New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[The Ham]

Agreed. In an ideal world it's a great idea, but unfortunately with overcrowding as it is they're simply not an efficient use of space -- especially having three of them on a 12-car train.

Given that at most (given that it is one side of the doors to first class) in a 12 coach train it would add 12 seats then, as I said before, it is less clear cut as to whether it would make much difference to the passengers on those services. This is because it would increase the number of seats by 1.5% but wouldn't make any change to the standing capacity of the train.

To put that in perspective that is an extra 450 in service for every 67 lots of 450 that run. Chances are there are still enough 8 coach trains formed of 450's in the peaks (although maybe not the high peaks) that would mean that the same overall capacity (if not more) could be provided between London and Woking without removing the Guard's office.

 

[Muzer]

@any SWTs guards who sign the 444s/450s - do the guard's offices get used much?

With the buffet area, isn't that where the trolley service trolley gets kept?

When a service is too busy to send the trolley round, they'll often station themselves in the buffet (for example, many of the peak-time Waterloo to Weymouths have two trolleys, one at-seat in the front 5 coaches and one stationed in the buffet in the rear 5). However, the trolleys don't quite actually fit in the buffet, so they're not "kept" there.


I suspect this'll probably be "fixed" by greatly scaling back catering under the new franchise

 

[swt_passenger]

@any SWTs guards who sign the 444s/450s - do the guard's offices get used much?

On longer distance services, e.g. Portsmouth or Weymouth lines, in my experience the guards almost always use one of the offices as their base.

The 450s used on shorter distance services around the London area manned by non-commercial guards may be different though.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm rubbish with links, but the Competition and Markets Authority has thrown a potential spanner into the works this a.m. with the 'rail providers' being given five days to respond to concerns re Exeter to London fares once First controls both routes.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'm rubbish with links, but the Competition and Markets Authority has thrown a potential spanner into the works this a.m. with the 'rail providers' being given five days to respond to concerns re Exeter to London fares once First controls both routes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/london-to-exeter-rail-passengers-protected-by-cma

London to Exeter rail passengers protected by CMA

From:
Competition and Markets Authority
Part of:
Mergers
Published:
11 July 2017

Concerns about passenger choice on the London-Exeter rail route have been raised under the new South Western franchise.
Waiting for train

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been investigating the award of the franchise to FirstGroup and MTR since May, and concluded that there are no competition concerns on the vast majority of routes it would operate.

However, competition concerns have been raised on one route as FirstGroup already operates the Great Western Railway (GWR) franchise, which runs the only other train service between London and Exeter.

The CMA is concerned that FirstGroup having control of both services could reduce competition on the route, leading to higher fares or worse service for passengers.

Acting Chief Executive and Decision Maker, Andrea Coscelli, said:

This is a crucial rail route to the South West, used by around half a million passengers a year. It’s therefore vital that passengers do not suffer as a result of reduced competition.

The CMA believes that without its intervention, FirstGroup may be able to increase fares for passengers between London and Exeter, as it will be the only rail operator running all services on this route. We look forward to hearing from the companies involved about how they think they can overcome this.

FirstGroup and MTR now have the opportunity to offer proposals (known as ‘undertakings in lieu of reference’) to the CMA to address the concerns identified. If these undertakings are considered sufficient, the companies involved will be able to avoid an in-depth phase 2 investigation.

In previous cases, most recently the CMA’s decision on the award of the Northern franchise to Arriva, competition concerns have been resolved by the operator agreeing to price caps for the affected lines.

The CMA’s decision comes in advance of the start of the franchise, due on 20 August 2017. Further details about the CMA’s investigation can be found on the case page.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I'm rubbish with links, but the Competition and Markets Authority has thrown a potential spanner into the works this a.m. with the 'rail providers' being given five days to respond to concerns re Exeter to London fares once First controls both routes.

CMA press release - "London to Exeter rail passengers protected by CMA"

I think this is pretty standard stuff from the CMA, First/MTR will have been expecting it and will have some draft proposals more or less ready to go to the CMA.

I imagine First/MTR will give some undertakings along the lines of committing to continuing to offer cheaper tickets on the SWR route, alongside some sort of formula regarding the calculation of said fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Re the guard's offices, LM 350/1s have them (unused), but /2s and /3s don't, in both the latter cases they add 4 seats, there is not room for 6.

