Alliance Blackpool service to be run by Grand Central and start spring 2020

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by The Planner, 7 Jun 2018.

  1. a_c_skinner

    a_c_skinner Established Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Joined:
    21 Jun 2013
    For Preston to Crewe an extra one an hour is pretty much everything, isn't it? Either way we agree on a few more! I agree it is about connections, not sampling the delights of Crewe.
     
  2. LNW-GW Joint

    LNW-GW Joint Veteran Member

    Messages:
    13,505
    Joined:
    22 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Mold, Clwyd
    Crewe is a significant railhead for the many well-heeled villages within 10 miles or so with no/poor services - Tarporley, Congleton, Alsager, Nantwich, Audlem etc.
    It's also a major distribution centre, more thanks to the M6 than the railway, as well as having the Bentley factory (VW).
    I used to live in Leek (north Staffs), and Crewe was the best railhead for trips to Scotland.
     
  3. a_c_skinner

    a_c_skinner Established Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Joined:
    21 Jun 2013
    Yes, it needs more trains on the main line going north. I agree. However there are not that many, hence it is not convenient, hence the demand will be assessed as low, hence there won't be any more. It is the civil service way of doing things.
     
  4. route101

    route101 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,988
    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Was speaking to a couple last week who live in Shrewsbury and they drove to Crewe for VT to Glasgow
     
  5. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    20,871
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Redcar
    A reminder that this thread is for discussion of prospective GNWR services to Blackpool not for discussion of the service between Crewe and Preston in general. That needs to be carried out in a new thread. Any further posts not related to the topic will be deleted.
     
  6. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    What would the next stage be now with regards announcements from GNWR? Are they likely to agree a lease on the four 225 sets next and then make an announcement on that? When does a final timetable have to be submitted and approved for all of the paths with Network Rail?
    Could it go quiet literally until the timetable is finalised?
     
  7. Aictos

    Aictos Established Member

    Messages:
    8,539
    Joined:
    28 Apr 2009
    The only thing I hope to see is for the service to be marketed as Grand Central instead of GNWR for two reasons:

    1.

    GNWR and LNWR sound too similar when announced which could lead to confusion.

    2.

    As Grand Central is already a well established brand on the East Coast Mainline and as behind the scenes they are all the same company more or less, it makes sense to take advantage of a well known brand name to start with.
     
  8. Class 170101

    Class 170101 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,359
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2014
    There must be some retimings to other services then as that path doesn't appear to be rules compliant at MK.
     
  9. The Planner

    The Planner Established Member

    Messages:
    9,346
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2008
    If they still reckon they can start in September (unlikely in my opinion) then they sit in the May 19 timetable which gets offered back to operators next month.
     
  10. hexagon789

    hexagon789 Established Member

    Messages:
    6,685
    Joined:
    2 Sep 2016
    Location:
    Glasgow
    I think that was every two hours only. Certainly in GNER days it was every second fast to Edinburgh extended to Glasgow via Motherwell, until the Pendolinos and EPS were introduced it was faster than going to Glasgow via Preston IIRC.
     
  11. Gus

    Gus Member

    Messages:
    713
    Joined:
    1 Nov 2009
    Location:
    15C
    With a Nuneaton stop then fast to Preston I can see many people from Coventry/Leicestershire using the new service in the summer for Blackpool/The Lakes etc.
     
  12. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    It may possibly beat a journey from Coventry to Scotland on the existing direct service (via the West Mids), by changing at Nuneaton and Preston (onto a Glasgow or Edinburgh). Not sure but it could be a possibility?
     
  13. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    Ah right. No possibility they could submit for September only and not May, and submit for a deadline which makes it out to the public 12 weeks before September?

    If that makes sense?
     
  14. The_Engineer

    The_Engineer Member

    Messages:
    524
    Joined:
    24 Mar 2018
    The limiting factor is entry of Class 800/801s into service on the ECML, to release Mk.IVs and 91s to GNWR and Wales. Given the well documented problems with the 800s on GWR and ECML, any programme for this is pure conjecture at the moment.
     
  15. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    Unless a lease is, at some point, or has already, been agreed for four 225 sets to go to GNWR on X date regardless? In which case I'm assuming LNER would have to let them go anyway, even if IEPs were delayed?
     
  16. The_Engineer

    The_Engineer Member

    Messages:
    524
    Joined:
    24 Mar 2018
    Politically unacceptable. If that is the case, the DfT/ORR will intervene as the ECML is more important than a new service...……

    [My computer knows more than I give it credit for - it keeps wanting to correct DfT to daft.....]
     
