Alliance Blackpool service to be run by Grand Central and start in 2021

[pt_mad]

If a service is worth running put it in the franchise and let us all travel on all of the services.

But that entails the franchise wanting to run such a service.

There was nothing to stop VT applying for these same paths and proposing to use non tilting 110mph train sets.

GNWR put their application in, followed by VTs application to run three extras a day, one in the same path as one of the GNWRs proposed services.

Ticket wise presumably there will be a more expensive ticket options that allows travel via any operator.

 

[All Line Rover]

If choosing Stafford or Crewe instead, it's a case of they may have failed the revenue abstraction test as these towns already have a good fast service north and south. And it's supposed to be predominantly new business.

Crewe does not have a good 'fast' service to Nuneaton. Milton Keynes and London, but not Nuneaton. Which makes journeys such as Chester/Wilmslow to Leicester/Cambridge a bind, as to complete these journeys it tends to be necessary to take a route, via Birmingham or London, which is slower (than changing at Nuneaton would be, if a fast service to Nuneaton existed), more circuitous, and more expensive. On the positive side, the re-routing of the LM/LNWR service away from Stoke-on-Trent come Dec 2018 should make travel via Rugeley and Nuneaton more viable.

Crewe and Stafford have a tolerable service to Warrington and stations further north on the WCML. Nothing better than that. The timetable between the entirety of Watford Junction and Preston (not via Birmingham) leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If nothing else, travelling up the WCML in a Mk 4 will be novel!

Only for young 'uns. I remember GNER 91+Mk4 combos running every hour between Carstairs and Glasgow Central, most definitely on the WCML!

 

[Old Hill Bank]

But that entails the franchise wanting to run such a service.

There was nothing to stop VT applying for these same paths and proposing to use non tilting 110mph train sets.

GNWR put their application in, followed by VTs application to run three extras a day, one in the same path as one of the GNWRs proposed services.

Ticket wise presumably there will be a more expensive ticket options that allows travel via any operator.

The whole thing about our rail network is to provide a service to all of the people with economical benefits to all communities, that requires all services accessible by all rail users not the class system and exclusions that come with open access. The new WCML franchise could procure more tilting trains if the DfT spec it, we do not need lots of different trains on a route as much as the platform end gricers would like it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Stalwart BR managers told the DfT pre 1994 , you could either have total open access, or franchising .....

 

[IanXC]

Only thing I'd say is they'll have to be careful about their brand name; having "London Northwestern Railway" and "Great North Western Railway" operating on the same route is a recipe for confused passengers. Especially since the audio quality of station/train PA systems is notoriously poor. I'd suggest they go for something substantially different (after all "West Coast Trains Limited" bears little resemblance to "Virgin Trains").

We'd rather not have people suffering the railway's standard "severe financial penalties for minor and easily made mistakes" policy because passengers heard "unintelligable north western service" and boarded what they thought was their train.

I don't think that will be a problem.

They'd be mad not to use the Grand Central brand imho.

 

[pt_mad]

The whole thing about our rail network is to provide a service to all of the people with economical benefits to all communities, that requires all services accessible by all rail users not the class system and exclusions that come with open access. The new WCML franchise could procure more tilting trains if the DfT spec it, we do not need lots of different trains on a route as much as the platform end gricers would like it.

But it cant call at all stations to include everyone as the paths would no longer be viable. It can only make one stop other than Miltion Keynes before Preston and they chose Nuneaton for reasons GNWR specified themselves. It's not the class system? Nuneaton isnt a town with a high social class. Wilmslow is and that's served hourly by the West Coast franchise, whether that's the class system who knows.
It seems more likely that it was the VHF timetable that made exclusions not open access operators.

The DFT havnt specified new stock for the next West Coast Franchise. So it's not looking likely tbh. If the spare WCML paths were ever going to be used and there hasn't been enough tilting stock to do so then 110mph capable stock was going to be the only way of utilising the paths. Cant see the problem with 225s they're decent trains and there's no point scrapping them.

