New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

swt_passenger · 22 Jun 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
I was having a quick look at RTT at what was using 8 it seemed to vary a lot as to what services used 8, do 8 and 9 have any particular services "assigned" to them normally?

Every service has a 'normally planned platform', but the platform group in the middle of the station (let's say 8- 14 or so) doesn't really allocate specific destinations to 'usual platforms' as such.

A quick scan through the Carriage Working Notices (CWNs) looking just at P8 suggests it is used by trains to any destination reached off the main fasts, Portsmouth, Poole, Weymouth, Alton, Basingstoke, Southampton, Woking, etc etc - although I didn't see any Salisbury or Exeters. There is no obvious pattern or repeating cycle that I can see.

RailUK Forums

wastedlife · 22 Jun 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
I was having a quick look at RTT at what was using 8 it seemed to vary a lot as to what services used 8, do 8 and 9 have any particular services "assigned" to them normally?

Clearly, there's a lot of 12 car trains scheduled into them in the peaks, in any case... 17.53 Basingstoke on P9, 18:02 Woking or Guildford on P8, 18:12 Basingstoke on P9, 18:23 Basingstoke on P8, 19:02 Woking on P8 just off the top of my head.

pompeyfan · 22 Jun 2017

swt_passenger said:
Every service has a 'normally planned platform', but the platform group in the middle of the station (let's say 8- 14 or so) doesn't really allocate specific destinations to 'usual platforms' as such.

A quick scan through the Carriage Working Notices (CWNs) looking just at P8 suggests it is used by trains to any destination reached off the main fasts, Portsmouth, Poole, Weymouth, Alton, Basingstoke, Southampton, Woking, etc etc - although I didn't see any Salisbury or Exeters. There is no obvious pattern or repeating cycle that I can see.

I believe there's a restriction on diesels using those platforms which Harley Davidson mentioned earlier.

swt_passenger · 22 Jun 2017

pompeyfan said:
I believe there's a restriction on diesels using those platforms which Harley Davidson mentioned earlier.

Yes, I forgot about that. Is this actually a current problem, or is it a future problem for after the blockade? Is it at all possible that what is visible now is not the finished locations of all the signals?

Pumbaa · 22 Jun 2017

hwl said:
Indeed but plenty not willing to listen...

Quite- with a whole load of nonsense in the mean time.

Matt Taylor · 29 Jun 2017

Still no news on a branding but everything points to South Western Railway at the moment. Meetings have now taken place between the RMT and First MTR which put to bed any rumours of a date change.

SpacePhoenix · 29 Jun 2017

Are the SWTs logos on the current stock vinyl or are they painted on?

Paul180 · 29 Jun 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
Are the SWTs logos on the current stock vinyl or are they painted on?

99.9% sure they are vinyl from seeing bits of the letter missing sometimes.

SpacePhoenix · 30 Jun 2017

Paul180 said:
99.9% sure they are vinyl from seeing bits of the letter missing sometimes.

Should be easy to get rid of the old logo if it's vinyl then, will they get many days grace after the handover to have the old logos removed from all trains?

How many seats for a 2x442 compared with 3x450? I thought the whole reason for using 3x450s in the first place was that iirc the Dft specified how many seats were to be provided and the 3x450 had to be used to meet the spec

Clip · 30 Jun 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
Should be easy to get rid of the old logo if it's vinyl then, will they get many days grace after the handover to have the old logos removed from all trains?

Depends how much money they are prepared to throw at it but they could and probably will start a little before hand removing them and could get it done in one night if they pay for it.

swt_passenger · 30 Jun 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
Are the SWTs logos on the current stock vinyl or are they painted on?

When did you last see a painted or "sign written" operator logo, apart from something massive on the size of a freight loco?

swt_passenger · 30 Jun 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
How many seats for a 2x442 compared with 3x450? I thought the whole reason for using 3x450s in the first place was that iirc the Dft specified how many seats were to be provided and the 3x450 had to be used to meet the spec

Do you ever read other discussions? This has already been done in the first few days after the announcement was made.

Yes there are definitely less seats compared to a 12.450, and yes the DfT specified the SWT capacity in terms of overall seats.

From P5 12.450/0 would have 72F and 699S. 10.442 in GX/SN spec 72F and 636S.

But that was then, and First must have now come to a different agreement, one of the key features being 4 tph to Portsmouth rather than 3 tph, so what's to discuss?

pete_m911 · 30 Jun 2017

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...tdown-will-be-worse-than-feared-a3576801.html

Uh-oh.

godfreycomplex · 30 Jun 2017

pete_m911 said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...tdown-will-be-worse-than-feared-a3576801.html

Uh-oh.

Not good news, but could be much, much worse.
What is frustrating is the Standard acting like the sky has fallen in. It's one extra platform closing for three weeks, there's people dying

swt_passenger · 30 Jun 2017

pete_m911 said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...tdown-will-be-worse-than-feared-a3576801.html

Uh-oh.

godfreycomplex said:
Not good news, but could be much, much worse.
What is frustrating is the Standard acting like the sky has fallen in. It's one extra platform closing for three weeks, there's people dying

This additional closure of P10 was mentioned ten days ago in the thread about the blockade in the infrastructure sub-section.

