Unverified proposals for Cl 222 Meridians on Waterloo-Exeter (and maybe beyond)

[HarleyDavidson]

You just pay through the nose using FGW on cramped high density seating on HST, because 50% of them are shared with South Wales & Bristol services, if you look at the diagrams for some of the HSTs you'll find a fair few start their day at Landore and work from Swansea to Padd, then Padd to either Paignton, Plymouth or Penzance before returning to either Swansea or SPM. IIRC one or two end up at OOC as well.

The only ones that don't other than the one or two that go to OOC are the ones that finish in Penzance after 1730, which then go to Long Rock.

 

[The Ham]

We've been round the houses before about your notions on 222s to Cornwall, such as the idea that the Newquay branch is just crying out for frequent trains to and from London...

You say there is "little or no scope to provide extra services during the day". Where? West of Salisbury? West of Yeovil? Are extra services and seats needed west of Salisbury or Yeovil anyway? The pressure is east of Salisbury and from there it's double or quadruple track - admittedly already busy - all the way to Waterloo, so there might just be the scope for the odd extra train there.

222s may not be perfect for Waterloo-Exeter, but then you could well argue that the 159s aren't either, they just happened to be what was available back in the early 1990s. In the world of rolling stock cascades 158/159s are going to be far easier to find suitable alternative work for than any kind of 22x, which, if they run out of intercity options, will have to be put on inter-regional jobs instead, such as Waterloo-Exeter, however much people go on here about how frightful it would be not using them at top speed.

And why it is that it has taken quite so long to get round to the obvious conclusion - that having a common fleet of new express rolling stock for GW services is the only sensible way to go - beats me. The sooner an order for more IEPs is sorted out, the better, preferably as part of the announcement on the new FGW direct award to provide some clarity, even if the trains won't actually arrive until a competitive franchise tender process has finally been held to find a post-2019 GW operator.

No one in their right mind is going to go through the rigmarole of transferring in a fleet of 222s in order to find out if what GW West Country services really need is more Class 800s. By which time Hitachi will have shut down the production line anyway - which is why an order to follow straight on from the current 800/801 orders is the way to go.

First off, my suggestion of going to Newquay was to run the same number of services as at present, but just with them running through to London as part of portion working which then would free up the DMU which currently runs that service to be used elsewhere. It would still be a valid suggestion if there were going to be 5 coach sets of the class 800's.

There is ZERO capacity running into London Waterloo during the peak (which is where most of the capacity would be needed) and not a lot more during the off peaks, it is why the existing Salisbury services get cut back to Basingstoke as soon as there is an incident which impacts on capacity east of there. There is also very little capacity at Basingstoke due to the junction (it is one of the reasons that the XC trains run through there on an 1.5tph frequency rather than 2tph), so even running services to Basingstoke and then turning around to head west again would not likely happen.

I would argue that the 159's are better suited to the situation at the moment, however IF there were more capacity to be able to run more frequent services then the 222's would be better suited (although that would be subject to services to Portsmouth, Southampton and the Metro services not having services which uses up the capacity before Salisbury gets any extra services).

I have clearly stated that my preference is for the 800's to be used for GW's services and that the 222's would only be a stop gap IF they were to be used. The big problem with the 222's and any 22x's freed up from ICWC and XC is that there are very few suitable services and most of the services which might be suitable have problems which then mean that they are not as suitable as they would first appear (i.e. due to capacity or line speeds for non sprinter units). Of the few which are left the GW Cornwall services is one which could be made to work (even though I think class 800's would be better).

I doubt that Hitachi will have shut down their production facility, as they are wanting to expand into Europe. I can also see a future order of 80x's coaches to lengthen the 9 coach sets to 10 coach sets and/or to lengthen some of the 5 coach sets to be full length. Such a train lengthening order could also allow extra units to be built and would not be too dissimilar to what was done for the 390's; so not beyond the realms of possibility.

Such an order could also happen sooner than for the 390's, as passenger numbers are growing at 5% year on year so the 18% extra capacity (IIRC) that the class 800/801's brings over a HST will soon disappear.

 

[21C101]

First off, my suggestion of going to Newquay was to run the same number of services as at present, but just with them running through to London as part of portion working which then would free up the DMU which currently runs that service to be used elsewhere. It would still be a valid suggestion if there were going to be 5 coach sets of the class 800's.