And if it's as simple as an overtaking move at Milton Keynes and you're left with a clear run on the fast all the way to Preston as it seems to be with this then what a great outcome and a great way of increasing capacity on the line by implementing a very basic solution.

 

[The Ham]

The DFT havnt specified new stock for the next West Coast Franchise. So it's not looking likely tbh. If the spare WCML paths were ever going to be used and there hasn't been enough tilting stock to do so then 110mph capable stock was going to be the only way of utilising the paths. Cant see the problem with 225s they're decent trains and there's no point scrapping them.

Going slightly off topic, in other threads I've suggested that a new fleet of short tilting trains (maybe 6 coaches if they could fit at enough stations when run as pairs) could be ordered so as to replace some 221's, allow more services, allow splitting of services (say to get a second train per hour to Liverpool without needing a new path or of London) and allow extensions to some services (say beyond Manchester).

They could even be used to displace some of the 9 coach 390's, with the possibly to then use those coaches to lengthen more of the 390 fleet to 11 coach units.

As once HS2 starts there's likely to be a benefit in running shorter units to more places to connect with the HS2 services. Although there's likely to be some demand for some long trains as well.

However there's other threads for such discussions.

 

[Kettledrum]

How can running such a short train on valuable WCML paths ever be a good idea?

It's a better idea than not running any trains at all on these paths which is the current situation. The primary extraction test and the lack of additional 125mph stock both mean that any solution for the use of these paths is going to be sub-optimal.

I suppose the theory is that this is OK because it enables competition and cheaper tickets.

 

[Kettledrum]

The advantage with Nuneaton is you are one change away from Coventry, Cambridge, Leicester and Birmingham, with fairly reasonable connections.

More than what the other TV line stations have

....except Tamworth, where you could change to the XC route and get to Derby, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, Plymouth, Newcastle, Edinburgh etc.

(I think stopping at Nuneaton is great - it's a shame a stop at Tamworth couldn't be made to work too.)

 

[Chester1]

The whole thing about our rail network is to provide a service to all of the people with economical benefits to all communities, that requires all services accessible by all rail users not the class system and exclusions that come with open access. The new WCML franchise could procure more tilting trains if the DfT spec it, we do not need lots of different trains on a route as much as the platform end gricers would like it.

New tilting trains are unlikely to be ordered because the Pendolino design no longer meets H&S regulations therefore a new design would be needed and because there will be an excess of tilting units once HS2 opens. This service should provide extra capacity until then and a much cheaper cost.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I don't think that will be a problem.

They'd be mad not to use the Grand Central brand imho.

'Grand Central + TPE' APs and walk-up tickets could become a thing on both the WCML and ECML then. That would be quite innovative indeed. Imagine... London to Glasgow 'Grand Central + TPE'.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

could be ordered so as to replace some 221's

As long as XC get those 221s, I'd be all for it. But then of course you're left with a vast excess of stock and capacity once HS2 opens.

 

[The Ham]

New tilting trains are unlikely to be ordered because the Pendolino design no longer meets H&S regulations therefore a new design would be needed and because there will be an excess of tilting units once HS2 opens. This service should provide extra capacity until then and a much cheaper cost.

I'd agree that long tilting trains are unlikely, however if the ICWC franchise order some short units (6 coaches if they could still be run in pairs) there could be enough (minimum of 100 coaches) to make an order worthwhile. They would be very useful after HS2 opens when long sets wouldn't be as required.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But that entails the franchise wanting to run such a service.
There was nothing to stop VT applying for these same paths and proposing to use non tilting 110mph train sets.
GNWR put their application in, followed by VTs application to run three extras a day, one in the same path as one of the GNWRs proposed services.
Ticket wise presumably there will be a more expensive ticket options that allows travel via any operator.

