Alliance Rail application for paths between Waterloo and Southampton rejected

[KashmireHawker]

Alliance clearly busy behind the scenes after EC rejection back in April; this statement has come off them in the last few minutes:

"8 November 2016

Competition proposed on Southampton – London rail services from December 2017

Alliance Rail Holdings (Alliance) has started consultation within the rail industry on starting a new ‘open access’ rail service between Southampton and London Waterloo to begin in December 2017. There will be 7 off-peak services a day, calling at Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke and Hook, with 2 peak services introduced a year later in December 2018. Following consultation the application will then be determined by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

Alliance will initially use Class 442 trains, with peak trains offering 600 seats on each service, with both Standard and First class accommodation provided. It is recognised that there are severe overcrowding problems on this route in the peak, and the provision of these extra services will help address the problem.

In its recent decision (May 2016) to approve new competitive services on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) the ORR has recognised the benefits that further competition will bring, and Alliance believes the introduction of competition for the first time on this important route will enhance rails attractiveness, and offer passengers many of the benefits enjoyed for some time by users of the ECML.

If you would like more information about this subject or to schedule an interview, please call: 01904 628904 or email [email protected] or [email protected]

Note to editors: Open access train services operate outside the franchise system. They are not specified by the Department for Transport."

 

[Iskra]

442's

How is it adding extra capacity if their trains take up the path another service could be using, or is already using? Assuming Waterloo is at capacity in the peaks of course.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Wessex route study does allow for the possibility of extra Waterloo to Southampton trains, but only after various major infrastructure changes are complete. The current Waterloo works should provide additional platforming capacity, but do nothing to add peak paths AFAICS.

Can't personally see the DfT being impressed with an OA operator taking all the benefit, and they'd have to overcome the ORR's 'not primarily abstractive test' anyway. Can't see how they'd prove that with a straightforward duplication of existing services - it looks pretty much like the existing Waterloo to Poole semifast...

 

[The Planner]

Will believe them once they get the WCML service going....

 

[Iskra]

Agreed. I'm guessing the 442's are going cheap in terms of leasing costs, so it could be very profitable for Alliance. I too don't think it will pass the abstractive test and I can't see what fringe benefits it provides, which is how GC seem to have got their OA applications passed.

Alliance are certainly very persistent, if not successful.

 

[Bald Rick]

The peak paths don't exist.

Next.

 

[Monty]

April fools isn't until next year..

 

[DarloRich]

Will believe them once they get the WCML service going....

this!

 

[RobShipway]

I cannot see this happening for two reasons:

Reason 1) As has been mentioned above, I don't believe that the paths exist even if the platform space is available.

Reason 2) The age of the electrical equipment under the driving cars as has been pointed out to me many times, dates from the 1950s/1960s and is well pasted its used by date now, without it being used for another 10 - 20 years possibly.

 

[The Ham]

April fools isn't until next year..

That was my thinking especially with the following:

There will be 7 off-peak services a day, calling at Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke and Hook

Why Hook? Yes, there are circa 0.75 million passengers a year from there, but then why not Farnborough (3 million) and/or Fleet (1.75 million)?

The only reasoning I can think of is so that it is a different service to what the franchise operates as after Basingstoke they will only run fast from Farnborough or Woking. I can't recall if there are points to allow trains to switch to the fasts lines, but I think that there might be. If so that could be the reason, in that there could be paths through platform 4 at Basingstoke which with a pause at Hook could then allow the train to swap to the fast lines. With the reverse happening heading out of London (i.e. fasts to Hook and then slows into platform 1, probably between the XC services and the Basingstoke stoppers coming back from the sidings).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Rail press are picking up on it:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...pton-london-open-access-service-proposed.html

Alliance Rail Holdings has started industry consultation on proposals to launch an open access passenger service on the Southampton - London Waterloo route in December 2017.

Managing Director Ian Yeowart told Railway Gazette on November 8 that Alliance aims is to increase capacity on the intensively-used route and make passengers' journeys 'less fraught', by offering a higher standard of comfort than on the current franchised services and helping to enhance rail's overall attractiveness.

