Abellio wins West Midlands franchise

[TEW]

Yes, it wouldn't be normal practice as you'd need really long dwells. As this was unexpected (may well be the only time it has ever happened) it stayed there for a while.

The way UDS works is that the guard uses the front cab at the front of the last unit that *isn't* to be released. So in a 12-car if you use the third cab back you can lock out all but the front 4.

Only opening 4 out of 12 coaches is perfectly possible with standard dwell times, provided it is only at appropriate stations. SWR/SWT have managed it for years at smaller stations, I have a feeling there may be some Southeastern stations which are like it too,

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only opening 4 out of 12 coaches is perfectly possible with standard dwell times, provided it is only at appropriate stations. SWR/SWT have managed it for years at smaller stations, I have a feeling there may be some Southeastern stations which are like it too,

Wasn't one of the fast-line platforms at Clapham Jn only front 4 until they installed full SDO?

 

[Kite159]

Wasn't one of the fast-line platforms at Clapham Jn only front 4 until they installed full SDO?

Platform 7 springs to mind

 

[TEW]

Wasn't one of the fast-line platforms at Clapham Jn only front 4 until they installed full SDO?

All fast line platforms were front 8 for a 12-450 and front 5 for a 10-444 before the installation of ASDO. There are more doors opened now. But it is the perfect example that SDO can work even at busy stations.

 

[swt_passenger]

IIRC Fareham (down direction at P3) was a fairly unusual SWT case where before ASDO they would open all doors of an 8.450, but only 4 of a 12.450, because the leading cab of the third unit (where the guard operated from) was just a few feet off the platform ramp.

I think though that just before ASDO came in they also moved the platform signal a few yards as well. Possibly a case of solving a problem in two ways at once? Of course by Fareham a down 12 car was emptying out quite significantly, not really huge mainline numbers by then.

I also remember an Up direction 12 car from Portsmouth via Eastleigh in the afternoon peak where the guard was up and down the train at every station on the first leg to Eastleigh, opening either 4 or 8 cars, and getting a fair amount of exercise in the process.

 

[swt_passenger]

If there were ever any candidates for stations which XC should operate, surely these would be those? It seems ludicrious to have one company (WMT), which doesn't actually have run trains from the station, running the ticket office and maintaining the station. And then another (XC) actually running the trains.

It isn’t ludicrous when you consider that even with only 2 or 3 stations XC would need a significant number of extra employees just to staff and run them. From XC’s point of view their “stations department” wouldn’t reach the critical mass required to have sensible rosters, leave cover, maintenance workers etc. Which is why the 2006 franchise spec and successors have always made it clear that XC would not operate any stations.

 

[JordyWM]

A similar argument could be said as to why a station that is served by 4 TOC’s should only be operated by one TOC.

In one sense it doesn’t make sense, but on the other hand it does.

Can I ask though is why for example, did WMR take over the running of Wolverhampton from Virgin? Was it simply the Virgin contract was up or did WMCA make this a decision? Plus is it actually WMT or WMCA that runs Wolverhampton now?

 

[IanXC]

It isn’t ludicrous when you consider that even with only 2 or 3 stations XC would need a significant number of extra employees just to staff and run them. From XC’s point of view their “stations department” wouldn’t reach the critical mass required to have sensible rosters, leave cover, maintenance workers etc. Which is why the 2006 franchise spec and successors have always made it clear that XC would not operate any stations.

In a similar fashion I beleive TPE have now fallen below that critical mass, and that their stations should be divided between Northern, East Midlands Trains and LNER.

 

[ChrisHogan]

A similar argument could be said as to why a station that is served by 4 TOC’s should only be operated by one TOC.

In one sense it doesn’t make sense, but on the other hand it does.

Can I ask though is why for example, did WMR take over the running of Wolverhampton from Virgin? Was it simply the Virgin contract was up or did WMCA make this a decision? Plus is it actually WMT or WMCA that runs Wolverhampton now?

The change of SFO at Wolves was a political decision as TfWM wants to make a significant investment there. WMCA can't run stations (nor can TfWM) as it hasn't got a Safety Certificate from the ORR and a Station Licence. TfWM wanted to run the new Bromsgrove but realised it didn't have the in-house competencies to become an SFO without excessive cost.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Guessing this will give Virgin some stiff competition. As this working becomes fast via Weedon and starts closer to the main commuter peak. Expect this to be a very popular train. Can see quite a few awaiting to LNR as the time penalty Vs VT won't be all that bad Vs the cost.