Remember that the VT operation has been a series of 2-year direct awards since 2012, with new contracts each time.
At some point DfT (Patrick McLoughlin) asked Virgin to introduce services to Shrewsbury and Blackpool, which they did with spare Voyagers.
Blackpool had to wait for the wires to go from 1tpd to 4tpd, and still "off-peak" with spare Pendolinos, ie not ideal paths.
So I'm not really clear if their Blackpool services are considered part of the franchise or not.
No doubt it will all be sorted in the new WCP franchise next year, taking into account the approved GNWR paths.

On Virgin introducing 110mph services before now, there is no suitable stock until 2019 anyway, and they wouldn't want to impede their existing 125mph services.
The direct awards gave them no scope at all to acquire more trains - DfT just wants the premiums.
They did squeeze more capacity by merging Euston-Wolverhampton with Birmingham-Scotland, which put more 390s on this route, at the expense of 5-car 221s elsewhere.

 

[jopsuk]

So do they have a contract signed to take the mark 4 sets?

 

[backontrack]

I'm just quite happy to see a prospective Open Access operator finally get their way past Virgin's protectionism.

 

[ainsworth74]

So do they have a contract signed to take the mark 4 sets?

Yes that's the big question! We've been here before with Alliance and then the operation never actually got started.

I'm just quite happy to see a prospective Open Access operator finally get their way past Virgin's protectionism.

What like the same application by the same company that was approved in August 2015? Which they then never got off the ground...

 

[The Planner]

Yes that's the big question! We've been here before with Alliance and then the operation never actually got started.

It does feel a little like the put up or shut up scenario it was before, but they presumably stand a better chance with not having to source new trains.
Ive not seen the paths for a good while, but it appears a tad tight on the down with the xx.33 as it has to get out of the way off the xx.40 Manchester at Milton Keynes and presumably out after the xx.43 Glasgow and get to Colwich before the xx.00 Manchester, it then has to deal with the xx.07 Liverpool chasing it down which probably precludes the Crewe stop. Its likely worse on the up as I guess they are looking to arrive at Euston around xx.00.

 

[The_Engineer]

So do they have a contract signed to take the mark 4 sets?

I think that's a while off yet. After the ORR's granting of the application, GNWR will now be looking at the tweaking of the proposed paths with Network Rail and in parallel will be running through the sums for prospective traffic from the new stopping pattern. I am sure tentative leasing and maintenance arrangements will have to be sought for the rolling stock and locomotives to allow their true costings to be determined. It may well be if they can't get the ideal paths and/or the revised financial projections don't stack up then GNWR will walk away from the route once again...

 

[backontrack]

What like the same application by the same company that was approved in August 2015? Which they then never got off the ground...

I'm happy to see it nevertheless. Hopefully they can actually get services started this time...

 

[randyrippley]

So is this going to mean cheap Arriva-only tickets to London from Lancashire and Cumbria, changing at Preston?

 

[jopsuk]

Yes that's the big question! We've been here before with Alliance and then the operation never actually got started.

That was the angle I was going with... tbh I won't believe it until they start doing driver training runs

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm just quite happy to see a prospective Open Access operator finally get their way past Virgin's protectionism.

It's the DfT's protection of the West Coast operator and its premiums (without having to fund new trains).
It would be the same if ICWC was run by First or anybody else.

Introduction is also dependent on LNER releasing Mk4 sets, and the time needed to rebrand them or whatever is required for the new service, plus driver/route training.
Network Rail will also have to formally clear the WCML routes (inc diversions) for the stock.
They will also need somewhere to service the stock, particularly the 91s, with LNER depots being re-geared for the IEP and other new ECML fleets.
Maybe DB Cargo and Arriva Traincare at Crewe (both DB operations) will be part of this, if Bounds Green is unavailable.

 

[pt_mad]

....except Tamworth, where you could change to the XC route and get to Derby, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, Plymouth, Newcastle, Edinburgh etc.

