Huddersfield to London direct train plan (GNWR) rejected by government regulator

[Eeveevolve]

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-london-direct-train-plan-8414818

Plans for a direct Huddersfield to London train service have been rejected by the Government regulator.

Great North Western Railway (GNWR) had hoped to run six return journeys a day from London to Leeds via Huddersfield from December 2018.

But the operator’s proposal was rejected by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) because of insufficient capacity at the southern end of the West Coast Main Line and competition issues.

So, still got to change at Leeds. Gah.

Cant believe they are citing 'competition issues'. Isnt that the entire idea of a privatised railway?

 

[itsjustmyjob]

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-london-direct-train-plan-8414818

So, still got to change at Leeds. Gah.

Cant believe they are citing 'competition issues'. Isnt that the entire idea of a privatised railway?

The fact is that although run (mostly) by private companies, the railway isn't subject to the full 'freedoms' afforded by a free market. (Thankfully in my opinion, but others are free to disagree.)

The government has just awarded the East Coast franchise to a company that has promised Huddersfield to London trains. It will want to protect its promised revenue stream from that source, hence the objection.

 

[NSEFAN]

The government has just awarded the East Coast franchise to a company that has promised Huddersfield to London trains. It will want to protect its promised revenue stream from that source, hence the objection.

Indeed. We can't have another ECML franchise being unable to pay its premiums to the treasury. The upcoming franchise is only going to have more problems with that once IEP comes into service.

 

[Eeveevolve]

The government has just awarded the East Coast franchise to a company that has promised Huddersfield to London trains. It will want to protect its promised revenue stream from that source, hence the objection.

That part I didnt know, and seems to have been conveniently left out of our local rags 'reporting'.

 

[JaJaWa]

That part I didnt know, and seems to have been conveniently left out of our local rags 'reporting'.

The article you linked to says "But one daily train is expected to link Huddersfield and the capital from 2019 as part of the new East Coast deal."

 

[TUC]

So the franchised service which is likely to offer only one return service a day should take preference over a service that would offer more? The dead hand of the state at work again.

 

[47802]

This is hardly news its been known about for a few week and has been discussed at length on here, nice to see the Huddersfield rag being on the ball.

Somehow I doubt they would have been starting in 2018 anyway given TPX electrification is likely to be put back unless they intended diesel dragging the their Pendilino's

 

[nuneatonmark]

The irony is that there has not been a single new Open Access agreement during this parliament, must be pretty embarrassing for the tories. I am hoping that Alliance will 'tweak' their proposal to get it approved. It's not far off at all.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Indeed. We can't have another ECML franchise being unable to pay its premiums to the treasury. The upcoming franchise is only going to have more problems with that once IEP comes into service.

For crying out loud. The trains have not even arrived here yet and already someone is suggesting that they might have reliability problems. :roll:

 

[Ze Random One]

For crying out loud. The trains have not even arrived here yet and already someone is suggesting that they might have reliability problems. :roll:

I think NSEFAN is referring to the leasing costs for the IEP, which is likely to be more than the existing ECML stock, making it difficult to keep up with the premiums...

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think NSEFAN is referring to the leasing costs for the IEP, which is likely to be more than the existing ECML stock, making it difficult to keep up with the premiums...

Fair point but if you were bidding for a franchise then you would factor in leasing costs.

 

[kieron]

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-london-direct-train-plan-8414818

So, still got to change at Leeds. Gah.

Cant believe they are citing 'competition issues'. Isnt that the entire idea of a privatised railway?

Not when the system's running at a massive loss.

As for your London trains, you could change at Leeds. Or you could change at Manchester, Mirfield or Wakefield instead. I can't imagine a couple of direct trains a day are going to have much of an impact if they ever do appear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cant believe they are citing 'competition issues'. Isnt that the entire idea of a privatised railway?

No, it isn't. The idea of it is to theoretically reduce cost by way of private sector efficiency, and competition is, just like tendering the collection of bins by a local council, at the point of tender, not at the point of use.

Add to that that the car is the most significant competition, with air second, and rail-on-rail competition is a petty spat over a tiny number of passengers overall, when the railway would do better to concentrate on winning over drivers.

