Alliance Rail application for paths between Waterloo and Southampton rejected

[backontrack]

The market for Hook maybe bigger than you think, although the population is Circa 8,000 this is due to double over the next 10 years. Also there's quite a few large business offices, including the HQ for Virgin Media, which means that flows into and out of Hook can be fairly balanced. It also mean that there's business traffic on the trains during the day.

Add in that Hook is seeing a reduction in service under SWR in the morning peak and GSR could do better out of that Hook stop than some think.

I'm not denying that, but the key takeaway here is that that's the only thing that's 'new' about this service.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think that, if you were going for an Open Access service on SWR tracks, surely you'd want to go for something like a fast Waterloo-Hook-Andover-Salisbury-Yeovil-Crewkerne-Axminster-Honiton-Exeter-Dawlish Warren-Newton Abbot-Torquay-Paignton, operated by Voyagers or something?

That surely depends whether or not the real aim is to try and abstract revenue from the section of route between Southampton and Basingstoke?
Funny how OA operators always try and add their services to the route with a significant number of existing services, rather than those like Exeter via Yeovil with its one train per hour...

 

[backontrack]

That surely depends whether or not the real aim is to try and abstract revenue from the section of route between Southampton and Basingstoke?
Funny how OA operators always try and add their services to the route with a significant number of existing services, rather than those like Exeter via Yeovil with its one train per hour...

...so I'd probably cut out the stops between Yeovil and Exeter Central (except for maybe Honiton or Feniton for Ottery).

 

[swt_passenger]

But you must already know that the Exeter route has no capacity for an additional fast path. Perhaps Alliance could do some significant track redoubling as well?

 

[ainsworth74]

Perhaps Alliance could do some significant track redoubling as well?

An OAO funding significant infrastructure improvements? Now that's the sort of thing that would get me firmly in favour of an OAO scheme!

 

[backontrack]

An OAO funding significant infrastructure improvements? Now that's the sort of thing that would get me firmly in favour of an OAO scheme!

That reminds me: can we have an OAO scheme from Inverness to Thurso?

 

[ainsworth74]

That reminds me: can we have an OAO scheme from Inverness to Thurso?

Sounds like a fascinating idea. For a new thread

 

[Muzer]

I think that, if you were going for an Open Access service on SWR tracks, surely you'd want to go for something like a fast Waterloo-Hook-Andover-Salisbury-Yeovil-Crewkerne-Axminster-Honiton-Exeter-Dawlish Warren-Newton Abbot-Torquay-Paignton, operated by Voyagers or something?

Christ no, Voyagers on the SWML sounds like the worst idea for peak-time (or even shoulder peak, which I guess is all they'd be able to run in) capacity. It'd be almost as bad as bringing back slam-doors!

 

[embers25]

...so I'd probably cut out the stops between Yeovil and Exeter Central (except for maybe Honiton or Feniton for Ottery).

Feniton instead of Axminster or Honiton?!! Feniton is only 2 hourly now for a reason....

 

[backontrack]

Feniton instead of Axminster or Honiton?!! Feniton is only 2 hourly now for a reason....

Unusual stops on OAO services - they're pretty much a legal requirement now

On a more serious note, the reason why I have suggested this above the other service is that, even though it requires infrastructure improvements, it offers something new. Excepting the Hook call (which also works for the Paignton service), there is nothing new about the GSR bid, from the stopping pattern to the rolling stock.

 

[The Ham]

Christ no, Voyagers on the SWML sounds like the worst idea for peak-time (or even shoulder peak, which I guess is all they'd be able to run in) capacity. It'd be almost as bad as bringing back slam-doors!

Add I've pointed out before it depends on the length of the units, the current configuration (4 or 5 coach units) would be disastrous. However scrap some end coaches and form them as 10 coach units and they could have the same capacity as a 9 coach train forged of 3 X 159's which wouldn't be too bad in terms of shoulder peak or off peak capacity.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Wonder if Waterloo - Penzance express could be done pathing wise? Waterloo - Salisbury - Exeter - Plymouth - Truro - Penzance?

 

[Ianno87]

Unusual stops on OAO services - they're pretty much a legal requirement now

On a more serious note, the reason why I have suggested this above the other service is that, even though it requires infrastructure improvements, it offers something new. Excepting the Hook call (which also works for the Paignton service), there is nothing new about the GSR bid, from the stopping pattern to the rolling stock.

It's just an extended version of Waterloo-Exeter.... Torbay/Exeter-London also having GWR too. I don't think it'd pass the NPA test, myself.

 

[Muzer]

Add I've pointed out before it depends on the length of the units, the current configuration (4 or 5 coach units) would be disastrous. However scrap some end coaches and form them as 10 coach units and they could have the same capacity as a 9 coach train forged of 3 X 159's which wouldn't be too bad in terms of shoulder peak or off peak capacity.

Dispatch at the moment is also much slower, and I believe also loading and unloading (though this might just be because people travelling CrossCountry tend to have lots of luggage).

 

[backontrack]

It's just an extended version of Waterloo-Exeter.... Torbay/Exeter-London also having GWR too. I don't think it'd pass the NPA test, myself.