Alliance envisages that there would be seven off-peak services a day, calling at Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke and Hook. Two peak services would be added from December 2018, once a major upgrading project has created extra capacity at London Waterloo station. The peak service might not call at Basingstoke, as Alliance believes there is strong demand for travel into London from stations further out.

Alliance has submitted an offer to lease Class 442 third-rail electric multiple-units, which were built for the route in the 1980s but subsequently transferred to Gatwick Express services and are now in storage. An initial seven-year lease is planned to align with the competing South Western franchise.

Yeowart said Alliance was planning to launch with a 'traditional' open access model, using existing rolling stock to build a market before new trains were acquired. In the longer term, there are 'plenty of options' for 750 V DC rolling stock.

Track capacity has been identified for the off-peak services, said Yeowart, and Alliance intends to run long trains because 'we would not expect to use short trains on peak paths'.

The peak service would offer 600 seats per train, with 2+2 seating in standard class and 2+1 in first. Alliance is aiming for a 'traditional' level of comfort, in contrast to the capacity-focused designs of some more recent rolling stock. Both operator-specific and interavailable ticketing is planned, and Alliance is to meet with consumer groups to discuss proposals such as enabling season ticket holders to reserve seats.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Old idea - Anglia suggested this way back to the Western Docks using (wait for the excitement ...ex Gatwick LHCS)

Track quality would not allow this down the Docks now in any case - see last Saturdays unfortunate derailment. !

As others said - no peak paths and no off peak resilience...

Next ...

 

[dgl]

wait... somebody found a use for the 442's without ripping out the traction equipment and converting them to LHCS, I surprised the forum hasn't crashed due to the shock.

Again though I think they have as much hope of this as running pacers on HS1

 

[The Ham]

wait... somebody found a use for the 442's without ripping out the traction equipment and converting them to LHCS, I surprised the forum hasn't crashed due to the shock.

Again though I think they have as much hope of this as running pacers on HS1

The users of the forum haven't yet recovered from their shock (only 11 replies in 4 hours from getting for 500 views!), likewise with the news of the GWML electrification being scaled back it's not as big a news as it could have been.

 

[387star]

I cannot see this happening for two reasons:

Reason 1) As has been mentioned above, I do believe that the paths exist even if the platform space is available.

Reason 2) The age of the electrical equipment under the driving cars as has been pointed out to me many times, dates from the 1950s/1960s and is well pasted its used by date now, without it being used for another 10 - 20 years possibly.

Yet the gatwick express franchise did not. Specify there replacement so they must have life left

 

[NSE]

What is the point though? Honestly? Surely if the paths are there then SWT would snap them up straight away. It just adds another operator with a 'route:Not SWT' ticket causing more ticket confusion. There's already two direct operators to London and a third alternative route via XC/GWR and Reading. Just sounds unesscessary.

 

[swt_passenger]

I cannot see this happening for two reasons:

Reason 1) As has been mentioned above, I do believe that the paths exist even if the platform space is available.

Is the highlighted bit a typo?

 

[3141]

I'm not sure how you define the "peak" in and out of Waterloo, but possibly two more paths could be squeezed into a three-hour period.

In November's Modern Railways it's reported that SWT are planning to introduce C-DAS which they hope, with other developments, may produce an extra two peak paths per hour. Perhaps Alliance hope somehow to take advantage of that. If they believe that there will be 26 paths per hour in the future, then now is the time to start trying to get a foot in the door/wheel on the track.

 

[swt_passenger]

In November's Modern Railways it's reported that SWT are planning to introduce C-DAS which they hope, with other developments, may produce an extra two peak paths per hour. Perhaps Alliance hope somehow to take advantage of that. If they believe that there will be 26 paths per hour in the future, then now is the time to start trying to get a foot in the door/wheel on the track.

I can't see SWT going ahead with C-DAS at a significant cost and then standing aside while an OA operator uses the delivered capacity?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I can't see SWT going ahead with C-DAS at a significant cost and then standing aside while an OA operator uses the delivered capacity?

Quite - open access only pays avoidable / marginal costs , even though the ORR loves them dearly....

 

[RobShipway]

Is the highlighted bit a typo?

Oops...yes it was a typo as it should have read I don't believe that the paths exist.

Surely, if the paths are available, then the paths exist so that any trains would be able to continue on down to Bournemouth, Poole or Weymouth?

