• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

East-West Rail (EWR): possible alternatives to Chiltern being the operator of this service

Status
Not open for further replies.

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,423
Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/prior-information-notice-chiltern-services.246470/

I don't see the logic of Chiltern operating it. With Class 196s being sub-leased (or hired in) from WMR surely it would be better for services to be run by WMR using Bletchley Train crew depot and as Class 196s are WMR stock and Bletchley a WMR depot?

The route from Aylesbury to MK would make sense being a Chiltern route if built but the rest I'm not so sure?

In the longer term EWR probably should be it own TOC but that depends on Phases 2 and 3 to Cambridge being built I would suggest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
I don't see the logic of Chiltern operating it. With Class 196s being sub-leased (or hired in) from WMR surely it would be better for services to be run by WMR using Bletchley Train crew depot and as Class 196s are WMR stock and Bletchley a WMR depot?

The route from Aylesbury to MK would make sense being a Chiltern route if built but the rest I'm not so sure?

In the longer term EWR probably should be it own TOC but that depends on Phases 2 and 3 to Cambridge being built I would suggest.

It would have depended entirely on who the DfT wanted to run it - I don't believe WMR were even invited to bid to run the service although happy to be proved wrong if anyone knows any better.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
33,004
I don't see the logic of Chiltern operating it. With Class 196s being sub-leased (or hired in) from WMR surely it would be better for services to be run by WMR using Bletchley Train crew depot and as Class 196s are WMR stock and Bletchley a WMR depot?

The route from Aylesbury to MK would make sense being a Chiltern route if built but the rest I'm not so sure?

In the longer term EWR probably should be it own TOC but that depends on Phases 2 and 3 to Cambridge being built I would suggest.
I don’t think the full EWR as planned to Bedford was ever big enough to justify its own mini-TOC, and don’t even think extending to Cambridge makes any real difference. The original DFT suggestion was probably paying lip service to those who want competition at all costs, and helping with their original agenda that there were better people than Network Rail to organise the route and it’s eventual services. As it turned out NR remained fully involved, so it’s hardly a surprise a normal TOC is going to as well.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,370
Location
Bristol
I don't see the logic of Chiltern operating it. With Class 196s being sub-leased (or hired in) from WMR surely it would be better for services to be run by WMR using Bletchley Train crew depot and as Class 196s are WMR stock and Bletchley a WMR depot?

The route from Aylesbury to MK would make sense being a Chiltern route if built but the rest I'm not so sure?

In the longer term EWR probably should be it own TOC but that depends on Phases 2 and 3 to Cambridge being built I would suggest.
Part of it is that Chiltern already operate Oxford-Bicester and Aylesbury so MK-Oxford is more naturally on their 'patch'. Given that's the primary service, tucking the Bedford-Oxford in with that also makes sense. Chiltern have potential depot facilities at Oxford and Aylesbury as well as Bletchley having space for a separate EWR depot. It's also that Chiltern are among the smaller franchises so these services will also give them a slightly bigger 'base' and giving it to LNR would be increasing the gap rather than promoting some element of competition.
With Phases 2 and 3 It's hardly unusual for services to extend into other TOC's territory, with EMR operating to Liverpool, Southern operating to MK, and TPE operating to Edinburgh. EWR wouldn't justify it's own mini-TOC.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
Chiltern have potential depot facilities at Oxford and Aylesbury

Where is there potential for a Chiltern depot at Oxford? There is of course already a TMD at Aylesbury which is already dealing with a fleet twice the size it was built for, with no room for expansion.

