Go-Op developments...

[the sniper]

GO-OP may claim that their proposals are "not primarily abstractive", of course they will - but I'd back their plans more if they were only planning on running Westbury - Oxford (Oxford - Birmingham already has a half hourly service, that's a long distance to duplicate existing services over, New Street isn't a place to terminate services...).

Surely they're aiming for Snow Hill rather than New Street? They really are being silly if they're going for New Street... I don't know whether they'd be able to get into the Moor Street bays with Chiltern's interests in that station.

On the stock, if they're getting new stuff, I can't see it being anything but Chinese. Even if they were in demand, the Chinese would be offering (relatively) low prices, so to get a foot in the market you'd have to assume they'd be willing to go even cheaper still.

On the route, imo, it should be Snow Hill to Weymouth. Cutting it at Westbury wouldn't make sense in the summer as they'd be missing out on a decent Midlands to Weymouth seaside market, which they can't really afford to do.

 

[The Planner]

Will be interesting to see how this pans out. As mentioned Moor St will be an issue as Chiltern will want £££ for them to sit in the bay or in the sidings, as would LM if they went and hid at Tyseley. Banbury/Leamington stops will also be interesting in the abstraction side of things as it would abstract Chiltern from Banbury to Moor St and FGW/XC from Oxford to Banbury/Leamington. What will stop them/make it difficult getting paths will be Class 4 freight between Oxford and Leamington in my opinion.

 

[IanXC]

Surely they're aiming for Snow Hill rather than New Street? They really are being silly if they're going for New Street... I don't know whether they'd be able to get into the Moor Street bays with Chiltern's interests in that station.

Maybe GO-OP will end up having to pay for platform 5 at Moor Street. Although there could be objections to do with the Camp Hill proposals I think, a la Wrexham, that would be a crazy reason not to allow it.

 

[Schnellzug]

I'm thinking basically a diesel 444, but with fewer cars.

Which are just as heavy, though.

 

[34D]

Have Go-Co stated their required number of vehicles? Anything more than 2 or 3 car units seems silly to me.

Can someone who knows the route advise what the speed profiles are - ie would 75mph or 90mph stock suffice, or would it have to be 100mph?

Given that we are realistically talking a start in 2015 at best, then I would like to think there would be surplus stock with the cascade plans around electrification - even if such stock was pacers/150s - which would be a more sensible cheaper move than new stock.

Re chinese units, did Grand Central ever order some of these, or did they only think about it?

 

[Schnellzug]

Given that we are realistically talking a start in 2015 at best, then I would like to think there would be surplus stock with the cascade plans around electrification - even if such stock was pacers/150s - which would be a more sensible cheaper move than new stock. ?

Westbury to birmingham? I suppose the idea would be that they'd like to carry some passengers ...

 

[Chris125]

Its laughable - ROSCO's have shown little interest in DMU's for years, why would they change their stance when plans for electrification are accelerating, oil prices are climbing and suitable engines are becoming harder to source due to emmission regs? Im not even sure the 172's meet the latest crashworthiness standards, so they might need be needing a 379-type redesign anyway just to add to the costs further.

All that im afraid makes the idea of any new DMU's look unlikely at best for the forseeable future, unless LM or Chiltern take up any options they have for more in their recent orders which i've yet to see anyone suggest they might.

...so, with all that in mind why would any ROSCO be interested in a new design, from a foreign builder, for a handful of units? With little or no prospect of further orders, and having to maintain a very small but unique fleet, i cant see it happening.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

That's where you are very wrong, over a decade in Corporate risk (£1M-£250M) and fraud in financial institutions and twice that time overall in finacial employment.

I'd love to go into some of the work I've done over the last few years in risk, money laundering and fraud, however the Police (politely) and the FSA (vigorously) have already pointed out to me that the ever powerful FSMA 2000 makes it a criminal offence to go into detail.

So, reasonably well qualified to understand that there is no significant risk in funding which is secured against an asset with a stable value and a life expectancy of over 20 years that is very unlikely to disappear overnight without anybody noticing.

There are indeed cases with the 9-car Meridians where a home "couldn't be found" - but then, let's face it. It was just a stalemate game between the ROSCO, TOC and the government.

Could you imagine the headlines these days if nearly new 7-car sets were being filmed in glorious HD being broken up as unwanted to retrieve the copper?

The biggest "risk" these days is upsetting the press office...

They'd find a home one way or another.

Just because any speculatively built trains for an Open Access cooperative are unlikely to be broken up for their copper, that doesn't mean any bank would loan over £100,000,000 for the stock you were suggesting (without firm evidence of revenue during a franchise etc).

