New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[JaJaWa]

Now awarded to First and MTR. Original post below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ve-their-say-on-south-western-train-franchise

Passengers invited to have their say on South Western train franchise

From: Department for Transport and Claire Perry MP
First published: 12 November 2015
Part of: Rail franchising and Rail network

Responses to a consultation will shape plans for rail services between London and the south-west.

Train tracks on Isle of Wight

• major improvements planned to tackle overcrowding and provide better, more convenient journeys
  
• responses from 12-week public consultation will shape government’s plans for rail services between London and the south-west

Rail passengers in parts of the south-west and south-east can have their say over the future of their rail services by taking part in a government consultation launched today (12 November 2015).

Passengers, businesses and local councils are being asked for their views on how the next South Western franchise — which serves parts of Berkshire, Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, Surrey, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight — can deliver the rail services that people want.

Major improvements to tackle overcrowding, boost punctuality and deliver better journeys are planned during the next franchise, which is due to start in 2017 when the current South West Trains contract comes to an end. Around 14% of all passenger journeys in the UK are made on the South Western network.

Rail Minister Claire Perry said:

• "We are determined to make journeys better for the growing number of customers who use these services, and this consultation will ensure passengers are at the heart of this process."
  
• "It is really important that people tell us what they think so we can take their views into account as we develop our plans, and ensure we deliver the improvements that passengers rightly deserve."

The consultation sets out the expected improvements for the next franchise, including the completion of planned major work at London Waterloo to lengthen platforms 1 to 4 and bring the former international platforms back into use, allowing for longer trains and more space. From 2017, a new fleet of 30 five-car trains is also planned to tackle overcrowding, in addition to the 108 extra carriages being introduced during the current franchise as part of a £65 million government scheme.

It also asks for passengers’ views on a range of other improvements including how the next operator can:

• improve journey times and punctuality, with new financial penalties for delays and cancellations
  
• significantly increase the take-up of smart ticketing, providing passengers with more convenient and smoother journeys
  
• take steps to improve customer service and compensation arrangements for passengers
  
• improve facilities for customers on board trains and at stations
  
• ensure that free Wi-Fi is provided across the network
  
• work more closely with TfL and Network Rail for the benefit of passengers

The next operator will be required to work with the council, community and stakeholders to develop plans to turn the Island Line, which serves the Isle of Wight, into a separate and self-sustaining business during the life of the next franchise. This will help deliver the services that local people need, while putting the line on a more sustainable footing for the future and reducing costs.

The work of the Peninsula Rail Task Force — which is looking at improving the long-term resilience of the rail network in Devon and Cornwall — will also be taken into account as the government develops its plans for the franchise.

The 12-week consultation closes on 9 February 2016 and is available on GOV.UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have wondered if it would make sense to talk to Southern Vectis about taking it on. It can't help its case that they compete with it.

As for self-sustaining - no chance - it will always require subsidy. If that is the requirement, the closure notices might as well be posted today.

 

[DarloRich]

I have wondered if it would make sense to talk to Southern Vectis about taking it on. It can't help its case that they compete with it.

As for self-sustaining - no chance - it will always require subsidy. If that is the requirement, the closure notices might as well be posted today.

would stagecoach be happy about one of their main competitor, Go Ahead (nee Southern Vectis) taking the line over?

 

[Bletchleyite]

would stagecoach be happy about one of their main competitor, Go Ahead (nee Southern Vectis) taking the line over?

As this relates to the next franchise, it may not even be Stagecoach who get it.

 

[swt_passenger]

would stagecoach be happy about one of their main competitor, Go Ahead (nee Southern Vectis) taking the line over?

Given that the line is a financial basket case, I think they'd give it to anyone tomorrow, never mind in 2017...

 

[WatcherZero]

Reading through the consultation.

