DfT consult on new LM franchise

pemma · 15 Dec 2015

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/485332/west-midlands-rail-franchise.pdf

At a quick glance the first things I noticed are whether the trains used on Crewe-Euston and Liverpool-Birmingham services are too poor quality.

There's a requirement to split long distance services and West Midland local services in to two separate business units.

They may be asked to take over English routes currently operated by ATW.

Whether Crewe to Euston services should be routed away from Stone is being examined.

There appears to be no mention of running services to Preston.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/485332/west-midlands-rail-franchise.pdf

RailUK Forums

Quakkerillo · 15 Dec 2015

They can't count on page 69 it seems.

WatcherZero · 15 Dec 2015

Looks like they flipped number of vehicle and number of units column titles.

Old Hill Bank · 15 Dec 2015

This an opportunity to have a say about the contract that the new train operator will have to be "compliant" with! So what do you all want from the next West Midlands Franchise that is affordable and deliverable?

Tetchytyke · 16 Dec 2015

Old Hill Bank said:
So what do you all want from the next West Midlands Franchise that is affordable and deliverable?

GoVia to be thrown into the cold, dark, unforgiving sea.

pemma · 16 Dec 2015

Specifically referring to Crewe-Euston and Liverpool-Birmingham they say "trains are sometimes regarded as basic with some issues with cleanliness also reported. Bidders will be asked to provide proposals on how they can improve the service offered to customers on board trains, in particular on longer distance services"

The list of on board facilities they are asking respondents to prioritise for journeys of both under and over 40 minutes are:
Luggage space
Cycle storage
Audio passenger information e.g. announcements
Visual passenger information e.g. next stop information
First class areas
Catering
Tables
Seat trays
Staff presence
Plug sockets
USB sockets to charge USB devices
Pushchair/wheelchair space
Baby changing facilities
Suitable toilets
Free Wi-Fi

All catering services were discontinued by Govia and tables are no longer guaranteed on Liverpool-Birmingham services. Wifi will be fitted to the 350s by the current LM franchise.

PR1Berske · 16 Dec 2015

Para 2.6, page 19/88

2.6 Some services and stations within England that currently run as part of the Wales and Borders Franchise may be moved into this and/or another franchise in a process known as remapping. This comes as a result of the Governments agreement in principle to devolve responsibility for the next Wales and Borders franchise to the Welsh Government6
. We will consult separately on any remapping proposals.

Question 9 is about services to Euston and intermediate stations from Crewe :

Q9. The West Midlands franchise currently provides an hourly service from London Euston to Crewe via Stoke-on-Trent.
Passenger numbers have grown significantly.

There is an issue however thatsome of the stations between Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe have shorter platforms that can only cater for four carriages. This means trains either have to be limited to four carriages and often become crowded or they are longer but have to run directly from Stafford to Crewe, missing out Stone,
Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Alsager.

We would like peoples views on whether the current service should continue
to operate as it does now, or whether a direct route from Stafford to Crewe
should be run at all times, providing a consistent timetable and allowing
longer trains to operate.

It is possible that this service could be provided by
another operator through another franchise.

We would ensure that there is no reduction to the number of services per
hour at each station between Stafford and Crewe via Stoke-on-Trent. We are
currently exploring options for through services to alternative destinations for
passengers at these stations, for example to Birmingham.

More information on this including passenger advantages and disadvantages
are available on page 40.

Considering the information outlined above, which of these options would
you prefer and why?
●● Maintaining the current direct London Midland service from London
Euston to Crewe via Stoke-on-Trent; or
●● Operating the current Euston to Crewe service directly from Stafford to
Crewe, and providing an alternative service for stations between Stafford,
Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe which would provide new links to destinations
south of Stafford.

Where possible please provide your reasons. If you have a priority for which
new destinations an alternative service between Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and
Crewe should serve please let us know here.

Bletchleyite · 16 Dec 2015

Having ridden one last night, if they are looking for new pseudo-IC stock they could do an awful lot worse than 5-car (23m) Desiro Verves (380 body, basically) with the ScotRail 380 interior (but full size tables). They are very, very good (and rather wasted on a suburban stopping service!)

sprinterguy · 16 Dec 2015

Arctic Troll said:
GoVia to be thrown into the cold, dark, unforgiving sea.