There is ZERO capacity running into London Waterloo during the peak (which is where most of the capacity would be needed) and not a lot more during the off peaks, it is why the existing Salisbury services get cut back to Basingstoke as soon as there is an incident which impacts on capacity east of there. There is also very little capacity at Basingstoke due to the junction (it is one of the reasons that the XC trains run through there on an 1.5tph frequency rather than 2tph), so even running services to Basingstoke and then turning around to head west again would not likely happen.

I would argue that the 159's are better suited to the situation at the moment, however IF there were more capacity to be able to run more frequent services then the 222's would be better suited (although that would be subject to services to Portsmouth, Southampton and the Metro services not having services which uses up the capacity before Salisbury gets any extra services).

I have clearly stated that my preference is for the 800's to be used for GW's services and that the 222's would only be a stop gap IF they were to be used. The big problem with the 222's and any 22x's freed up from ICWC and XC is that there are very few suitable services and most of the services which might be suitable have problems which then mean that they are not as suitable as they would first appear (i.e. due to capacity or line speeds for non sprinter units). Of the few which are left the GW Cornwall services is one which could be made to work (even though I think class 800's would be better).

I doubt that Hitachi will have shut down their production facility, as they are wanting to expand into Europe. I can also see a future order of 80x's coaches to lengthen the 9 coach sets to 10 coach sets and/or to lengthen some of the 5 coach sets to be full length. Such a train lengthening order could also allow extra units to be built and would not be too dissimilar to what was done for the 390's; so not beyond the realms of possibility.

Such an order could also happen sooner than for the 390's, as passenger numbers are growing at 5% year on year so the 18% extra capacity (IIRC) that the class 800/801's brings over a HST will soon disappear.

In extremis you could run longer trains with 222s. You could run even a 15 car 222 train between Waterloo and Exeter Central if you terminated it in the international platforms. Use Selective door opening and split it at Exeter Central with only 5 cars going forward to St Davids, Exeter Central having platforms almost as long as Waterloo International.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry, but unless you are going to engage with the question of the limitations of the infrastructure on the Exeter-Barnstaple line, then anything else you have to say - especially a load of waffle about who runs buses in North Devon - is irrelevant. Stagecoach doesn't run any buses where I live, yet traffic at nearby stations has been increasing for a lot longer than the past six years - rather like most of the rest of the rail network.

Just the same as who owns SWT is irrelevant - no rail manager, whoever he or she works for, is going to risk the reliability of the Waterloo service east of Exeter - also operating on less-than-ideal infrastructure - for the sake of its trains turning into a local stopping service on a single line north of Exeter. A service on which there are far more urgent concerns, like providing enough roiling stock to cope with current demand.

Same as what happened until 1964, as a result of which company bought the line in the 1840s, is irrelevant.

And if people from North Devon want an intercity service to London, a lot of them these days seem to favour driving to Tiverton Parkway and getting on an FGW HST, which will get them into London in a nudge over three hours. Implement your fantasy SWT service and they'd be lucky to see Waterloo inside four-and-a-half. Even with major infrastructure improvement all the way from Salisbury to Barnstaple you would struggle to match the best current timings taking the train to Exeter and changing there to a Paddington train.

Even if it did take four and a half hours, it would still likely be quite popular as it would be a through service. SWTs Waterloo Bristol services take about three hours and they are well used. Especially as the SWT fare is about half as much as the FGW fare from Exeter to London

As to not jeopardising reliability on the single line, why then are SWT running extra services from December 2015 on it incluing extending several by reversing them at Yeovil Junction to go up the single track to Pen Mill, running new additional service on the single track from Pen Mill to Exeter via Honiton, extra Honiton to Exeter locals and Waterloo - Salisbury - Yeovil - Weymouth services reversing at both Yeovil stations?

If the trains are multi engine, are maintained properly and timetabled properly the single line is not a problem, plus extra pax from Barnstaple would boost the viability of redoubling Salisbury to Coleford Jct.

 

[The Ham]

In extremis you could run longer trains with 222s. You could run even a 15 car 222 train between Waterloo and Exeter Central if you terminated it in the international platforms. Use Selective door opening and split it at Exeter Central with only 5 cars going forward to St Davids, Exeter Central having platforms almost as long as Waterloo International.

First off, you wouldn't need more than 10 coaches west of Salisbury.