90% of passengers are carried by a service starting or ending in London.
However London passengers dont generate much revenue with only 1 journey wholly within London breaking the top 25 journeys by revenue for the franchise.
Deal where the franchise and network rail are 50/50 responsible for Island line maintenece (line is leased rather than subject to an access agreement) expires in 2019.
To tackle overcrowding government encourage swapping existing stock for trains with more standing capacity and less first class.
Government wants next franchisee to examine ways of balancing load through either varying ticket prices or introducing more expresses which set off later but arrive at the same time, or set off at the same time but arrive earlier.
Government wants to devolve operational and timetable decisions to the franchise, after meeting basic standards the franchisee would be free to make timetable changes without seeking permission. Skip stop services will be allowed.
Deep alliance with network rail will be required but lighter than one already tried.
Isle of wight council to lead iniative to make line self sustaining by end of the franchise.
Coming to an agreement to introduce swanage wareham services will be encouraged as well as station calls at cranbrook.
Smartcard ticketing ecouraged to be brought in, pretty standard ticketing policies.
Increase in facilities for staff training and skills required.

 

[swt_passenger]

Coming to an agreement to introduce swanage wareham services will be encouraged as well as station calls at cranbrook.

I don't think that section is really about 'calling' at Cranbrook, just pointing out that the local council directly support the costs of the actual station.

As it will be a normal call in the December timetable and should have been a normal call for the last few timetables if it had been finished on time, why would there be any possibility of not stopping in a couple of years time?

 

[WatcherZero]

Indeed, calling at Cranbook is a 3rd party deal they are expected to sign. So ongoing local subsidy?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Improve the journey times from:

London - Portsmouth via Guildford (they're currently a sham), I can drive from there to Portsmouth quicker than their so called fast trains courtesy of the Hindhead tunnel.

London - Weymouth, now slower than in steam days and in the days where you used to have to uncouple the REP unit and couple the 33/1 to the TC.

London - Exeter, again slower than the 80's and it's loco hauled stock, which was more spacious and comfortable than the 159's and you could open the windows too for fresh air.

London - Guildford via Cobham, they just ridiculously slow now, they've gone from 54 to 59' or more and it's sometimes quicker for residents to go to Guildford & up, than direct.

London - Woking (Bay)/Guildford, the same applies to these as they do the Cobham line, with the exception that you can change at Surbiton and get there quicker.

London - Basingstoke/Alton, seriously slower, it was quicker when they used to combine & divide at Woking.

The timetable is now in such a precarious state that it collapses at the slightest knock, you only need to look at how bad it gets with a signal failure or even a fatality, sometimes it doesn't really get back to normal until half way through the next day!

Things need to be slimmed down, given better spacing and if that means some services get the axe so be it, if it means providing a far more stable and higher quality service on which people can rely on, then that's got to be the way to go.

It's all well & good putting a timetable as it is today, together, but it just doesn't run well at anytime, apart from when the kids are away on holidays, it seems to be the typical bus company strategy of quantity over quality, style over substance.

Sorry. No! People pay a small darn fortune for a service and as it stands currently, the SW franchise isn't doing it, it's just not cutting the mustard at the moment.

And TBQH, the SW franchise should also include the Reading - Redhill - Gatwick line & Reading - Basingstoke line.

I say the former, because it used to be run by the SW division in the past and ~80% of it runs through the SWT franchise territory and it would eliminate a TOC on TOC delay interface.

And I say the secondary one, because if it's to become part of the electric spine then adding to the SWT franchise will make more sense, as it will release the 150/165/166s on it for use in the Bristol/Exeter & Plymouth areas.

 

[The Ham]

Improve the journey times from:

London - Portsmouth via Guildford (they're currently a sham), I can drive from there to Portsmouth quicker than their so called fast trains courtesy of the Hindhead tunnel.

London - Weymouth, now slower than in steam days and in the days where you used to have to uncouple the REP unit and couple the 33/1 to the TC.

London - Exeter, again slower than the 80's and it's loco hauled stock, which was more spacious and comfortable than the 159's and you could open the windows too for fresh air.

London - Guildford via Cobham, they just ridiculously slow now, they've gone from 54 to 59' or more and it's sometimes quicker for residents to go to Guildford & up, than direct.

London - Woking (Bay)/Guildford, the same applies to these as they do the Cobham line, with the exception that you can change at Surbiton and get there quicker.

London - Basingstoke/Alton, seriously slower, it was quicker when they used to combine & divide at Woking.

