London Midland 110mph

[pt_mad]

Can anyone shed some more light on this for me. Am I correct in thinking that current 350s run 100mph max and that LM are going to order a small fleet of 110mph modified 350s?

Will these be with the doors at each end and airline style seating like the 444s?

When is all this due to happen? And why are Virgin even allowing this when they don't seem to want LM to come anywhere close to their journey times?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

And why are Virgin even allowing this when they don't seem to want LM to come anywhere close to their journey times?

All Virgin can do is complain, but they can't stop them themselves. AFAIK though they haven't said a word about it. Their 125 versus LM's 110 will still produce a couple of minutes difference though between Keynes and London, and at a guess 3-4 between Rugby and London (via Weedon), so VT will still appear to be the faster service.

AFAIK the 350s aren't already capable of 110 running, but when they are given permission to do so (on account of a lack of crumple zone, which traditionally was needed for running at 101+mph), 350s will be modified for higher speeds, as will any new units. Certainly there won't be any new 444-style 350s knocking about solely because of this, the interiors etc will be largely unchanged from /1s.

 

[ainsworth74]

Am I correct in thinking that current 350s run 100mph max and that LM are going to order a small fleet of 110mph modified 350s?

Will these be with the doors at each end and airline style seating like the 444s?

No current 350s are capable of running at 110mph but they needed to be cleared to do so (which I think has now happened). The new 350s will also be capable of 110mph but will mostly be the same layout as current 350s certainly nothing as drastic as changing them to a 444 style layout. The only exception is the 350s that are being sub-leased to TPE will have a more inter-city style layout but I don't think anyone has clarified what this actually means.

 

[Minilad]

Can anyone shed some more light on this for me. Am I correct in thinking that current 350s run 100mph max and that LM are going to order a small fleet of 110mph modified 350s?

Will these be with the doors at each end and airline style seating like the 444s?

When is all this due to happen? And why are Virgin even allowing this when they don't seem to want LM to come anywhere close to their journey times?

Virgin do not have a say in it. Its nothing to do with them

 

[pt_mad]

All Virgin can do is complain, but they can't stop them themselves. AFAIK though they haven't said a word about it. Their 125 versus LM's 110 will still produce a couple of minutes difference though between Keynes and London, and at a guess 3-4 between Rugby and London (via Weedon), so VT will still appear to be the faster service.

AFAIK the 350s are already capable of 110 running, but they need to be given permission to do so (on account of a lack of crumple zone, which traditionally was needed for running at 101+mph). Certainly there won't be any new 444-style 350s knocking about solely because of this.

The only reason people catch the 8.46 Pendolino from Nuneaton is because it takes 1 hr 1 minute.

If LM can offer a 110mph service avoiding Northampton this will take probably 1 hr 10 mins? Thus this will greatly affect Virgin's uptake.

Also on Saturdays the 8.59 Pendolino at Nuneaton. Why pay nearly 40 quid for that when you could catch a 110mph LM, get there in an hour and ten at half the price.

Thats why I can't see it goin ahead. Virgin will be against that.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thats why I can't see it goin ahead. Virgin will be against that.

It's nothing to do with Virgin! Why on earth would they have a say in what LM do with the rolling stock they've leased!?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Thats why I can't see it goin ahead. Virgin will be against that.

All Virgin can do is complain, however they won't get anywhere, it is nothing to do with them what LM wish to do with their stock.

 

[pt_mad]

It's nothing to do with Virgin! Why on earth would they have a say in what LM do with the rolling stock they've leased!?

I thought thats why LM aren't allowed to operate early morning from the Trent Valley - because Virgin demand control of Peak time services from places like Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Rugby.

If they have no say, why can't we have LM services running to Euston from 5am?

 

[Chafford1]

I thought the WCML moderation of competition arrangements were going to expire at the end of the current Virgin franchise?

 

[swt_passenger]

Thats why I can't see it goin ahead. Virgin will be against that.

It has nothing to do with Virgin, as already pointed out in an earlier reply above. The decision will be made by ORR.