Secondly, even if the platforms at Waterloo can take 15 coach trains and intermediate stations can cope with SDO (which I'm not sure that they could given the SWT's stations can cope with 10x23m coaches) then the longer trains would block back into the next signal length. This would mean that each train would take up more than one path and potentially block junctions (Woking and Basingstoke) when stopped at stations; causing all sorts of delays and capacity issues .

Thirdly, to try and get platform access for each portion of the train (remembering the 10 coach limit) you'd need to form them as 7 coach sets, that would likely result in the need for 12 sets with a total of 60 of the 89 central coaches, meaning the remaining 15 sets would be a mixture of 3 or 4 coaches long (i.e. with all the problems, and more, which the 220's have in being too short).

 

[CC 72100]

In extremis you could run longer trains with 222s. You could run even a 15 car 222 train between Waterloo and Exeter Central if you terminated it in the international platforms. Use Selective door opening and split it at Exeter Central with only 5 cars going forward to St Davids, Exeter Central having platforms almost as long as Waterloo International.

I don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon!

Even if the Barnstaple line is no longer inter-linked with Exmouth & Paignton, running through to Exeter Central only, then I still don't see a case for Waterloo - Barnstaple.

222s on the Barnstaple branch = NO.

To be honest, Barnstaple -> London trains aren't too bad, as the units from Barnstaple arrive into Exeter at about :50, with a London train just over 10 minutes later.

Just because 'back in the day Barnstaple - Waterloo was a possible through journey does not mean it should be brought back. Arguably some services are better by being split, as it can better target resources; a through train is not always the answer to improved services.

 

[RobShipway]

First off, you wouldn't need more than 10 coaches west of Salisbury.

Secondly, even if the platforms at Waterloo can take 15 coach trains and intermediate stations can cope with SDO (which I'm not sure that they could given the SWT's stations can cope with 10x23m coaches) then the longer trains would block back into the next signal length. This would mean that each train would take up more than one path and potentially block junctions (Woking and Basingstoke) when stopped at stations; causing all sorts of delays and capacity issues .

Thirdly, to try and get platform access for each portion of the train (remembering the 10 coach limit) you'd need to form them as 7 coach sets, that would likely result in the need for 12 sets with a total of 60 of the 89 central coaches, meaning the remaining 15 sets would be a mixture of 3 or 4 coaches long (i.e. with all the problems, and more, which the 220's have in being too short).

Could you not do the same as VWC did with the 4 car class 221 and remove the coaches from some of the sets of class 220', then change them into being say 6 car trains? Then use the spare driving trailers for spares?

Or do something similar with the class 222's possibly?

For instance there are currently 17 5 coach sets, 6 7 coach sets and 4 4 coach sets. I would take a coach off 4 of the 7 coach sets, and add that coach to each of the 4 coaches sets to make them 5 coach trains. that way you have 27 5 coach trains and 2 7 coach trains. Although, i think you would end up with less trains than are currently being used at the moment as there is at least 30 class 159' 3 car sets plus any Class 158's that are being used on the routes.

 

[iantherev]

First off, you wouldn't need more than 10 coaches west of Salisbury.

10 coaches? We think we're being spolied if we get 6!

 

[21C101]

I don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon!

Even if the Barnstaple line is no longer inter-linked with Exmouth & Paignton, running through to Exeter Central only, then I still don't see a case for Waterloo - Barnstaple.

222s on the Barnstaple branch = NO.

To be honest, Barnstaple -> London trains aren't too bad, as the units from Barnstaple arrive into Exeter at about :50, with a London train just over 10 minutes later.

Just because 'back in the day Barnstaple - Waterloo was a possible through journey does not mean it should be brought back. Arguably some services are better by being split, as it can better target resources; a through train is not always the answer to improved services.

To be honest I wouldn't seriously expect every train to go forward. However, if SWT ran the peoposed Axminster/Barnstaple service - I don't think it impossible that, say, four journeys a day ran through, two in the morning and two in the evening, comprising either a two or three car class 158/9 (or perhaps a four car 222).

I think it will be more of a tussle as to who runs any Axminster - Barnstaple service. I really can't see SWT sitting back and letting FGW run trains to Axminster and grabbing a big chunk of Orcats revenue. In fact I suspect the proposed extra Yeovil/Honiton - Exeter services in December may be partly designed to fend such an idea off by using up the spare paths on the line.