34D makes a good point about electrification/ cascades over the next few years. Maybe some surplus Scotrail 158s would be a realistic level of stock for this new cooperative (since there's no evidence that they'd need seven coach trains or that they'd get 125mph paths...)?

 

[route:oxford]

Just because any speculatively built trains for an Open Access cooperative are unlikely to be broken up for their copper, that doesn't mean any bank would loan over £100,000,000 for the stock you were suggesting (without firm evidence of revenue during a franchise etc).

I believe the term is now 100 "Hesters" or 10 "Diamonds".

34D makes a good point about electrification/ cascades over the next few years. Maybe some surplus Scotrail 158s would be a realistic level of stock for this new cooperative (since there's no evidence that they'd need seven coach trains or that they'd get 125mph paths...)?

Ok, so which speed of train would be easiest to path on the GWML between Diddyland & Chippenham?

From memory, the Turbos that operated the Oxford-Bath service were unhelpful when it came to disruption.

 

[Class172]

I was thinking of a Class 173 for the service:
Similar to class 172 but:

• 4 cars long
• End gangways (like 172/2,172/3)
• Doors at end of carriage
• Small 1st class section at one end of train
• 100mph top speed (like 172/2,172/3)

 

[465fan]

I think to operate a service from Birmingham to Westbury, yet alone Weymouth with Pacers or a Class 150 is absolutely terrible! Similarly, to go for some quasi-new Chinese build would be an absolute shocker - it's too much of a risk. For the requested route, I would expect 100mph to be the absolute minimum speed needed, 125 would not be required. A Class 170 / 172 / 185 is the right unit as there is no "wasted space" like in a Voyager or Pendolino. I would most certainly urge against a two or three car unit, because with the market they are going for I would expect it to fill bloody rapidly. A first class section would most certainly be required. Ideally, if one coach featured one half of the coach as First Class, the rest could feature a disabled access toilet and buffet facilities, thus three or four coaches uninterrupted standard class accomodation.

 

[Eagle]

...125 would not be required...

The only part of the route with a speed limit over 100 is some of the way between Chippenham and Didcot (although tilting trains could do 110 between Oxford and Banbury). 125-capable trains would be a complete waste.

 

[IanXC]

The only part of the route with a speed limit over 100 is some of the way between Chippenham and Didcot (although tilting trains could do 110 between Oxford and Banbury). 125-capable trains would be a complete waste.

Although the tilt equipment would need to be brought back into use.

 

[34D]

I think to operate a service from Birmingham to Westbury, yet alone Weymouth with Pacers or a Class 150 is absolutely terrible! Similarly, to go for some quasi-new Chinese build would be an absolute shocker - it's too much of a risk. For the requested route, I would expect 100mph to be the absolute minimum speed needed, 125 would not be required. A Class 170 / 172 / 185 is the right unit as there is no "wasted space" like in a Voyager or Pendolino. I would most certainly urge against a two or three car unit, because with the market they are going for I would expect it to fill bloody rapidly. A first class section would most certainly be required. Ideally, if one coach featured one half of the coach as First Class, the rest could feature a disabled access toilet and buffet facilities, thus three or four coaches uninterrupted standard class accomodation.

And in the real world? Let's give them some sprinters, then by the time they've built their service up, they can have some 185s that are made surplus by NTP electrification.

How busy is Swindon-Didcot (the real busy section)? 4 HSTs each way plus a bit of freight?

 

[Muzer]

Deleted - ignore.

 

[Wath Yard]

And in the real world? Let's give them some sprinters, then by the time they've built their service up, they can have some 185s that are made surplus by NTP electrification.

How busy is Swindon-Didcot (the real busy section)? 4 HSTs each way plus a bit of freight?

The question is would they get anything from a ROSCO? I think it is widely assumed Pacers won't be around for too much longer, though I'm not stating that as a fact, but Sprinters will be made DDA-compliant and 185s already are and will therefore be around for a while. If a ROSCO has the option of leasing their trains to an established TOC with a franchise or a new OAO it doesn't take much imagination to guess which it will be.

Even if a ROSCO did want to lease a Sprinter to an OAO it is very unlikely to happen, as I believe the DfT has the final say on any stock inherited by a ROSCO from BR, therefore if the plan is to cascade Sprinters to replace Pacers the OAO wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Schnellzug]

And in the real world? Let's give them some sprinters, then by the time they've built their service up, they can have some 185s that are made surplus by NTP electrification.

How busy is Swindon-Didcot (the real busy section)? 4 HSTs each way plus a bit of freight?

How on earth would they be expected to build their service up expecting people to use 150s? People argue that Voyagers are unsuitable for inter-city work often enough, but 150s?!

