New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[Wookiee]

Just making it three aspect would be pointless - at the moment it's in the configuration of stop signals with associated distants/repeaters/whatever they're called; that is, two lots of two aspect signals in close succession. Making the main signals three aspect would be pointless as there's enough space between a main signal and the next distant along that it doesn't matter what the speed is.

What does need to be done though is the blocks split into smaller blocks, basically allowing more trains on the same stretch of line. That way a late-running fast service put behind a stopper won't have to wait for the stopper to make three different station calls before it can progress into the block at all.

I guess what I meant was convert all of the two-aspects and repeaters to three-aspects, as this would give the shorter blocks.

 

[Olaf]

No staff was updated with the usual no news bar the 10 day standstill period has been completed and First Group/MTR continue to discuss with Stagecoach over the transition in August.

OK thanks. So the transition planning is continuing, but still no confirmation that the contract has been signed; -perhaps pending completion of discussions with Stagecoach?

 

[JaJaWa]

read through a email going around the LSWR logo was indeed a fake to quote however nice it was, looks like it might be sometime before we hear anything concrete, i wonder if stagecoach will be more firm on removal of branding network wide as is swt is very stagecoach, do they have to do it or first?

Wouldn't mind a copy of anything about the logo I made via PM.

Never heard of an outgoing TOC having to neutralise station colour schemes, or handrails, station canopies etc.

There's a difference between 'branding' and a house colour scheme.

At least most of the station name boards are already neutral dark blue. (That was recommended to become a national scheme at one time, IIRC.)

I think they have to get rid of any designs that they don't want the next franchisee to get control of.

 

[infobleep]

I appreciate that more fast trains can't stop at Clapham Junction but what is the chances of First / MTR changing the ones that do, to be different services?

Would there be any advantage to switching any of the services that stop at Clapham Junction?

I thought about one they could switch but in switching it, it would just move the gap between services to another part of the hour. So no great benefit. Would only work if they didn't have a clock face timetable but that wouldn't help others travelling to or from other stations.

The service in question was the 46 minutes past from Surbtion. There is a 15 minute gap between 11 mins past and 26 mins past services. However if the 46 was moved to 16, it would just shift the 15 minute gap to 41 to 56. No benefit.

The 17 mins and 47 mins past services from Guildford don't stop at Clapham Junction but changing at Woking doesn't provide any time advantages because the next connecting train that stops at Clapham Junction is a service from Guildford. However could they even rejig the timetable to provide a connection at Woking. Possibly not.

 

[Dougal2345]

Just a bit of 'blue sky' thinking here, but it's always seemed odd to me that on an electrified line, the only fast service between Southampton and Portsmouth is a grotty and often crowded three-car DMU.

Wouldn't it be an idea to truncate the Cardiff-Portsmouth service to Cardiff-Southampton, and use the fast path freed up by that for the Weymouth-Portsmouth service...?

It's just my impression, but there never seem to be that many passengers who stay on through Southampton anyway - it normally empties out then refills again.

And I suspect those who are travelling from Cardiff to Portsmouth would welcome swapping to a smart EMU for the last leg of their journey, giving their hearing a chance to recover, get the fumes out of their lungs and the circulation back in their legs....

 

[TEW]

I'm sure the last thing anyone making a Cardiff to Portsmouth journey would appreciate is having the stress of changing trains at Southampton. And I don't think many people would consider a 450 an upgrade on a 158, apart from in capacity.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just a bit of 'blue sky' thinking here, but it's always seemed odd to me that on an electrified line, the only fast service between Southampton and Portsmouth is a grotty and often crowded three-car DMU.

Wouldn't it be an idea to truncate the Cardiff-Portsmouth service to Cardiff-Southampton, and use the fast path freed up by that for the Weymouth-Portsmouth service...?

There are two things being added, one of which is an additional fast Portsmouth to Southampton service. The other is an extension through to Weymouth, but we are only making an assumption (albeit fairly logical) that it will be the stopper that gets extended to Weymouth, it could go either way, but I suspect we won't know for sure until they publish something.

At the same time, GWR are already intending to replace their grotty 158s with longer trains (5 car Turbos maybe) and that may also happen around 2018 anyway?

My personal view is that a fast "SW" path via Netley will be available, as long as it runs ahead of the existing flight of three fast trains operated by SN ex Victoria, GWR and SN ex Brighton.

I don't think they will therefore need to cut back the GWR service. A fast "SW" running maybe 15 mins ahead of it from Portsmouth ought to make space on the "GWR" units for people who really do want to go to Bristol and Cardiff etc.

What no-one has mentioned so far is if there might be problems squeezing in the odd GW Brighton service that runs a couple of times per day westbound (and once eastbound) in addition to the normal 4 trains on the Netley line...