It may be irrelevant because as I understand it that the proposed new South West franchise will include Waterloo - Exeter and all FGW services west of the GW electrified area and south of the South Wales Main Line - except the FGW Express Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance IEP services. I also suspect Stagecoach (or whoever succeeds them to the SWT franchise in 2019) would go in hard to bid for the new South West franchise to keep control over all services into Waterloo. Perhaps the new franchise will be called "Wessex Trains"....

 

[jimm]

First off, my suggestion of going to Newquay was to run the same number of services as at present, but just with them running through to London as part of portion working which then would free up the DMU which currently runs that service to be used elsewhere. It would still be a valid suggestion if there were going to be 5 coach sets of the class 800's.

There is ZERO capacity running into London Waterloo during the peak (which is where most of the capacity would be needed) and not a lot more during the off peaks, it is why the existing Salisbury services get cut back to Basingstoke as soon as there is an incident which impacts on capacity east of there. There is also very little capacity at Basingstoke due to the junction (it is one of the reasons that the XC trains run through there on an 1.5tph frequency rather than 2tph), so even running services to Basingstoke and then turning around to head west again would not likely happen.

I would argue that the 159's are better suited to the situation at the moment, however IF there were more capacity to be able to run more frequent services then the 222's would be better suited (although that would be subject to services to Portsmouth, Southampton and the Metro services not having services which uses up the capacity before Salisbury gets any extra services).

I have clearly stated that my preference is for the 800's to be used for GW's services and that the 222's would only be a stop gap IF they were to be used. The big problem with the 222's and any 22x's freed up from ICWC and XC is that there are very few suitable services and most of the services which might be suitable have problems which then mean that they are not as suitable as they would first appear (i.e. due to capacity or line speeds for non sprinter units). Of the few which are left the GW Cornwall services is one which could be made to work (even though I think class 800's would be better).

I doubt that Hitachi will have shut down their production facility, as they are wanting to expand into Europe. I can also see a future order of 80x's coaches to lengthen the 9 coach sets to 10 coach sets and/or to lengthen some of the 5 coach sets to be full length. Such a train lengthening order could also allow extra units to be built and would not be too dissimilar to what was done for the 390's; so not beyond the realms of possibility.

Such an order could also happen sooner than for the 390's, as passenger numbers are growing at 5% year on year so the 18% extra capacity (IIRC) that the class 800/801's brings over a HST will soon disappear.

There is nothing valid in using 125mph trains, of whatever kind, to provide a service on a line that in parts is still little better than the mineral tramway it started out as, except to provide a boost in capacity on summer Saturdays.

People can continue to trot out all the familiar reasons why 222s can't do this that and the other job once displaced from MML - but unless they and the Voyagers are going to become very expensive razor blades after a working life of about 20 years, then sooner or later they will end up doing some of those jobs - especially if it releases lots of 158/159 sets for other work.

I specifically said production line, not facility, or factory. If Hitachi need the space to build some other type of train, then if current orders for 800/801s are completed and no more have been ordered, then they will not hesitate to re-equip a production line to build something else.

Resuming Class 390 production after a five-year gap did not come cheap, so the best thing to do with IEP is just to keep the line working to complete renewal of the GW express fleet without any stopgaps.

 

[The Ham]

To be honest I wouldn't seriously expect every train to go forward. However, if SWT ran the peoposed Axminster/Barnstaple service - I don't think it impossible that, say, four journeys a day ran through, two in the morning and two in the evening, comprising either a two or three car class 158/9 (or perhaps a four car 222).

I wouldn't have thought that SWT's were too interested in attracting more peak hour passengers, off peak maybe.

I think it will be more of a tussle as to who runs any Axminster - Barnstaple service. I really can't see SWT sitting back and letting FGW run trains to Axminster and grabbing a big chunk of Orcats revenue. In fact I suspect the proposed extra Yeovil/Honiton - Exeter services in December may be partly designed to fend such an idea off by using up the spare paths on the line.

SWT's are unlikely to miss out much on a percentage of passenger revenue to/from Axminster and Exeter, and the intermediate stations. Given that it is likely that a lot of the passengers (about 350,000 from each station other than Central-2 million) are either paying very small amounts or are going to somewhere only served by SWT's.

 

[pne]

if you look at the diagrams for some of the HSTs you'll find a fair few start their day at Landore and work from Swansea to Padd, then Padd to either Paignton, Plymouth or Penzance before returning to either Swansea or SPM. IIRC one or two end up at OOC as well.

Where are SPM and OOC? Neither brfares.com nor nationalrail.co.uk recognises those codes.