The timetable is now in such a precarious state that it collapses at the slightest knock, you only need to look at how bad it gets with a signal failure or even a fatality, sometimes it doesn't really get back to normal until half way through the next day!

Things need to be slimmed down, given better spacing and if that means some services get the axe so be it, if it means providing a far more stable and higher quality service on which people can rely on, then that's got to be the way to go.

It's all well & good putting a timetable as it is today, together, but it just doesn't run well at anytime, apart from when the kids are away on holidays, it seems to be the typical bus company strategy of quantity over quality, style over substance.

Sorry. No! People pay a small darn fortune for a service and as it stands currently, the SW franchise isn't doing it, it's just not cutting the mustard at the moment.

And TBQH, the SW franchise should also include the Reading - Redhill - Gatwick line & Reading - Basingstoke line.

I say the former, because it used to be run by the SW division in the past and ~80% of it runs through the SWT franchise territory and it would eliminate a TOC on TOC delay interface.

And I say the secondary one, because if it's to become part of the electric spine then adding to the SWT franchise will make more sense, as it will release the 150/165/166s on it for use in the Bristol/Exeter & Plymouth areas.

Which trains do you cut to provide better journey times? Personally (and a lot of people would agree) you can't reduce the number of trains without causing capacity problems in the off peak and don't even suggest that they cut services during the peaks!

Yes journey times are not as fast as the could be if the lines were nearly empty, however be careful in comparing an half hour or even hourly frequency with a train service which although was faster was less frequent and/or only applied to two or three journeys a day.

I would like to know if you are talking about driving in the peaks or off peaks ? As I would say that driving Basingstoke to Exeter is about two and half hours as is taking the SWT's service. Likewise Portsmouth to Waterloo is broadly one and half hours driving (ZERO traffic) or going by train.

 

[Chris125]

As per normal for the Island, the whole Island Line situation is a ridiculous political farce engineered by one MP and his 'transport adviser' who don't realise the ramifications of their actions.

I've quoted a few highlights below, but you'll need to read the following article by Phil Marsh to appreciate what's really going on:

Small line, big questions and varying political proposals lead to Island Line closure fears

Leases and the future

The existing arrangement for Island Line is that the infrastructure was leased by Railtrack in 1994 to the franchisee who
in turn is responsible for maintenance. This lease expires in 2019 but the South Western franchise, currently held by
Stagecoach, expires two years earlier following the collapse of the Wessex Alliance earlier this year.

Following the FOI requests, it emerged that the threat to the future of the service first emerged in May 2014 at a meeting
between Stagecoach Southwest Trains (SST) and Andrew Turner MP when, according to the latter, the train operator
said that a sustainable long-term strategy was needed before any further investment could be contemplated.

According to the MP, SWT pointed out that it would be easier to close Island Line and replace it with bus services, but
they recognised that the Council wanted to keep it running. Why the MP did not at the time tell his constituents about
this threat has not been explained.

Renaissance Trains report suggests improvements are needed to the best rail route in the UK

Following the May 2014 meeting, Renaissance Trains compiled a ‘pro bono’ report entitled ‘IOW Railway Social Enterprise
Partnership Business Case’ which was written for the MP’s office. The very first sentence talks of “a transformation
of the Island Line Railway from one of low ambition and poor quality operating largely in isolation”…..

The following paragraph states…… “the creation of a Social Enterprise Partnership can unlock greater potential
for inward heritage tourism”…..

The report claims in one paragraph that buses compete with trains, while in another section, says that buses take
37 minutes against a 22 minute journey time by rail! The report also suggests that a review of what can
be done to improve workforce productivity should be carried out. Given that Island Line is vertically integrated and
staff undertake different roles, it is not at all clear what improvements could be made.

The report goes onto argues against itself saying that the operational fleet seems to be relatively reliable but
that more fleet reliability data is required. It estimates that £10million needs to be spent on Ryde tunnel to return
it to a normal gauge, the trackbed having been raised 10 inches in 1967 to reduce flooding of the then newly
electrified railway. A review of signalling strategy is also called for to improve capacity and to improve operational
efficiencies.

