A short section of the 3rd rail remains up by the exit signals and points on both
lines.
That's what I was seeing, glad to know the old grey matter is working properly!
A short section of the 3rd rail remains up by the exit signals and points on both
lines.
Eastleigh depot entrance seen from Campbell road bridge.
The 3rd rails were there at end of March. Seen when 34046 came through.
The picture was taken on the 12th June and they had been removed.
I saw a gang working one visit there, but do not recall date, and of course
not noticed that the 3rd rails had gone since.
A picture in the latest issue of Rail Express shows this work taking place on May 10th.
I guess it didn't include an explanation?
And they'll be an operator running into one of the country's busiest and most congested railway stations, with a total fleet of six, thirty year old trains. Seriously?
I'm happy to admit that I think Open Access is a needless distraction from the business of running a franchised, heavily micro-managed railway network. You can have a free market and competiton, or you can have regulation. The railway attempting 99% of the latter, with a tiny smattering of the former where it happens to be convenient, is not a good use of already overworked infrastructure. Using the railway is a challenge already, tiny operators squeezing obscure train services onto already crowded routes, not when services are needed at the busiest times, but whenever and wherever there happens to be a space, further increasing fragmentation and and confusion, is not progress. It merely makes the passenger experience even more baffling and less integrated.
Logic would dictate yes. If Vossloh or whoever are carrying out a job for one customer for a sum of money, there's no reason they can't do the same job for a different customer.
I don't think anyone realistically expects there to be 3 tph at Weymouth, (including a Portsmouth service), so I believe it is quite a reasonable assumption
I'm happy to admit that I think Open Access is a needless distraction from the business of running a franchised, heavily micro-managed railway network. You can have a free market and competiton, or you can have regulation. The railway attempting 99% of the latter, with a tiny smattering of the former where it happens to be convenient, is not a good use of already overworked infrastructure. Using the railway is a challenge already, tiny operators squeezing obscure train services onto already crowded routes, not when services are needed at the busiest times, but whenever and wherever there happens to be a space, further increasing fragmentation and and confusion, is not progress. It merely makes the passenger experience even more baffling and less integrated.
Apologies if this is going over old ground, but is Portsmouth - Weymouth definitely an hourly commitment, or just a commitment to some daily services?
I've certainly seen that there will be a service, but only an assumption that it'll be hourly?
Agreed.
I could at least see the point when it was "London to somewhere that lacked a direct London link via an ORCATS raid on somewhere busy" (i.e. London to Sunderland via York, London to Wrexham via the West Midlands)... so there was some "sizzle" to go with the "steak".
(insert Crayonista fantasy about links from London to Avonmouth as an excuse for an ORCATS raid on the Bristol flow etc etc)
But Waterloo to Southampton doesn't seem to add *anything*. First could run the same trains in the same paths between the cities much more efficiently (given that they'd have a bigger fleet of 442s) with simpler ticketing etc.
Even a London - Lymington service (whilst ridiculous) would provide "something" different - this just feels like unnecessary fragmentation/ complication/ duplication...
Alliance Rail headed up Grand Central before the Arriva days didnt they?
Either that or Yeowart set up Alliance on leaving Grand Central at Arrivas aquisition....
I know I've mentioned this before but has this service been approved the new South Western franchise has to give approval but I know Network Rail have meant have found paths for it.
It is ORR that has to give the approval, not the new franchisee. The franchisee is able to object - there's a 'not primarily abstractive' test that the proposed Open Access service has to pass - and ORR will need SWR's evidence to prove or disprove that.
Do we know how long it will be before we have an answer?
Just to veer towards the rolling stock for a moment, have all 24 442s been refurbished? Or are the plans being tailored to SWR's requirements for 18(?)? Is there likely to be any issue with the condition of the remaining examples that this lot are hoping to use? Presumably SWR will assess each unit and make use of the best ones.
As the Alliance offer to lease was well before the SWR franchise was awarded, if anything they would have had first choice. I suspect that Angel Trains have just allocated a block of six for Alliance and given SWR the rest. I don't think any refurbishments have started yet, and I would guess that retractioning will be done under a separate contract to any other work that's done.
Surely they would only have had a choice if they were willing to lay down cash? Otherwise I'd expect SWR to have had their pick of the fleet as they are paying money for them right now rather than at some indeterminate point in the future (or more likely never).
