Future routes for Open Access operators

[cle]

I was thinking about cities in an absolute economic sense, but Birmingham has a much more domestic-focused economy, like Leeds, so actually that makes more sense in a rail context. So my mistake... vs, say intl/airport traffic and global companies.

 

[30907]

which is why I said is flawed as it doesn’t consider the option of net gain to railway overall, if there is primarily abstractive locally

But there is no net gain on your model unless the access charges paid by your OA service are higher than the cost to NR of running the additional services.

 

[BayPaul]

Kings Langley to Manchester

OK, sounds ridiculous at first, but I think this could be a genuine new market and profitable. Basically an M25 parkway station, with intercity connections North, so targeting all of those who live in the northern suburbs of London or the home counties, and don't want to fight their way into Euston, so just drive north instead.

Obviously it would need a reconstruction of the station - lots of parking, obviously, and I'm imagining moving one of the slow line platforms outwards, so that there's space for a fast line loop between the platform faces, leaving the fast line platform available for terminating services. Alternatively creating a whole new station between the fast lines to the NW of Warner studios, near the A41 roundabout.

There are currently plenty of paths possible, assuming that Avanti never fully restore the VHF timetable.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are currently plenty of paths possible, assuming that Avanti never fully restore the VHF timetable.

The VHF timetable was never going to be restored. However the new December timetable, which includes 3tph to Manchester, is a little over three weeks away.

 

[daodao]

However the new December timetable, which includes 3tph to Manchester, is a little over three weeks away.

Is that actually deliverable with the current staffing issues? I would have thought that 2 tph, 1 via Stoke and 1 via Wilmslow, would be more likely to run reliably and be sufficient for current demand.

 

[The Planner]

Is that actually deliverable with the current staffing issues? I would have thought that 2 tph, 1 via Stoke and 1 via Wilmslow, would be more likely to run reliably and be sufficient for current demand.

That is somewhat different to delivering a timetable structure. The base contains 3tph and won't get re-written in the short term.

 

[daodao]

That is somewhat different to delivering a timetable structure. The base contains 3tph and won't get re-written in the short term.

It appears to be more than just delivering a timetable structure, as all 3 tph are being advertised as open for booking on the Avanti website, at least on weekdays (excluding bank holidays), from 11/12/22 through January 2023. Is this deliverable, or will some of these journeys be cancelled nearer the time?

 

[concerned1]

Would Nottingham to Brighton via Thameslink or Oxford to Kent via crossrail or something similar ever become a possibility?
I’m thinking guaranteed customers in the London area but a focus on also providing seamless direct cross-London inter regional services that also link together a lot of airports (Slough for Heathrow, East Midlands, Luton and Gatwick)

Oxford>Reading>Maidenhead>Slough>Crossrail Stns as far as Canary Wharf and then limited stop Stns to Ashford to Maidstone?

OR

Nottingham>EMP>Leicester>Luton Airport> St Pancras>Thameslink Stns to London Bridge and then Gatwick Airport and Brighton?

The zone 1 stations could be excluded from the departures board within zone 1 to avoid the trains getting completely flooded with central London to central London journeys. Obviously those in the know will still probably try and board but it will do something to hold back the hoards.

This loosely joins up existing MML and Thameslink paths and GWR and SE paths whilst still providing the existing crossrail and thameslink services with the minimum of disruption and reduces platforming pressure at the high level London termini whilst still providing frequent services into and out of London.

 

[zwk500]

Would Nottingham to Brighton via Thameslink or Oxford to Kent via crossrail or something similar ever become a possibility?

No, the distances involved mean the journey time on semi-metro units would be uncomfortable at best and downright unbearable at worst.
You've also got reliability concerns about presenting to the core in your precise slot. Hard enough to do from Bedford, let alone Nottingham.
Although I did wonder how long it'd take for the TL or XR cores to come up.

 

[Trainbike46]

Would Nottingham to Brighton via Thameslink or Oxford to Kent via crossrail or something similar ever become a possibility?
I’m thinking guaranteed customers in the London area but a focus on also providing seamless direct cross-London inter regional services that also link together a lot of airports (Slough for Heathrow, East Midlands, Luton and Gatwick)

Cambridge to Brighton is kind of an example of this type of service, but as the thameslink core is pretty close to full, what services would you remove to run these instead? Plus, why would GTR reduce their service frequency to make space for an OAO?

 

[The Planner]

It appears to be more than just delivering a timetable structure, as all 3 tph are being advertised as open for booking on the Avanti website, at least on weekdays (excluding bank holidays), from 11/12/22 through January 2023. Is this deliverable, or will some of these journeys be cancelled nearer the time?

That is down to Avanti, and again is not the same issue of the timetable itself working.

