TOC on the northern WCML

[Condor7]

Northern operate as far as Lancaster, and reappear at Carlisle along with Scottish railways but these are mainly providing local services. With the exception of the Caledonian Sleepers that run through the night, the only long distance TOC are First Trans Pennine running the Manchester Airport to either Glasgow or Edinburgh, or Virgin Trains Euston to Glasgow or Edinburgh. (I know there are a few variation particularly early in a morning i.e. some VT start at Crewe or Birmingham and one FTP starts at Manchester Victoria) but effectively there are just the two day time TOC's serving the same destinations.

On the Northern part of the ECML however things are quite different. Obviously depending on just what station you choose as an example things vary, but Northallerton for instance has VTEC, Grand Central, Cross Country, First Transpennine, and I have just read that Arriva are trying to revive the GNER name to operate a limited stop London to Scotland train service. Not only that but the choice of destinations are vast.

I was just wondering therefore why new services or operators don't seem to come up as much on the northern WCML?

 

[DarloRich]

and I have just read that Arriva are trying to revive the GNER name to operate a limited stop London to Scotland train service.

Is it not First. I doubt it will happen anyway,

EDIT: Do XC stop at Northallerton now?

I was just wondering therefore why new services or operators don't seem to come up as much on the northern WCML?

there isn't the capacity to run many more services - there have been attempts form all sorts of places (Blackpool being a popular one) and all have failed.

They MAY have more luck after the next franchise but i doubt it.

 

[najaB]

I was just wondering therefore why new services or operators don't seem to come up as much on the northern WCML?

Compare Preston to York - how many destinations are there heading North and how large are the populations? There's your answer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do XC stop at Northallerton now?

Don't think so, no.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There is actually very little spare capacity on the northern WCML.
The ECML has very little freight, while the WCML is full of it which dictates the timetable on the 2-track route.
Passenger trains on the northern WCML are flighted each hour, VT Glasgow going first, VT via Birmingham second, and TP third.
Northern run a fourth train on some sections (eg Preston-Carnforth).
The rest of the hour is for freight paths. Fitting another passenger service in is not easy.
Open access operators have not show any interest in serving north of Preston.
The line works best with tilting stock which is very hard to come by (expensive, 3 years to build etc, none currently on order).
It's also the main reason WCML trains do not continue beyond Glasgow/Edinburgh as they once did.
Northern are dissuaded from running more services because the line does not need more 75mph DMUs taking extra capacity.
This may change after more north-west lines are electrified and 100mph EMUs can operate.
Also, Newcastle is a lot bigger than Carlisle so traffic patterns are different.

 

[DarloRich]

Don't think so, no.

I was worried Northallerton had joined the 20th century!

( i lived in 'allerton for years before anyone starts.......)

 

[IanXC]

I have just read that Arriva are trying to revive the GNER name to operate a limited stop London to Scotland train service.

Is it not First. I doubt it will happen anyway,

Both Arriva and First have proposals for Open Access services on the East Coast Mainline from London to Edinburgh.

 

[Bertie the bus]

There is actually very little spare capacity on the northern WCML.
The ECML has very little freight, while the WCML is full of it which dictates the timetable on the 2-track route.

No it isn't. There is very little daytime freight on the northern section of the WCML and there are a large number of loops to shift it out of the way. Network Rail claim it is at capacity but Network Rail's claims and reality are seldom the same thing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No it isn't. There is very little daytime freight on the northern section of the WCML and there are a large number of loops to shift it out of the way. Network Rail claim it is at capacity but Network Rail's claims and reality are seldom the same thing.

That's not what the RUS says (2012).
It wants more 775m loops to run more freight.
It also insists there is no capacity for more Edinburgh trains (which the TOCs want), and the best they can offer is to vary the destinations of the current trains (ie more Edinburghs = fewer Glasgows).
But I can see with the decline of coal current traffic levels are relatively low.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Which is precisely, almost word for word, what I said. Network Rail claim it is at capacity. They even came up with the insane idea of reopening the Carlisle avoider for this non-existant freight. It isn't.

 

[The Planner]

No it isn't. There is very little daytime freight on the northern section of the WCML and there are a large number of loops to shift it out of the way. Network Rail claim it is at capacity but Network Rail's claims and reality are seldom the same thing.

