Extra Virgin West Coast services rejected by NR

[SprinterMan]

They are both in the same application and have the same WCML impact.
However, Alliance has an application pending for Blackpool which means ORR might treat it differently.

The Sec of State cannot tell ORR what to do.

While this is good to hear, I do hope they are instead run as EBW extensions instead of via Stafford, although this may be difficult with the Scotland services going through to Euston.

Adam

 

[Geezertronic]

While this is good to hear, I do hope they are instead run as EBW extensions instead of via Stafford, although this may be difficult with the Scotland services going through to Euston.

Adam

I don't if that means some EBWs are changed from 390s to 1 or 2 x 221s

 

[Rich McLean]

The Sensible option would be 2x221 until Birmingham then a split for a 221 to shrewsbury and vice versa, surely, they would then inter-work with the Brum - Scotland diagrams if panned correctly

 

[Eagle]

The London–Birmingham–Scotlands would mainly be 390s under Virgin's current plan.

 

[merlodlliw]

They are both in the same application and have the same WCML impact.
However, Alliance has an application pending for Blackpool which means ORR might treat it differently.

The Sec of State cannot tell ORR what to do.

I agree the Sec of State can not,or should not influence any quango(ORR) his office elects, what happens behind closed doors is another matter.

 

[Dave1987]

Can someone please explain something to me.

Virgin are sueing NR for performance failure on the WCML yet they are asking to be able to run even more services so the track will get even more of a hammering and give NR even less chance to maintain it.

Is this Virgin wanting their cake and eating it? Or am I missing something?

 

[WatcherZero]

Network Rail failed to meet their performance targets, their sueing NR to invest more money to improve reliability and so meet their targets.

 

[Dave1987]

Network Rail failed to meet their performance targets, their sueing NR to invest more money to improve reliability and so meet their targets.

But NR have to save £2bn. With the whole extra services bid it does sound like another PR coup. The WCML has already had tonnes of investment, where other lines have had little or no investment. It does stink a bit of the I I I me me me from Virgin to be honest.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But NR have to save £2bn. With the whole extra services bid it does sound like another PR coup. The WCML has already had tonnes of investment, where other lines have had little or no investment. It does stink a bit of the I I I me me me from Virgin to be honest.

VT (and all the other TOCs) have a contract with NR. They are just enforcing their contract.
I expect most of it is to "send a message", as is NR's riposte about refusing more trains.

At a taxpayer level, NR got £8bn for the WCML and we/the TOCs are entitled to get the benefits of capacity and reliability promised.
Currently they are getting neither. The ORR (and DfT) are standing behind Virgin.
If NR can only deliver 85% PPM and 9tph out of Euston it is a poor return on the investment, and means the WCML is "full".
The £2bn savings in CP5 is about international benchmarking for maintenance, and is probably more about NR's processes than what actually happens on the track.

 

[The Planner]

ORR have said no apparently....

Here

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

ORR have said no apparently....

Here

How frustrating, from several points of view.
The only remaining option, not discussed by ORR, is the extension/diversion of existing trains (eg doubled Chester Voyagers splitting at Crewe).
It doesn't look as though there will be any extra trains into Euston before Dec 2016.

Network Rail will be satisfied they have seen Virgin off, and so will Alliance/Arriva.
LM will be happy they got their extra 110mph trains in before the bust-up.
But NR may well get fined for poor WCML performance.
The MPs will not be happy.

I also noted in the ORR text that Euston-Liverpool trains will be making off-peak calls at Crewe from Dec 2013.
This is a bit odd, given that they would pretty much replicate the following Chester times - unless there are changes to that service too.

 

[Pumbaa]

That was my thought as well. Liverpool - Crewe - Stafford is well served already. On the Down, it precedes the North Wales Voyager by a few minutes, on the Up it precedes the Manchester.

Nobody really gains anything and Liverpool gets a slower off-peak service?

 

[WatcherZero]

Reading through, ORR seems to fundamentally be sticking to the line they gave Alliance that they wouldnt grant any new paths until the WCML timetable recast in 2016.

Network Rail didnt object to 7 out of 8 paths proposed by Virgin on weekdays (a clash with Freightliner path which Virgin thought it could negotiate with Freightliner for) but objected to 7/8 on Saturdays, 4/4 paths on Sunday were compliant.

Network Rail performed some light (but not thorough modeling as it has no tools capable of modeling the full complexity of the route) of the impact of the services between Euston and Coventry-Nuneaton which suggested a 0.5% reduction in PPM from 85.7% to 85.2%. ORR judged that based on previous models of earlier WCML timetables any new services would impact performance so didnt object to NR's assertion.

Virgin countered that there would be a 0.51% improvement when the Shrewsbury/Blackpool services were combined with timetable alterations it was planning but had not yet applied for that included removing one hourly service between Euston and Birmingham and longer dwells at Wolverhampton and Birmingham. ORR thought that this was possible but did not support Virgin novel backwards engineering operational reliability data to model theoretical performance rather than vice versa.

ORRs final judgement is that while the new services would be beneficial it physically cant approve paths that NR has judged non compliant and that with the existing poor performance of the WCML it cant for the benefit of the minority approve something that would reduce it further. Its final note is that it welcomes NR bringing forward some investment in the line to December 2014 and that when reliability of the line has improved it would then look at approving new paths.

 

[cle]

I guess that final bit about bringing work forward coincides with the release of the blockade days for Watford?

