Alliance Rail GNWR Services Approved

[tbtc]

WCML punctuality figures are still pretty dire.

I would question the sensibility of trying to add more trains into the Euston/Hs2 area building site personally

Agreed - why complicate things further (when the WCML has poor enough punctuality with Euston fully open - it's going to be much worse when platforms start to close - why throw another operator into the mix?).

It would be great if Virgin West Coast could also replace the Super Voyagers with mini-Pendolinos, even more so if it would be possible to run two 6 car Pendolinos coupled up along the WCML to maximise capacity utilisation

That ought to make it easier for other TOCs to add more orders (eg to replace Voyagers on the Euston-Birmingham-Scotland services, or even TPE Scottish services)

That's about the only positive I can take from this news.

I think the idea now is to get Open Access services contracted on the WCML before the next ICWC/West Midland franchises are rebid, despite DfT protesations

Very interesting development, proving Open Access is not dead (I think that was one of the objectives...).

Yeah, the cynic in me wonders whether this is more about "slipping something onto the WCML that the next franchise won't be able to object to" and "keeping the flame of Open Access alive" rather than any major unmet demand.

If there was such major need for new EMUs to provide this service then why not put it in the Virgin "management contract" thingummy?

The DfT/ORR reckon it will cost the ICWC franchise about £25m per annum in revenue abstraction, and therefore reduces the scope for franchise improvements in the next round

Well considering that they're only going to generate £6.32m of their own revenue and will be abstracting £21.55m from other operators I think that they will be being propped up!

Funny how there was such an outrage about how much better DOR are as an operator (in terms of value for money for the taxpayer), but the fact that this OA service will cost the Treasury £25million-ish seems not to have been picked up on.

That's twenty five million pounds per year in extra subsidy for the 2018 WCML franchise (or twenty five million pounds per year in lower premium from the 2018 WCML franchise) just so Kirkham & Wesham etc can have a service to Queens Park (and an Open Access operation can cream off some ORCATS money and sell some bargain-basement tickets)?

Surprising there's not more anger about this from the "privatisation is bad news for the taxpayer" brigade.

Predictably, the article talks up the competition with Virgin.
What they forget is that by 2018 the West Coast franchise may be in different hands, and will have a different specification when it comes.

I wonder how much of the reaction to this is determined by people's opinions of Virgin (who are probably the most "Marmite" TOC), rather than seeing the future of the WCML under an as-yet-unknown operator post-2018.

The WCML really needs some competition, but I have a strong feeling this isn't it

There's three TOCs from Birmingham to London, two from Crewe/ Stoke to London, two from Wigan to Scotland... that's a lot more competition than most of the MML/ GWML/ GEML etc have.

Imagine the shock Alstom will get/must have got when alliance have/will call them and say "you know those pendolinos we keep asking you for prices of but never actually buy any, well we would like to actually place an order, not just a quote an order". They'd probably have to repeatedly check their calendar to make sure it's not the 1st of April or check to make sure it is not some prankster from these forums!

But is there really enough revenue to be made from Blackpool or is it more the case that it will be the stations on the WCML proper that will prop this service up?

I think the latter

I can imagine several travellers freaking out when they get out of Queen's Park and think to themselves 'this is not central London' even though the ticket and announcements say this will terminate at Queen's Park (London). How will the new operator market the fact that they are not quite going to Euston in a positive way?

Ask Ryanair?

Perhaps they'll point out that Underground to Queen's Park is an over-platform change? Unlike Euston Underground to Euston Station which is a miserable trek in the rain.

It's only a miserable trek if you want the Circle/H&C/Met. Euston mainline has the Victoria and both branches of the Northern. Plus, if it's raining at Euston it's likely raining at Queen's Park. Gonna get wet trekking along the uncovered slow line platforms.

I agree with bnm here - reminds me of the patronising old "wet Wednesday in Wigan" cliche in football - as if the JJB had a different microclimate to Anfield/ Old Trafford.