 

[concerned1]

It’s got its challenges granted.

Maybe extending the EMR connect service from Corby to Brighton would be a better idea? Not necessarily as a OAO but as joint venture between Thameslink and EMR Connect.

This would also free up platform space at St Pancras high-level for the headline Sheffield and Nottingham services.

 

[Trainbike46]

It’s got its challenges granted.

Maybe extending the EMR connect service from Corby to Brighton would be a better idea? Not necessarily as a OAO but as joint venture between Thameslink and EMR Connect.

This would also free up platform space at St Pancras high-level for the headline Sheffield and Nottingham services.

Because there's so much platform space available at St Pancras low level?

 

[zwk500]

It’s got its challenges granted.

Maybe extending the EMR connect service from Corby to Brighton would be a better idea? Not necessarily as a OAO but as joint venture between Thameslink and EMR Connect.

This would also free up platform space at St Pancras high-level for the headline Sheffield and Nottingham services.

You'd need to extend 2 of the TL Bedfords to corby, as any train through the core needs to be ETCS L2 and ATO capable to achieve the required capacity. And you need a path
Corby is a long journey on a 700..

 

[concerned1]

You'd need to extend 2 of the TL Bedfords to corby, as any train through the core needs to be ETCS L2 and ATO capable to achieve the required capacity. And you need a path
Corby is a long journey on a 700..

Agreed. Maybe 3rd rail and 25kV electrostar would be a better fit… used to be used with first capital connect on the Thameslink extension route to Rochester with quite good success

Ever since the Corby to London route was downgraded from Meridians to 360s (for well intentioned reasons), I have felt it has become a natural progression to join it into Thameslink at some stage. Class 360s just don’t look right hogging those long platforms at St Pancras high level.

 

[cle]

Agreed. Maybe 3rd rail and 25kV electrostar would be a better fit… used to be used with first capital connect on the Thameslink extension route to Rochester with quite good success

Ever since the Corby to London route was downgraded from Meridians to 360s (for well intentioned reasons), I have felt it has become a natural progression to join it into Thameslink at some stage. Class 360s just don’t look right hogging those long platforms at St Pancras high level.

I agree - even if just 1tph. It would need matching with a service south of the river though, and if a 12 car one - then something through LB/East Croydon. I see the other tph to Corby going to Bletchley/Oxford, with Leicester picking up a stopping EMU once wired. Corby itself doesn't need 2tph and that would still give connections at Kettering and other opps.

As to whether that would give St Pancras High / Fast paths - if there were tweaks to stopping patterns - I'm not sure. Extending a current Bedford to Corby would be a massive downgrade for Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby's fast services. But some TL services used to run similar patterns or fast to Leagrave, or Luton - Flitwick - Bedford etc - so it might be doable with tweaking the existing TL Bedfords.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that actually deliverable with the current staffing issues? I would have thought that 2 tph, 1 via Stoke and 1 via Wilmslow, would be more likely to run reliably and be sufficient for current demand.

Apparently, yes.

This would also free up platform space at St Pancras high-level for the headline Sheffield and Nottingham services.

There’s plenty of space for them already.

 

[fjencl]

Grand Union

Stirling to London​

Grand Union has also submitted an application to the ORR to operate a new service between Stirling and London via the West Coast Main Line.
Network Rail has now confirmed it has no objection to the proposed paths identified and Grand Union is hopeful the ORR will be in a position to make a decision before the summer of 2023.

 

[Iskra]

Interesting, do we know the proposed stopping pattern?

 

[fjencl]

Interesting, do we know the proposed stopping pattern?

From there web site it says....

This route is planned to start in 2025 and will operate four times per day. Starting at Stirling it will call at Larbert, Greenfaulds (for Cumbernauld), Whifflet (for Coatbridge and Airdrie), Motherwell and Lockerbie in Scotland and in England at Carlisle, Preston, Nuneaton and Milton Keynes, before terminating at London Euston.

The line will avoid the congested Edinburgh and Glasgow stations, giving passengers a faster service without any changes required. Electric or dual mode trains will be used along the route, with a potential travelling speed of up to 125mph.

 

[WizCastro197]

The crux of it seems to be that OAOs do well when they connect large towns/cities to London that don’t have a frequent connection already. Unlike Lumo which has done an already overdone route and spun it around in removing key stops.

 

[The Planner]

Grand Union

Stirling to London​

Grand Union has also submitted an application to the ORR to operate a new service between Stirling and London via the West Coast Main Line.
Network Rail has now confirmed it has no objection to the proposed paths identified and Grand Union is hopeful the ORR will be in a position to make a decision before the summer of 2023.

Interesting, do we know the proposed stopping pattern?

From there web site it says....