To know the past is to know the future

As a result of Network Rail saying that the signalling was life-expired, it was proposed in 2007 that the passing loop
at Sandown should be moved to Brading while the Olympics were underway in July 2012. This would enable a
regular 30-minute interval service to be operated using a single line for the whole route. This would have allowed
the Smallbrook Junction to Ryde St Johns section to be operated as a separate line running parallel to, but
not connected to Island Line, by the Isle of Wight Steam Railway (IOWSR).

Volunteers borrowed from IOWSR proposal?

Amazingly to Islanders, the report suggests that the IOWSR volunteers could be enlisted to run Island Line to
cheapen operating costs. It was also suggested that steam services should operate to Shanklin made easier
by installing a triangle at Smallbrook and that the reconstruction of a Ryde Pier Tram at Havenstreet could be
used along the second track on Ryde Pier.

Aside from the logistical problems of having enough manpower to undertake such a task, it needs to be questioned
as to why volunteers would want to operate a service 17 hours a day, 364 days a year. The report does not
investigate this area or compare the IOWSR services which operate on around 195 days a year for an
eight hour period, giving a significant difference in operations.

Island Line carries over 1.4 million passengers a year while the IOWSR, in the top division of preserved railways,
carries under 10% of that figure and is run by a professional team of around 25 people plus 350 volunteers.

This is not the only unusual proposal in the report however, as it is also suggested that solar panels could be
installed alongside the line between Ryde and Shanklin!

The view from the Isle of Wight Steam Railway

IOWSR General Manager Peter Vail said that over recent months the Railway has been working hard to convey
the message that it is keen to seek the opportunity to extend the line to Ryde St Johns, operating alongside
Island Line, but he adds that when a community partnership opportunity was raised by the local MP, “we firmly
stated we will not be in a position to consider running Island Line.”

Mr Vail added that the view of the IOWSR is that the only solution to give Island Line a future is to stay in the
franchise, however, if for whatever reason Island Line ceased, then the heritage railway would seek to extend
its line to Ryde Esplanade, while suggesting that the track bed to Shanklin is protected for a future opportunities.

Social Enterprise and locally operated lines

Mr Turner and his advisors continue to advocate Island Line being operated by a Social enterprise Company (SeC)
and are seemingly ignoring or unaware of what happened to Ealing Community Transport (ECT), a SeC.
They purchased the Dartmoor and Weardale Railways from PWC administrators in 2006 but the
operations didn’t last long. Under a year after the experiment started, staff were laid off and the community-run
local railway branchline experiment ended. It must be remembered that ECT also owned and operated a successful
locomotive renovation works in Wakefield suppling industrial railways at that time.

The organisation said, in a press statement on 28th February 2007, that: “ECT Group has recently reviewed the
performance of its rail business and as a result decided to significantly reduce the capacity of the workshop
and withdraw from main line operations, to maintain the viability of our rail division.”

Redundancies were announced and train operations ceased, this therefore raises the question about who would
the operator of ‘last resort’ be if a non-profit company ran any full-time commercial railway. There is a precedent
for such a query, when National Express handed the East Coast Main Line franchise back to the Government part
way through the franchise as a result of financial pressures, it was the ‘last resort’ operator, in this case Directly
Operated Railways who stepped in to continue operations until such time as the franchise could be relet.

Regulatory surprise

Given that safety regulation on Britain’s railways is handled by the Office of Rail and Road, it was therefore somewhat
surprising to be told by the ORR: “We haven't been involved in any discussions so far about possible models
for the island line.”

Andrew Turner writes a monthly column in the IOW Beacon, a free local magazine, and in the August edition he
signed off by stating: “Of course we will need the Government’s support both to help provide the expertise and to support
us with grants; but rather than those grants going to South West Trains, we may even be able to get them paid directly
to the community here on the Island. The Government stands ready to discuss this opportunity with the IOW Council.”

Yet the South West Trains franchise is one of the few franchises which does not receive a subsidy and has been
profitable since Network South East days. So it is incorrect to refer to grants going to South West Trains. It receives
no public funding, even for the operation of Island Line.

What does the local pressure group say?

