Alliance Rail application for paths between Waterloo and Southampton rejected

[Masboroughlad]

Alliance must get pretty sick of kickbacks. GNER - in all its many guises / route options, all of the other GNWR routes, Cleethorpes and now GSR.

Will they give in or keep pushing for these and suggesting new routes?

Any other OAs still trying? Renaissance Trains seem to have gone, GOCO are quiet, no TOCs are trying to add anything above their core services. First Edinburgh or whatever it is called and GNWR Blackpool are the only ones going ahead.

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

They’d still fail abstraction tests whatever stock they used. The 350/2s would have to be made DC capable as well, Alliance probably couldn’t afford it...

 

[bussnapperwm]

Ah well, look like it's back to the drawing board for Alliance.

Maybe they could look at the West Midlands for inspiration

 

[swt_passenger]

Ah well, look like it's back to the drawing board for Alliance.

Maybe they could look at the West Midlands for inspiration

They need to try a brand new route that doesn’t cherry pick the incumbent TOC’s best flows. I’m not holding my breath...

 

[pompeyfan]

They need to try a brand new route that doesn’t cherry pick the incumbent TOC’s best flows. I’m not holding my breath...

Bournemouth to Swindon, not a huge direct flow but certainly abstract if the test Valley partnership doesn’t kick off.

 

[aylesbury]

Is there room on the route for any extra trains?

 

[swt_passenger]

Bournemouth to Swindon, not a huge direct flow but certainly abstract if the Test Valley partnership doesn’t kick off.

Is the aforementioned partnership the idea of consolidating the present SWR Ronseys and the few GWR Swindon-Westbury or Southanptons to form a regular through service across Salisbury? I'd have thought even without that in place an OA operator would still be primarily abstractive on the Bournemouth to Southampton leg.

 

[Bald Rick]

They need to find a route where there are actual viable paths in the timetable too!

 

[HH]

DfT have never been keen on OA Operators; there is clear incentive for bidders to block as many potential OA paths as possible. These facts might provide some clue as to why the market is so small.

 

[D1009]

DfT have never been keen on OA Operators; there is clear incentive for bidders to block as many potential OA paths as possible. These facts might provide some clue as to why the market is so small.

Neither have Network Rail train planners, who have to protect paths for them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They need to try a brand new route that doesn’t cherry pick the incumbent TOC’s best flows. I’m not holding my breath...

Bournemouth to Swanage? That definitely wouldn't be abstractive
Bournemouth to Exeter, reversing at Weymouth and Yeovil Pen Mill?
Nottingham to Grimsby via Worksop, Retford, Gainsborough and Brigg?
Bristol and Swindon to Oxford?

Is there any way an open access operator would be able to build a basic Workington-North style station? That could open up quite a few opportunities. (Wootton Bassett on the Bristol to Oxford route. Or Heysham Village/Morecambe Westgate to Lancaster - although I guess that'd be too short a distance to bring in enough fare revenue?)

 

[RLBH]

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

The section of the rejection on abstraction reads a lot like 'the bid claimed that it wasn't primarily abstractive, so we re-ran the analysis multiple times until we found parameters that let us reject it'.

 

[ainsworth74]

The section of the rejection on abstraction reads a lot like 'the bid claimed that it wasn't primarily abstractive, so we re-ran the analysis multiple times until we found parameters that let us reject it'.

An opposite argument could have been made regarding Blackpool where the ORR appear to have bent over backwards to find a way to get the numbers to stack up without the bid being found to be primarily abstractive. So, personally, I'm not sure the ORR can stand accused of fudging the numbers against Alliance.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is there any way an open access operator would be able to build a basic Workington-North style station?

If it was a permanent structure it would have to be disabled-accessible which would put up the cost of a simple halt by a factor of ten. Non-starter.

 

[tbtc]

Alliance must get pretty sick of kickbacks. GNER - in all its many guises / route options, all of the other GNWR routes, Cleethorpes and now GSR

A pedant writes... my understanding was that they could have run to Cleethorpes if they'd wanted to - but the Cleethorpes service was just a cherry to try to win the more lucrative paths from London to Leeds. Cleethorpes made for a nice selling-point, some marketing speak about revitalising an area without a London service, but it was only there to try to win Leeds paths.