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't see SWT going ahead with C-DAS at a significant cost and then standing aside while an OA operator uses the delivered capacity?

I can't see SWT going ahead with CDAS if they don't win the franchise!

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't see SWT going ahead with CDAS if they don't win the franchise!

Of course if they do then HarleyDavidson's alter ego on wnxx is telling the world that he and his mates will refuse to use it anyway...

 

[TEW]

I'm not sure how you define the "peak" in and out of Waterloo, but possibly two more paths could be squeezed into a three-hour period.

Even if it is theoretically possible, in practice it is clearly not a good idea. At present minor delays in to Waterloo in the morning peak, and out of Waterloo in the evening peak are very common, and there is already very little resilience to delays in the peak time. Congestion is listed as causing delays at Waterloo on SWT most days at the moment. More trains running would only make it worse.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I nearly choked on my dinner when I saw 442's

And where do Alliance expect to berth and maintain them?

 

[embers25]

I nearly choked on my dinner when I saw 442's

And where do Alliance expect to berth and maintain them?

Southampton Airport Parkway blocking both lines?

 

[Class 170101]

Will believe them once they get the WCML service going....

The peak paths don't exist.

I agree with both of the correspondents but would like to make the following points;

If the capacity in the peak is there then the SW bidders should be mandated to fill it as part of the new franchise.

If the demand is there off peak then this should be met as soon as possible (again as part of the Bid process).

 

[30907]

A (verbal) connection between Hook and Never-never-land comes to mind

 

[Clip]

Apologies but can someone explain what CDAS is due to me not knowing?

Thanks

 

[crehld]

I wouldn't get bogged down in what stock they plan to use or what paths are available. Mirroring services already run by SWT, without showing how revenue abstraction will be avoided and how new passengers not already travelling by train will be encouraged means the bid has already failed.

 

[Helvellyn]

Why Hook? Yes, there are circa 0.75 million passengers a year from there, but then why not Farnborough (3 million) and/or Fleet (1.75 million)?

The only reasoning I can think of is so that it is a different service to what the franchise operates as after Basingstoke they will only run fast from Farnborough or Woking. I can't recall if there are points to allow trains to switch to the fasts lines, but I think that there might be. If so that could be the reason, in that there could be paths through platform 4 at Basingstoke which with a pause at Hook could then allow the train to swap to the fast lines. With the reverse happening heading out of London (i.e. fasts to Hook and then slows into platform 1, probably between the XC services and the Basingstoke stoppers coming back from the sidings).

There are no crossovers between the Fasts and Slows at Hook. Coming Up from Southampton you can stay on what becomes the Up Slow at Worting Junction, or cross to the line from Salisbury that becomes the Up Fast. Your options through to Weybridge then are: -

• Country side of Basingstoke;
• London side of Basingstoke;
• Winchfield;
• Farnborough Main;
• Brookwood;
• Country side of Woking;
• London side of Woking;
• Byfleet & New Haw;
• Weybridge.

It's an odd choice of stopping pattern, so I can only think they have avoided Southampton Airport (Parkway), Fleet, Farnborough and Woking to deliberately avoid being accused of an ORCATS raid.

Shawford and Micheldever have probably been avoided because the identified pathways might not have sufficient headways for too many stops given the mix of freight and passenger on what is a two track railway.

Surprised they aren't doing Winchfield if they are doing Hook. They might actually attract some interest for a fast train from both stations, and given they would be on the Slows at Winchfield anyway missing out seems odd.

I suspect the use of 2x442 units is for several reasons: -

• Angel Trains prepared to offer a cracking deal;
• Avoids coupling/uncoupling;
• No need for ECS moves to get a single unit to a siding Off Peak (Would be no room at Clapham, and no extra paths through Southampton Tunnel).
• Two units means one can rescue the other in event of failure - A failed 442 on the SWML - even off peak - would be a nightmare. SWT used to have a 73/1 stabled at Woking as a Thunderbird for the 442s.

I don't think anyone mentioned where they would be maintained. My guess is Eastleigh. SWT (Whether operated by Stagecoach or First) isn't going to offer Depot space so the only logical place for maintenance would have to be EH.