 

[70014IronDuke]

London - Basingstoke - Winchester - Southampton was the LSWR's original main line. Over the years the line to Exeter gradually assumed more and more importance, but when express services to Exeter and places further West were concentrated on the Western Region route and regular expresses were withdrawn from the line to Exeter Central (1967 ??) the Southern Region told its staff "This [i.e. the line to Southampton] is our main line now".

Sept 1964 was when the LSW service was downgraded to a 2 hourly semi-fast service to Exeter St Davids - hauled by rather unreliable Swindon-built Warships. (though at least these were more reliable than the Glasgow-built lot).

Interestingly, IIRC the Exeter/Salisbury trains kept what is traditionally the "prime-time" on-the-hour departure slots out of Waterloo in the immediate years after this downgrade. Perhaps that was changed in 1967, with the full electrification of the Bournemouth route.

 

[30907]

Interestingly, IIRC the Exeter/Salisbury trains kept what is traditionally the "prime-time" on-the-hour departure slots out of Waterloo in the immediate years after this downgrade. Perhaps that was changed in 1967, with the full electrification of the Bournemouth route.

It was, to xx10 initially, then xx08, which kept the times at Salisbury much the same to maintain the connection ex Portsmouth.

 

[HH]

OK thanks. So the transition planning is continuing, but still no confirmation that the contract has been signed; -perhaps pending completion of discussions with Stagecoach?

No, pending discussions over a later start to the franchise than was bid.

 

[Olaf]

No, pending discussions over a later start to the franchise than was bid.

Ahh. Thanks.

 

[Suraggu]

No, pending discussions over a later start to the franchise than was bid.

That has been kept underwraps rather well then. Usually something gets leaked by the media in one form or another.

 

[Malcolmffc]

That has been kept underwraps rather well then. Usually something gets leaked by the media in one form or another.

Makes sense. Having the franchise handover during the Waterloo blockade was always an insane idea

 

[Goldfish62]

Makes sense. Having the franchise handover during the Waterloo blockade was always an insane idea

So as usual the rail industry is left with dealing with the mess left by the DfT.

 

[infobleep]

There are two things being added, one of which is an additional fast Portsmouth to Southampton service. The other is an extension through to Weymouth, but we are only making an assumption (albeit fairly logical) that it will be the stopper that gets extended to Weymouth, it could go either way, but I suspect we won't know for sure until they publish something.

At the same time, GWR are already intending to replace their grotty 158s with longer trains (5 car Turbos maybe) and that may also happen around 2018 anyway?

My personal view is that a fast "SW" path via Netley will be available, as long as it runs ahead of the existing flight of three fast trains operated by SN ex Victoria, GWR and SN ex Brighton.

I don't think they will therefore need to cut back the GWR service. A fast "SW" running maybe 15 mins ahead of it from Portsmouth ought to make space on the "GWR" units for people who really do want to go to Bristol and Cardiff etc.

What no-one has mentioned so far is if there might be problems squeezing in the odd GW Brighton service that runs a couple of times per day westbound (and once eastbound) in addition to the normal 4 trains on the Netley line...

Surely when the Brighton service needs to run, drop the First /MTR service so it doesn't run.

 

[infobleep]

Makes sense. Having the franchise handover during the Waterloo blockade was always an insane idea

I think First told investors that the ockaged wouldn't be an issue as it was well underway by then. Perhaps they have had a change of view after changing to South West Trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely when the Brighton service needs to run, drop the First /MTR service so it doesn't run.

That worked back when SWT ran to Brighton, their Basingstoke (or Reading )to Brighton service had gaps in it when FGW ran through, and SWT terminated or started back from Fareham bay P2.

But nowadays with Southern running an hourly Southampton - Brighton service the GWR never really "needs to run".

It is a waste of a DMU diagram per day that could be used in the GWR normal area. And even though it runs so rarely, i.e. once per day eastbound through Southampton, if you cancelled that hour's "SW" service eastbound from Southampton, then the "SW" unit would not be available for its next westbound run out of Portsmouth.

The Brighton GWR just gets in the way of the normal Coastway timetable whenever it happens to run.

 

[infobleep]

That worked back when SWT ran to Brighton, their Basingstoke (or Reading )to Brighton service had gaps in it when FGW ran through, and SWT terminated or started back from Fareham bay P2.

But nowadays with Southern running an hourly Southampton - Brighton service the GWR never really "needs to run".

It is a waste of a DMU diagram per day that could be used in the GWR normal area. And even though it runs so rarely, i.e. once per day eastbound through Southampton, if you cancelled that hour's "SW" service eastbound from Southampton, then the "SW" unit would not be available for its next westbound run out of Portsmouth.