I may not be a Weatherman, but I'd wager that the rain in Euston isn't going to be much different to the stuff that falls out of the sky at Queens Park.

I would think that Willesden Jcn was a better outer interchange than Queens Park, more of the character of Ealing or Finsbury?

If you can't get into central London (and, they can't...), then Willesden seems to have more advantages than Queens Park to me.

Unless you need to access the immediate Euston/KGX area or the City, I would suggest that Queens Park is a better London terminus than Euston. A trip on the Bakerloo line from Queens Park to Oxford Circus is more pleasant than a trip on the Victoria line from Euston to Oxford Circus. There is also no need to navigate your way through hordes of people and descend multiple escalators before you can even board the tube

Compare the "Old Oak Common isn't acceptable for HS2 as it's too far from central London and unacceptable to trek out there on Crossrail" to the acceptance of (the previously barely-mentioned) Queens Park as somehow better than Euston...

I just hope there's room in these six coach (?) EMUs for a Quiet First Class coach

I doubt the new trains will be compatible mix coaches with Pendalinos. The most straight forward way to lengthen the VTWC fleet to 11 coaches would be to turn the 21 x 9 coach units into 14 x 11 coach and 7 x 5 coach. The 5 coach units could then be doubled up and 4 full length units of the new train bought. This would effectively be the same out come although with some issues over first and standard class mix + it would leave a 5 coach Pendalino left over.

Interesting idea.

I suppose it also opens up the option for Pendolini as possible Hull Trains stock in future (i.e. doesn't automatically have to be IEP for all new orders on the ECML).

I'm sure what you say is correct, but there's one large flaw there in that not everyone's onward journey is by Tube. Only around 50% of those arriving at Euston use the Tube for their onward journey. Rail/Bus/Taxi is around 23% and Walking is 20%. Whether a full 50% of those using this service would find the Tube more convenient from Queens Park is, I would suggest, questionable

Interesting figures

 

[TheNewNo2]

The trains aren't allowed to go into Euston, most probably. If it's a Queen's Park terminator, where are the trains supposed to bugger off to after terminating there? Next to the station is the Kilburn up goods loop. Further into Euston, they could get into the Camden Sidings. Or they'd have to go reverse immediately after terminating, crossing over to the Willesden Junction sidings. They can't just stay in the platform, as that'd disrupt LM services.
What do you reckon would be needed to get this working at all?

Network Rail and Grand Central have agreed a plan to terminate services at Queen’s Park (London). Trains will then run ECS into the Kilburn Up and Down Goods Loop immediately east of the station. Turn-round time in the loop is expected to be between 15 and 40 minutes depending on the outcome of detailed timetable development work. This method of operation has been validated by Network Rail’s LNW Route Team. The only scheduled use of the loop in the current timetable is one train on a Saturday morning.

I'd be sceptical of being able to terminate in the mainline platforms at Queen's Park. After all, the line is pretty intensively used, and so even one train stopping there will cause a loss of at least one path. If you want to terminate there, and then go ECS, you need to not only have a significantly longer stop to disambark everyone, you then need to go through the entire train checking for stragglers and locking it off to avoid overcarries. I just can't see it working.

I agree that a Willesden terminator would be a better idea for connectivity, but that would require new platforms and possibly a new flying junction around Stonebridge Park if you want the new platform to be anywhere near the rest of the station.

Or of course we could take my colleague's idea - get a high speed train, get it up to full speed and aim it at a Jubilee Line tunnel...

 

[All Line Rover]

Compare the "Old Oak Common isn't acceptable for HS2 as it's too far from central London and unacceptable to trek out there on Crossrail" to the acceptance of (the previously barely-mentioned) Queens Park as somehow better than Euston...

I just hope there's room in these six coach (?) EMUs for a Quiet First Class coach

Not to go off-topic, but DB manages to provide the full range of seating appropriate for an intercity service on their 6-car ICE 2's (the 7th car is a full sized restaurant car), along with an average of 2 toilets per carriage. Remind me who owns Alliance Rail?