Speaking in response to the DfT statement on 11th September statement, KILF Steering Group member David Pugh
said: “We welcome the Government’s proposal that Network Rail should take on the full cost of maintaining the line’s
infrastructure, including the track, pier and stations. This would be a hugely positive step forward, putting Island Line
on an equitable footing with the rest of the rail network, and in doing so resolving the unique anomaly of this
burden sitting with the franchisee. "

He added: “However while the DfT see this as a stepping stone to exploring alternative operational models, we
consider that such a regularisation of maintenance arrangements strengthens the case for Island Line remaining as
a full, integral part of a regional franchise. Such a change would mean that Island Line can be treated the same
as other small rural routes in the franchise area, benefitting from the support of a wider operation.”

The DfT has said that public consultation on the South Western franchise, including Island Line will commence later
this year. The proposals made by the IOW MP could lead to the UK’s most reliable branch line leaving the franchise
system in April 2017 (or sometime soon afterwards) without the protection and economics of scale that this affords,
and instead to be run locally. If this happens, it is logical to speculate which lines may follow such a model and
potentially be put at risk of closure if losses prove too much to stem once cast away from ‘the system’ of a wider franchise.

 

[miami]

I would like to know if you are talking about driving in the peaks or off peaks ? As I would say that driving Basingstoke to Exeter is about two and half hours as is taking the SWT's service.

Google reckons (departing at 1800), 2h30. 2h07 on the train via Reading.

Of course with driving you're going door-to-door and leaving when you want. With trains you're going somewhere else-to-somewhere else and leaving when they want, so door-to-door you have to add a good 30-45 minutes to the trip for getting to the station, buying a ticket, and then getting from the station to your destination. Then there's the wait for (in the case of basingstoke) an average 17 minutes to get a train (departures at xx07 and xx49). You're looking at 3h30 on the train vs 2h30 by car.

SWT can never hope to compete on time.


P.S. any franchise that doesn't include Penzance can not by classed as "South West"

 

[HarleyDavidson]

No, it can't now, but just remember that the route from Exeter until some muppet in BR decided to single substantial sections of it back in the 60's & 70's, was the fastest route to London.

It could still be if they redoubled the sections from Wilton - Templecombe & Yeovil - Axminster - Honiton - Exmouth Jn (existing loops excl.).

However I doubt they'd allow it to happen as it would detract from GWML via Taunton and political dogma.

 

[aylesbury]

This is an example of someone who knows nothing of the subject only being involved for selfish reasons .The Island Line is an important transport link and seeing the congestion alongside the route on the roads it will stay in operation.The question of rolling stock will have to be addressed as the current stock is definitely worn out and replacements are very limited due to loading gauge requirements.Evidently the floors on the tube stock are weak but the mechanicals are okay the workshops at St Johns Rd are brilliant and have a dedicated staff who work miracles.This all about connectivity and choice of means of transport which is enshrined in the DFT rules.

 

[miami]

Would the line be suitable for tramification?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would the line be suitable for tramification?

Is that even a real word?

Wasn't the Island Line future discussed at length only a few weeks ago?

26 pages of it here, in August: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=119149

Do we really want to do it all over again...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is that even a real word? .

I think that an etymological research would show the noun "tram" and the suffix "(i)cation" being the nearest to the make-up of this word.

Another similar but less convoluted example, having then an internal contraction, more used on this website, is that of "bustitution"...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wasn't the Island Line future discussed at length only a few weeks ago? 26 pages of it here, in August: ttp://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=119149

Do we really want to do it all over again...

I remember that thread as it was only yesterday and where I was seen by some to be acting as a consultant for Southern Vectis. Indeed, after that enjoyable thread, my inner self felt greatly invigorated...

 

[miami]

Is that even a real word?

Wasn't the Island Line future discussed at length only a few weeks ago?

26 pages of it here, in August: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=119149

Do we really want to do it all over again...

Certainly not, thanks for the link I will read with excitement in between waiting for various snmp and nmap probes to run

 

[The Ham]

There are a couple of local groups who would like to see changes to SWT's services. These include:

- Faster journey times between Camberley (as well as Frimley) and London
- Direct service between Farnham and Guildford

The latter could be fairly easy to achieve if it wasn't for the fact that the level crossing at Farnham would be down a lot. Although to reduce the impact (in that it would only need to be closed when a train was approaching) a third platform could be considered on the north side of the level crossing.