  17. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    But didn't the leasing company agree the 172s would go to WMR even though the goblin was delayed? Or is that not agreed?
     
  18. takno

    takno Established Member

    Messages:
    1,647
    Joined:
    9 Jul 2016
    Different situation entirely. For a kick-off the 172s are going to WMR to service a clear and present need rather than a barely dressed-up orcats raid, and secondly the Goblin has just gone through a couple of prolonged periods of not running, which kind of prove people can work around it.

    Possibly more importantly though, only regular users on that specific line would be angry they had nothing to run on goblin, and it would be TfL that would cop the blame, which would suit the government very well indeed. If there aren't any services to Leeds because the government's precious new trains aren't available for the government-owned operator to run, then it's a national disgrace that they don't care about Yorkshire They might as well kiss goodbye to half a dozen seats they already hold, and half a dozen more they hope to gain at the next election.
     
  19. The Planner

    The Planner Established Member

    Messages:
    9,346
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2008
    It would be a bit pointless to bid STP from September onwards as they would need to confirm and be 100% ready 18 weeks out to bid correctly which is the beginning of May 19.
     
  20. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    That being said, and thinking realistically about it, is there really any chance they can get this service running in September 19 now?

    Timetable to be confirmed; rolling stock to lease and physically acquire; clearing the 91s and MK4s on the route; train control to set up (would they situate this in XC's offices like Grand Central? Full recruitment programme for the (was it 90?) jobs, staff training, driver route and traction training; submit timetable 18 weeks before public release; station access agreements and dispatch arrangements agreed with station operators; some sort of press launch so they can actually sell tickets?

    It all sounds a lot to do in 11 months.

    Could we guess they may be lucky to even get this in service for December 19 timetable?
     
  21. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,557
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    The xx40 from Euston passes MK at xx/08h. So 90 seconds headway before the xx10 GNWR pulls out behind. Easily doable on a 125mph railway with 4 aspect signalling (plenty of precedents across the network for that).
     
  22. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    Bear in mind the GNWR from what has been presumed, is likely to pull out behind from a slow line platform. So there's also the headway created by the time it takes to cross back over to the fast line, by which time the train in front, on the fast line, will have made even more progress and will be getting away.
     
  23. Aictos

    Aictos Established Member

    Messages:
    8,539
    Joined:
    28 Apr 2009
    They could self dispatch at stations they call at along the route like at Milton Keynes, Nuneaton etc if they wanted to do so as it depends on the dispatch matrix for that station so I can't see why they would have to have other station operators dispatch their services.

    Ideally the best thing for them is to merge operations with the existing Grand Central operation so that takes care of train control, recruitment etc which gives them some breathing space but also from a passenger point of view gives a more established brand to trust.

    It just makes sense!
     
  24. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    44,009
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    It doesn't work like that at MKC, Platform 5 is a fast line platform.
     
  25. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    Their original application afaik does actually state services self dispatch at all stations, to reduce dwell times.

    How realistic this is for Euston I don't know? Are Network Rail actually likely to agree to that? Did they even mean including Euston in their application?

    As things stand, I believe Preston and Nuneaton currently dispatch all services. If it happens to be on their local dispatch plans that all services should be dispatched then will GNWR just be able to say we'll self dispatch?
     
    Last edited: 26 Oct 2018
  26. LOL The Irony

    LOL The Irony Established Member

    Messages:
    2,699
    Joined:
    29 Jul 2017
    Location:
    Tracy Island
    LNWR should change it's name because an hourly service to Preston that hasn't even started yet doesn't count as a valid reason to include NW. But that's for another thread...
     
  27. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    Surely thought the xx40 (off Euston) Manchester service is going to overtake at Milton Keynes. So the GNWR will be platformed ajacent. The Manchester passes at 125mph, 90 seconds later the GNWR gets one, maybe two yellows. On two yellows you could probably proceed at a fair rate of acceleration given you will need to take the points ahead anyway and get back behind the Manchester.

    Will it not occur like that?
     
  28. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,557
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    Correct - what I described is exactly what Platform 5 was designed to do - allow a Down train to pull in and be overtaken by a non-stopping train having been 3 minutes in front at Bletchley, and re-settle 3 minutes behind going north, with clean fast line acceleration away straight out of the platform.
     
  29. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,557
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    Easily on double yellows after 90 seconds - so no impediment from a standing start. The P5 merge back onto the Down Fast is a decent speed turnout just off the end of the platform so is no real impediment.
     
  30. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    44,009
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    Last time I checked Liverpool Lime St was in the North West.
     

Share This Page