As has already been discussed, the EWR 196s will see light maintenance / fuelling at Banbury (a location which certainly does have scope for expansion) and heavier work carried out at Tyseley. Further operation of Bletchley - Bedford and beyond by Chiltern is by no means guaranteed and some years into the future yet.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,370
Location
Bristol
Where is there potential for a Chiltern depot at Oxford? There is of course already a TMD at Aylesbury which is already dealing with a fleet twice the size it was built for, with no room for expansion.
Depot may be overstating it a bit, but they have the up side stabling sidings.
As has already been discussed, the EWR 196s will see light maintenance / fuelling at Banbury (a location which certainly does have scope for expansion) and heavier work carried out at Tyseley. Further operation of Bletchley - Bedford and beyond by Chiltern is by no means guaranteed and some years into the future yet.
Well, we've yet to see what GBR will do as well as whether or not Bedford-Cambridge goes ahead.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,423
I don’t think the full EWR as planned to Bedford was ever big enough to justify its own mini-TOC,
I would agree especially as it would share significant route mileage with the existing Bedford to Bletchley service

and don’t even think extending to Cambridge makes any real difference.
Depends how the service would be resourced. I would say Bletchley being broadly in the middle (or maybe Bedford) would be better than Oxford or Cambridge as you would have an imbalance of services similar to the Sheffield to Lincoln serevice which has an early start but also early finish from Sheffield where as Lincoln is late start and late finish (unless you operate from both ends - see below).

The original DFT suggestion was probably paying lip service to those who want competition at all costs, and helping with their original agenda that there were better people than Network Rail to organise the route and it’s eventual services. As it turned out NR remained fully involved, so it’s hardly a surprise a normal TOC is going to as well.
Seems highly likely though I doubt NR hasn't helped itself on the face of it with the May 2018 TT shambles in goverment circles.

Part of it is that Chiltern already operate Oxford-Bicester and Aylesbury so MK-Oxford is more naturally on their 'patch'.
Aylesbury has no link with EWR currently and indeed I'm not even sure Chiltern used it when there was one via the former Claydon LNE Jn for their Oxford services ECS moves. Bicester to Oxford is a smaller section than Bedford to Bletchley shared with WMR.

Given that's the primary service, tucking the Bedford-Oxford in with that also makes sense. Chiltern have potential depot facilities at Oxford and Aylesbury as well as Bletchley having space for a separate EWR depot.
Minimal at Oxford I'd say given most of their start of day and end of day ECS moves come from Banbury rather than starting Oxford.

It's also that Chiltern are among the smaller franchises so these services will also give them a slightly bigger 'base' and giving it to LNR would be increasing the gap rather than promoting some element of competition.
If you want on route competition then perhaps having the depots at Oxford and Cambridge with GWR and either XC or GA at the Cambridge end and they share the route.

With Phases 2 and 3 It's hardly unusual for services to extend into other TOC's territory, with EMR operating to Liverpool, Southern operating to MK, and TPE operating to Edinburgh.
TPE do have a depot in Scotland now (either Glasgow or Edinburgh) but with both Southern and EMR it resulted in late starts at the non-depot end and early finishes at the depot end if the depot is at one end as I have alluded to above. My view is Bletchley or Bedford would be a better place from a customer point of view being near the middle of the route and both have train crew and depot facilities..

EWR wouldn't justify it's own mini-TOC.
Maybe not but then of course small TOCs do have a significantly better focus than bigger ones on their markets.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
Depot may be overstating it a bit, but they have the up side stabling sidings.

Chiltern can stable units on the Up or Down side if they want to, but since that happened a few times with training ECS moves when the route into Oxford first opened, this has probably only been done once or twice in the intervening years, basically it doesn't happen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Aylesbury has no link with EWR currently and indeed I'm not even sure Chiltern used it when there was one via the former Claydon LNE Jn for their Oxford services ECS moves.

They did use it on several occasions, I once brought an ECS back from Oxford to Aylesbury via that route myself.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Bicester to Oxford is a smaller section than Bedford to Bletchley shared with WMR.

There is currently no indication Chiltern will be the preferred operator for EWR on the Bedford - Bletchley route.
 