Barnstaple might though. Or perhaps a service to Dawlish Warren, Ivybridge, Plympton, Plymouth and Devonport.

 

[The Ham]

Barnstaple might though. Or perhaps a service to Dawlish Warren, Ivybridge, Plymouth and Devonport.

Another option could be Okehampton, that would certainly pass the test of something new.

 

[backontrack]

Another option could be Okehampton, that would certainly pass the test of something new.

Definitely. It would be especially good if the line to Plymouth via Tavistock were reopened.

In fact, screw it. Let's just bring back the entire Atlantic Coast Express!

 

[embers25]

None of the WoE line suggestions will work as they will all be incompatible with Devon Metro (if that ever materialises) without significant infrastructure and OAO such as Alliance aren't even proposing minor ones and are unlikely to. Living on the WoE I'm not saying I wouldn't like all of them, particularly given the proposed SWR service on WoE from Dec is hardly a revolution and actually ruins connectivity by removing Woking calls on Exeter trains all day to save a couple of minutes which on a 3hr 20 min journey really isn't worth the massive incovenience and loss of Heathrow and Pompey Direct links.

 

[Wychwood93]

Interestingly, I’m not seeing much difference from the SWT services to Southampton on some, except marginally faster journey time.

Also, the ones that stop at Wimbledon on their way into London don’t quite seem to meet the headway requirement.

Not faster! The ones I have glanced at are around the 95 minute mark - not quite nippy with the amount of recovery time in there. Appears to be very much 'made to fit'.

 

[Muzer]

However, from a purely selfish point of view, this will be great for me. If I'm coming home later than usual, I often end up arriving just after the 19:20 has left. Now I will have another train that will get me home (to Basingstoke) 10 minutes earlier than the current alternative, waiting for the 19:39!

 

[SprinterMan]

All the AR paths are now gone from RTT, and selecting AR as an operator and conducting a search now crashes the website.

 

[XCTurbostar]

All the AR paths are now gone from RTT, and selecting AR as an operator and conducting a search now crashes the website.

Don’t forget that it’s still Arriva

 

[backontrack]

All the AR paths are now gone from RTT, and selecting AR as an operator and conducting a search now crashes the website.

Another success for Alliance...

 

[absolutelymilk]

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/28450/2018-08-01-grand-southern-decision-letter.pdf
The ORR rejected the application today.

We have carefully considered Alliance Rail Holdings Limited (operating as Grand Southern)’s application for a track access contract with Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail). This was submitted to us under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) in December 2016. ORR has today rejected the application. This letter explains the reasons for our decision.

The reasons given were that the 442s are no longer available and Alliance haven't yet found new stock. Also the new services would only generate 20p of new revenue per £1 taken away from SWR, which doesn't meet the requirement of 30p per £1 abstracted.

 

[theironroad]

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/28450/2018-08-01-grand-southern-decision-letter.pdf
The ORR rejected the application today.



The reasons given were that the 442s are no longer available and Alliance haven't yet found new stock. Also the new services would only generate 20p of new revenue per £1 taken away from SWR, which doesn't meet the requirement of 30p per £1 abstracted.

Well that's the end of that for now. Seems that in addition to the reasons you summarise, there were concerns about the impact that the extra alliance services would have on overall performance, especially around Waterloo and Southampton and the squeezing or elimination of current 'firebreaks'.

Question is, what's happened to the other 6 442 units which are no longer available to be leased?

 

[3141]

Well that's the end of that for now. Seems that in addition to the reasons you summarise, there were concerns about the impact that the extra alliance services would have on overall performance, especially around Waterloo and Southampton and the squeezing or elimination of current 'firebreaks'.

Question is, what's happened to the other 6 442 units which are no longer available to be leased?

I was wondering about that. Page 101 of the latest issue of Modern Railways refers to Alliance's hopes to use the six that SWR aren't refurbishing, and I don't recall hearing that SWR or anyone else would be using them.

 

[XCTurbostar]

I was wondering about that. Page 101 of the latest issue of Modern Railways refers to Alliance's hopes to use the six that SWR aren't refurbishing, and I don't recall hearing that SWR or anyone else would be using them.

Gatwick Express did a similar thing when they leased the 442s in 2008. Leased 17 initially then the remaining joined the fleet later in 2009. Maybe Angel Trains want just one operator?

 

[KashmireHawker]

Can't see why they can't submit a new app, for using some of the 350/2's when London Northwestern cascade all 37 4-Car sets come 2021. No doubt SWR's bigwigs will be a pleased bunch with this rejection.

 

[swt_passenger]

As I suggested in the thread about SWR’s Dec timetable issues, (in the context of NR declaring inadequate power levels for additional franchised trains), it would have been pretty ridiculous to allow this...

In any case, they were never likely to pass the abstraction tests on the route they chose.

 

[Domh245]

Can't see why they can't submit a new app, for using some of the 350/2's when London Northwestern cascade all 37 4-Car sets come 2021. No doubt SWR's bigwigs will be a pleased bunch with this rejection.

That doesn't fix the fact that they aren't passing the Not primarily abstractive test though.