 

[TEW]

The 450s used on shorter distance services around the London area manned by non-commercial guards may be different though.

It varies on the Reading services and the Hounslow services still worked by 450s, but provided the train is not too busy the guards on those services should be working them from a guards office rather than cab. Outside the peak the middle distance Basingstoke/Alton services see guards working from the office's generally. For a guard, working the train from an intermediate cab of a Desiro is actually quite awkward and uncomfortable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It varies on the Reading services and the Hounslow services still worked by 450s, but provided the train is not too busy the guards on those services should be working them from a guards office rather than cab. Outside the peak the middle distance Basingstoke/Alton services see guards working from the office's generally. For a guard, working the train from an intermediate cab of a Desiro is actually quite awkward and uncomfortable.

Interesting that that's how basically all LM guards work - LM don't use the offices, and only a few specific guards (almost none) choose to dispatch from the passenger accommodation.

 

[Starmill]

Interesting that that's how basically all LM guards work - LM don't use the offices, and only a few specific guards (almost none) choose to dispatch from the passenger accommodation.

I've always thought it strange to see them sitting in the tiny space in a middle cab when I walk past. Those cabs aren't that big to begin with, it must be terrible sitting in 1/3 of one.

 

[Matt Taylor]

I've been a Fratton based guard for a number of years and my railmiles account clearly shows that I do more miles on 450s than by 444s by quite some margin. That will probably change when the 442s come on stream but I use the guards office every time I work a train and the idea of removing it is ridiculous not least because it provides a secure location for storage of my operational and retail equipment whilst also providing easy access to me for passengers who may require assistance of any kind. I can see a case for removing them on 450s once their long distance work declines in 2019 but until then they are invaluable.

 

[LowLevel]

I'd love to have access to an obvious office of some kind - trooping to the back cab all the time and having to work around all of the equipment in there to store my stuff and do various bits of pieces is far from ideal.

 

[F Great Eastern]

I agree with your points. Abellio may have retained the advice of a former Engineering Director - I know he was advising them previously. If not, they can call on help from their other TOCs and even NS. Whether they will do so I don't know.

I'm not sure if they have, I know they were at one point and it would make sense if they continue to do so, and of course help from their other operations abroad that have experience with rolling out rolling stock will help, especially with the FLIRTS, but UK specific knowledge is needed as well.

I know Scotrail are rolling out quite a bit of new stock as well, although they seem to be better off when it comes to engineering experience and industry experience in general in the top team.

Operations may actually be a bigger issue. There seems a worrying lack of skills throughout the industry these days, so an inexperienced Director may really struggle.

Indeed, and a lot of good people with skills and experience have been lost from the industry as well and/or retired.

There is a lot of experience within the Abellio Group when it comes to introduction of new rolling stock, as Abellio Germany have been involved with the Stadler FLIRTs now running between Gouda and Alphen a/d Rijn, as well as the cross-border regional train running between Arnhem and Düsseldorf (which are tricurrent). Abellio GA can call on the people who managed that, if needed.

At the end of the day someone in another country on the end of a telephone or a video-conference is no substitute for eyes on the ground and actually being there in person and UK infrastructure experience, also the advice given from NS can only be based on the quality of info they are being given from those on the GA side.

 

[swt_passenger]

I can see a case for removing them on 450s once their long distance work declines in 2019 but until then they are invaluable.

I don't quite see their 'medium distance work' declining though. They were already planned to be displaced from the Reading routes, with a few going to the Guildford - Ascots, and the 442s obviously mean a reasonable number will be displaced off the 'Direct'. So just where are they all going to be used - is there that much scope to extend more Basingstokes and Altons?

Seems to me that wherever they'll end up being used (when the cascade stops) they'll still nearly all be on routes with commercial guards anyway?

 

[Matt Taylor]

Stopping services on the Portsmouth Direct, Netley Road, New Forest locals, extra Portsmouth-Weymouth services plus strengthening of Alton and Basingstoke services.

 

[Muzer]

Stopping services on the Portsmouth Direct, Netley Road, New Forest locals, extra Portsmouth-Weymouth services plus strengthening of Alton and Basingstoke services.

Presumably the existing 450-worked peak-time Pompey via Eastleighs will still be 450-worked too?

 

[Matt Taylor]

I really don't know, currently the off peak services interwork with the Poole stoppers at Waterloo.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Stopping services on the Portsmouth Direct, Netley Road, New Forest locals, extra Portsmouth-Weymouth services plus strengthening of Alton and Basingstoke services.