Vanmanyo

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2022
Messages
240
Location
West Midlands
There is currently no indication Chiltern will be the preferred operator for EWR on the Bedford - Bletchley route.
Is there anything about how they are operating it? Will EWR be a mixture of existing TOCs or one whole new TOC (Or one current TOC like chiltern)
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,109
Location
Mold, Clwyd
196s sub-leased from WMR so yes, more traction knowledge required but only at one Depot.
So which depot would that be?
There are several potential ones identified in the subsequent discussion.
If the plan is for units to be based at Bletchley, it would make sense to crew them from there.
 

Vanmanyo

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2022
Messages
240
Location
West Midlands
So which depot would that be?
There are several potential ones identified in the subsequent discussion.
If the plan is for units to be based at Bletchley, it would make sense to crew them from there.
It'll be Bletchley I believe with major works at Tyseley possibly?
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
14,199
Location
UK
Only the DfT could come up a solution as myopic as this. Don't bother electrifying the line whilst it's being built, purportedly because bionic duckweed is just around the corner (but really just to save a few pennies).

Then run the service with microfleet that is maintained at a depot 60 miles from either end of the line, and hand the operation of the service to a TOC that doesn't have a traincrew depot or stabling facilities anywhere along the line, overlooking the TOCs which have them at either end.

It's absolutely bonkers.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
33,004
Is there anything about how they are operating it? Will EWR be a mixture of existing TOCs or one whole new TOC (Or one current TOC like chiltern)
Nothing concrete. As I’ve noted earlier, the sponsors (that’s both the DFT and the local councils EWR consortium), were pushing the idea of a dedicated ‘mini-TOC‘ for some time, but I’ve always thought that it would be unable to reach a large enough critical mass.

The linked PIN we‘re discussing includes a sentence that still leaves the future operator to be decided later:
“Plans for the procurement of the future overall operator of EWR passenger services are under consideration.”
I strongly suspect they’re still not at all sure how to proceed.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
14,199
Location
UK
Nothing concrete. As I’ve noted earlier, the sponsors (that’s both the DFT and the local councils EWR consortium), were pushing the idea of a dedicated ‘mini-TOC‘ for some time, but I’ve always thought that it would be unable to reach a large enough critical mass.

The linked PIN we‘re discussing includes a sentence that still leaves the future operator to be decided later:
“Plans for the procurement of the future overall operator of EWR passenger services are under consideration.”
I strongly suspect they’re still not at all sure how to proceed.
You could have said the same about Island Line or Valley Lines, both of which were separated out at privatisation.
 

WAB

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
1,135
Location
Anglia
You could have said the same about Island Line or Valley Lines, both of which were separated out at privatisation.
Neither of which survived on their own for very long...

TOCs as a structure are not ideal for something like EWR, which could do with being resourced by existing traincrew and stabling locations subject to capacity rather than faffing with duplicating existing provision.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
14,199
Location
UK
Neither of which survived on their own for very long...

TOCs as a structure are not ideal for something like EWR, which could do with being resourced by existing traincrew and stabling locations subject to capacity rather than faffing with duplicating existing provision.
Perhaps, but Chiltern is clearly an unsuitable TOC to give the work to. How many extra drivers will need they to employ purely because of the number of pass rides or taxis required for Banbury, Aylesbury or Marylebone drivers to get to/from Oxford or Milton Keynes?

Given that GWR and WMT already have their own depots at each end of the route it's bonkers not to give them the work, or at the very least get Chiltern to 'subcontract' the driving element to them (as already happens or used to happen in other instances, e.g. GWR with Southern Redhill drivers on the North Downs Line, Southern with Southeastern Tonbridge drivers on the Tonbridge-Redhill line and so forth.
 

Vanmanyo

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2022
Messages
240
Location
West Midlands
Perhaps, but Chiltern is clearly an unsuitable TOC to give the work to. How many extra drivers will need they to employ purely because of the number of pass rides or taxis required for Banbury, Aylesbury or Marylebone drivers to get to/from Oxford or Milton Keynes?