Neil

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That part I didnt know, and seems to have been conveniently left out of our local rags 'reporting'.

The new East Coast franchise had nothing to do with the GNWR refusal.
Between Manchester Victoria and Huddersfield, the view is that it would abstract revenue from TPE, and in any case there are no paths on TP North.
Partly this is due to performance problems with the 5tph on the route, with a plan to go to 6tph.
That is also why TP North electrification has not been started as they want to redesign the route (extra signalling, passing loops etc).
It's not just about "competition".
East Coast still has to secure its path from Leeds to Huddersfield, but unlike GNWR it doesn't need a solution to the Standedge problem first.

 

[thealexweb]

Every time some official cites 'competition issues' privatization dies a little bit more.

 

[Chris125]

There is an existing thread for this, which contains the actual ORR findings and justifications for refusing it: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=109830&highlight=gnwr

 

[Starmill]

One train a day from the disappointing EC franchise award. It will probably be like the current Blackpool train, leaving at ridiculous o'clock in the morning and M-F Only.

It should not be this hard to get Huddersfield to London up and running.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't imagine a couple of direct trains a day are going to have much of an impact if they ever do appear.

What nonsense :roll:

 

[DownSouth]

As for your London trains, you could change at Leeds. Or you could change at Manchester, Mirfield or Wakefield instead. I can't imagine a couple of direct trains a day are going to have much of an impact if they ever do appear.

Spot on. Improving local services across the whole day and giving people better connecting options is a far more worthy move to make than every town having their one or two trains a day to London.

 

[47802]

The initial open access services have brought new services to some destination's and the one thing it has done is push franchised operators into providing better services to some destinations that were being looked at by the open access operators.

However now a lot of the latest proposal's look like little more than Orcats raids thinly disguised as new services, there the alliance proposal to Leeds thinly disguised as a new service to Bradford/Ilkley what Ilkley yes that right, and Bradford already has the best London service it has had for years, then there is the fast Edinburgh London service which is mainly aimed at Air passengers, really!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Spot on. Improving local services across the whole day and giving people better connecting options is a far more worthy move to make than every town having their one or two trains a day to London.

I'm with you on that, and it fits with Network Rail's Swiss-style proposals. I'd rather have a quality, properly-timed connection every hour than two through trains a day.

I often start an IC journey with a walk/bike ride to Bletchley and a change at MKC, it really isn't that painful.

Neil

 

[Starmill]

I'm with you on that, and it fits with Network Rail's Swiss-style proposals. I'd rather have a quality, properly-timed connection every hour than two through trains a day.

You're both underestimating the value people place on through trains to where they want to go when choosing rail when choosing their mode - do not forget that all car journeys are made if 0 changes.

Anyway, in the case of Huddersfield, there's no reason why both aren't possible and desirable.

 

[Haydn1971]

You're both underestimating the value people place on through trains to where they want to go when choosing rail when choosing their mode

Conversely, I place great value on being able to park for free at Meadowhall and then have the flexibility to catch either a direct train to Leeds/Manchester or make a connection to longer distance services in Doncaster, Sheffield, York, Leeds & Manchester. I accept that I can't have a direct train to key places that I want to go to, but as a person who works in such a way that I have to make last minute travel arrangement to keep clients happy, I prefer a more frequent service.

I'd like a turn up and travel service frequency to Leeds & Manchester - 15-20 minute frequency, I'd accept a connection wait at Doncaster, York, Leeds, Sheffield & Manchester of 30 minutes, but would prefer 20 minutes, I place value on having the ability to have a seat waiting for me, which to be fair, CrossCountry have done to a degree via the text reservations but it's still very unreliable - after a day on site walking around in PPE boot with steel inserts, I don't want to stand on the train... Connections ? Well that's a good opportunity to grab a coffee and/or sandwich

 

[Clip]

Whilst Huddersfield has a large population surely the demand from rail in the area is to Manchester/Leeds where there's plenty of connections for services to London.

Not everywhere can have a direct service and surely its more important to get a decent service to/from the above cities than it is to have a direct London service?

Plus with aspirations of 6 per day how were they ever going to actually fit them into London?