(I think stopping at Nuneaton is great - it's a shame a stop at Tamworth couldn't be made to work too.)

Trouble with Tamworth and or Lichfield is that trains have to cross over into the slow line for some 7 or 8 miles just to call there. And it's not likely the train could reach Colwich Junction before the following Manchester was up it's backside. So the only option is to stop the train at a station with platforms on the fast lines which Nuneaton has.

Also I'm not sure stakeholders would want to point a lot of long distance traffic to Tamworth for interchange purposes as the station doesn't have huge capacity in terms of narrow platforms etc. Most journeys south west to the North involve New St instead.

It does feel a little like the put up or shut up scenario it was before, but they presumably stand a better chance with not having to source new trains.
Ive not seen the paths for a good while, but it appears a tad tight on the down with the xx.33 as it has to get out of the way off the xx.40 Manchester at Milton Keynes and presumably out after the xx.43 Glasgow and get to Colwich before the xx.00 Manchester, it then has to deal with the xx.07 Liverpool chasing it down which probably precludes the Crewe stop. Its likely worse on the up as I guess they are looking to arrive at Euston around xx.00.

I suppose it's no tighter than the paths West Coast have anyway, i.e. every 3 mins on many parts. Looked like there will be more than the 3 mins spare behind the train at all times after MK.


Capacity wise, it's excellent, because if theure going to run with 6 mk4s, roughly every two hours during the daytime off peak, then that's like extending the Euston to Glasgow fast by 3 coaches every hour. And people say those services are busy as far as Preston. So it's a victory for capacity. Cant see many negatives with that tbh.


Someone asked do they have a contract signed for the 225s then? There's no way they could have done before now because they needed their track access granted first. It's no good attempting to lease trains with no track access, and it'd be unreasonable to expect them to. They could have approached the leasing company in principle and may well have done. And its a fair assumption they're (the leasing company) keen to secure further contracts for their trains knowing that LNER won't need them.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't get the problems with Tamworth/Lichfield stops (platforms on the Slow), or Stafford.
The Slow line is reached at Amington at 75mph and is then 110/125 EPS (same as the Fast) until Armitage, where it keeps the 110 of the old (pre-TV4) WCML Down Fast.
The junction at Colwich is actually faster on the "Slow" (90mph) than the "Fast" (65mph).
Trains can also be looped to call at Stafford with minimal delay (as the VT Liverpool does every hour), and the Slow lines on to Crewe are now 100mph if there's a clash on the Fast.
There's plenty of room at Crewe on P12.
There seems plenty of capacity and pathing options to call at any of the 3 stops being omitted.
Using the Slow would also keep the GNWR out of the way of the xx00 Manchester on the Fast at Colwich.
Might not work north of Crewe of course, or on the Up at Stafford/Colwich where there are more conflicts than on the Down.

 

[The Planner]

You would keep out of the way of the xx.00 Manchester but the xx.07 Liverpool will cause it problems as that is at Colwich at xy.17 Stafford at xy.22. Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield stops then to Colwich is going to be about 25 minutes. The slow lines north of Stafford are full of freight paths with firm rights which if you cannot flex them and make them work will trump the GNWR services.

 

[pt_mad]

I don't get the problems with Tamworth/Lichfield stops (platforms on the Slow), or Stafford.
The Slow line is reached at Amington at 75mph and is then 110/125 EPS (same as the Fast) until Armitage, where it keeps the 110 of the old (pre-TV4) WCML Down Fast.
The junction at Colwich is actually faster on the "Slow" (90mph) than the "Fast" (65mph).
Trains can also be looped to call at Stafford with minimal delay (as the VT Liverpool does every hour), and the Slow lines on to Crewe are now 100mph if there's a clash on the Fast.
There's plenty of room at Crewe on P12.
There seems plenty of capacity and pathing options to call at any of the 3 stops being omitted.
Using the Slow would also keep the GNWR out of the way of the xx00 Manchester on the Fast at Colwich.
Might not work north of Crewe of course, or on the Up at Stafford/Colwich where there are more conflicts than on the Down.