Given that GWR and WMT already have their own depots at each end of the route it's bonkers not to give them the work, or at the very least get Chiltern to 'subcontract' the driving element to them (as already happens or used to happen in other instances, e.g. GWR with Southern Redhill drivers on the North Downs Line, Southern with Southeastern Tonbridge drivers on the Tonbridge-Redhill line and so forth.
I wonder if the units will be stabled and maintained at Bletchley or something, with the drivers being based out of Bletchley but it being a Chiltern operated service?
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
So which depot would that be?
There are several potential ones identified in the subsequent discussion.
If the plan is for units to be based at Bletchley, it would make sense to crew them from there.

The units will not be based at Bletchley, I don't believe anyone said they were? Chiltern don't have a driver's depot at BY and there are currently no plans to open one.

Bletchley may be used for overnight stabling, but not for maintenance as far as I know. It will be Banbury drivers working the trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Is there anything about how they are operating it? Will EWR be a mixture of existing TOCs or one whole new TOC (Or one current TOC like chiltern)

The decision on who will operate the Bletchley - Bedford section of EWR and beyond has not been made yet, nor does it need to as that is some years away.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

It'll be Bletchley I believe with major works at Tyseley possibly?

No. I've already posted that light maintenance will be carried out at Banbury with heavier work being done at Tyseley.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Neither of which survived on their own for very long...

TOCs as a structure are not ideal for something like EWR, which could do with being resourced by existing traincrew and stabling locations subject to capacity rather than faffing with duplicating existing provision.

I'm not sure any TOC has enough drivers sat around doing nothing that they could easily absorb and resource an entirely new train service. Whoever took on EWR would have to recruit more drivers, whether that be Chiltern, GWR or LNR.
 
Last edited:

WAB

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
1,135
Location
Anglia
I'm not sure any TOC has enough drivers sat around doing nothing that they could easily absorb and resource an entirely new train service. Whoever took on EWR would have to recruit more drivers, whether that be Chiltern, GWR or LNR.
To be clear, I meant "resourced by existing traincrew locations and stabling locations", although more flexibility with spares coverage would be helpful too.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
To be clear, I meant "resourced by existing traincrew locations and stabling locations", although more flexibility with spares coverage would be helpful too.

Fair enough, Banbury meets those criteria as it has a drivers' depot and maintenance facilities.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
8,239
They also wanted DOO capable trains as part of the tender and I suspect that is much easier to achieve using Chiltern which already operates DOO services than trying to start WMT off with operating this little outpost that way.
 

Vanmanyo

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2022
Messages
240
Location
West Midlands
They also wanted DOO capable trains as part of the tender and I suspect that is much easier to achieve using Chiltern which already operates DOO services than trying to start WMT off with operating this little outpost that way.
WMT actually brag on their website about having guards on every service; Chiltern, like you said, already use DOO, on most services South of Banbury
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
WMT actually brag on their website about having guards on every service; Chiltern, like you said, already use DOO, on most services South of Banbury

As far as I am aware, it has not yet been decided whether guards will or won't be used on these EWR trains, that is still being discussed. If not, it would appear to be an extension of DOO operation which has in the past not been permitted and fiercely opposed by the RMT and ASLEF.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,370
Location
Bristol
As far as I am aware, it has not yet been decided whether guards will or won't be used on these EWR trains, that is still being discussed. If not, it would appear to be an extension of DOO operation which has in the past not been permitted and fiercely opposed by the RMT and ASLEF.
Less fiercely opposed on new services, which don't threaten jobs. I couldn't see anything regarding a decision but the stock is supposed to have the equipment ready for DOO:
5.12.3. The rolling stock for CS1, CS2 (and CO2.5) shall comprise of sufficient 3-car selfpowered trains operating to the CS1, CS2 and CO2.5 train service specification.
5.12.4. The trains shall be fitted with ETCS, Automatic Selective Door Opening and in cab Driver Controlled Operation through body side cameras and in cab CCTV.
Although I note ETCS isn't being fitted to the line, so it's still perfectly possible that the DCO CCTV is fitted but guards maintained on board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top