It is evident that you and I have experienced very different sides of London Midland. Excellent service around the West Midlands on the Snow Hill lines and, whenever I've used it, the Cross City too. I've never had any quibbles with the regional Hereford/Shrewsbury services, either, apart from the trains being too full at peak times, which is hardly a problem specific to London Midland.

"Better the devil you know", anyway: One of life's great lessons is that things can ALWAYS get worse.

Bletchleyite · 16 Dec 2015

sprinterguy said:
It is evident that you and I have experienced very different sides of London Midland. Excellent service provided on the Snow Hill lines and, whenever I've used it, the Cross City too.

I don't find them *absolutely* terrible on the WCML, but some parts of the management are quite obviously incompetent. The debacle surrounding the 319s has been appallingly managed, for instance. And the customer service department is pretty poor, though that is true of most TOCs, indeed most large companies generally.

I'd rather Govia had LM than SercoNedNorthern, as one example.

sprinterguy · 16 Dec 2015

Neil Williams said:
I don't find them *absolutely* terrible on the WCML, but some parts of the management are quite obviously incompetent.

From personal experience I have no problems whatsoever agreeing with that. Also I have little to no experience of their operations south of Northampton, where many problems often seem to be concentrated (the 319 debacle being a case in point).

Tetchytyke · 16 Dec 2015

sprinterguy said:
It is evident that you and I have experienced very different sides of London Midland.

Commuting from one of the smaller stations on the southern WCML was extremely enlightening as to how much one's custom is valued, put it that way.

One of life's great lessons is that things can ALWAYS get worse.

True, it could be Serco!

sprinterguy · 16 Dec 2015

Arctic Troll said:
Commuting from one of the smaller stations on the southern WCML was extremely enlightening as to how much one's custom is valued, put it that way.

Yeah, as far as I can tell there does seem to be a great deal of variation between the quality of service provided in the West Midlands compared to the South WCML.

Bletchleyite · 16 Dec 2015

sprinterguy said:
From personal experience I have no problems whatsoever agreeing with that. Also I have little to no experience of their operations south of Northampton, where many problems often seem to be concentrated (the 319 debacle being a case in point).

The loss of local senior management was something very visible in the early days of LM, compared with Silverlink where things were managed from the south WCML for the benefit of the south WCML.

Blindtraveler · 16 Dec 2015

How possible or not would it be for the current 350/1s and /3s used on the trent valley to split somewhere in the Midlands meaning higher capacity at the stations taking it with the extra unit left at say Stafford or Lchfield? Liv Birmingham, Birmingham Euston and Euston Crewe need IMO a Trolley, Wifi and Plugs plus more regular emptying of toilet tanks.
The Birmingham to Eus and LIV are tough ones given how much local traffic is carried. Maybe a refit of the 350 fleat with certain coaches being more aimed at longer distance and others at local journeys?

Could SDO be used Stafford>Stoke>Crewe?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For the Deezol routes Im with Sprinterguy. The Snowhill route is well run. The Birmingham Hereford and Shrewsbury turns nee more capacity but unsure how youd do this.

sprinterguy · 16 Dec 2015

Blindtraveler said:
The Birmingham Hereford and Shrewsbury turns nee more capacity but unsure how youd do this.

170s released from Scotrail might prove beneficial here. Plus Chase Line electrification will release a handful of 170s from December 2017.

Blindtraveler · 16 Dec 2015

What are platform lengths and potential for extentions like? 8 coaches needed on many turns for both maybe with some LM and X SR units being reformed into longer formations maybe?

sprinterguy · 16 Dec 2015

Blindtraveler said:
How possible or not would it be for the current 350/1s and /3s used on the trent valley to split somewhere in the Midlands meaning higher capacity at the stations taking it with the extra unit left at say Stafford or Lchfield?

Could be problematic in terms of both occupation of through platforms and crossover and reversal from Down to Up direction across the fast lines at any location between Tamworth and Stafford inclusive, though I have no real knowledge to impart.

The Ham · 16 Dec 2015

PR1Berske said:
Question 9 is about services to Euston and intermediate stations from Crewe :

One possible option (if there is space north of Stafford) could be to run a longer train on the southern end of the route and then split it (say 4 and 4) with one train running direct to Crewe and one train going via Stoke on Trent.

In doing so there is more capacity on the southern end and most passengers to Crewe get a faster journey time and are "removed" from the loading of the trains via Stoke on Trent freeing up space for passengers going to stations along that route.

It just depends on whether there is enough demand to justify the extra units and/or the extra paths (if available).

