• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Alliance Rail application for paths between Waterloo and Southampton rejected

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,714
Eastleigh depot entrance seen from Campbell road bridge.

The 3rd rails were there at end of March. Seen when 34046 came through.

The picture was taken on the 12th June and they had been removed.

I saw a gang working one visit there, but do not recall date, and of course
not noticed that the 3rd rails had gone since.

A picture in the latest issue of Rail Express shows this work taking place on May 10th.
 

alastair

Member
Joined
14 Oct 2010
Messages
440
Location
Dartmouth
And they'll be an operator running into one of the country's busiest and most congested railway stations, with a total fleet of six, thirty year old trains. Seriously?

I'm happy to admit that I think Open Access is a needless distraction from the business of running a franchised, heavily micro-managed railway network. You can have a free market and competiton, or you can have regulation. The railway attempting 99% of the latter, with a tiny smattering of the former where it happens to be convenient, is not a good use of already overworked infrastructure. Using the railway is a challenge already, tiny operators squeezing obscure train services onto already crowded routes, not when services are needed at the busiest times, but whenever and wherever there happens to be a space, further increasing fragmentation and and confusion, is not progress. It merely makes the passenger experience even more baffling and less integrated.

Thanks for a persuasive post. Difficult to disagree with what you say.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Logic would dictate yes. If Vossloh or whoever are carrying out a job for one customer for a sum of money, there's no reason they can't do the same job for a different customer.

Although to whoever is doing the re-tractioning it is one customer as Angel Trains, as vehicle owner, who will place the contract.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I don't think anyone realistically expects there to be 3 tph at Weymouth, (including a Portsmouth service), so I believe it is quite a reasonable assumption

Apologies if this is going over old ground, but is Portsmouth - Weymouth definitely an hourly commitment, or just a commitment to some daily services?

I've certainly seen that there will be a service, but only an assumption that it'll be hourly(?)

This may have been answered before, since I've not kept up to date with all of the "SWT" threads of late.

I'm happy to admit that I think Open Access is a needless distraction from the business of running a franchised, heavily micro-managed railway network. You can have a free market and competiton, or you can have regulation. The railway attempting 99% of the latter, with a tiny smattering of the former where it happens to be convenient, is not a good use of already overworked infrastructure. Using the railway is a challenge already, tiny operators squeezing obscure train services onto already crowded routes, not when services are needed at the busiest times, but whenever and wherever there happens to be a space, further increasing fragmentation and and confusion, is not progress. It merely makes the passenger experience even more baffling and less integrated.

Agreed.

I could at least see the point when it was "London to somewhere that lacked a direct London link via an ORCATS raid on somewhere busy" (i.e. London to Sunderland via York, London to Wrexham via the West Midlands)... so there was some "sizzle" to go with the "steak".

(insert Crayonista fantasy about links from London to Avonmouth as an excuse for an ORCATS raid on the Bristol flow etc etc)

But Waterloo to Southampton doesn't seem to add *anything*. First could run the same trains in the same paths between the cities much more efficiently (given that they'd have a bigger fleet of 442s) with simpler ticketing etc.

Even a London - Lymington service (whilst ridiculous) would provide "something" different - this just feels like unnecessary fragmentation/ complication/ duplication...
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,276
Apologies if this is going over old ground, but is Portsmouth - Weymouth definitely an hourly commitment, or just a commitment to some daily services?

I've certainly seen that there will be a service, but only an assumption that it'll be hourly?

I don't really know which is why I posted the ITT service requirement for Waterloo - Weymouth earlier that only shows a requirement for one end to end through service. We also don't know whether or not the additional Portsmouth - Southampton semi fast will terminate at Southampton, or will just be part of the Weymouth service.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Agreed.

I could at least see the point when it was "London to somewhere that lacked a direct London link via an ORCATS raid on somewhere busy" (i.e. London to Sunderland via York, London to Wrexham via the West Midlands)... so there was some "sizzle" to go with the "steak".