Between Carlisle and Preston find me lots of loops of 480-500m or more.

Get a decent length train going in the Up direction from Upperby Bridge and you keep going until Eden Valley, 20 miles away, with TPE and Virgins bearing down on you at 100mph+. After Eden Valley you are up over Shap and across the down line into Tebay with the same problem for 16 miles. After Tebay its Carnforth for 25 miles. Lancaster got fixed as part of the re-signalling in the up and has 775m. Then you dash to Oxheys.

The down is no better, Barton to Tebay is 47 miles for anything 450m or more, the it is Penrith and on to Carlisle.

Factor into the equation you are starting these freights from a stand at 1400 tonnes or a bit more for an Intermodal and anywhere upwards of that for a Class 6 with approach control signalling into the next loop. Dead easy.

 

[yorkie]

On the Northern part of the ECML however things are quite different. Obviously depending on just what station you choose as an example things vary, but Northallerton for instance has VTEC, Grand Central, Cross Country, First Transpennine...

XC don't serve Northallerton, but I get your point. However you can split it into two questions really:

1. Why doesn't the CrossCountry franchise cover the WCML north of Crewe; and
2. Why have no Open Access operators yet been approved on the WCML.

These are entirely separate topics in their own right. There are some existing threads, which I may dig out if I get round to it (or maybe someone else will beat me to it!)

But some obstacles to open access on the WCML include the "moderation of competition" clause, tilting trains, the "primarily abstractive" test etc.

Which is precisely, almost word for word, what I said. Network Rail claim it is at capacity. They even came up with the insane idea of reopening the Carlisle avoider for this non-existant freight. It isn't.

Sorry but I think the score is Planner 1 Bertie 0

 

[pdeaves]

But some obstacles to open access on the WCML include the "moderation of competition" clause, tilting trains, the "primarily abstractive" test etc.

I believe 'moderation of competition' has expired (hence the introduction of London Midland's Liverpool service, amongst others). 'Primarily abstractive' applies to all routes, not just WCML (you probably knew that and didn't intend to imply exclusivity, but just clarifying for anyone who didn't).

 

[Condor7]

Firstly thanks for the comments, they have been very informative, and please keep them coming.

I must admit I tend to agree with 'Bertie The Bus' when it comes to freight on the northern section. I appreciate at the moment coal is very limited and will hopefully increase in the autumn, but there are regularly 5 or even 6 hour gaps between freight. Just look at last Friday 19th based on Tebay timings there was freight at 10:42 (Daventry to Mossend), and then nothing freight wise until 16:49 a gap of 6 hours 7 minutes. So it is obviously not freight that is taking up capacity.

 

[MrJamesBrown]

Firstly thanks for the comments, they have been very informative, and please keep them coming.

I must admit I tend to agree with 'Bertie The Bus' when it comes to freight on the northern section. I appreciate at the moment coal is very limited and will hopefully increase in the autumn, but there are regularly 5 or even 6 hour gaps between freight. Just look at last Friday 19th based on Tebay timings there was freight at 10:42 (Daventry to Mossend), and then nothing freight wise until 16:49 a gap of 6 hours 7 minutes. So it is obviously not freight that is taking up capacity.

The issue is that freight have protected paths which restrict the levels of passenger trains that can be run. If i am wrong 'The Planner' will no doubt correct me :')

 

[Starmill]

On the West Coast North there's a London - Scotland operator, and a Regional - Scotland one. On the East Coast there is... oh, exactly the same! Plus various local services for both! Grand Central operate so few trains as compared to the others so as to be negligible. That just leaves the TPE Newcastle - Liverpool route, which should be treated as a proper inter-city service I agree, but isn't. Same goes for the Manchester - Scotland operation!

 

[ian959]

Firstly thanks for the comments, they have been very informative, and please keep them coming.

I must admit I tend to agree with 'Bertie The Bus' when it comes to freight on the northern section. I appreciate at the moment coal is very limited and will hopefully increase in the autumn, but there are regularly 5 or even 6 hour gaps between freight. Just look at last Friday 19th based on Tebay timings there was freight at 10:42 (Daventry to Mossend), and then nothing freight wise until 16:49 a gap of 6 hours 7 minutes. So it is obviously not freight that is taking up capacity.