Something of note has appeared in the system:
1B30 0538 Eastleigh to London Waterloo
1B32 0824 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B34 0951 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B36 1223 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B38 1424 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B40 1728 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B42 1824 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B31 0720 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B33 1025 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B35 1225 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B37 1425 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B39 1627 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B41 1932 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B43 2027 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
I wonder if this is simply NR identifying the paths, or if they will actually run.....
It seems as though there are certain criteria for a successful Open Access service:
1) It must not be solely abstractive. Competition and choice was the mantra of the newly-privatised rail network when it was unveiled in 1994; that turned out to be a failure, but choice is never a bad thing in the eyes of the passenger (especially if it helps to lower fare prices). The key is to strike the right balance between offering a desirable service and duplicating the main route of a standard TOC.
2) There must be a market for it. Hull Trains spotted a gap in the market and they went for it. Grand Central found one in the northeast. The best way to do this is often to do something new; connect destinations
3) There must be paths. If you can't actually run the service then there's no point trying to do so. An operator attempting to run Open Access trains down a congested line needs the increase in congestion to be outweighed by the size of the market.
4) Practical needs: appropriate rolling stock, drivers, crew. You will need to be able to access them if your plan is accepted.
Now, let's apply backontrack's rules for open access operation onto Alliance's SWML bid and see where it gets us.
1) The sole purpose of this service is to compete with the current SWR services. Now, that's by no means a bad thing, but...
2) ...the only really new thing that this service does is call at Hook. That's it. The size of the market is limited. There may well be a market for more trains from Southampton to London, but...
3) ...there's not enough capacity for them. Crucially, the increase in congestion would not be outweighed by the size of the market.
4) At least here there's a pass. I suppose that using Class 442s does add to the novelty.
That's interesting. But surely these paths can't be used from December?Something of note has appeared in the system:
1B30 0538 Eastleigh to London Waterloo
1B32 0824 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B34 0951 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B36 1223 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B38 1424 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B40 1728 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B42 1824 Southampton Central to London Waterloo
1B31 0720 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B33 1025 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B35 1225 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B37 1425 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B39 1627 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B41 1932 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
1B43 2027 London Waterloo to Southampton Central
I wonder if this is simply NR identifying the paths, or if they will actually run.....
That's interesting. But surely these paths can't be used from December?
SWR's timetable consultation uses very similar paths to that. The xx:25 departure from London Waterloo from Dec '18 is atm planned to be the hourly service to Exeter St. David's via Salisbury (retimed from the current xx:20). The xx:32 would clash with the xx:33 planned hourly stopping service to....you can guess it, Southampton Central.
On the Southampton end, xx:23/24 clashes with the stopping service departure back to London Waterloo which is planned to leave at xx:22. I'm pretty sure the ex-Poole semi-fast is also planned to come in somewhere around xx:26 to London Waterloo so it's interesting to see how this will all work out!
Surely a smarter path if they insist would be London Waterloo, Guildford, Haslemere, Havant, Fareham, Southampton Central (not those exact stops, but that route) or something like that? There isn't a regular train service that currently does that (end to end) and would look a bit more attractive. That said, the Portsmouth Direct seems to have life issues every day, so not too sure how well that would go down!
The passengers would like that idea, but I don’t know if there’s capacity between Guildford and Farlington junction or from Fareham to St Denys, especially with planned enhancements.
Agreed.
I could at least see the point when it was "London to somewhere that lacked a direct London link via an ORCATS raid on somewhere busy" (i.e. London to Sunderland via York, London to Wrexham via the West Midlands)... so there was some "sizzle" to go with the "steak".
(insert Crayonista fantasy about links from London to Avonmouth as an excuse for an ORCATS raid on the Bristol flow etc etc)
But Waterloo to Southampton doesn't seem to add *anything*. First could run the same trains in the same paths between the cities much more efficiently (given that they'd have a bigger fleet of 442s) with simpler ticketing etc.
Even a London - Lymington service (whilst ridiculous) would provide "something" different - this just feels like unnecessary fragmentation/ complication/ duplication...
I don't think "the passengers" would be so keen on the journey times (cite precedent: Wrexham & Shropshire).
It seems like quite a good idea for me (well, better than Alliance's...)I know Southampton passengers wouldn’t benefit but Fareham, Havant and Haslemere would be happy.
2) ...the only really new thing that this service does is call at Hook. That's it. The size of the market is limited. There may well be a market for more trains from Southampton to London.