 

[RichmondCommu]

When did Huddersfield last have a direct service to London?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're both underestimating the value people place on through trains to where they want to go when choosing rail when choosing their mode - do not forget that all car journeys are made if 0 changes.

I agree, but a through train is of no use when it isn't at a time you want to travel.

FWIW, I'm of the view that portion working is a good way to achieve this (the 5-car IEPs might enable a bit of this?), or where you've got two places with similar demand alternating the trains between the two with a local connection in the other hour. The Swiss do that to good effect in a few places.

Neil

 

[Welshman]

When did Huddersfield last have a direct service to London?

If my memory serves me correctly, Huddersfield used to have 3 through services to London into the 1960s.

One was the "South Yorkshireman" which originated at Bradford Exchange, and went via Huddersfield, Penistone, Sheffield Victoria and the GC Main line to London Marylebone, and vv.

Then there was a train which left Halifax about 8.45am and reversed at Huddersfield, continuing via Horbury to Barnsley & London St Pancras. This was a portion of a Sheffield-London service, and vv.

Then there was a portion of a Bradford/Leeds to London Kings Cross service, which left Halifax at 9.12am, again reversed at Huddersfield and went via Wakefield Kirkgate and Westgate, where it was shunted on to the rear of the main train. This, IIRC, arrived at Kings Cross about 2pm.

There were also two through trains a day to Stockport Edgeley - one from Leeds City in the morning about 8am, and one from Halifax in the afternoon about 4.15pm. These allowed connections at Edgeley for London Euston.

I'm sure all these had been withdrawn by 1970, although I can't remember the exact dates.

About this time, a dmu service was introduced between Huddersfield and Wakefield Westgate, again reversing at Kirkgate, with the specific intention of providing connections to/from Kings Cross.

Finally, I seem to remember there was one Saturdays-only summer service from Bradford Exchange to Kings Cross via Halifax, Huddersfield, Penistone, Sheffield Victoria[then closed] to Retford, where it joined the GN main line. This ran about 1972-73[I was working in Huddersfield then, and caught it one occasion]. It was a complete train, not a portion-working, and was an experiment for one season only, with no return service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The long-standing LNWR service via Huddersfield to the west was the York-Swansea mail via Crewe, Shrewsbury and the Central Wales line.
You could pick up sleepers in the middle of the night to all parts from Crewe.
It got cut back progressively and then vanished around 1970 when the North and West route was downgraded.

At one point Virgin around 2000 suggested a service from Euston to Sunderland via Stockport, Huddersfield and York, but thought better of it.
The GNWR proposal is essentially a rehash of that.

 

[kieron]

What nonsense :roll:

Why are you posting nonsense into this thread?

Spot on. Improving local services across the whole day and giving people better connecting options is a far more worthy move to make than every town having their one or two trains a day to London.

It's not that, so much as the fact that most people travelling from Huddersfield to London (or places beyond it) by train will arrive at the station by car. From Hudderfield station to Brighouse station is 4 miles, so I doubt most drivers would care too much which their train goes from so long as the one back uses the same station.

 

[NSEFAN]

For crying out loud. The trains have not even arrived here yet and already someone is suggesting that they might have reliability problems.

I think NSEFAN is referring to the leasing costs for the IEP, which is likely to be more than the existing ECML stock, making it difficult to keep up with the premiums...

Higher leasing costs was indeed what I was referring to. A step increase in leasing charges half way through a franchise isn't going to be easy to counteract without either a similar step increase in passengers or cutting costs elsewhere.

Another issue I can think of with allowing more open-access is a lack of capacity on the core ECML. Giving every man and his dog a direct service to London isn't possible, and there are much bigger markets already being served which use the ECML. Once HS2 opens, there will perhaps be scope for big change. In the mean time, perhaps we will see open-access operators teaming up and doing portion working with multiple units?

 

[TUC]

Spot on. Improving local services across the whole day and giving people better connecting options is a far more worthy move to make than every town having their one or two trains a day to London.

Huddersfield already has very good links to Leeds and Manchester whereas it does not have a direct London service. So many comments in discussions like these seem to be based on rail staff and rail enthusiasts telling the public what they should want rather than listening to customers and providing what they are seeking-which is surely the basis of any successful business.