Although it could also potentially create new markets if there was the desire to provide new stations between Stafford and Crewe. Especially if they were locations where it would be easier to drive to than to drive to Stoke on Trent station.

As an example a new station at Baldwin's Gate could provide a rail head for towns along the A53 (like Market Drayton). Although not likely to attract a lot of passengers it could be enough to justify stopping a train which is already passing (i.e. enough to cover construction costs of a new station).

sprinterguy · 16 Dec 2015

Blindtraveler said:
What are platform lengths and potential for extentions like? 8 coaches needed on many turns for both maybe with some LM and X SR units being reformed into longer formations maybe?

Looking at the Hereford line, the platforms at Colwall and Ledbury are shorter (109 and 98 metres respectively), but both are served by 8 car HSTs at present anyway and 170s are fitted with SDO, so that shouldn't pose a problem. Presumably the new Bromsgrove station will be built to accommodate 6 x 23 metre carriages (equivalent to a pair of 323s), and this is as long as I can envisage Hereford (or Shrewsbury) trains becoming, negating the need to reform 3-car class 170s.

Tetchytyke · 16 Dec 2015

sprinterguy said:
Yeah, as far as I can tell there does seem to be a great deal of variation between the quality of service provided in the West Midlands compared to the South WCML.

I also think there's a great deal of variation in service on the southern WCML depending on which station you travel from.

Those who are travelling from Milton Keynes or Northampton have been looked after well by London Midland. The service is worse from Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead, and slightly worse again from Tring. But Cheddington, Apsley and Kings Langley have been treated abysmally by London Midland; if it's not the station ticket office being shut for weeks on end due to "staff shortages", it's the scheduled trains being cancelled (without replacement or even advance warning) or told to skip the smaller stations due to "staff shortages" or "delays to a previous service" (it's funny how it is always Apsley and Kings Langley whose stops get binned to make up time, never Bletchley or Leighton Buzzard...) and even little things like not bothering to grit the platforms in icy weather.

I don't miss them one little bit.

Bletchleyite · 16 Dec 2015

I'd imagine that Bletchley is rarely skipped because it is usually used for traincrew changeover. But I really haven't observed LM skipping out stops very often. More likely is the standard WCML disruption timetable of cancelling one Manchester, one Brum, cutting back the Holyhead to run from Crewe only, cancelling the Tring stoppers and inserting Apsley and Kings Langley stops in one of the MKC semifasts. That is used with such regularity that it could almost do with being published.

pt_mad · 20 Dec 2015

The Ham said:
One possible option (if there is space north of Stafford) could be to run a longer train on the southern end of the route and then split it (say 4 and 4) with one train running direct to Crewe and one train going via Stoke on Trent.

There used to be one working up until late 2014 (1646 Euston - Crewe) service
that ran as 8 cars and split at Stafford, with front 4 continuing on to Crewe via Stoke, and rear 4 cars terminating.
However for whatever reason it was decided this was not the best way forward, and thus from earlier this year the 1646 and 1746 Euston - Crewe services both run 8 car Euston - Crewe via Stoke, but do not stop at Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager.

Also important to note that it is not simply an issue of short platforms at Stone and Kidsgrove. (Rugeley TV and Atherstone can only accomodate 4 coaches, yet an 8 car train can still stop there with just 4 sets of doors opening.) The problems are more to do with 8 car trains overhanging level/pedestrian crossings and the station being very close to the junction of the Colwich and Norton Bridge branches of the WCML at Stone.

Seems they may be suggesting that one of the Birmingham/Liverpools p/h is rerouted via Stone,Stoke,Kidsgrove,Alsager leaving the Euston/Crewe service
free to run direct from Stafford to Crewe with 8 coaches.

This would also improve connections north from the Trent Valley, with services reaching Crewe much earlier.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Re where it says Crewe/Euston services could be run by another franchise, are they simply alluding to the Intercity West Coast franchise?

And this be the case surely its a little late for re-mapping or asking for opinions on re-mapping in time for October 2017?

And who would manage the TV stations should the ICWC operator run the semi-fast TV services?

swt_passenger · 20 Dec 2015

pt_mad said:
Re where it says Crewe/Euston services could be run by another franchise, are they simply alluding to the Intercity West Coast franchise?

And this be the case surely its a little late for re-mapping or asking for opinions on re-mapping in time for October 2017?

They aren't proposing re-mapping in October 2017, just separating into two separate business units prior to a proposed reorganisation in the franchise after this one.