 

[fgwrich]

*snort*

The bus services are nice, but weren't the catalyst for the increasing footfall - that's down to the clockface hourly service put in place by Wessex Trains, and was boosted when FGW cut the fares in 2006.

IIRC the Hourly clockface timetable was one of FGWs first 'resolutions' of the D&C Branches. I remember going down there in the first few weeks of it being just into FGW and it was still the odd patterned Wessex Timetable.

What First & Stagecoach get up to on the bus side is almost an entirely different story though - First Bus hasn't been making much on the side of profit for several years - unlike stagecoach who took over Devon General and expanded northwards, First's North Devon operations stem from a combination of the former Western National and Devon Red Bus. First were looking to sell up from North Devon anyway considering it to not at the time be profitable, Stagecoach gradually expanding upwards and using their typical ruthless tack to see competition with First's operations. Indeed First & Stagecoach did try to come up with a logical sell of operations but this was blocked by the competition commission, so First round it's operations down with Stagecoach taking over. Stagecoach's only transformations have really been in service frequency, it's still the same old fairly aged vehicles - First used ELC Tridents, Stagecoach ALX400s & Enviro 400s, And rebuilding the roundabouts as part of the North Devon Link Road / Barnstaple Bypass / Atlantic Highway has allowed the majority of Bus / Rail connections.

So I'm afraid I too fail to see the argument that SWT Should run all the way to Barnstaple because the busses which happen to also be Stagecoach do well to connect with the trains really. That being one of your arguments, and one which I fail to see - Stagecoach also runs across East & South Devon & The Hams, but I fail to see SWT wanting to return to Exmouth, Paignton & Plymouth anytime soon. While a through service would be nice, it should still stay as it is planned to operate as, as part of the successful Devon Metro with FGW running it as the Axminster to Barnstaple service.

Where are SPM and OOC? Neither brfares.com nor nationalrail.co.uk recognises those codes.

SPM / OOC are the depot codes for Bristol St Phillips Marsh & Old Oak Common Depots. Reading is RDG, Laira is LA, and Swansea's Landore Depot is LE.

 

[D365]

Where are SPM and OOC? Neither brfares.com nor nationalrail.co.uk recognises those codes.

SPM: St Philip's Marsh
OOC: Old Oak Common

These are traction maintenance depots (TMDs), that's why they are not recognised as journies

[fgwrich beat me to it!]

 

[Emblematic]

Would be better to use the two-letter TOPS codes:
PM - St. Philips Marsh
OC - Old Oak Common (or OO for HST shed)
RG - Reading
Depot codes are all listed here

 

[The Ham]

There is nothing valid in using 125mph trains, of whatever kind, to provide a service on a line that in parts is still little better than the mineral tramway it started out as, except to provide a boost in capacity on summer Saturdays.

The reason behind the suggestion is that we have a lot of 125mph DMU's and a big shortage in other DMU's.

People can continue to trot out all the familiar reasons why 222s can't do this that and the other job once displaced from MML - but unless they and the Voyagers are going to become very expensive razor blades after a working life of about 20 years, then sooner or later they will end up doing some of those jobs - especially if it releases lots of 158/159 sets for other work.

OK SWT's take on the 222's to replace the 159's, to maximise the number of seats they are going to want them as 10 coach sets (which will still be less than the 9 coach 159's). To achieve this they will need at least 7 sets (no spares), this will require 56 of the 89 central coaches, leaving 33 for the remaining 20 sets. Which in all (given they would probably like 3 spare sets which would leave just 9 central coaches) likelihood result in a number of end coaches becoming very expensive razor blades.

It could be possible that SWT's do take some and retaine some of their 159's for peak hour services, however given the number of 159's that they would probably keep it is unlikely.

I specifically said production line, not facility, or factory. If Hitachi need the space to build some other type of train, then if current orders for 800/801s are completed and no more have been ordered, then they will not hesitate to re-equip a production line to build something else.

Resuming Class 390 production after a five-year gap did not come cheap, so the best thing to do with IEP is just to keep the line working to complete renewal of the GW express fleet without any stopgaps.

A five year gap which saw the closure of the UK factory which made the original 390's meaning that the new coaches had to be shipped from Italy. Also the order for the extra 390's was for 85 coaches, which is a fairly small train order. It is therefore hardly surprising that it was costly.