The Brighton GWR just gets in the way of the normal Coastway timetable whenever it happens to run.

South West Trains could just be terminated or startrd from the Fareham Bay platform 2 then.

 

[swt_passenger]

South West Trains could just be terminated or startrd from the Fareham Bay platform 2 then.

No they couldn't, because in my explanation of how it used to work the SWT service was coming into Fareham from the Eastleigh direction, and there was no overlap with the FGW service from Southampton.

In my future scenario, both services are competing for the same tracks between Southampton and Fareham, although it remains hypothetical anyway, as we don't know where the new SW service will be positioned on the clock face. Although I raised it as a potential problem, it may not be, so we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Fincra5]

That worked back when SWT ran to Brighton, their Basingstoke (or Reading )to Brighton service had gaps in it when FGW ran through, and SWT terminated or started back from Fareham bay P2.

But nowadays with Southern running an hourly Southampton - Brighton service the GWR never really "needs to run".

It is a waste of a DMU diagram per day that could be used in the GWR normal area. And even though it runs so rarely, i.e. once per day eastbound through Southampton, if you cancelled that hour's "SW" service eastbound from Southampton, then the "SW" unit would not be available for its next westbound run out of Portsmouth.

The Brighton GWR just gets in the way of the normal Coastway timetable whenever it happens to run.

The GWR services from Brighton are actually very popular and usually mostly full. I've used it a few times to the west country.

 

[swt_passenger]

The GWR services from Brighton are actually very popular and usually mostly full. I've used it a few times to the west country.

I'm sure you're right, but it still doesn't make really make it an essential service. If it didn't run, I'm sure the passengers could be spread around the rest of the day's Southern services, changing onto the GWR Portsmouth - Cardiff at Fareham or Southampton.

I think we should be discouraging long runs by DMUs in the third rail area, it isn't as though Southern are that short of rolling stock compared to the situation around Bristol and Exeter...

 

[HH]

Makes sense. Having the franchise handover during the Waterloo blockade was always an insane idea

Wait till you hear the new date...

 

[HH]

At the same time, GWR are already intending to replace their grotty 158s with longer trains (5 car Turbos maybe) and that may also happen around 2018 anyway?

Think what is due to be freed up by IEPs shortly...

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the Class 707s that are yet to enter service, am I right in that I've read somewhere that once introduced into service, they will be withdrawn after a few years as they are deemed unsuitable?

No wonder the country is in the state it's in these days.

 

[HH]

Regarding the Class 707s that are yet to enter service, am I right in that I've read somewhere that once introduced into service, they will be withdrawn after a few years as they are deemed unsuitable?

No wonder the country is in the state it's in these days.

We've been through this several times already. Put your faux rage back in its cage and read back a few pages.

 

[3141]

Wait till you hear the new date...

That suggests

1) well after the blockade;
2) before it;
3) still within it - perhaps on the very first day.

Nothing seems impossible!

 

[TEW]

Think what is due to be freed up by IEPs shortly...

HSTs are for Penzance-Plymouth-Exeter and perhaps onwards towards Bristol and Cardiff occasionally too. Portsmouth-Cardiff looks to be keeping 158s for now.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

HSTs are for Penzance-Plymouth-Exeter and perhaps onwards towards Bristol and Cardiff occasionally too. Portsmouth-Cardiff looks to be keeping 158s for now.

Unless they re-engineer the bridges on the Netley road, the chances of getting an HST-GTi to Portsmouth are very negligible indeed.

HSTs are banned from the Netley road, the only way HST-GTi could reach Portsmouth from Cardiff/Swansea is via Chandlers Ford & Eastleigh or Southampton Airport & a reversal at Eastleigh and thence a trip via Botley.

The only time(s) a full length HST has reached Portsmouth (other than with VXC) is when Portsmouth played Swansea and FGW laid on a Footex which ran via Chandlers Ford & Eastleigh to avoid a reversal.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Unless they re-engineer the bridges on the Netley road, the chances of getting an HST-GTi to Portsmouth are very negligible indeed.

HSTs are banned from the Netley road, the only way HST-GTi could reach Portsmouth from Cardiff/Swansea is via Chandlers Ford & Eastleigh or Southampton Airport & a reversal at Eastleigh and thence a trip via Botley.

The only time(s) a full length HST has reached Portsmouth (other than with VXC) is when Portsmouth played Swansea and FGW laid on a Footex which ran via Chandlers Ford & Eastleigh to avoid a reversal.

Would they be just a little overweight or way overweight for them bridges?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I don't think it's overweight, I think it's clearance issues with parapets.