It isn't that relevant to the franchise change, other than going on during the changeover...

charlee · 3 Jul 2017

Now that both franchises are run by the same parent company. Could we see intermingling of service in the GWR and SWR rail networks.
Or is that impossible with franchise commitment? Is it even allowed? Sorry not turned in with the specifics of franchise deals.

swt_passenger · 3 Jul 2017

charlee said:
Now that both franchises are run by the same parent company. Could we see intermingling of service in the GWR and SWR rail networks.
Or is that impossible with franchise commitment? Is it even allowed? Sorry not turned in with the specifics of franchise deals.

It doesn't usually happen. DfT control the service specs and agree the respective train fleet size pretty tightly. The GW franchise will be up for renewal at some time anyway - and would have to be completely separable in case a different group won it.

adamello · 3 Jul 2017

Don't forget it's not just First who won the franchise (albeit a 70% majority) but MTR may not want inclusion with GWR

SpacePhoenix · 3 Jul 2017

Will all the 442s be based at Fratton or will some be based in London (Wimbledon?)?

urpert · 3 Jul 2017

swt_passenger said:
It doesn't usually happen. DfT control the service specs and agree the respective train fleet size pretty tightly. The GW franchise will be up for renewal at some time anyway - and would have to be completely separable in case a different group won it.

Didn't Virgin get in trouble for intermingling the West Coast and XC franchises for exactly that reason?

Bletchleyite · 3 Jul 2017

urpert said:
Didn't Virgin get in trouble for intermingling the West Coast and XC franchises for exactly that reason?

I don't think they got in trouble but they did have to pay the costs of separating them. The reason for VTEC and WC being more separate is that EC is a Stagecoach franchise with Virgin branding, it isn't Virgin Rail Group.

Chiltern got in trouble for having WSMR operate franchised services, though.

swt_passenger · 3 Jul 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
Will all the 442s be based at Fratton or will some be based in London (Wimbledon?)?

No-one is likely to know yet, surely? Remember the earlier discussions about where to maintain them? People suggested Bournemouth - mainly for nostalgic reasons AFAICT.

They will need a major maintenance location, a depot, and stabling locations. That could be at least 3 or even more different sites.

They could end up getting classified maintenance completely off their normal route, but as a small class would normally be allocated to only one depot, but out-stabled as required for the timetable startup in the morning.

Wimbledon is probably the least likely stabling location, as they will logically be the eventual Aventra depot and stabling facility. I think Clapham Junction is more likely for overnight stabling at the London end, but probably a minority of them as the diagrams will probably be aimed more at morning peak flows from Portsmouth and back in the evening...

infobleep · 3 Jul 2017

swt_passenger said:
This additional closure of P10 was mentioned ten days ago in the thread about the blockade in the infrastructure sub-section.

It isn't that relevant to the franchise change, other than going on during the changeover...

The Evening Standard obviously missed that thread then. Haha.

HarleyDavidson · 3 Jul 2017

SpacePhoenix said:
Will all the 442s be based at Fratton or will some be based in London (Wimbledon?)?

I hope not, they struggled to maintain the 455 & VEPs they had in slam door days! The number of times I had to do shunting with dud VEPs into Fratton car sheds for repair... Jees!

The lads in the car sheds at Fratton were top notch lads, whom I sadly miss for all of their advice which got me out of trouble in the past.

Monty · 3 Jul 2017

I would of thought that the units (442s) will be stabled at a number of locations with minor work being carried out at Fratton and any heavier work done at either Eastleigh or Bournemouth.

Suraggu · 3 Jul 2017

charlee said:
Now that both franchises are run by the same parent company. Could we see intermingling of service in the GWR and SWR rail networks.
Or is that impossible with franchise commitment? Is it even allowed? Sorry not turned in with the specifics of franchise deals.

It will not happen.

HarleyDavidson · 3 Jul 2017

Suraggu said:
It will not happen.

Don't rule it out for North Downs, where they have a deal with SN to cover the work over it.

With SN drivers in dispute and on RD/OT ban, FG may want to take the work away from SN and transfer it to SW, due to the dispute and lack of availability of cover. It has been noted that more than a few North Downs services have been cancelled due to lack of a driver.

infobleep · 4 Jul 2017

HarleyDavidson said:
Don't rule it out for North Downs, where they have a deal with SN to cover the work over it.

With SN drivers in dispute and on RD/OT ban, FG may want to take the work away from SN and transfer it to SW, due to the dispute and lack of availability of cover. It has been noted that more than a few North Downs services have been cancelled due to lack of a driver.

Now that is an interesting idea I'd not thought of. I can see the merits of doing it. Would still be a Great Western Railway service, just not one they'd be fully staffing. Would need to be drivers avilable to cover it and they'd need to be routed trained but if it stacked up in favour, despite all the work needed, I could see it being done.

Nammer · 4 Jul 2017

At a Q&A session yesterday at Portsmouth & Southsea (re : the new franchise) staff were told the 442s are to be based at Fratton Depot and maintained by Bournemouth Depot

pompeyfan · 4 Jul 2017

Nammer said:
At a Q&A session yesterday at Portsmouth & Southsea (re : the new franchise) staff were told the 442s are to be based at Fratton Depot and maintained by Bournemouth Depot

Which means Bournemouth crew will most probably have to sign then again as well as Fratton/Guildford/Woking?

New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member