 

[jimm]

Even if it did take four and a half hours, it would still likely be quite popular as it would be a through service. SWTs Waterloo Bristol services take about three hours and they are well used. Especially as the SWT fare is about half as much as the FGW fare from Exeter to London

As to not jeopardising reliability on the single line, why then are SWT running extra services from December 2015 on it incluing extending several by reversing them at Yeovil Junction to go up the single track to Pen Mill, running new additional service on the single track from Pen Mill to Exeter via Honiton, extra Honiton to Exeter locals and Waterloo - Salisbury - Yeovil - Weymouth services reversing at both Yeovil stations?

If the trains are multi engine, are maintained properly and timetabled properly the single line is not a problem, plus extra pax from Barnstaple would boost the viability of redoubling Salisbury to Coleford Jct.

Being an interminably long through service did not do a great deal for the long-term prospects of Wrexham & Shropshire.

Exactly how many of the people on Waterloo-Bristol trains are actually doing the full journey? Being well used by people travelling between London and Salisbury and other people travelling from Salisbury and intermediate stations to Bristol is not the same thing.

Salisbury-Exeter is now controlled by a nice new signalling system, with extra block signals installed specifically to allow extra trans to run, so I surmise that SWT, having gained experience with this set-up in action, feel it is safe to timetable more trains. Exeter-Barnstaple uses tokens and has precious few loops, so if one train has a problem, the more trains you are trying to run there, the more that will get delayed.

The Tarka Rail study from 2013 listed a litany of problems with the infrastructure and identified a whole lot of more pressing priorities than trains to London - and yes, it said they got lots of requests for a through train, but Lord Adonis's postbag when he was Transport Secretary used to bulge with requests for reopening of pretty much every branch line closed in the 1960s. Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do and I suspect that a better Tarka Line service as far as Exeter, with some semi-fast trains in the mix, would be seen as a far greater benefit than the odd service that eventually gets you all the way to London.

To be honest I wouldn't seriously expect every train to go forward. However, if SWT ran the peoposed Axminster/Barnstaple service - I don't think it impossible that, say, four journeys a day ran through, two in the morning and two in the evening, comprising either a two or three car class 158/9 (or perhaps a four car 222).

I think it will be more of a tussle as to who runs any Axminster - Barnstaple service. I really can't see SWT sitting back and letting FGW run trains to Axminster and grabbing a big chunk of Orcats revenue. In fact I suspect the proposed extra Yeovil/Honiton - Exeter services in December may be partly designed to fend such an idea off by using up the spare paths on the line.

It may be irrelevant because as I understand it that the proposed new South West franchise will include Waterloo - Exeter and all FGW services west of the GW electrified area and south of the South Wales Main Line - except the FGW Express Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance IEP services. I also suspect Stagecoach (or whoever succeeds them to the SWT franchise in 2019) would go in hard to bid for the new South West franchise to keep control over all services into Waterloo. Perhaps the new franchise will be called "Wessex Trains"....

The whole point of beefing up Axminster-Exeter services is to increase rail's share of travel between East Devon and Exeter - and grow revenue - as part of a scheme to improve rail services across much of Devon, not some sort of sinister 21st century GWR raid on the revenues of the Southern Railway. And end-door SWT stock is not exactly suitable for handling quick loading and unloading at stations, which is what will be needed if the broader Devon metro concept is to work properly - a common train fleet of broadly similar vehicles for all routes in the network is what's needed.

And if the key idea is to create a Devon and Cornwall franchise, with a few add-ons, then I can't see the folk of the Royal Duchy being too keen on being identified with an old Saxon kingdom if they can help it.

 

[21C101]

Being an interminably long through service did not do a great deal for the long-term prospects of Wrexham & Shropshire.

I think not being able to take people south from Wolverhampton and not being allowed to stop at Birmingham New Street under moderation of competition rules had more to do with it.

The whole point of beefing up Axminster-Exeter services is to increase rail's share of travel between East Devon and Exeter - and grow revenue - as part of a scheme to improve rail services across much of Devon, not some sort of sinister 21st century GWR raid on the revenues of the Southern Railway.

I think you will find that train operating companies view rival TOCs operating new services on their patch and taking a goodly chunk of ORCATS revenue as a result in pretty similar terms. I suspect rivalry between those two companies is at least as great as SR/GWR rivalry was, if not more so, particularly on the bus side of things. For example, I've heard from various sources that SWT are apparently going to reinstate the through roads at Exeter Central as stock stabling sidings soon, so they don't have to pay FGW to use theirs anymore.