A Preston to Euston FOR costs £480. A fully refundable (yes, really - no silly admin fees) return ticket from London to Paris in Business Premier costs £490. £10 extra for covering a longer distance in the same time, on a (much) faster and (much) longer train where the toilets don't tend to stink of sewage, with a more frequent train service (!), a three course meal (rather than some insulting microwaved 'ready-meal'), and the cost of customs and maintaining the channel tunnel taken into account. Oh yes, and a quiet coach.

If Virgin had anything other than a stranglehold on the market they would not be able to charge such ridiculous fares (standard class fares included, if not more so considering what is provided). Any competition is welcome; albeit that off-peak services only is not a very meaningful form of competition.

The fact that a York to London FOR costs £365 - York having a more frequent service than Preston with a greater number of non-stop trains - is, I would suggest, rather telling.

 

[The Planner]

Virgin are the worst TOC in living memory though aren't they?

 

[northwichcat]

I was under the impression it was to prevent confusion with Hayle rather than Tottenham Hale, although I suppose that's the case too.

I once heard a ticket clerk telling someone that when he typed in 'Hale', 'Tottenham Hale' always came up first as the most popular station containing 'Hale', so I thought related to that.

I'm not sure of the area. Is there a potential class issue between Hale & Altrincham?

In the olden days, there was often a limited number of characters available on computer systems so Hale (Greater Manchester) may well have appeared on systems simply as Hale (Greater - which would have been just as easily confused with Greater London

When ticket offices had the old type of machine 'Hale' was in as 'Hale' it only became 'Hale (Manchester)' after the new machines were introduced.

I can see people objecting to Hale being referred to as Altrincham, as Hale's a largish* affluent village on the outskirts of Altrincham. However, the people most likely to object to Hale (Altrincham) are the ones who would also refer to Hale being in Cheshire (it's traditional county) opposed to Greater Manchester.

Anyway the point I was trying to make is the station has "(Manchester)" after it despite being a 30 minute journey from Manchester, so I don't see why Queen's Park can't be changed to Queen's Park (London) if making that change may avoid confusion.

* Large for a village. If it had a charter and was a town it would be a small town.

 

[najaB]

Virgin are the worst TOC in living memory though aren't they?

I seem to have heard that somewhere...

 

[swt_passenger]

I'd be sceptical of being able to terminate in the mainline platforms at Queen's Park.

Haven't Network Rail already 'validated' the proposal, and this was stated a few months ago?

Are the WCML slows through Queens Park really that intensively used? How many tph do LM run in the off-peak, and how many of them use the fasts anyway? Five trains each way is not what you'd call a busy route.

As in previous discussions about this proposal, Queens Park is being treated as a certainty by some posters, whereas it is the difference between NR being able to guarantee firm rights or contingent rights. There's every likelihood they'll be able to shoe horn them into Euston initially, but NR won't commit medium term during the HS2 works.

 

[Class 170101]

so I don't see why Queen's Park can't be changed to Queen's Park (London)

It already is on NRES to avoid confusion with Queen's Park Glasgow.

 

[najaB]

Haven't Network Rail already 'validated' the proposal, and this was stated a few months ago?

They have indeed, and I'd put more weight on the results of their analysis than on the opinions of posters on an Internet forum.

 

[swt_passenger]

​

They have indeed, and I'd put more weight on the results of their analysis than on the opinions of posters on an Internet forum.

This is what worries me about this forum sometimes. We had this discussion a few months ago, in April, following the section 18 track access application becoming available online, wherein NR had already 'validated' the Queens Park turnaround, and this has now been to ORR who have now presumably run their own validation as well - hence the approval.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=114290

What the application says:

Owing to the uncertainty of future capacity at London Euston in connection with High Speed 2 (HS2) enabling works, Network Rail is currently unwilling to sell firm rights into the station beyond 2016. Network Rail had, however, agreed to sell firm rights for capacity as far as Queen’s Park (London) and contingent rights between Queen’s Park and Euston for the previous application. We anticipate that output from the HS2 Euston working groups being led by Network Rail will help determine the capacity that is available to train operators while HS2 is being built. In time this will allow Network Rail to enter into firm rights into London Euston for all relevant operators.