This route is planned to start in 2025 and will operate four times per day. Starting at Stirling it will call at Larbert, Greenfaulds (for Cumbernauld), Whifflet (for Coatbridge and Airdrie), Motherwell and Lockerbie in Scotland and in England at Carlisle, Preston, Nuneaton and Milton Keynes, before terminating at London Euston.

The line will avoid the congested Edinburgh and Glasgow stations, giving passengers a faster service without any changes required. Electric or dual mode trains will be used along the route, with a potential travelling speed of up to 125mph.

That is an old proposal, though whilst paths were found for them in Dec 22, from what I hear they didn't apparently rebid them for May 23 to hang on to them as a timetable participant, so they may be in trouble.

 

[fandroid]

Portsmouth to Birmingham via Basingstoke, Reading and Solihull. 2 hourly, Picking up the path from Basingstoke that XC have abandoned, restoring lost links from Pompey to the northwest.

 

[The Planner]

Portsmouth to Birmingham via Basingstoke, Reading and Solihull. 2 hourly, Picking up the path from Basingstoke that XC have abandoned, restoring lost links from Pompey to the northwest.

Not quite forum bingo, but a line at least. What isnt possible with a change at Southampton? It would still require a change at New St too and the Pompeys were only 158s.

 

[fandroid]

Not quite forum bingo, but a line at least. What isnt possible with a change at Southampton? It would still require a change at New St too and the Pompeys were only 158s.

Since Covid there's just one XC service from Southampton to Birmingham and Manchester every 2 hours. The main thought was to restore direct links northwest from Portsmouth without lugging cases over the bridge at Southampton, to provide a semi fast service between Portsmouth and Winchester/Basingstoke and to restore an hourly fast direct connection between Basingstoke and Reading and restore Pre-Covid frequency between Reading and Birmingham.

Not sure what relevance is of 158s.

 

[The Planner]

Since Covid there's just one XC service from Southampton to Birmingham and Manchester every 2 hours. The main thought was to restore direct links northwest from Portsmouth without lugging cases over the bridge at Southampton, to provide a semi fast service between Portsmouth and Winchester/Basingstoke and to restore an hourly fast direct connection between Basingstoke and Reading and restore Pre-Covid frequency between Reading and Birmingham.

Not sure what relevance is of 158s.

The relavance of 158s is that clearly it wasnt a huge people mover.

 

[43096]

The relavance of 158s is that clearly it wasnt a huge people mover.

Or that there was no other stock available to resource it...

 

[The Planner]

Or that there was no other stock available to resource it...

Could have put a 47 and coaches off another route if it was heaving that much.

 

[William3000]

Following from the success of Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains, I was wondering what routes could be viable for open access operators.

My suggestion would be Norwich to Leeds, my calling points would be Norwich Thetford, Peterborough, Stamford, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Derby, Chesterfield and Leeds.

The major issue is paths through Ely North but that area could probably use demolishing and rebuilding.

Train would also use Syston North Curve and the "Back Road" through Barrow Hill to avoid Sheffield.

This would help prevent claims of Revenue extraction while providing lots of direct trains between places that currently require a change.

I can’t see much merit in this. I think Cambridge to Leeds would be a more likely flow in the event that HS2 opened up capacity on ECML. Cambridge has almost 3 times as many passengers as Norwich but routing anything via Melton Mowbray would have a significant time penalty - I reckon a Leeds; Wakefield Westgate; Doncaster; Grantham or Newark Northgate; Peterborough; March; Ely; Cambridge would be preferable. However ultimately I would focus on giving Cambridge two trains per hour to Peterborough and ensuring better connections at Peterborough for people from Cambridge and Norwich.

 

[daodao]

I can’t see much merit in this. I think Cambridge to Leeds would be a more likely flow in the event that HS2 opened up capacity on ECML. Cambridge has almost 3 times as many passengers as Norwich but routing anything via Melton Mowbray would have a significant time penalty - I reckon a Leeds; Wakefield Westgate; Doncaster; Grantham or Newark Northgate; Peterborough; March; Ely; Cambridge would be preferable. However ultimately I would focus on giving Cambridge two trains per hour to Peterborough and ensuring better connections at Peterborough for people from Cambridge and Norwich.

Cambridge is similar in size to Norwich and the station there only has more passengers because of its relative proximity to London and the far greater number of services/passengers between Cambridge and London. The Ely-March-Peterborough line has a lot of freight traffic (Real Time Trains showed that 62 freight trains passed through March on each of 15/2/23 and 16/2/23). It is unlikely to have the capacity for significantly more passenger trains: 3 tph (1 tph each from Cambridge/Stansted, Ipswich and Norwich) is probably the most that can be accommodated on this line.