And end-door SWT stock is not exactly suitable for handling quick loading and unloading at stations, which is what will be needed if the broader Devon metro concept is to work properly - a common train fleet of broadly similar vehicles for all routes in the network is what's needed.

Well, from what I read here and elsewhere end door stock is exactly what the Barnstaple line is getting once Reading electrification releases 165s to allow 158s to be cascaded to the Barnstaple line. By all accounts the only debate to be had stock wise is which TOCs badge will be on them.

 

[jimm]

The reason behind the suggestion is that we have a lot of 125mph DMU's and a big shortage in other DMU's.

Well if a 125mph unit is the answer for the Newquay branch, then we have solved pacer replacement at one fell swoop...

OK SWT's take on the 222's to replace the 159's, to maximise the number of seats they are going to want them as 10 coach sets (which will still be less than the 9 coach 159's). To achieve this they will need at least 7 sets (no spares), this will require 56 of the 89 central coaches, leaving 33 for the remaining 20 sets. Which in all (given they would probably like 3 spare sets which would leave just 9 central coaches) likelihood result in a number of end coaches becoming very expensive razor blades.

A few razor blades is better than a whole lot of them - which is the only obvious thing to do (unless Iran wants to buy 222s after being landed with 141s) given that people seem detemined to insist on ruling out any and every possible alternative - especially if the process results in 158/159 stock going to help solve problems elsewhere.

A five year gap which saw the closure of the UK factory which made the original 390's meaning that the new coaches had to be shipped from Italy. Also the order for the extra 390's was for 85 coaches, which is a fairly small train order. It is therefore hardly surprising that it was costly.

Yes, well aware of all that thanks, which is why the IEP line should keep running beyond the current firm orders and get the GW fleet replacement done at one go. No stopgaps, whether HSTs or 222s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think not being able to take people south from Wolverhampton and not being allowed to stop at Birmingham New Street under moderation of competition rules had more to do with it.

And there was the rather faster trip to London from Wrexham offered by Virgin, direct or with a change at Chester - not unlike driving to Tiverton, or changing to a Paddington train at St Davids.

I think you will find that train operating companies view rival TOCs operating new services on their patch and taking a goodly chunk of ORCATS revenue as a result in pretty similar terms. I suspect rivalry between those two companies is at least as great as SR/GWR rivalry was, if not more so, particularly on the bus side of things. For example, I've heard from various sources that SWT are apparently going to reinstate the through roads at Exeter Central as stock stabling sidings soon, so they don't have to pay FGW to use theirs anymore.

If it is the express wish of the DfT and the local authorities that such a service should happen, then it won't matter one bit what SWT thinks, because it will be written into a franchise. And if the market grows - which seems fair to assume given passenger growth generally and the opening of Cranbrook - there is likely to be a great deal more money coming in all round.

Well, from what I read here and elsewhere end door stock is exactly what the Barnstaple line is getting once Reading electrification releases 165s to allow 158s to be cascaded to the Barnstaple line. The only debate to be had stock wise is which TOCs badge will be on them.

Let's wait and see on that shall we? The jury is still out on the idea of putting Turbos on Bristol-Portsmouth - as someone who uses them on a regular basis I know why there are many things they are far better suited to than that job - and the first call on any 158s freed up around Bristol will be to strengthen Portsmouth services and displace 150s from main line work through Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, where they could actually use their 90mph capabilities - unlike on the infrastructure north of Exeter.

 

[D6975]

For instance there are currently 17 5 coach sets, 6 7 coach sets and 4 4 coach sets. I would take a coach off 4 of the 7 coach sets, and add that coach to each of the 4 coaches sets to make them 5 coach trains. that way you have 27 5 coach trains and 2 7 coach trains.

That doesn't add up..
Doing what you suggest would give
2 x 7 car
4 x 6 car
21 x 5 car

 

[The Ham]

Maybe one way to square the circle with regards to the use of 222's on SWT's WofE services is for them to be used after Salisbury - Basingstoke has been wired up to run Salisbury - Exeter (& beyond?) With EMU's running Salisbury - Waterloo. There could still be some through services but these would be focused on the off peak services.

 

[TerminalJunkie]

IIRC the Hourly clockface timetable was one of FGWs first 'resolutions' of the D&C Branches. I remember going down there in the first few weeks of it being just into FGW and it was still the odd patterned Wessex Timetable.

