Alliance Rail application for paths between Waterloo and Southampton rejected

[infobleep]

After the cascades they might use different stock though, potentially 450s as well as there are going to be 30 x 4 car units to spread around somewhere...

That sounds good. Might wish to tweak the timetable slightly to account for the slightly longer door opening if they can. I don't know if they can.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[swt_passenger]

Here's their track access application:

This application, made under Section 17 of the Railways Act, is for rights to operate services on the South West Main Line (SWML) between London Waterloo and Southampton Central. The services will be operated by Alliance trading as Grand Southern.

The services will be operated as intercity services using 100mph Class 442 EMUs, each 5 car train offering around 300 seats. The rolling stock will be refurbished along similar lines to Grand Central (our sister company), offering improvements in both classes of travel, specifically improving standard class legroom and on-board facilities. In addition, our on board service will be notably different to the service operated by others on the route. We will build on the success that Grand Central has attained. Grand Central recently topped the Spring 2016 National Rail Passenger Survey where 96% of passengers were satisfied, or very satisfied with Grand Central services, compared to the national average of 80%.

Alliance has identified capacity in all hours, including the peak (from December 2018), and intends to operate 2 services in the peak hours (to and from London Waterloo), and a 2 hourly service in the off-peak starting in December 2017. The expiry date for this contract will be the Principal Change Date in December 2024. Alliance is seeking two years in addition to the normal five year contract on the basis of our significant investment in the rolling stock prior to its re-introduction.

Alliance has identified capacity on the route concerned, and is currently in discussions with Network Rail on making that capacity available and agreeing our Track Access Contract. In areas of significantly high demand, Network Rail has a responsibility to ensure it uses its capacity well for the benefit of passengers and the taxpayer. In total, from the December 2018 timetable, Alliance is looking to secure two paths in the up morning peak and two paths in the down evening peak (one in each hour). From December 2017 Alliance is looking to operate a two hourly path in the off-peak. An outline timetable has been provided to the ORR. The rights are intended to be flexible for the industry so that Network Rail can realise the best use of capacity.
Alliance is seeking firm rights between London Waterloo and Southampton and stations in between at Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke, Hook and Wimbledon (set down only on trains to London and pick up only on services to Southampton). Alliance is also seeking contingent rights for Southampton Airport Parkway.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...iance rail holdings - section 17 - form p.pdf

Also confirms, inter alia, planned use of the Arriva run TRSMD at Eastleigh.

 

[The Ham]

Here's their track access application:




Also confirms, inter alia, planned use of the Arriva run TRSMD at Eastleigh.

Very interesting, thanks for that.

 

[Monty]

Here's their track access application:




Also confirms, inter alia, planned use of the Arriva run TRSMD at Eastleigh.

Eastleigh would be their only option if such services were approved. The works are well equipped to carry out maintenance and there are electrified sidings from when Eastleigh used to have a depot there in BR days.

 

[3141]

I have always wondered why Micheldever doesn't get a thought when this kind of new service is being discussed. It would make a fantastic park and ride - close to the M3 and the A303 and with lots of spare land. Admittedly the station would need a rebuild, but it might be worth it. If NR goes ahead one day with its plan to 4-track between there and Wallers Ash then the platforms could be re-sited on the slow (extended loop) lines.

Christopher Garnett was considering a park and ride at Micheldever in connection with the Sea Containers + MTR bid for the South Western franchise is 2006 (which was not submitted as Sea Containers decided to withdraw). But Hampshire County Council was not supportive, as substantial areas of land there are owned by companies which would like to develop housing, while the Council did not wish there to be a major urban development between Basingstoke and Winchester.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Here's their track access application:




Also confirms, inter alia, planned use of the Arriva run TRSMD at Eastleigh.

Interesting.

I'm guessing the Wimbledon call forms a part of how they plan to justify non-abstractive. It is a significant destination, but is quite hard to get to from west of Basingstoke - with many trains not stopping at Clapham Junction it can require a double-back from Waterloo.