Do you remember this diagram, and the ensuing discussion: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2155608&postcount=33

Stats · 20 Dec 2015

pt_mad said:
And this be the case surely its a little late for re-mapping or asking for opinions on re-mapping in time for October 2017?

Why should it be a little late? The franchise consultations is the time when options for remapping are presented and opinions sought before taking a final decision for the ITT.

Class 170101 · 20 Dec 2015

swt_passenger said:
They aren't proposing re-mapping in October 2017, just separating into two separate business units prior to a proposed reorganisation in the franchise after this one.

Do you remember this diagram, and the ensuing discussion: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2155608&postcount=33

I disagree. I think perhaps Northern might be asked to operate between Crewe and Stafford via Stoke by extending the Crewe to Manchester service.
or a non-remapping option as a London to Liverpool LM service direct between Stafford and Crewe with one of the Birmingham to Liverpool services diverted via Stoke and terminating at Crewe.

pt_mad · 20 Dec 2015

swt_passenger said:
They aren't proposing re-mapping in October 2017, just separating into two separate business units prior to a proposed reorganisation in the franchise after this one.

What I am pointing at is the quote provided by PR1 Berskie in post #7 which I presume is from the consultation document:

We would like people’s views on whether the current service should continue
to operate as it does now, or whether a direct route from Stafford to Crewe
should be run at all times, providing a consistent timetable and allowing
longer trains to operate.

It is possible that this service could be provided by
another operator through another franchise.

That does seem to point to re-mapping.

Bletchleyite · 20 Dec 2015

pt_mad said:
Seems they may be suggesting that one of the Birmingham/Liverpools p/h is rerouted via Stone,Stoke,Kidsgrove,Alsager leaving the Euston/Crewe service
free to run direct from Stafford to Crewe with 8 coaches.

The problem is that Birmingham to Liverpool also is heading towards needing 8-car at some times of day, and that is because of simple demand for that journey and not because of heavy price cutting taking people off the VT services that do have capacity for them.

I'm all for extending any trains so more people can choose what they wish and get a seat, but I don't think a decision actively preventing extension of Liverpool services is sensible. It might be time to do the infrastructure work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

pt_mad said:
That does seem to point to re-mapping.

You could argue that it might make more sense overall for VT to run all Trent Valley services, and LM to concentrate on Birmingham via Northampton. I'd imagine, despite the likely fare increases, this would be seen quite favourably.

Though LM may not like this, as the services aren't franchise requirements - the franchise requirement can be met with separate services split at Northampton or elsewhere, AIUI. Joining them as they did was a LM thing.

nuneatonmark · 21 Dec 2015

Neil Williams said:
The problem is that Birmingham to Liverpool also is heading towards needing 8-car at some times of day, and that is because of simple demand for that journey and not because of heavy price cutting taking people off the VT services that do have capacity for them.

I'm all for extending any trains so more people can choose what they wish and get a seat, but I don't think a decision actively preventing extension of Liverpool services is sensible. It might be time to do the infrastructure work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You could argue that it might make more sense overall for VT to run all Trent Valley services, and LM to concentrate on Birmingham via Northampton. I'd imagine, despite the likely fare increases, this would be seen quite favourably.

Though LM may not like this, as the services aren't franchise requirements - the franchise requirement can be met with separate services split at Northampton or elsewhere, AIUI. Joining them as they did was a LM thing.

LM started badly but have shown innovation with the Project 110 which improved services for a number of stations. The biggest 'plus' is that a number of major stations have a choice now to/from London and the fares they offer can be very cheap, it would be a shame to lose that.

More capacity is needed though, especially along the Trent Valley. I would like to see a fast 125mph service London, Watford, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and then on to the North West somewhere just as Alliance are planning. Then split 2 trains per hour off at Northampton, one via Stoke from Stafford and the second direct to Crewe from Stafford.

Bletchleyite · 21 Dec 2015

nuneatonmark said:
More capacity is needed though, especially along the Trent Valley. I would like to see a fast 125mph service London, Watford, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and then on to the North West somewhere just as Alliance are planning. Then split 2 trains per hour off at Northampton, one via Stoke from Stafford and the second direct to Crewe from Stafford.

A second VT TPH to Liverpool could I suppose be provided in that way, if it is justified. The 9-car sets could then be concentrated on Liverpools etc with the 11-cars on busier services.

DfT consult on new LM franchise

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member