From April 1st , with their original franchise end date passing, Virgin no longer have Moderation of Competition protection on the route. If however LM tried to run this service today, Virgin would be bound to object as they are required to do by the current franchise spec. That is precisely why LM are proposing it to start some time after April 1st.

There is plenty of official info available about this in the track access apllication sections of both ORR and NR's websites, none of the correspondence mentions any Virgin Trains objections. The 110 mph running does definitely apply to existing 350s, this has already been discussed in a number of earlier threads in this forum on this same topic...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 110mph objective is to increase capacity on the southern end of the WCML, benefitting all TOCs (including freight).
It means LM can run on the fast lines and not hold up VT.
It also saves buying a new fleet of trains (once part of the IEP plan) for Euston-Northampton fasts.
It will also improve Trent Valley services, and Manchester-Scotland when it comes in.
As far as I can see, VT are supporting the LM plan.

 

[pt_mad]

It has nothing to do with Virgin, as already pointed out in an earlier reply above. The decision will be made by ORR.

From April 1st Virgin no longer have Moderation of Competition protection on the route.

There is plenty of official info available about this in the track access apllication sections of both ORR and NR's websites, none of the correspondence mentions any Virgin Trains objections. The 110 mph running does definitely apply to existing 350s, this has already been discussed in a number of earlier threads in this forum on this same topic...

Ahh I see so its the Moderation of Competition that has stopped such things in the past. Question answered.

My local rail group http://www.nbrug.org.uk/ Nuneaton, Bedworth, Hinckley Rail group do spread the message though that Virgin have major objections to any other fast peak service operating here.

They want the peak services to themselves but are not interested in stopping any off peak service here.

 

[Wath Yard]

If they have no say, why can't we have LM services running to Euston from 5am?

Because nobody wants to travel from Nuneaton - London at 5 AM and LM have far better things to do with their trains than run such a service, e.g. getting commuters to work.

 

[pt_mad]

Because nobody wants to travel from Nuneaton - London at 5 AM and LM have far better things to do with their trains than run such a service, e.g. getting commuters to work.

Somebody must want to since Virgin feel the need to stop their long distance Peak trains at Nuneaton before 9am.

 

[swt_passenger]

Ahh I see so its the Moderation of Competition that has stopped such things in the past. Question answered.

My local rail group http://www.nbrug.org.uk/ Nuneaton, Bedworth, Hinckley Rail group do spread the message though that Virgin have major objections to any other fast peak service operating here.

They want the peak services to themselves but are not interested in stopping any off peak service here.

No, Virgin run the exact timetable that was developed by the DfT for the VHF service, and object to competition proposals because that is what DfT requires them to do in their current franchise specification. The local complaints are quite wrongly being directed at Virgin. If Virgin did not object to any other TOC's plans for the WCML, they would be in breach of their contract. It was the draft VHF timetable that DfT produced for the route that dropped offpeak calls at Nuneaton.

People are very quick to blame Virgin, but they just play the hand they were dealt, always have...

 

[NSEFAN]

My local rail group http://www.nbrug.org.uk/ Nuneaton, Bedworth, Hinckley Rail group do spread the message though that Virgin have major objections to any other fast peak service operating here.

Perhaps instead of whinging, Virgin could make their prices more competitive to win over customers. That is, afterall, how the privatised model is supposed to work. Allegedly.

 

[Wath Yard]

Before 9AM isn't 5AM and there is a vast difference between stopping a train that passes through the station anyway and operating a new service by redeploying stock from peak time cummuter services.

 

[Michael.Y]

And people wonder why there is mass disillusionment with the railways.

I wish there was some provision in the franchising agreements that above all else the companies were providing a SERVICE to the PUBLIC and not chasing profits by bullying other companies.

 

[pt_mad]

Before 9AM isn't 5AM and there is a vast difference between stopping a train that passes through the station anyway and operating a new service by redeploying stock from peak time cummuter services.

True. But Virgin stop at Nuneaton at 6.18am, 6.30am, 7.07am and 7.33am. There must be a demand for that.