Trains could then be timed to arrive at platform 3 just as the London bound train was leaving the existing station (about 3 minutes after the Alton service has traveled south) meaning no extra barrier down time as it wouldn't have to cross the level crossing on it's way out. A 4 coach platform would probably suffice for quite some time.

It would require splitting of the Ascot - Guildford service at Aldershot and the need for an extra unit. Although it is likely to result in more passengers using the service than would be put off by the need to change trains. Especially given that the current service stops at Aldershot for about 14 minutes.

The faster journey times to London from Camberley is a more difficult one. However, one possible one (which also overcomes the lack of lifts at Ash Vale and Ascot) would be to build a grade separated junction at Frimley Green to allow trains to run between Farnborough and Frimley.

In doing so the service could then run Ascot to Basingstoke (which would mean local services between Basingstoke and Farnborough weren't disrupted by events beyond the local area) although combined with the change to the Guildford end of the current service could see people needing to change twice (Frimley and Aldershot) to travel longer distances on this route.

By doing both at once it would still potentially also only require one extra unit.

The cost of and disruption caused by building the junction could be kept down by utilising the existing bridge under the SWML before looping around and up to join the SWML for north to west services and by utilising the closed chord which previously allowed for west to north services.

It would also give passengers heading to Ascot though Basingstoke the option of going via Farnborough rather than via Reading potentially with little in the way of time penalty (depending on arrival and departure times at Basingstoke), likewise there could be other journeys which could see be an alternative route with similar (read up to 10 minutes slower or faster) than the current options (such as Woking - Bracknell), which may increase passenger numbers by providing people with the option of more services between places (people will take a train which is 10 minutes slower if it still gets them home 10 minutes sooner than waiting 20 minutes for the next train).

Another benefit could include it providing a diversionary route around Woking, either for freight or for trains otherwise affected by engineering works, this could be very useful during the construction works for the works at Woking to remove the flat junction for Portsmouth to London services.

Finally by providing a local service between Basingstoke and Ascot it could provide the possibility of extra stations at locations like Southwood and to the west of Fleet where there have been a lot of houses built in the last 30 years and who currently drive to stations. It also would provide extra capacity for future developments (including the possible new town at Winchfield) by . Although it would increase the pressure for more services to serve Farnborough Main as more passengers would be wanting to change there*.

*out of interest although Farnborough Main has about half the passengers and half services to London as Basingstoke it doesn't have the range of other destinations (i.e. most people heading south or west from Farnborough would either need to or be better off changing at Basingstoke ). In addition it also doesn't have the the Cross Country services and nor does it have the local services to Reading. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised when there is space for another service between Basingstoke and London that it would also call at Farnborough Main.

 

[fandroid]

There are a lot of serious restraints on what can be done to improve the SWT franchise. Speeds are worse on long-distance routes all over GB, due to big capacity increases and taking smaller intermediate destinations seriously. You could speed up the SW mainline south of Woking, but probably only by converting to AC overhead, with all the fun, games and money that would involve.

The Eastleigh to Portsmouth route could do with big cut in overall time
, but again that's only possible with big infrastructure spend.

Southampton station is still a dump, but is that the franchise's fault?

Even taking over linked routes, like Reading-Gatwick means taking on strange diesels or even hybrids, and then finding some place to maintain them. A few tweaks are possible, but that's true even with the current franchise (e.g. serving Yeovil Pen Mill and Westbury). The big thing would be to hand over the inner London services to TfL before Crossrail 2 turns up, so the transition to Crossrail 2 would nearly all be in the hands of a publicly funded outfit rather than cause big franchise contract headaches.

As for the Island Line, everything that could be said has been said in that previous thread, including much that only belongs in Dreamland.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hopefully people will take into account the detailed analyses and future service patterns in the Wessex route strategy; there's little point in proposing things in a consultation that are known to be impossible.