(insert Crayonista fantasy about links from London to Avonmouth as an excuse for an ORCATS raid on the Bristol flow etc etc)

But Waterloo to Southampton doesn't seem to add *anything*. First could run the same trains in the same paths between the cities much more efficiently (given that they'd have a bigger fleet of 442s) with simpler ticketing etc.

Even a London - Lymington service (whilst ridiculous) would provide "something" different - this just feels like unnecessary fragmentation/ complication/ duplication...

However it is serving a station that isn't as well served as it could be in the form of Hook. Although it is sub 1 million passengers currently there's likely to be significant development there over the next 10 years.

Also although already reasonable served (2tph) the new services will significantly (10 to 15 minutes faster on a journey that takes an hour) reduce journey times to London as well as providing direct services south of Basingstoke. The latter would further significantly reduce journey times by removing a wait at Basingstoke (often 10 minutes if the XC service is on time!).

Yes it's not going to add good as when Farnborough or Fleet gained there extra services, but it will still make a big change to the attractiveness of rail travel.

The impact is likely to be reduced once some of the big ticket infrastructure changes come along (Southern Approach to Heathrow and Crossrail 2), but they are not for a good few years yet.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Alliance Rail headed up Grand Central before the Arriva days didnt they?

Either that or Yeowart set up Alliance on leaving Grand Central at Arrivas aquisition....

Grand Central is a subsidiary of Arriva Trains these days...
 

MatthewRead

On Moderation
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
1,636
Location
West london
I know I've mentioned this before but has this service been approved the new South Western franchise has to give approval but I know Network Rail have meant have found paths for it.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,276
I know I've mentioned this before but has this service been approved the new South Western franchise has to give approval but I know Network Rail have meant have found paths for it.

It is ORR that has to give the approval, not the new franchisee. The franchisee is able to object - there's a 'not primarily abstractive' test that the proposed Open Access service has to pass - and ORR will need SWR's evidence to prove or disprove that.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
It is ORR that has to give the approval, not the new franchisee. The franchisee is able to object - there's a 'not primarily abstractive' test that the proposed Open Access service has to pass - and ORR will need SWR's evidence to prove or disprove that.

Do we know how long it will be before we have an answer?
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Just to veer towards the rolling stock for a moment, have all 24 442s been refurbished? Or are the plans being tailored to SWR's requirements for 18(?)? Is there likely to be any issue with the condition of the remaining examples that this lot are hoping to use? Presumably SWR will assess each unit and make use of the best ones.
 

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
Just to veer towards the rolling stock for a moment, have all 24 442s been refurbished? Or are the plans being tailored to SWR's requirements for 18(?)? Is there likely to be any issue with the condition of the remaining examples that this lot are hoping to use? Presumably SWR will assess each unit and make use of the best ones.

As the Alliance offer to lease was well before the SWR franchise was awarded, if anything they would have had first choice. I suspect that Angel Trains have just allocated a block of six for Alliance and given SWR the rest. I don't think any refurbishments have started yet, and I would guess that retractioning will be done under a separate contract to any other work that's done.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,543
Location
Redcar
As the Alliance offer to lease was well before the SWR franchise was awarded, if anything they would have had first choice. I suspect that Angel Trains have just allocated a block of six for Alliance and given SWR the rest. I don't think any refurbishments have started yet, and I would guess that retractioning will be done under a separate contract to any other work that's done.

Surely they would only have had a choice if they were willing to lay down cash? Otherwise I'd expect SWR to have had their pick of the fleet as they are paying money for them right now rather than at some indeterminate point in the future (or more likely never).
 

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
Surely they would only have had a choice if they were willing to lay down cash? Otherwise I'd expect SWR to have had their pick of the fleet as they are paying money for them right now rather than at some indeterminate point in the future (or more likely never).