But would stops at all three TV stations pass the not primarily revenue abstractive test? It'd probably take footfall away from LNR going south and to intermediate stops including MK.

They were probably never going to get approval for an express service serving most of the Trent Valley. They went for their best chance of receiving approval and even still a lot of people thought odds were on for refusal. But they managed it.

It's no different from VT's model. Running long distance with 3 stops. They've got 5 stops. And journey times still need to be competitive which I believe was part of their application.

People said the fast Glasgow's are some of the busiest services as far as Preston. So it may well do something to address that as it will offer an alternative off peak to Preston and connections. It will provide connections between the North West and East Anglia via Nuneaton in the off peak. And it will give Milton Keynes a long distance North of England service via the main line for the off peak. Positive stuff.

Besides that, it wasn't a franchise issue so it's up to GNWR like any other business to propose stops where they want to stop, and for the ORR to either approve or deny the application. It's not a publicly consulted franchise it's a private enterprise starring what they think will be a lucrative business presumably.



On a wider note I can't help feel there is a conflict between tests such as 'must not be primarily revenue abstractive' Vs wanting competition on the line Vs protecting the main franchise operator to ensure the premiums are met and the taxpayer isn't left with another situation similar to the ECML.

They told us there could be competition. But the competition can't be that hard because if it was and the main franchise revenue dropped, the premiums could be missed and the contract breached a la East Coast style losses.
If you had true competition and I mean viable competition then the main franchise would be at risk of serious loss of revenue and where would that end when they have to meet their agreed targets or be in breach of contract. Seems we can't have both.

 

[yorksrob]

Presumably the same way it's justified running five car trains up and down valuable ECML paths. Personally I'm not wholly sold but hey ho.



The test isn't "does not abstract any revenue" but instead "is not primarily abstractive". Which means that an OAO is expected not to just take revenue away from a franchised operator but to produce its own as well. So an OAO which just operated between Preston and London would be primarily abstractive. It introduces some competition and may grow the market a bit but it will primarily be taking revenue away from the franchised operator. However one which operates between London and Blackpool will still be abstracting revenue from the franchised operator but will also be growing its own revenue on the new section by improving links between stations either not currently served by the franchised operator or not well served by the franchised operator. Therefore it's not primarily abstractive.

Now, in the case of London to Blackpool, there is a strong argument that the ORR have had to bend their tools almost to breaking point to get the Alliance application to pass the test (I recall reading the original decision letter and it seemed like some mental gymnastics were being employed) which is perhaps why, on first inspection, it does seem odd that it's been authorised.



Yes, by people who don't understand how railways work. A railway is a natural monopoly and if you want an integrated network that includes services which are not profitable then it becomes very hard to have effective competition between operators without massive physical duplication of infrastructure (see the pre-grouping railway of circa 1820 - 1920). If the goal had been effective competition between private operators then we should never have bothered with franchises and the paths should simply be sold to the highest bidder. That would give you the competition that was promised but I rather suspect the outcomes would not be desirable to the majority of passengers.



It's a funny visual though isn't it?

As someone who was against the whole privatisation shabang back in the 90's (and playing devils advocate) perhaps a highly regulated core railway with a frisson of competition from open access operators could be the better option of all worlds.

We don't have to endure the railway death cycle of trying to subject every inch of track to cost analysis (the benefits are rarely fully captured in such calculations anyway), yet on longer distance journeys where people can choose and compare, the passenger might get some better deals ?

Anyway, best of luck to them. I must admit, I rarely use my local OAO now because the product has become too much like the franchised operator now !

 

[whhistle]

Who'd have thought the 91s and MK4s would be such hot property.
East Mids potentially having some, GNWR and Wales all interested.