 

[34D]

How on earth would they be expected to build their service up expecting people to use 150s? People argue that Voyagers are unsuitable for inter-city work often enough, but 150s?!

Its westbury to birmingham - not london to edinburgh. Noone is saying that pacers/150s couldn't have a refurb. Look at the 2+2 seats fitted to the class 144s for instance - fine for a couple of hours.

If we assume that the electrification of various lines is happening (as per gov commitments) there will indeed be a surplus of diesel rolling stock, which a ROSCO would presumably be able to sell or lease as surplus to the franchised network.

I wonder aswell whether using loco and stock would be another fall-back option. EWS have plenty of spare 67s and a depot at didcot for instance. They would presumably have to be top and tailed, but this isn't a major issue (apart from cost).

 

[tbtc]

How on earth would they be expected to build their service up expecting people to use 150s? People argue that Voyagers are unsuitable for inter-city work often enough, but 150s?!

I think people need to be realistic about the demand for this proposed service and the level of appropriate stock.

For example, whilst Weymouth - Westbury - Swindon - Didcot - Oxford is wholly within FGW territory, and FGW have increased their fleet size in recent years (more 150s, the return of the 180s etc), FGW don't appear to think there's any justification to use any of their stock on the route (apart from the token bits like Westbury - Swindon that they are commited to serve in the franchise).

If there's no market for them to dip their toes in (not even a Swindon - Oxford service) then why are people suggesting Go-Op will need seven coach trains?

Maybe a two coach train would be the sensible starting point (and they can start dreaming of Voyagers and the like if they can fill those, after the first few weeks when enthusiasts will artificially boost numbers)

 

[Wath Yard]

Maybe a two coach train would be the sensible starting point (and they can start dreaming of Voyagers and the like if they can fill those, after the first few weeks when enthusiasts will artificially boost numbers)

How would that work? Safety cases, staff, track access charges, train leasing and all the other costs associated with running a service don't come cheap. The most expensive Oxford - Birmingham ticket return is £33. Even with an ORCATS raid they wouldn't get a very large proportion of the revenue by running 1 train every 2 hours.

Therefore, they would need long trains with plenty of passengers to cover costs but nobody would develop and order long trains as it would be too great a risk, and they probably wouldn't be able to fill them anyway.

 

[tbtc]

How would that work? Safety cases, staff, track access charges, train leasing and all the other costs associated with running a service don't come cheap. The most expensive Oxford - Birmingham ticket return is £33. Even with an ORCATS raid they wouldn't get a very large proportion of the revenue by running 1 train every 2 hours.

Therefore, they would need long trains with plenty of passengers to cover costs but nobody would develop and order long trains as it would be too great a risk, and they probably wouldn't be able to fill them anyway.

You've summed up many of the flaws in their business plan - is there really a market between Westbury and Birmingham to justify a train every couple of hours?

But if you are going to dip your toe in the market, start with a two coach train and take things from there...

 

[Ivo]

You've summed up many of the flaws in their business plan - is there really a market between Westbury and Birmingham to justify a train every couple of hours?

In a sense their idea is two routes merged into one, with Swindon being the interval. Swindon has no direct service to Birmingham and only a very limited direct service to Westbury. (The same is also true of Chippenham.) They can cater for both of these flows and I would certainly be willing to travel to Trowbridge/Melksham/Chippenham by bus to allow a direct service to Brum. But I'm not representative of the market - the market that would otherwise go via Bristol. I can see them doing quite well with students travelling from Swindon etc to Oxford, but is that enough?

But if you are going to dip your toe in the market, start with a two coach train and take things from there...

You don't think we can get Network Rail to suddenly announce and fast-track third rail electrification of Uckfield do you? The four-car 171s could then be split up, with both the Marshlink and GO-OP! having three car examples (yes, I am aware that an extra few cars would be necessary for this).

Oh wait - you want realistic suggestions :roll:

----------------

As an extra, can't they send at least one train a day to Bath? It isn't exactly far, and they could stable in the little-used goods yard between it and Oldfield Park...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I quote the following from the site:

"In addition we are tendering to run a Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) supported service between Salisbury and Westbury. This, combined with the above service, meets Wiltshire County Council’s outputs." (http://go-op.coop/info/track-access-news/)

What would this mean? Potential to extend the service south from Westbury to Salisbury, subcontracting a bus service (currently one has to change at Warminster) - or even running said bus themselves?