In the down direction London Midland run desiros first stopping at Nuneaton at 6.17am, 7.15am and 8.17am.

I think they would wish to operate to Euston early if possible since its worth operating in the down direction and I can't see anymore people wanting to travel from Trent Valley to Crewe at 6.17am than from Nuneaton to Euston at the same time.

 

[Geezertronic]

Perhaps instead of whinging, Virgin could make their prices more competitive to win over customers. That is, afterall, how the privatised model is supposed to work. Allegedly.

They probably would if there was a need to i.e. lack of passengers. But as the trains are usually close to full in the peaks, why should they really? It's a pain in the rear, but if prices in the peak were lowered, the lower prices would probably attract more passengers on already packed trains.

 

[Badger]

Is there any reason LM wouldn't be pushing for 125mph running? It seems logical to use as much as possible to open up paths and such. Why would they increase the speed of their trains but not to the maximum possible?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Is there any reason LM wouldn't be pushing for 125mph running? It seems logical to use as much as possible to open up paths and such. Why would they increase the speed of their trains but not to the maximum possible?

Lack of tilt. 110 is the max speed for non tilt stock on the WCML.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Lack of tilt. 110 is the max speed for non tilt stock on the WCML.

And you would need a fancy front end like a 390/221 to allow passengers in the front vehicle.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is there any reason LM wouldn't be pushing for 125mph running? It seems logical to use as much as possible to open up paths and such. Why would they increase the speed of their trains but not to the maximum possible?

Further to Jimmy's point the 350s might not be capable of 125mph. Most (if not all) rolling stock is built with 10% margin on the top speed, so stock that is limited to 100mph is in fact perfectly capable of 110mph, this is why LM are able to get 110mph out of their rolling stock easily but I would be surprised if they could get 125mph without negatively impacting maintenance.

 

[The Planner]

April 1st also means that Virgin schedules can be moved/tweaked as well...

 

[Nym]

And that no-one will beleive what's happening, a 2nd train to Liverpool... Never!

 

[34D]

Do we know whether the units going to FTPE (for Manchester-Carlisle-Scotland) will be 110mph cleared?

 

[Wath Yard]

True. But Virgin stop at Nuneaton at 6.18am, 6.30am, 7.07am and 7.33am. There must be a demand for that.

In the down direction London Midland run desiros first stopping at Nuneaton at 6.17am, 7.15am and 8.17am.

I think they would wish to operate to Euston early if possible since its worth operating in the down direction and I can't see anymore people wanting to travel from Trent Valley to Crewe at 6.17am than from Nuneaton to Euston at the same time.

So there are already services to London in the morning then. A few passengers getting onto a service from somewhere else that stops at Nuneaton does not mean there are enough people for additional LM services.

It is irrelevant whether a train calling at Nuneaton goes to Crewe at 06:17. It doesn't start at Nuneaton, Nuneaton is only one of many stops and the service is just part of a diagram that will see the unit return to London later in the morning.

 

[WatcherZero]

Further to Jimmy's point the 350s might not be capable of 125mph. Most (if not all) rolling stock is built with 10% margin on the top speed, so stock that is limited to 100mph is in fact perfectly capable of 110mph, this is why LM are able to get 110mph out of their rolling stock easily but I would be surprised if they could get 125mph without negatively impacting maintenance.

From whats been said they were pretty overengineered, capable of 125mph out of the box but lacking the crumple zones so limited to 100mph. The modifications to allow them to run at 110mph are mainly software. Remember the Pendolinos were built for 140mph!!

 

[tbtc]

And people wonder why there is mass disillusionment with the railways.

I wish there was some provision in the franchising agreements that above all else the companies were providing a SERVICE to the PUBLIC and not chasing profits by bullying other companies.

I'm not sure I can see what you are so outraged about here?

Because there's not a service from Nuneaton to Birmingham at five in the morning? Because Virgin charge peak fares at rush hour? Because TOCs concentrate on serving the markets that their passengers *want*?

Virgin seem to be coming in for a lot of unwarranted criticism on this thread.