But the paths still have to be retained for the freight - just because the paths may not be used does not mean that they can just be switched over to passenger traffic. The paths still have to be reconfigured and timetabled to switch from freight to passenger traffic, and vice versa when freight need the paths back.

 

[The Planner]

Firstly thanks for the comments, they have been very informative, and please keep them coming.

I must admit I tend to agree with 'Bertie The Bus' when it comes to freight on the northern section. I appreciate at the moment coal is very limited and will hopefully increase in the autumn, but there are regularly 5 or even 6 hour gaps between freight. Just look at last Friday 19th based on Tebay timings there was freight at 10:42 (Daventry to Mossend), and then nothing freight wise until 16:49 a gap of 6 hours 7 minutes. So it is obviously not freight that is taking up capacity.

You are confusing what runs with what paths there are. If a path is sold to an operator then it is their prerogative to run something in it. If they choose not to then that is up to them but they run the risk of having the path taken back off them via the Part J process in the Network Code. Based on the infrastructure that is available, the paths that are there and the mixed speed nature of the line my comments still stand, find me lots of capacity to run long freights.

 

[yorkie]

I believe 'moderation of competition' has expired...

It has, but only a few years ago, and since then it appears to have become harder to get approval.

'Primarily abstractive' applies to all routes, not just WCML (you probably knew that and didn't intend to imply exclusivity, but just clarifying for anyone who didn't).

Indeed, but again this seems to be applied more vigorously these days and there aren't that many viable routes connected to the WCML without a London service that could pass the test. The only potentially viable places are not as far North as the OP is using for his comparison.

And you need tilting trains, of which there are none spare, so that means new trains, which further increases costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could the primarily abstractive issue be reduced by considering a different approach to allowing Open Access TOCs into ORCATS? Either not allow them in at all, or if that is considered too much of an issue, for the taxpayer to pay their allocation not based on the present calculations, but based on the Open Access operator being required to provide evidence of *actually* having carried the passenger on an interavailable ticket?

 

[HH]

Could the primarily abstractive issue be reduced by considering a different approach to allowing Open Access TOCs into ORCATS? Either not allow them in at all, or if that is considered too much of an issue, for the taxpayer to pay their allocation not based on the present calculations, but based on the Open Access operator being required to provide evidence of *actually* having carried the passenger on an interavailable ticket?

You're confused about why the "not primarily abstractive" clause (important to not forget the 'not') is there. The test is there to make sure that Open Access Operators (who are not TOCs) are not simply creaming off passengers from franchises; and the reason for that is that it would reduce the payments made to the government (which means more coming out of our pockets). In practice the majority of their money is still abstractive rather than generative.

To join ORCATS you have to offer inter-available fares. In practice that wouldn't work too well for OAOs, because not only would they lose their ability to differentiate on price, they would also find their trains full of local commuters, shoppers, etc. just travelling one stop.

 

[DarloRich]

Firstly thanks for the comments, they have been very informative, and please keep them coming.

I must admit I tend to agree with 'Bertie The Bus' when it comes to freight on the northern section. I appreciate at the moment coal is very limited and will hopefully increase in the autumn, but there are regularly 5 or even 6 hour gaps between freight. Just look at last Friday 19th based on Tebay timings there was freight at 10:42 (Daventry to Mossend), and then nothing freight wise until 16:49 a gap of 6 hours 7 minutes. So it is obviously not freight that is taking up capacity.

You are confusing what actually runs with what has a path in the timetable. Those paths are owned by the FOC and are there if they choose to run a service.

Consider the postings made by "The Planner" as he can explain things in a much more detailed manner than most having hands on experience!

 

[cuccir]

On the West Coast North there's a London - Scotland operator, and a Regional - Scotland one. On the East Coast there is... oh, exactly the same! Plus various local services for both! Grand Central operate so few trains as compared to the others so as to be negligible. That just leaves the TPE Newcastle - Liverpool route, which should be treated as a proper inter-city service I agree, but isn't. Same goes for the Manchester - Scotland operation!

Agree broadly with this - the situation is actually quite similar, it just looks a bit different because of Teeside/Tyneside being much further north than the Lancashire populations.

North of Lancaster on the West and north of Morpeth on the East.