 

[tbtc]

In a sense their idea is two routes merged into one, with Swindon being the interval. Swindon has no direct service to Birmingham and only a very limited direct service to Westbury. (The same is also true of Chippenham.) They can cater for both of these flows and I would certainly be willing to travel to Trowbridge/Melksham/Chippenham by bus to allow a direct service to Brum. But I'm not representative of the market - the market that would otherwise go via Bristol. I can see them doing quite well with students travelling from Swindon etc to Oxford, but is that enough?

The Oxford - Swindon bus seems busy enough (is it the 66? something like that), but its noticeable that First haven't tried to run any direct service between the two (since the Bristol service was withdrawn a decade ago) - if they don't think they can justify a Turbostar on this route (in the "core" of the Go-op route) then that says a lot to me.

You don't think we can get Network Rail to suddenly announce and fast-track third rail electrification of Uckfield do you? The four-car 171s could then be split up, with both the Marshlink and GO-OP! having three car examples (yes, I am aware that an extra few cars would be necessary for this).

Oh wait - you want realistic suggestions :roll:

Electrify those two annoying bare patches (Uckfield and Marshlink) and you then have a nice number of Turbostars to play with (say a dozen three coach ones and four two coach ones, after swapping the middles around)...

...those could be used in several places (to free up stock for further cascades etc), it'd be a great catalyst.

 

[Ivo]

Yes, it's the 66. It's been improved from one E300 per hour to two Goldine spec E400s per hour over the last couple of years. But the GO-OP! service should be at least twice as fast as the 66, and potentially three times as fast.

University traffic should help them along, with several major Universities either on the route or otherwise only one bus connection away; perhaps they could run shuttle services during certain times of the year? At the very least they could link to Warwick and Bath this way. Again though, that isn't enough.

 

[Wath Yard]

But if you are going to dip your toe in the market, start with a two coach train and take things from there...

I agree, and it was an approach successfully adopted by Hull Trains, but Westbury - Birmingham isn't London - Hull and Hull Trains had serious backers who already ran a franchised TOC.

 

[Eagle]

FGW don't appear to think there's any justification to use any of their stock on the route (apart from the token bits like Westbury - Swindon that they are commited to serve in the franchise)...

Actually FGW have had the ambition to restore a two-hourly service through Melksham (likely to be Swindon–Salisbury) for a while now, as advocated by TransWilts Rail. This summer there will also be one return service a day on Sundays from Swindon to Weymouth—the franchise specifies no Sunday service.

And I've definitely seen plans for a Bristol to Oxford EMU service post-electrification as well (although boviously that's beyond the end of the franchise).

So I don't think it's the case that FGW are neglecting the route at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...and Hull Trains had serious backers who already ran a franchised TOC.

In fact, Hull Trains shared their original fleet (of 170/3s) with sister company Anglia Railways. This was before the SRA's rules that TOCs can't pool units.

 

[Oliver]

I agree, and it was an approach successfully adopted by Hull Trains, but Westbury - Birmingham isn't London - Hull and Hull Trains had serious backers who already ran a franchised TOC.

I think a closer model is the Cambridge to Norwich service started by Anglia Railways using 170's. There were already services on the route, but you needed to change at Ely on virtually all of them. Introducing new direct hourly trains created a market. Having said that, I still wouldn't wish to put money into GO-OP.

 

[465fan]

And in the real world? Let's give them some sprinters, then by the time they've built their service up, they can have some 185s that are made surplus by NTP electrification.

How busy is Swindon-Didcot (the real busy section)? 4 HSTs each way plus a bit of freight?

This is open-access, the DfT wouldn't offer them trains, they would be buying new from the start. Hence, they can do their own trains. I would NEVER use their service if it was Sprinters, and for you to think it's a good idea is f***ng terrible!

 

[tbtc]

Actually FGW have had the ambition to restore a two-hourly service through Melksham (likely to be Swindon–Salisbury) for a while now, as advocated by TransWilts Rail. This summer there will also be one return service a day on Sundays from Swindon to Weymouth—the franchise specifies no Sunday service.

And I've definitely seen plans for a Bristol to Oxford EMU service post-electrification as well (although boviously that's beyond the end of the franchise)

Well, despite gaining a decent number of additional units recently (fifteen 150s plus the 180s?) FGW haven't done anything yet in this area.

And with the plan for six or seven Swindon - London trains an hour once the GWML is electrified (with the additional two Bristol trains etc) I'm not sure where the space would come from between Swindon and Didcot.

 

[Ivo]

Would it be stupid to suggest that 50 (or multiples thereof) of us put up £1 so that the forum as a whole can hold a share in GO-OP! as a company? We could then have a separate section for us to discuss GO-OP! matters which could then be put forward at (A)GMs...

Given it is only £1, I can see it working. What do you guys think?

(See here.)