What we don't know is whether they will make all of them or some or just a few 8 cars on the Crewe Euston via Trent route.

It isn’t ludicrous when you consider that even with only 2 or 3 stations XC would need a significant number of extra employees just to staff and run them. From XC’s point of view their “stations department” wouldn’t reach the critical mass required to have sensible rosters, leave cover, maintenance workers etc. Which is why the 2006 franchise spec and successors have always made it clear that XC would not operate any stations.

A similar argument could be said as to why a station that is served by 4 TOC’s should only be operated by one TOC.

In one sense it doesn’t make sense, but on the other hand it does.

Can I ask though is why for example, did WMR take over the running of Wolverhampton from Virgin? Was it simply the Virgin contract was up or did WMCA make this a decision? Plus is it actually WMT or WMCA that runs Wolverhampton now?

Back when VT ran XC, it made a lot of sense for Virgin to operate many WC stations, like Tamworth, Stafford, Wolves etc, because they were served by mainly VTXC/WC services, branded under the single brand... Now days, stations like Stafford receive 2 VT services an hour (none peak) but 4 none VT services per hour. I guess it just never got switched over and made more sense to keep them VTWC operated. I did put forward the case for Stafford to be moved to an XC operated station, just for the 'banter' really.

 

[pt_mad]

Has anyone managed (from the ORR info) to get to the bottom of whether the Crewe - Stoke - Stone - Birmingham service will extend to London, in December?

 

[BigVern]

How I read this. At Crewe:
Platform 3 - Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham-Northampton-London
Platform 7 - Crewe-Stafford-Trent Valley-London
The 2 hourly Crewe-Shrewsbury stopping shifts to Platform 8
Platform 5 - Liverpool-Crewe-Birmingham
Platform 11 - Birmingham-Crewe-Liverpool

My 2009 Sectional Appendix shows platform 7 as 154m.
My 2017 Platform 5 EMUs shows a 350 vehicle as 20.34m.
So an 8-car 350 will be around 163m.
How does that work then?

 

[driver_m]

I've seen 387 pairs sat in the bays (7or 8) on tests. They just fit under the signal from memory.

 

[Ibex]

Has anyone managed (from the ORR info) to get to the bottom of whether the Crewe - Stoke - Stone - Birmingham service will extend to London, in December?

No, these services will operate as Crewe-Birmingham. There was initial speculation that it would be formed off the Walsall-Wolves stopper extending to Crewe but the track access application appears to show the service as an entirely new service.

It does also appear however that one of the Euston to Birmingham services will be extended to Crewe each hour but they won’t run via Stoke.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

My 2009 Sectional Appendix shows platform 7 as 154m.
My 2017 Platform 5 EMUs shows a 350 vehicle as 20.34m.
So an 8-car 350 will be around 163m.
How does that work then?

I was at Crewe at the end of May on the day the line via Runcorn was shut and 2x350s were sat in platform 7. My service was actually the south end unit and as @driver_m says the just about fit behind under the signal.

 

[SeanM1997]

http://moderngov.staffordshire.gov.... A for West Midlands Rail Briefing Report.pdf

This document states:
1ph Liverpool-Birmingham-London
1ph Liverpool-Birmingham-Birmingham International
1ph Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham-London
1ph Crewe-Stafford-Trent Valley-London

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, these services will operate as Crewe-Birmingham. There was initial speculation that it would be formed off the Walsall-Wolves stopper extending to Crewe but the track access application appears to show the service as an entirely new service.

It does also appear however that one of the Euston to Birmingham services will be extended to Crewe each hour but they won’t run via Stoke.

There's going to be a lot of shouting from Stone etc then! I thought WMT had conceded to make that the one that ran through New St to retain a Euston service of some kind albeit a very slow one.

It wasn't going to be the Wolves to *Walsall* service, it was going to be the Wolves to *New St* stopper.

 

[pt_mad]

No, these services will operate as Crewe-Birmingham. There was initial speculation that it would be formed off the Walsall-Wolves stopper extending to Crewe but the track access application appears to show the service as an entirely new service.