Even so I really can't see this being a sensible use of track capacity.

 

[Morgsie]

I am not sure about this and the devil is in the details

An interesting OAO application would be Southampton to Paddington via Romsey and Basingstoke avoiding Salisbury by using the curve before the tunnel

 

[Monty]

Interesting.

I'm guessing the Wimbledon call forms a part of how they plan to justify non-abstractive. It is a significant destination, but is quite hard to get to from west of Basingstoke - with many trains not stopping at Clapham Junction it can require a double-back from Waterloo.

Even so I really can't see this being a sensible use of track capacity.

Stopping at Wimbledon on the fast lines during the peak is going to be farcical, how Alliance think this has a realistic shot of being approved is beyond me.

 

[The Ham]

Stopping at Wimbledon on the fast lines during the peak is going to be farcical, how Alliance think this has a realistic shot of being approved is beyond me.

Two thoughts, does it say that it will be calling there in the peaks, the application says it is seeking rights call at x,y and z.

Secondly, if they are applying for during the peaks, maybe by saying in the application that they want to (note that no reference made to it on the Facebook post) that they can justify it not being a repeat existing services and so pass the test, but could be hoping that they will be told that it's not possible (but still be aloud to run the service) so being able to skip that stop in the peaks.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Are all paths west of Southampton all spoken for with existing services?

 

[Monty]

Two thoughts, does it say that it will be calling there in the peaks, the application says it is seeking rights call at x,y and z.

Secondly, if they are applying for during the peaks, maybe by saying in the application that they want to (note that no reference made to it on the Facebook post) that they can justify it not being a repeat existing services and so pass the test, but could be hoping that they will be told that it's not possible (but still be aloud to run the service) so being able to skip that stop in the peaks.

Reading the application it makes no mention of different stopping patterns during the peak and off peak periods. So who knows what they are truely planning, though I notice they also want 'contingency access' to Southampton Airport Parkway. Either way stopping at Wimbledon even during the off peak is still likely to cause big problems so I don't expect them to be allowed to call there even if it is to set down only. I also like it how they claim that passengers from Southampton do not benefit from a variety of cheap off peak fares when Southampton to Waterloo is one of SWT's major mega train routes.

 

[pompeyfan]

Personally, if there is a path available, a much better use of it would be a fast Portsmouth - Waterloo via Eastleigh... Fratton, Fareham, Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke (maybe Woking) and Waterloo. This would have huge potential

 

[The Ham]

Personally, if there is a path available, a much better use of it would be a fast Portsmouth - Waterloo via Eastleigh... Fratton, Fareham, Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke (maybe Woking) and Waterloo. This would have huge potential

Almost anyone on the SWT's long distance network could say "personally I would prefer if [insert home and/or work station name(s)] was a calling point"

 

[pompeyfan]

Whilst I appreciate and understand your comment, this isn't purely from a selfish perspective. There is a very big need for a faster journey to London from Fareham, and unless you go via the 'Direct' it's not possible. Additionally, lots and lots of journeys between Portsmouth - Fareham - Winchester and Basingstoke. Finally a fast service from BSK to London will always be popular. If the path exists on the Botley line then I can see it growing the market. It shouldn't take over an hour to go between 2 major players in the Hampshire economy.

 

[swt_passenger]

Are all paths west of Southampton all spoken for with existing services?

Basically yes, as I already replied when Robbie asked the same question a few days back. The route signalling west of Southampton (Redbridge) constrains paths considerably compared to east of Southampton.

 

[Monty]

Whilst I appreciate and understand your comment, this isn't purely from a selfish perspective. There is a very big need for a faster journey to London from Fareham, and unless you go via the 'Direct' it's not possible. Additionally, lots and lots of journeys between Portsmouth - Fareham - Winchester and Basingstoke. Finally a fast service from BSK to London will always be popular. If the path exists on the Botley line then I can see it growing the market. It shouldn't take over an hour to go between 2 major players in the Hampshire economy.