 

[philjo]

BBC reporting today that Virgin have reopened talks with Network Rail to discuss alternative timetable options for tge Shrewsbury services.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-23589751

Talks over a direct rail link between Shrewsbury and London have restarted after plans for a twice-daily service were rejected for a second time.

Virgin Trains wanted to launch the service on the West Coast Main Line in December but Network Rail said the line could not cope with extra traffic.

The Office of Rail Regulation rejected the train operator's subsequent appeal.

Virgin says it is now discussing alternative timetables with Network Rail in a bid to secure the link.

 

[Eagle]

Does alternative options include the possibility of an alternative route? I mean it can't be an extension of a Wolverhampton service as those are almost all going to Scotland now, but it could be an extension of another Birmingham service (using the now-spare path between Birmingham and Wolverhampton).

 

[Gareth Marston]

Does alternative options include the possibility of an alternative route? I mean it can't be an extension of a Wolverhampton service as those are almost all going to Scotland now, but it could be an extension of another Birmingham service (using the now-spare path between Birmingham and Wolverhampton).

Should be extension of EBW services - I've said this all along more carriages are needed for Brum to Salop & beyond traffic anyway a through London train via New St solves two problems.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If there are two spare 221s for the services recently refused, they could be put on an EBW diagram starting/ending at Shrewsbury.
Unfortunately this would not help Blackpool.
A single peak-hour 221 would not work on EBW.
The alternative is splitting/joining Chester services at Crewe in alternate hours, which might work for Blackpool and Shrewsbury but not for Telford.
You would also be hard-pushed to get a decent peak-hour working as those Chester Voyager workings are already doubled up.
But 3x221 Euston-Crewe is possible (two for Chester/North Wales, one for Blackpool or Shrewsbury).
They do it for blockade-busters.

 

[dk1]

But 3x221 Euston-Crewe is possible (two for Chester/North Wales, one for Blackpool or Shrewsbury).
They do it for blockade-busters.

But that is during weekend engineering when short term planning can allow Blockbusters. That's not an option most weekdays.

 

[Eagle]

Should be extension of EBW services - I've said this all along more carriages are needed for Brum to Salop & beyond traffic anyway a through London train via New St solves two problems.

As I just said, there are no longer any EBW services from December, they're all (with I think two exceptions) becoming EBS services, where the S is for Scotland.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Using pairs of 221s on an extended Euston Birmingham service utilising the free tenth path to Wolves and then on to Salop could be an option, but I would be suprised if Virgin would propose that southbound in the morning peak or likewise in the afternoon going north as the first class capacity would be somewhat compromised as would thier income from it. From the December timetable change there is a Euston terminator booked to arrive at New Street at xx45 and sit there until xx30, does New Street really need a train blocking a platform for 45 minutes? better to send it somewhere if the path exists.

 

[The Planner]

If the platform capacity is there and everything works around it, you cannot really say no. It also depends on where it is going to go and get back from in 19 minutes (New St requires 3 minute dwells and Virgin normally want a 20 minute turnaround) to not use the platform for that diagram.

 

[Eagle]

There isn't really anywhere you can get to that fast. Fastest trains from BHM to WVH take 17 minutes in the WTT, which knocks the turnaround time at WVH down to 5 minutes. (Assuming there's even a path at that time in the hour.)

 

[Old Hill Bank]

There isn't really anywhere you can get to that fast. Fastest trains from BHM to WVH take 17 minutes in the WTT, which knocks the turnaround time at WVH down to 5 minutes. (Assuming there's even a path at that time in the hour.)

I'm suggesting that diagram could be extended to Salop on some hours off peak

 

[The Planner]

You'll need another unit from somewhere to cover the one that is now going to Shrewsbury to do the original working back to Euston. Without having a really good look, that is either going to be a new ECS off Oxley or formed off another service.

 

[AndyLandy]

But 3x221 Euston-Crewe is possible (two for Chester/North Wales, one for Blackpool or Shrewsbury).
They do it for blockade-busters.

15-car sets? Can they all fit on the platforms at Euston/MKC/Crewe? If so, they should really look to make more use of something like that.

 

[Eagle]

Crewe and Euston definitely (it'd be a bit shorter than the Caley Sleeper, which is 2+16 20m stock).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

15-car sets? Can they all fit on the platforms at Euston/MKC/Crewe? If so, they should really look to make more use of something like that.

The current peak North Wales 2x221 trains we are talking about call at Rugby or Nuneaton which can certainly take 3x221.
There are limited platforms at Euston/Crewe though.

 

[AndyLandy]

The current peak North Wales 2x221 trains we are talking about call at Rugby or Nuneaton which can certainly take 3x221.
There are limited platforms at Euston/Crewe though.

I guess at Euston, you're restricted to the high-number platforms at the West side of the station, but I thought all the through platforms at Crewe were the same length (or at least 5, 6, 11 and 12 are. 1 might be shorter)

 

[Eagle]

A 15-car 221 set is 348 metres long. That can fit in:

Euston: platforms 1 (398 m), 2 (376 m) and 15 (402 m) only.
Watford Jct, MKC: none.
Rugby: platform 2 (344 m) with an overhang.
Coventry: platforms 2 and 3 (both 352 m) only.
Nuneaton: platform 2 (337 m) with an overhang.
Tamworth, Lichfield TV, Stafford: none.
Crewe: platforms 6 (387 m) and 12 (424 m) only.