes become less attractive, demand falls, DFT says demand met, no way back from this.

 

[pt_mad]

There were a lot of objections when Virgin transferred the Crewe call from the Euston to Scotland service to the additional Euston to Manchester service, as it halved the frequency between Warrington and Crewe but other than that I've not heard of any specific objections to services missing Crewe.

I think what Crewe passengers take issue with is that they only really have one service an hour going north for Warrington and Wigan. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing bit many feel it's not enough. DFT obviously think that is enough as the minimum.

The Nuneaton rail group used to raise similar complaints about the service to London being worse after 2008 than it was before the VHF timetable. Especially between 2009 a d 2012 when the LM service used to go via Northampton all day. Looks like Alliance found a business case in this and chose Nuneaton because there is currently no express service going North in the day time and only the Desiro going south in much of the off peak. Plus, possible improved connections to and from Eastern England could attract new passengers and new revenue.

Yes, clearly, but they are wrong. Crewe is a place to change trains, reduce the service, changes become less attractive, demand falls, DFT says demand met, no way back from this.

But how can we say they are wrong? They have all the figures, stats, trends, passengers survey results, revenue information, profitability based on current financial results.

 

[The_Engineer]

In reply to many, many earlier posts on this thread today. Alliance Rail did apply to stop at Crewe and one or two other main-line stations too. But the ORR (not DfT, corrected as below) in their infinite wisdom, for EITHER pathing or failure to pass revenue extraction test reasons, did not approve them and the station stops approved passed both. No matter how many times you say I want these trains to stop at whatever others stations, they will not...…..

 

[ainsworth74]

The DfT in their wisdom, for EITHER pathing or failure to pass revenue extraction test reasons, did not approve them and the station stops approved passed both. No matter how many times you say I want these trains to stop at whatever others stations, they will not...…..

ORR surely? It isn't a DfT responsibility to approve/decline Open Access applications.

 

[a_c_skinner]

you say I want these trains to stop at whatever others stations, they will not...…..

Oh, yes, we know, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't rail against the folly and missed opportunity.

 

[E6007]

Others beat me to it!

[You mean ORR did not approve them!]

 

[The_Engineer]

Others beat me to it!

[You mean ORR did not approve them!]

I stand corrected on that point, good sire! (And Ainsworth74 - thanks!) However, although on topic, it's becoming repetitive and boring. I shall unwatch this thread

 

[pt_mad]

I stand corrected on that point, good sire! However, although on topic, it's becoming repetitive and boring. I shall unwatch this thread

The only real news is that The Planner mentioned that things are going on in the background relating to September 19 that are wider than GNWR. Which sounds exciting and intregeing.

 

[Class 170101]

Not sure how the 10:33 GNWR SX service works with a 10:38 VT Euston to Blackpool North unless the VT service doesn't have rights.

 

[cle]

Another hourly service north of Crewe to at least Preston would be enough. I don't think 'everything' needs to stop there, it is a nothing place in itself, and more people go between London and Glasgow/Manchester/Liverpool than join trains for those places at Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure how the 10:33 GNWR SX service works with a 10:38 VT Euston to Blackpool North unless the VT service doesn't have rights.

The VT will overtake the GNWR while it sits at Milton Keynes Central platform 5.