Places like Hedge End and Shawford also have significant passenger flows into London, so adding an additonal fast service is not likely to help all that much nor is it really a priority. Fareham to Botley would also need to be redoubled to accommodate any more traffic, it's a bottle neck as it is.

 

[swt_passenger]

Eastleigh would be their only option if such services were approved. The works are well equipped to carry out maintenance and there are electrified sidings from when Eastleigh used to have a depot there in BR days.

We assumed as much in discussion earlier in this thread, I only really mentioned it because it confirmed what we'd already come up with.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I appreciate and understand your comment, this isn't purely from a selfish perspective. There is a very big need for a faster journey to London from Fareham, and unless you go via the 'Direct' it's not possible. Additionally, lots and lots of journeys between Portsmouth - Fareham - Winchester and Basingstoke. Finally a fast service from BSK to London will always be popular. If the path exists on the Botley line then I can see it growing the market. It shouldn't take over an hour to go between 2 major players in the Hampshire economy.

They already double the 'via Eastleigh' in the peak flow directions of course. But as Monty has pointed out the intermediate stations probably also need that second train to give a half hourly pattern.

 

[pompeyfan]

Places like Hedge End and Shawford also have significant passenger flows into London, so adding an additonal fast service is not likely to help all that much nor is it really a priority. Fareham to Botley would also need to be redoubled to accommodate any more traffic, it's a bottle neck as it is.

From experience I haven't found either Shawford or Hedge End particularly busy apart from for college kids to and from Winchester. I think the fact that services between 16:00-18:00 in that area are 4/450 or 5/444 make it worse. Hopefully the strengthening project will see improvements to these trains.

The other fact that makes Botley an issue is that trains are either timed to pass at Botley or follow each other. Regularly 1T66 will be held up by 2T94 in the evening.

My comments were purely based on observations, but like SWT_P says, they become half hourly through the peaks. It would just appear to benefit many if some services could be sped up between Portsmouth and Basingstoke. Plus 100 over Wallers Ash from Portsmouth in a PIG would be a personal treat!

Anyway.....

 

[hwl]

From experience I haven't found either Shawford or Hedge End particularly busy apart from for college kids to and from Winchester. I think the fact that services between 16:00-18:00 in that area are 4/450 or 5/444 make it worse. Hopefully the strengthening project will see improvements to these trains.


Anyway.....

Shawford etc. tends to be busier very early and very late given the typical jobs /working hours of those passengers in London

 

[Monty]

From experience I haven't found either Shawford or Hedge End particularly busy apart from for college kids to and from Winchester. I think the fact that services between 16:00-18:00 in that area are 4/450 or 5/444 make it worse. Hopefully the strengthening project will see improvements to these trains.

The other fact that makes Botley an issue is that trains are either timed to pass at Botley or follow each other. Regularly 1T66 will be held up by 2T94 in the evening.

My comments were purely based on observations, but like SWT_P says, they become half hourly through the peaks. It would just appear to benefit many if some services could be sped up between Portsmouth and Basingstoke. Plus 100 over Wallers Ash from Portsmouth in a PIG would be a personal treat!

Anyway.....

Shawford is very busy in the early mornings, as is Hedge End. End of the day faster journey times via BSK would be nice but it's not urgent and the time saved by omitting a few stops at places like Botley, Hedge End and Shawford are only going to save you 10-15 minutes at the absolute maximum and all it does is decrease the level of service from other busy stations.

 

[Helvellyn]

I still don't get where Alliance think the peak time paths are. We're constantly being told that in the peaks the lines are full, and that after adding the 06:42 Basingstoke-Waterloo a couple of years ago that was it until after the International Terminal reopens and CDAS comes on board. Unless Alliance are bidding for a path currently used by SWT that is over and above the minimum timetable provision?

It's also interesting that this bid has been put in by Alliance after Stagecoach and First have submitted their bids for the new franchise. I wonder what issues this will cause for the winning company if their bid is based on a certain service/revenue level and Alliance then actually get these paths?