...In the meantime, Network Rail and Grand Central have agreed a plan to terminate services at Queen’s Park (London). Trains will then run ECS into the Kilburn Up and Down Goods Loop immediately east of the station. Turn-round time in the loop is expected to be between 15 and 40 minutes depending on the outcome of detailed timetable development work. This method of operation has been validated by Network Rail’s LNW Route Team.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...tern-railway-company-ltd-section18-form-p.pdf

I suppose once ORR's approval letter is available online (I couldn't find it yet) - all the same debate will happen again...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I suppose once ORR's approval letter is available online (I couldn't find it yet) - all the same debate will happen again...

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18689/gnwr-wcml-s18-decision-letter-2015-08-07.pdf

 

[MK Tom]

Presumably this'll have a similar impact on the pathing as the Southern service crossing at 5mph just south of Wembley does further north? Whenever I get the xx:22 from MK to London we get stuck behind it there. As someone said above the slows aren't exactly heaving with traffic.

The question on my mind is where will the Alliance services cross to the fast lines? As they are running non-stop to MK then Nuneaton (assuming they get the rights to call at those).

 

[route:oxford]

It already is on NRES to avoid confusion with Queen's Park Glasgow.

So does this make it an official London Terminus, or is Queen's Park (London) not London?

 

[FordFocus]

London Queen's Park possibly to show on PIS equipment to avoid confusion?

 

[The Planner]

The question on my mind is where will the Alliance services cross to the fast lines? As they are running non-stop to MK then Nuneaton (assuming they get the rights to call at those).

Willesden West London Jn most likely, possibly Wembley North.

 

[swt_passenger]

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18689/gnwr-wcml-s18-decision-letter-2015-08-07.pdf

Thanks, don't know how I missed that, having now looked at 'news' on the home page...

 

[nuneatonmark]

For all those detractors of this new Open Access operator on the WCML, don't forget that
1. All those 'revenue extracting' OAs on the ECML don't seem to have put off Virgin etc paying a big premium for the main frnachise
2. You forget all the places who were screwed over when the VHF timetable started - Watford Junction, MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield (especially the 3 latter stations).
3. There are 3 years to sort out the root causes of the performance issues on the WCML before this starts

 

[Class 170101]

Presumably this'll have a similar impact on the pathing as the Southern service crossing at 5mph just south of Wembley does further north? Whenever I get the xx:22 from MK to London we get stuck behind it there. As someone said above the slows aren't exactly heaving with traffic.

Is that junction really that slow?

As for the slows not heaving with traffic don't forget slower trains use most of the slow capacity up.

 

[The Planner]

For all those detractors of this new Open Access operator on the WCML, don't forget that
1. All those 'revenue extracting' OAs on the ECML don't seem to have put off Virgin etc paying a big premium for the main frnachise
2. You forget all the places who were screwed over when the VHF timetable started - Watford Junction, MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield (especially the 3 latter stations).
3. There are 3 years to sort out the root causes of the performance issues on the WCML before this starts

And this OA bid still may not do anything to 2, they have only got contingent rights so if they can't fit they won't stop.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is that junction really that slow?

As for the slows not heaving with traffic don't forget slower trains use most of the slow capacity up.

No, IIRC they use Willesden Sudbury Jn which is 20mph.

 

[HH]

And this OA bid still may not do anything to 2, they have only got contingent rights so if they can't fit they won't stop.

The reason that those stations got less services is that had less passengers. No company is going to miss stopping at stations if it would produce more revenue...