Who knows? It's not uncommon to put down some form of deposit, pay for an option or some form of reservation fee ahead of a full lease. Something led Angel to hold back six units, unless by the hugest of coincidences SWR wanted exactly the eighteen remaining. If that's the case, If I were Alliance I'd be hacked off if I'd been left with the worst sets.
One thing to consider is that the SWR units are being refurbished and retractions, whereas the Alliance will want to move quickly. If Angel are allocating the units, they'll want the ones with the worst interiors and equipment to get the refurbishments as a priority.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284

I would have though that NR would have an offline way of identifying paths, especially as (at least some of) these paths appear over several days from the 20th May.

However, there's nothing on the Alliance website, Twitter or Facebook nor the ORR news feed or press releases.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge will be able to provide an answer.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,383
Location
The UK
It seems as though there are certain criteria for a successful Open Access service:

1) It must not be solely abstractive. Competition and choice was the mantra of the newly-privatised rail network when it was unveiled in 1994; that turned out to be a failure, but choice is never a bad thing in the eyes of the passenger (especially if it helps to lower fare prices). The key is to strike the right balance between offering a desirable service and duplicating the main route of a standard TOC.

2) There must be a market for it. Hull Trains spotted a gap in the market and they went for it. Grand Central found one in the northeast. The best way to do this is often to do something new; connect destinations

3) There must be paths. If you can't actually run the service then there's no point trying to do so. An operator attempting to run Open Access trains down a congested line needs the increase in congestion to be outweighed by the size of the market.

4) Practical needs: appropriate rolling stock, drivers, crew. You will need to be able to access them if your plan is accepted.

Now, let's apply backontrack's rules for open access operation onto Alliance's SWML bid and see where it gets us.

1) The sole purpose of this service is to compete with the current SWR services. Now, that's by no means a bad thing, but...

2) ...the only really new thing that this service does is call at Hook. That's it. The size of the market is limited. There may well be a market for more trains from Southampton to London, but...

3) ...there's not enough capacity for them. Crucially, the increase in congestion would not be outweighed by the size of the market.

4) At least here there's a pass. I suppose that using Class 442s does add to the novelty.
 

GW43125

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2014
Messages
2,045
Interestingly, I’m not seeing much difference from the SWT services to Southampton on some, except marginally faster journey time.

Also, the ones that stop at Wimbledon on their way into London don’t quite seem to meet the headway requirement.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It seems as though there are certain criteria for a successful Open Access service:

1) It must not be solely abstractive. Competition and choice was the mantra of the newly-privatised rail network when it was unveiled in 1994; that turned out to be a failure, but choice is never a bad thing in the eyes of the passenger (especially if it helps to lower fare prices). The key is to strike the right balance between offering a desirable service and duplicating the main route of a standard TOC.

2) There must be a market for it. Hull Trains spotted a gap in the market and they went for it. Grand Central found one in the northeast. The best way to do this is often to do something new; connect destinations

3) There must be paths. If you can't actually run the service then there's no point trying to do so. An operator attempting to run Open Access trains down a congested line needs the increase in congestion to be outweighed by the size of the market.

4) Practical needs: appropriate rolling stock, drivers, crew. You will need to be able to access them if your plan is accepted.

Now, let's apply backontrack's rules for open access operation onto Alliance's SWML bid and see where it gets us.

1) The sole purpose of this service is to compete with the current SWR services. Now, that's by no means a bad thing, but...

2) ...the only really new thing that this service does is call at Hook. That's it. The size of the market is limited. There may well be a market for more trains from Southampton to London, but...

3) ...there's not enough capacity for them. Crucially, the increase in congestion would not be outweighed by the size of the market.

4) At least here there's a pass. I suppose that using Class 442s does add to the novelty.

3) Has been proved (at least in part) by Network Rail having identified validated, compliant train paths for the services. They would not be appearing in RTT as offered paths otherwise. Just then depends how one defines 'congestion' (i.e. likely impact on performance).
 

700007

Established Member
Joined
6 May 2017
Messages
1,195
Location
Near a bunch of sheds that aren't 66s.
That's interesting. But surely these paths can't be used from December?