It does also appear however that one of the Euston to Birmingham services will be extended to Crewe each hour but they won’t run via Stoke.

Well there's real confusion here then, because BBC reported at the start of the new franchise that agreement had been made that the Crewe - Stoke - Stone - Birmingham service would run through to London specifically so that the local stations on the loop, mainly Stone, would retain a direct London service. This was due to local political pressure and from the council up there.

You said it appears that one of the Euston to Birmingham services will be extended to Crewe each hour. Is this in the ORR document? I would think that this actually will be running via Stoke. Otherwise, which service is it going to be? A London to Birmingham to Crewe mainline via Madeley every hour? Don't think that has been mentioned? So I would speculate this is actually going to be running via Stoke to Crewe.

 

[Class 170101]

I note that with the diversion of the 05:21 via the Weedon to London that it omits Northampton and Long Buckby. Whilst the gap south of Northmapton is covered by extending a Bletchley starter back to Northampton the gap between Rugby and Northampton remains. Similarly with the 18:49 now avoiding Northampton in the evening.

 

[al green]

My understanding is that each of the 3 tph EUS-NMP-BHM will be extended beyond New Street. One will be to Liverpool, not via Stoke, another will be to Crewe via Stoke and the other to Rugeley via Walsall. There will also be the hourly Trent Valley service to Crewe, but not via Stoke.

 

[Jurg]

the gap between Rugby and Northampton remains

Watford Gap?

I'll get me coat...

 

[whhistle]

XC could have a wider number of stations though:

South Wigston
Narborough
Hinckley
Nuneaton (maybe?)
Water Orton
Coleshill Parkway
Wilnecote
Burton on Trent

Plus, there could be a case to transfer some stations like Leamington Spa, Tamworth, Melton, Oakham, Stamford to XC.

The problem is, many of these stations are very spread out so providing decent ticket office / station staffing cover could be difficult.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

XC could have a wider number of stations though:

South Wigston
Narborough
Hinckley
Nuneaton (maybe?)
Water Orton
Coleshill Parkway
Wilnecote
Burton on Trent

Plus, there could be a case to transfer some stations like Leamington Spa, Tamworth, Melton, Oakham, Stamford to XC.

The problem is, many of these stations are very spread out so providing decent ticket office / station staffing cover could be difficult.

That range of stations isn't too spread out as they're all in the West Midlands and East Midlands; if XC were to manage any stations then these seem prime candidates.

 

[pt_mad]

My understanding is that each of the 3 tph EUS-NMP-BHM will be extended beyond New Street. One will be to Liverpool, not via Stoke, another will be to Crewe via Stoke and the other to Rugeley via Walsall. There will also be the hourly Trent Valley service to Crewe, but not via Stoke.

Will the chase line electrification be complete for December though with class 350s cleared for the route?

 

[mb]

The tier is still there in the fares data. You're probably just not booking far enough in advance! Though it is possible they've restricted the number of seats available at that tier.

Spot on. I've started booking further ahead and they are still there. Phew.

 

[The Planner]

Will the chase line electrification be complete for December though with class 350s cleared for the route?

Apparently, they are bombarding it with weekend blocks now.

 

[12guard4]

Will the chase line electrification be complete for December though with class 350s cleared for the route?

No chance

 

[the sniper]

Don't forget the platforms need extending by then too...

 

[pt_mad]

So unlikely that an extension of a Euston to Birmingham LNR service will be timetabled to go to Rugeley for December then really? More likely December 19?

Especially as I think the December timetable may be due to go live on systems (tops/rtt etc) very shortly.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

It says that the routing of the Shrewsbury service is to enable calls at Willenhall and Darlaston when they open. I assumed they would be served by extending Walsall stoppers to Wolverhampton, clearly not.

On the subject of Darlaston, perennial self-publicist Andy Street has posted the following on Twitter today:

"This was Darlaston railway station just before it closed in 1965. Today’s purchase of seven acres of land by the @WestMids_CA means we are a step closer to returning rail services for the people of Darlaston." ​

https://twitter.com/andy4wm/status/1029388217852801025

Apologies for the largeness of the image of Mr Street and unidentified friend.