Once Leeds was rejected they admitted that they weren't interested in Cleethorpes as a "stand alone" (as far as I can remember it).

So not really a "kickback", more a case of an eye-catching loss-leader of a service that they only suggested so they stood a chance with the money-making Leeds trips.

In the circumstances, I don't feel too sorry for them.

Any other OAs still trying? Renaissance Trains seem to have gone, GOCO are quiet, no TOCs are trying to add anything above their core services. First Edinburgh or whatever it is called and GNWR Blackpool are the only ones going ahead.

The time for TOCs to announce new services is when the franchise is announced.

Wales & Borders will run to Liverpool, LNER (fka VTEC) will run to Middlesbrough/ Huddersfield, Northern will extend various things to Bradford or Manchester Airport, TPE will run Liverpool to Glasgow, that kind of thing.

So there are new services announced, just at the start of the franchise when the winner is announced.

They need to try a brand new route that doesn’t cherry pick the incumbent TOC’s best flows. I’m not holding my breath...

True.

The "service between two stations that have an existing direct link, but with a slightly different intermediate stopping pattern" seems a weak idea at Waterloo, but the same thing did get approved for Euston (to Blackpool), so that'll probably encourage more of these silly Open Access ideas.

DfT have never been keen on OA Operators; there is clear incentive for bidders to block as many potential OA paths as possible. These facts might provide some clue as to why the market is so small.

Neither have Network Rail train planners, who have to protect paths for them.

Seems daft to me that, whilst Waterloo struggles to cope, we have to keep various paths into the terminus "spare" just in case an Open Access company come along one day with a serious suggestion for a non-abstractive service. What a waste.

 

[Muzer]

The time for TOCs to announce new services is when the franchise is announced.

Not necessarily. TOCs can and (in the past) have run open access operations of their own - it's just much harder to spot them since they're operated and branded in exactly the same way as their franchised service! Southern to Milton Keynes, TransWilts Rail (part funded by local government), and SWT/SWR at Yeovil Pen Mill are all examples that started off as TOC open access initiatives - and certainly the latter two happened mid-franchise (I don't recall when the Southern thing happened).

 

[ainsworth74]

A pedant writes... my understanding was that they could have run to Cleethorpes if they'd wanted to - but the Cleethorpes service was just a cherry to try to win the more lucrative paths from London to Leeds. Cleethorpes made for a nice selling-point, some marketing speak about revitalising an area without a London service, but it was only there to try to win Leeds paths.

That's certainly how I've always taken this line from the ORR decision (pdf link):

55. These financial impacts would have been reduced had the application focused on serving (say) just the Cleethorpes line – this line has no direct services to London at the moment and we have previously approved applications whose main impact is to provide such new direct services...

 

[dan bennett]

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?

 

[DelW]

Since the Alliance proposals appeared to be pointlessly duplicating existing and much more frequent SWT/R services, on a line where the infrastructure is already used to near or at its limits, it's hardly surprising that it has been declined.

Something that is badly needed is an east-west service across the south of England. At present, to make such a trip by train involves either travelling into and out of London, often involving a tube transfer (difficult for those with poor mobility or heavy luggage), or multiple changes and use of slow local trains. The result is that most such journeys are by car, leading to much congestion on the A35 / A31 / M27 / A27 corridor. Something like a 1tp2h through service running (as a maximum) Paignton - Exeter - Yeovil - Dorchester - Bournemouth - Southampton - Portsmouth - Brighton - Eastbourne - Hastings - Ashford would offer new connection opportunities unavailable with current services, which is what I thought open-access operators were supposed to promote. However I'm aware that such a service would involve pathing difficulties which might well make it either impossible or too slow to compete.

 

[3141]

Something that is badly needed is an east-west service across the south of England. At present, to make such a trip by train involves either travelling into and out of London, often involving a tube transfer (difficult for those with poor mobility or heavy luggage), or multiple changes and use of slow local trains. The result is that most such journeys are by car, leading to much congestion on the A35 / A31 / M27 / A27 corridor. Something like a 1tp2h through service running (as a maximum) Paignton - Exeter - Yeovil - Dorchester - Bournemouth - Southampton - Portsmouth - Brighton - Eastbourne - Hastings - Ashford would offer new connection opportunities unavailable with current services, which is what I thought open-access operators were supposed to promote. However I'm aware that such a service would involve pathing difficulties which might well make it either impossible or too slow to compete.