 

[infobleep]

Interesting.

I'm guessing the Wimbledon call forms a part of how they plan to justify non-abstractive. It is a significant destination, but is quite hard to get to from west of Basingstoke - with many trains not stopping at Clapham Junction it can require a double-back from Waterloo.

Even so I really can't see this being a sensible use of track capacity.

And doubling back from Waterloo is more expensive.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reading the application it makes no mention of different stopping patterns during the peak and off peak periods. So who knows what they are truely planning, though I notice they also want 'contingency access' to Southampton Airport Parkway. Either way stopping at Wimbledon even during the off peak is still likely to cause big problems so I don't expect them to be allowed to call there even if it is to set down only. I also like it how they claim that passengers from Southampton do not benefit from a variety of cheap off peak fares when Southampton to Waterloo is one of SWT's major mega train routes.

South West Trains are able to stop fast trains at Wimbledon off peak during the Wimbledon Tennis Championships. So it just be possible off peak.

In is the case to they don't do it during the peak, which shows it isn't possible.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[HH]

I still don't get where Alliance think the peak time paths are. We're constantly being told that in the peaks the lines are full, and that after adding the 06:42 Basingstoke-Waterloo a couple of years ago that was it until after the International Terminal reopens and CDAS comes on board. Unless Alliance are bidding for a path currently used by SWT that is over and above the minimum timetable provision?

I'm told that there are a couple of paths outside the high peak.

It's also interesting that this bid has been put in by Alliance after Stagecoach and First have submitted their bids for the new franchise. I wonder what issues this will cause for the winning company if their bid is based on a certain service/revenue level and Alliance then actually get these paths?

The winning bidder will have to lump it and they won't be very happy. Neither will DfT. But Alliance still has to pass the NPA test and I still don't see how they intend to do that.

 

[swt_passenger]

The winning bidder will have to lump it and they won't be very happy.

It would be a bit two-faced of First Group to complain, given their own open access (OA) ambitions on the ECML.. However at least ECML bidders were warned about the possibility of OA at the ITT stage.

Still cannot see it getting past any reasonable revenue test though.

 

[BRX]

Almost anyone on the SWT's long distance network could say "personally I would prefer if [insert home and/or work station name(s)] was a calling point"

I think once they approach London they should either run Wimbledon>Tulse Hill>Blackfriars or Clapham Junction>Denmark Hill>London Bridge.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think once they approach London they should either run Wimbledon>Tulse Hill>Blackfriars or Clapham Junction>Denmark Hill>London Bridge.

Using a flat crossing of the down lines? You must be having a laugh.

 

[theironroad]

Using a flat crossing of the down lines? You must be having a laugh.

While the flat crossing is the killer here, there probably would be a lot of demand for a decent service direct to blackfriars from outer commuter swt country.

 

[BRX]

You must be having a laugh.

Correct.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

While the flat crossing is the killer here, there probably would be a lot of demand for a decent service direct to blackfriars from outer commuter swt country.

Very doubtful - as the journey time Wimbledon (not that you could cross in the teeth of about 18 tph on the down slow) - would be well over a half hour plus there is the minor issue of a pretty intensive service into Blackfriars from other routes ....

You can walk it in around 20 mins - pleasantly if it is not raining.....

 

[KashmireHawker]

Alliance have an update released on Friday June 16th, which goes as follows and can be seen at http://www.alliancerail.co.uk/projects:

Alliance has been working closely with Network Rail on identifying the necessary train paths to allow the introduction of the first part of its new Southampton – Waterloo service during the 2018 timetable. As a result of good work by Network Rail Wessex route planners, an offer of 7 weekday return paths have been identified and offered to Alliance by Network Rail as part of the timetable planning process.

Network Rail will further respond to the ORR by the end of July in respect of the offer, and the ORR will then make a decision later in the year regarding the Alliance application to bring competition and increased capacity for the benefit of many new and existing passengers onto this important route.

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.

Route map on the page sees route of Southampton Central, Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke, Hook and London Waterloo