SWR's timetable consultation uses very similar paths to that. The xx:25 departure from London Waterloo from Dec '18 is atm planned to be the hourly service to Exeter St. David's via Salisbury (retimed from the current xx:20). The xx:32 would clash with the xx:33 planned hourly stopping service to....you can guess it, Southampton Central. :lol:

On the Southampton end, xx:23/24 clashes with the stopping service departure back to London Waterloo which is planned to leave at xx:22. I'm pretty sure the ex-Poole semi-fast is also planned to come in somewhere around xx:26 to London Waterloo so it's interesting to see how this will all work out!

Surely a smarter path if they insist would be London Waterloo, Guildford, Haslemere, Havant, Fareham, Southampton Central (not those exact stops, but that route) or something like that? There isn't a regular train service that currently does that (end to end) and would look a bit more attractive. That said, the Portsmouth Direct seems to have life issues every day, so not too sure how well that would go down!
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
That's interesting. But surely these paths can't be used from December?

SWR's timetable consultation uses very similar paths to that. The xx:25 departure from London Waterloo from Dec '18 is atm planned to be the hourly service to Exeter St. David's via Salisbury (retimed from the current xx:20). The xx:32 would clash with the xx:33 planned hourly stopping service to....you can guess it, Southampton Central. :lol:

On the Southampton end, xx:23/24 clashes with the stopping service departure back to London Waterloo which is planned to leave at xx:22. I'm pretty sure the ex-Poole semi-fast is also planned to come in somewhere around xx:26 to London Waterloo so it's interesting to see how this will all work out!

Surely a smarter path if they insist would be London Waterloo, Guildford, Haslemere, Havant, Fareham, Southampton Central (not those exact stops, but that route) or something like that? There isn't a regular train service that currently does that (end to end) and would look a bit more attractive. That said, the Portsmouth Direct seems to have life issues every day, so not too sure how well that would go down!

The passengers would like that idea, but I don’t know if there’s capacity between Guildford and Farlington junction or from Fareham to St Denys, especially with planned enhancements.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The passengers would like that idea, but I don’t know if there’s capacity between Guildford and Farlington junction or from Fareham to St Denys, especially with planned enhancements.

I don't think "the passengers" would be so keen on the journey times (cite precedent: Wrexham & Shropshire).
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,383
Location
The UK
Agreed.

I could at least see the point when it was "London to somewhere that lacked a direct London link via an ORCATS raid on somewhere busy" (i.e. London to Sunderland via York, London to Wrexham via the West Midlands)... so there was some "sizzle" to go with the "steak".

(insert Crayonista fantasy about links from London to Avonmouth as an excuse for an ORCATS raid on the Bristol flow etc etc)

But Waterloo to Southampton doesn't seem to add *anything*. First could run the same trains in the same paths between the cities much more efficiently (given that they'd have a bigger fleet of 442s) with simpler ticketing etc.

Even a London - Lymington service (whilst ridiculous) would provide "something" different - this just feels like unnecessary fragmentation/ complication/ duplication...

I think that, if you were going for an Open Access service on SWR tracks, surely you'd want to go for something like a fast Waterloo-Hook-Andover-Salisbury-Yeovil-Crewkerne-Axminster-Honiton-Exeter-Dawlish Warren-Newton Abbot-Torquay-Paignton, operated by Voyagers or something?
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
I don't think "the passengers" would be so keen on the journey times (cite precedent: Wrexham & Shropshire).

I know Southampton passengers wouldn’t benefit but Fareham, Havant and Haslemere would be happy.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
2) ...the only really new thing that this service does is call at Hook. That's it. The size of the market is limited. There may well be a market for more trains from Southampton to London.

The market for Hook maybe bigger than you think, although the population is Circa 8,000 this is due to double over the next 10 years. Also there's quite a few large business offices, including the HQ for Virgin Media, which means that flows into and out of Hook can be fairly balanced. It also mean that there's business traffic on the trains during the day.

Add in that Hook is seeing a reduction in service under SWR in the morning peak and GSR could do better out of that Hook stop than some think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top