Perhaps the nearest thing there has been to that was the Anglia Railways service between Stratford and Woking, some of them starting from Colchester (I think) and extending to Basingstoke. It ran via the North London Line and Feltham for a connection from East Anglia to Heathrow. But it was very slow, and there were only a few trains each day. It saved travellers having to change at Liverpool Street and use the Underground, but they still had to change at Feltham. They might use the route if there was a train at a time that suited them, but if there wasn't they'd still have to go via London.

So your suggested service across the south would probably need to have an hourly service throughout the day, in order that potential passengers would know it was there and that they could use it at times convenient for them - and for their return trip as well. It would be a very expensive project to set up and run. It would probably encounter the sort of problems you find on Cross Country: intended as a longer distance service, but also occupied by passengers on shorter trips such as Southampton to Portsmouth.

The Anglia service was supported by the SRA, but for a limited period, and then the service ceased. Also, I recall, SWT added extra trains to Southampton to fill the paths beyond Basingstoke in case Anglia decided to run a service to Southampton as well.

 

[pdeaves]

Not necessarily. TOCs can and (in the past) have run open access operations of their own - it's just much harder to spot them since they're operated and branded in exactly the same way as their franchised service! Southern to Milton Keynes, TransWilts Rail (part funded by local government), and SWT/SWR at Yeovil Pen Mill are all examples that started off as TOC open access initiatives - and certainly the latter two happened mid-franchise (I don't recall when the Southern thing happened).

The most obvious one was probably Anglia running to Basingstoke. For entirely selfish reasons I wish that one was still there!

Edit: Ha! 3141 mentioned it first!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If it was a permanent structure it would have to be disabled-accessible which would put up the cost of a simple halt by a factor of ten. Non-starter.

That would imply, non-starter on any double-track line, but not necessarily on single-track lines, if only one platform needs to be provided.

Besides, if it was a two-track line and disabled access was provided my means of a ramp rather than a lift, would that still put up the cost by such a large amount?

 

[AlterEgo]

That would imply, non-starter on any double-track line, but not necessarily on single-track lines, if only one platform needs to be provided.

Besides, if it was a two-track line and disabled access was provided my means of a ramp rather than a lift, would that still put up the cost by such a large amount?

Single track would be a different prospect as you say - no need for a fully engineered lift. I’m not aware of many stations that have a ramp only providing disabled access - and certainly no new builds - the footprint for a bridge like that would be quite enormous, but I don’t know what the cost would be. I’d guess significantly less than a bridge with two accessible lifts.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Something that is badly needed is an east-west service across the south of England. At present, to make such a trip by train involves either travelling into and out of London, often involving a tube transfer (difficult for those with poor mobility or heavy luggage), or multiple changes and use of slow local trains. The result is that most such journeys are by car, leading to much congestion on the A35 / A31 / M27 / A27 corridor. Something like a 1tp2h through service running (as a maximum) Paignton - Exeter - Yeovil - Dorchester - Bournemouth - Southampton - Portsmouth - Brighton - Eastbourne - Hastings - Ashford would offer new connection opportunities unavailable with current services, which is what I thought open-access operators were supposed to promote. However I'm aware that such a service would involve pathing difficulties which might well make it either impossible or too slow to compete.

More seriously, I think that service would fall down on the track layout at Brighton: As far as I'm aware, it would be physically impossible for a train to arrive from Portsmouth and leave towards Eastbourne. I suspect that, East of Southampton, it would also struggle to not be mainly abstractive.

On similar grounds, I did briefly think that a Brighton-Hastings service that avoids Eastbourne might work... but then I remembered that the chord to avoid Eastbourne would need to be rebuilt, which knocks that one out. Durrr!
Doesn't really answer your East-West service criteria, but perhaps, a fast Bexhill-Ashford peak hour service timed to connect with HS1 to London? (Could be a good one for SouthEastern to run as an Open Access service?)