And as you say, things like Southampton Station capacity are already addressed in Network Rail's plans anyway, and are little to do with the TOC.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

There are a lot of serious restraints on what can be done to improve the SWT franchise. Speeds are worse on long-distance routes all over GB, due to big capacity increases and taking smaller intermediate destinations seriously. You could speed up the SW mainline south of Woking, but probably only by converting to AC overhead, with all the fun, games and money that would involve.

The Eastleigh to Portsmouth route could do with big cut in overall time
, but again that's only possible with big infrastructure spend.

Southampton station is still a dump, but is that the franchise's fault?

Even taking over linked routes, like Reading-Gatwick means taking on strange diesels or even hybrids, and then finding some place to maintain them. A few tweaks are possible, but that's true even with the current franchise (e.g. serving Yeovil Pen Mill and Westbury). The big thing would be to hand over the inner London services to TfL before Crossrail 2 turns up, so the transition to Crossrail 2 would nearly all be in the hands of a publicly funded outfit rather than cause big franchise contract headaches.

As for the Island Line, everything that could be said has been said in that previous thread, including much that only belongs in Dreamland.

Taking on Reading - Gatwick means that you stop wasting diesels on stupid little capacity eating (blocking) trips and using them on something more purposeful instead.

Alternatively you could always keep some of those 442s, couple a 73/9 to the rear or front of it, you can then use the electric motors on the electrified bits and use the 73/9 on the non-electrified bits. Simples! And of course it releases the 165/166s for use in the Bristol/Cardiff/Exeter corridors and the 442s would provide the extra coaches for the required capacity on that line during the holiday & peak periods.

 

[The Ham]

Taking on Reading - Gatwick means that you stop wasting diesels on stupid little capacity eating (blocking) trips and using them on something more purposeful instead.

Alternatively you could always keep some of those 442s, couple a 73/9 to the rear or front of it, you can then use the electric motors on the electrified bits and use the 73/9 on the non-electrified bits. Simples! And of course it releases the 165/166s for use in the Bristol/Cardiff/Exeter corridors and the 442s would provide the extra coaches for the required capacity on that line during the holiday & peak periods.

...other than there are a lot of stations which can only take 3x23m coaches, so you'd have to either lengthen them or put in (A)SDO to an old train (even if you took out the motor coach).

 

[HarleyDavidson]

...other than there are a lot of stations which can only take 3x23m coaches, so you'd have to either lengthen them or put in (A)SDO to an old train (even if you took out the motor coach).

Well they extended the platforms elsewhere with GRP extensions, cheap, relatively quick & easy to do. Far cheaper than doing DOO-P equipment installation which will cost millions!

 

[swt_passenger]

Taking on Reading - Gatwick means that you stop wasting diesels on stupid little capacity eating (blocking) trips and using them on something more purposeful instead.

Only if the transfer happens to coincide with an electrification project that doesn't seem at all likely.

Without electrification you'd just end up with the same people TUPEd over, operating the same trains but wearing a different uniform. The NR signallers would make the same regulating decisions etc etc...

 

[Via Bank]

Taking on Reading-Gatwick seems very unlikely since GW are committed to testing the feasibility of IPEMU operation on this route.

 

[wastedlife]

Anyone else finding that the link to the Survey Monkey survey is in fact dead, and that emails to the address quoted are returned by the DfT postmaster?
Now 48 hours after the consultation period opened......:roll:

 

[The Ham]

Anyone else finding that the link to the Survey Monkey survey is in fact dead, and that emails to the address quoted are returned by the DfT postmaster?
Now 48 hours after the consultation period opened......:roll:

Yes, I found that too.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Once the GWR electrification is complete, how many miles of the Reading-Gatwick route will be un-electrified?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Well if you're good at working out the old fashioned miles & chains, it's from:

Wokingham junction to Aldershot South junction and Shalford junction to Reigate level crossing.

As I have said previously the notion of using a battery powered train over the line, is nuts due to the gradients and the nature of the line, it would only take a delay (of which there have been plenty just recently) on the non electrified section for it to get stuck with insufficient power to move.

It should either be diesel or electric, however the hybrid solution of attaching a diesel locomotive such as a 67 or 73/9 to a 442 so you can use the 750dc where it's available, then the diesel to haul or push on the non electrified sections.