On both coasts there's the:
* London-Scotland (Virgin West, Virgin East)
* Regional-Scotland (TPE, Cross Country)
* Birmingham-Scotland (Virgin West, Cross Country)

The only difference here is the Chathill stoppers

Further south it's more complicated, but comparisons are difficult to make because of the different geography and populations!

 

[jonesy3001]

Northern operate around the cumbrian coast, lancaster-carnforth-barrow-Workington and carlisle,which is a whopping 3 and a half to 4 hr journey.
Virgin and TPE only take an hour on the WCML between lancaster and carlisle.

 

[Condor7]

You are confusing what runs with what paths there are. If a path is sold to an operator then it is their prerogative to run something in it. If they choose not to then that is up to them but they run the risk of having the path taken back off them via the Part J process in the Network Code. Based on the infrastructure that is available, the paths that are there and the mixed speed nature of the line my comments still stand, find me lots of capacity to run long freights.

Thanks. I appreciate what you are saying, but some of the paths are never used or rarely used. Just take for instance the various paths for the Royal Mail trains. Some of these are never used and haven't for many many years not even in December. It seems crazy that other TOC can't bid for a service because paths that are never used are in the system. How long can a company hold onto unused paths?

 

[The Planner]

Depends if they run a train in the path, they only need to do it once or twice a year and they can be considered strategic when it comes to Royal Mail. The same applies to test trains like the NMT etc...they run on cycles of many weeks apart but they have WTT paths.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To join ORCATS you have to offer inter-available fares. In practice that wouldn't work too well for OAOs, because not only would they lose their ability to differentiate on price, they would also find their trains full of local commuters, shoppers, etc. just travelling one stop.

Except they do. All open access operators that operate or have ever operated in the UK (other than possibly Stagecoach in BR days) *have* been in ORCATS and have accepted interavailable tickets, as well as their own.

The thing I'm wondering is if this is because they are obliged to, or whether it is actually a good thing.

 

[yorkie]

Could the primarily abstractive issue be reduced by considering a different approach to allowing Open Access TOCs into ORCATS? Either not allow them in at all, or if that is considered too much of an issue, for the taxpayer to pay their allocation not based on the present calculations, but based on the Open Access operator being required to provide evidence of *actually* having carried the passenger on an interavailable ticket?

Open Access TOCs who honour inter-available tickets, such as Grand Central and Hull Trains are entitled to ORCATS revenues.

Edit: I see you have said this in the post above mine.

An operator could choose not to be part of National Rail, not to adhere to the TSA, and not accept or sell inter-available fares and only sell dedicated fares, and not be part of ORCATS, an example of this would be the West Coast operated Fort William to Mallaig train. It's not viable, nor beneficial to passengers, on most routes though!

 

[HH]

Mea culpa on the OAOs; they must sell less tickets than I thought.

ORCATS allocations can be challenged. Normally (after "discussions") train counts are done by an agreed third party to determine whether the ORCATS allocation needs changing.

 

[chorleyjeff]

XC don't serve Northallerton, but I get your point. However you can split it into two questions really:

1. Why doesn't the CrossCountry franchise cover the WCML north of Crewe; and
2. Why have no Open Access operators yet been approved on the WCML.

These are entirely separate topics in their own right. There are some existing threads, which I may dig out if I get round to it (or maybe someone else will beat me to it!)

But some obstacles to open access on the WCML include the "moderation of competition" clause, tilting trains, the "primarily abstractive" test etc.


Sorry but I think the score is Planner 1 Bertie 0

Yes.
But it begs the question of was this situation was planned or just happened. It seems odd not provided more and longer loops at electrification with this problem on the horizon. Or was it assumed the second pair of tracks via Hellifield would provide capacity for slow trains?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes.
But it begs the question of was this situation was planned or just happened. It seems odd not provided more and longer loops at electrification with this problem on the horizon. Or was it assumed the second pair of tracks via Hellifield would provide capacity for slow trains?

Very little of the WCRM money was spent north of Weaver Jn.
They raised speed limits and replaced the contact wire, but did little else.
Belatedly there were upgrades at Wigan, Euxton and Lancaster, but otherwise it's still the 1974 BR route.
The main reason is the signalling is not life-expired like that further south dating from the 1960s.
Anything substantial seems to have to wait until Warrington, Preston and Carlisle PSBs need replacing in the 2020s.