 

[DelW]

More seriously, I think that service would fall down on the track layout at Brighton: As far as I'm aware, it would be physically impossible for a train to arrive from Portsmouth and leave towards Eastbourne. I suspect that, East of Southampton, it would also struggle to not be mainly abstractive.

On similar grounds, I did briefly think that a Brighton-Hastings service that avoids Eastbourne might work... but then I remembered that the chord to avoid Eastbourne would need to be rebuilt, which knocks that one out. Durrr!
Doesn't really answer your East-West service criteria, but perhaps, a fast Bexhill-Ashford peak hour service timed to connect with HS1 to London? (Could be a good one for SouthEastern to run as an Open Access service?)

I think it must be possible to cross the layout at Brighton, but probably not with a single reversal in the platforms. Of course adding yet another reversal (in an already congested location) would slow it down even more.

A fast(er) connection to Ashford might also persuade Eurostar to improve connections. Having built the International station there (which a friend of mine worked on), it seems a pity that passengers from south / south-west of London mostly have to go to SPI or drive to Ebbsfleet to catch a Eurostar service.

 

[HowardGWR]

Since the Alliance proposals appeared to be pointlessly duplicating existing and much more frequent SWT/R services, on a line where the infrastructure is already used to near or at its limits, it's hardly surprising that it has been declined.

Something that is badly needed is an east-west service across the south of England. At present, to make such a trip by train involves either travelling into and out of London, often involving a tube transfer (difficult for those with poor mobility or heavy luggage), or multiple changes and use of slow local trains. The result is that most such journeys are by car, leading to much congestion on the A35 / A31 / M27 / A27 corridor. Something like a 1tp2h through service running (as a maximum) Paignton - Exeter - Yeovil - Dorchester - Bournemouth - Southampton - Portsmouth - Brighton - Eastbourne - Hastings - Ashford would offer new connection opportunities unavailable with current services, which is what I thought open-access operators were supposed to promote. However I'm aware that such a service would involve pathing difficulties which might well make it either impossible or too slow to compete.

I think Exeter to Weymouth via Yeovil Pen Mill would not be 'primarily abstractive' and especially not, if run as a joint venture GWR / SWR. Cross platform change at Weymouth would get you on your way across the South Dorset Coast to and from Bournemouth and I am sure would increase traffic to everyone's advantage.

Is there any precedent or legal possibility of encouraging such TOC alliances, does anyone know? It would avoid this 'abstractive' problem, would it not?

This is how the railway used to function; e.g. between Brighton and Cardiff, via Salisbury, where the stock would be provided half by GWR and half by SR.

 

[Stow]

I think it must be possible to cross the layout at Brighton, but probably not with a single reversal in the platforms. Of course adding yet another reversal (in an already congested location) would slow it down even more.

A fast(er) connection to Ashford might also persuade Eurostar to improve connections. Having built the International station there (which a friend of mine worked on), it seems a pity that passengers from south / south-west of London mostly have to go to SPI or drive to Ebbsfleet to catch a Eurostar service.

Easiest way is Hove-Preston Park-Brighton, but that means you need a path across the throat of Brighton.

 

[Stow]

A good flow that I think needs capacity is in the Midlands, Birmingham-Derby-Nottingham-Leicester-Birmingham possibly with a Sheffield offshoot as you would not want to diagram the stock on the Midland Circle.

I’ll get my crayons now...

 

[Mollman]

An issue that has been seen time and again is that Alliance (and previous guises) will announce a route then the incumbent Intercity operator will simply serve the off mainline location before Alliance have chance to even get a proper bid in - see Blackpool, Wrexham and Middlesbrough.

 

[ainsworth74]

More seriously, I think that service would fall down on the track layout at Brighton: As far as I'm aware, it would be physically impossible for a train to arrive from Portsmouth and leave towards Eastbourne. I suspect that, East of Southampton, it would also struggle to not be mainly abstractive.

I think it must be possible to cross the layout at Brighton, but probably not with a single reversal in the platforms. Of course adding yet another reversal (in an already congested location) would slow it down even more.

I believe that you can arrive/depart from platform three in any direction (as long as your train is short enough) as whilst there is a full platform face (enough for 12-car I think) there is a junction in the middle which allows trains to go towards Hove but restricts the length to around 4-car.