 

[Bald Rick]

For all those detractors of this new Open Access operator on the WCML, don't forget that
1. All those 'revenue extracting' OAs on the ECML don't seem to have put off Virgin etc paying a big premium for the main frnachise
2. You forget all the places who were screwed over when the VHF timetable started - Watford Junction, MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield (especially the 3 latter stations).
3. There are 3 years to sort out the root causes of the performance issues on the WCML before this starts

Now I can't speak for Nuneaton, but as a former commuter to London from Lichfield I can attest that the VHF timetable is far better than it was beforehand. Rather than a choice of two trains with a very sporadic service in between, there is an all day service that takes little more than 90 minutes.

 

[47271]

There's nothing new under the sun, found posted in another thread only today. Newcastle to Finsbury Park, eh? The question is, how long did it last?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2259081

There was a train called "The Highwayman" in the early 1970s from Newcastle to Finsbury Park (only) with very cheap fares. The name was said to be because the fares were "daylight robbery". I think it was class 40 hauled.

 

[30907]

It lasted maybe 2 years, fares were cheap but it took an age (via Durham Coast and no catering IIRC).

 

[Welshman]

There was a train called "The Highwayman" in the early 1970s from Newcastle to Finsbury Park (only) with very cheap fares. The name was said to be because the fares were "daylight robbery". I think it was class 40 hauled.

The cheap fares were intended to compete for the leisure market with the coaches operating via the M1/A1, and I think its title also had a memory of the highwaymen of old, relieving unfortunate passengers in the stagecoaches [pre Brian Souter] on the Great North Road of their valuables. Now the coaches themselves were being robbed of their passengers by a train which offered similar fares, but greater comfort, and still, even at 6 hours, was slightly quicker than the coaches.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It lasted maybe 2 years, fares were cheap but it took an age (via Durham Coast and no catering IIRC).

Indeed, it was deliberately intended to be much slower than the normal services from Kings Cross, so as not to detract from that main market.

I think that its tardiness was, ironically, one reason for its being discontinued, as it was difficult to timetable, and was causing delays to faster following services.

 

[Chris M]

So does this make it an official London Terminus, or is Queen's Park (London) not London?

Getting on for 10 years ago now, I got a ticket from Bristol to Richmond (London) route Not London.

 

[Quakkerillo]

Getting on for 10 years ago now, I got a ticket from Bristol to Richmond (London) route Not London.

Does make sense though, as you'd have to change at Reading for SWT services, instead of going via Paddington and Waterloo.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Now I can't speak for Nuneaton, but as a former commuter to London from Lichfield I can attest that the VHF timetable is far better than it was beforehand. Rather than a choice of two trains with a very sporadic service in between, there is an all day service that takes little more than 90 minutes.

Given the frequency and quality of services that towns such as Newark, Grantham, Market Harborough, Loughborough, Wellingborough and even Retford enjoy, I can't see why Tamworth, Lichfield and Nuneaton cannot have at least one proper fast train an hour to London instead of a makeshift, overcrowded train that are hardly suited to long distances, I suggest that you need to set your aspirations a bit higher especially after having to put up with massive disruption for a decade beforehand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

MKC

I don't agree that MKC was "screwed over". It did move the primary peak service to LM, but to be honest it doesn't to me make sense an IC operator mainly serving a commuter market, while northbound the clockface timetable is memorable and consistent.

 

[Camden]

And it doesn't make sense to me to have trains at MKC being in hot demand and comparable short supply while three long trains an hour rush up to Manchester half empty throughout the day.

HF is a luxury the country can't afford right now, and the result is government ministers saying we need to spend £47 billion on HS2. Nope. What we need is for long distance destinations to have a sensible half hour frequency, with adequate length trains and all trains having sensible stopping patterns.

 

[najaB]

What we need is for long distance destinations to have a sensible half hour frequency, with adequate length trains and all trains having sensible stopping patterns.

For which you need more trains and more track - are you willing to stump up the more money?