Oh no. Please no. 450s are dojng Portsmouth to Weymouth????

 

[theironroad]

Oh no. Please no. 450s are dojng Portsmouth to Weymouth????

Nobody knows for sure yet, but it is more than likely as Portsmouth to Weymouth will be a regional service and not longer distance.

 

[Matt Taylor]

It's all speculation, I have no idea what the plans are for traction deployment.

 

[The Ham]

Stopping services on the Portsmouth Direct, Netley Road, New Forest locals, extra Portsmouth-Weymouth services plus strengthening of Alton and Basingstoke services.

Off peak there's probably not much demand for 12 coach trains on the Basingstoke stoppers, however there are so a few late morning peak (arriving to London at about 9am) which are currently 5 coach trains and probably did do with being longer. The first of which sometimes has to cope with a lot of passengers if the preceding 12 coach train is cancelled.

However off peak the probably is more of a demand for some 8 coach trains on the Portsmouth Direct services (maybe just one an hour, or maybe 2 which split/join at Guildford) which are often only 4 or 5 coach trains. However during the peak there are a few services (the 1800 and 1834 from Guildford to London) which are 5 coach trains which are full and and so could do with being made longer

 

[The Ham]

CMA press release - "London to Exeter rail passengers protected by CMA"

I think this is pretty standard stuff from the CMA, First/MTR will have been expecting it and will have some draft proposals more or less ready to go to the CMA.

I imagine First/MTR will give some undertakings along the lines of committing to continuing to offer cheaper tickets on the SWR route, alongside some sort of formula regarding the calculation of said fares.

From the image on The Times' version of the story:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/prices-warning-for-rail-services-to-exeter-8j8vc0gmf

It would appear that the WofE line will be going electric and getting 444's, which would probably make people a bit happier about paying more money.

 

[superalbs]

It would appear that the WofE line will be going electric and getting 444's, which would probably make people a bit happier about paying more money.

How do you figure that?

EDIT: Oh, the image, whoops. :P

 

[3141]

It would appear that the WofE line will be going electric and getting 444's, which would probably make people a bit happier about paying more money.

And they're moving Newbury about thirty miles westwards.

 

[Muzer]

And they're moving Newbury about thirty miles westwards.

Is that a sneaky accounting trick so Network Rail are allowed to electrify to Bedwyn?

 

[Matt Taylor]

Off peak there's probably not much demand for 12 coach trains on the Basingstoke stoppers, however there are so a few late morning peak (arriving to London at about 9am) which are currently 5 coach trains and probably did do with being longer. The first of which sometimes has to cope with a lot of passengers if the preceding 12 coach train is cancelled.

However off peak the probably is more of a demand for some 8 coach trains on the Portsmouth Direct services (maybe just one an hour, or maybe 2 which split/join at Guildford) which are often only 4 or 5 coach trains. However during the peak there are a few services (the 1800 and 1834 from Guildford to London) which are 5 coach trains which are full and and so could do with being made longer

I think the last thing train planning should be doing is increasing the amount of splitting/joining trains. Every time a unit is booked to split or join away from a depot there is potential for disruption and with the introduction of the 700s and 345s there's clearly a move towards fixed formation lengthy services running all day long on suburban routes which will perhaps extend to outer suburban routes in due course so running 12 car 450s all day isn't such a bad idea.

 

[bb21]

Joining/Splitting en route presents a huge logistical headache, so if there are enough units to avoid doing so, then it should be avoided.

As Matt says, each additional coupling/uncoupling action means one extra thing that could potentially go wrong. Don't mess with it unnecessarily if not needed.

 

[Bigfoot]

Joining/Splitting en route presents a huge logistical headache, so if there are enough units to avoid doing so, then it should be avoided.

The Alton and Basingstoke split/join on a Sunday is bad enough when things are on time let alone when there is disruption.

 

[Pumbaa]

It's not difficult if it's often enough, and it's second nature to the operators. Until it all went south on Gtr, Southern coped quite well.

But I agree that If you can avoid it, do so.

 

[Hartington]

SWT regularly split/join trains at Salisbury. Not just for the Bristol sections but trains going west will often have the rear 3 removed at Salisbury and coming up the train from the west will come to a stand and then move forward to join a waiting unit on the front.