You recall incorrectly :P

Wessex had a (largely) clockface timetable in place starting May 2004. They did it by cutting nearly all the request stops; I have a note from a meeting in September 2003 that says the key to the new timetable was getting from Topsham to Eggesford in 45 minutes. This was tight, and did result in trains regularly being turned at Topsham because they were late.

FGWs current timetable (ignoring what they did in December 2006!) allows 1 hr from Topsham to Eggesford; this requires an extra unit over the Wessex timetable, but that's when the Pacers came back...

 

[iantherev]

Maybe one way to square the circle with regards to the use of 222's on SWT's WofE services is for them to be used after Salisbury - Basingstoke has been wired up to run Salisbury - Exeter (& beyond?) With EMU's running Salisbury - Waterloo. There could still be some through services but these would be focused on the off peak services.

What about folk who commute from west of Salisbury? I'm sure they'll understand having their through trains taken away for what might seem a fantasy train fleets exercise. The thing about the Exeter - Waterloo service is that most of the time west of Basingstoke it works well. If it ain't broke....

 

[21C101]

What about folk who commute from west of Salisbury? I'm sure they'll understand having their through trains taken away for what might seem a fantasy train fleets exercise. The thing about the Exeter - Waterloo service is that most of the time west of Basingstoke it works well. If it ain't broke....

Have to agree there. Would be sorry to see the 159s go they are nice trains. Comfortable seats that line up with the windows. Any attempt to withdraw through trains would cause uproar.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it is the express wish of the DfT and the local authorities that such a service should happen, then it won't matter one bit what SWT thinks, because it will be written into a franchise. And if the market grows - which seems fair to assume given passenger growth generally and the opening of Cranbrook - there is likely to be a great deal more money coming in all round.

To be honest it now looks like the Waterloo - Exeter and Exmouth - Barnstaple services will all be in the same franchise soon anyway.

I gather the proposed new Southwest franchise will include Waterloo - Exeter plus all FGW services west of Newbury and south of the South Wales Main Line - except the Intercity Paddington to Plymouth/Paignton/Penzance services, which will remain with the Great Western franchise. Hence the reason for dubbing it "Wessex Trains" because it is basically a revival of Wessex Trains.

As for Bristol Portsmouth, I heard that they were going to get class 442s operated push pull by class 73s.

 

[anme]

The combined franchise sounds like a good idea. Lets see if they can find someone better than NatEx to run it. Someone who isnt going to spit their dummy out and hand the keys back if things don't go their way.

You're better off if the franchise holder does "spit their dummy out and hand the keys back if things don't go their way".

Firstly, you don't want a company that doesn't care to run the franchise at minimum cost for probably the best part of a decade if things don't work out for them in the first year or two.

Secondly, Directly Operated Railways (or whatever they were called) did a pretty good job of the East Coast.

 

[iantherev]

Given that the promise of a new South West franchise was made to audiences in Plymouth and Cornwall who were concerned about faster services to London and that they weren't getting a fair deal from the FGW franchise, the details do seem like an epic fail on all accounts.

 

[TheWalrus]

Hope Valley enhancements might allow an extra path. This would probably go to Derby however, although after Derby remodelling it might be able to continue to Nottingham.

I was thinking an additional hourly Derby-Manchester via Sheffield, relieving the Liverpool-Norwich of calls at Sheffield, Chesterfield and Dronfield. I would also increase the Hope Valley stopper to hourly with the smaller stations served two-hourly like a skip stopping pattern, therefore speeding these services up and giving Sheffield an additional reasonable link to Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If they are actually serious about this South West franchise why don't they just give Waterloo-Exeter to the GW franchise? I know this isn't good having two operators into Waterloo but this is what the government look like they are trying to do ATM. Personally I don't understand the logic behind the idea, other than political reasons.

 

[daniel3982]

Other options for increased services over the Hope Valley would be Lincoln - Sheffield - Manchester or Hull - Doncaster - Sheffield - Manchester.

 

[RobShipway]

Given that the promise of a new South West franchise was made to audiences in Plymouth and Cornwall who were concerned about faster services to London and that they weren't getting a fair deal from the FGW franchise, the details do seem like an epic fail on all accounts.

The new South West trains Franchise will not be started to be looked at until 2018 as SWT hold the current franchise until 2019 as per http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...h-to-retain-south-west-trains-until-2019.html.

 

[21C101]

The new South West trains Franchise will not be started to be looked at until 2018 as SWT hold the current franchise until 2019 as per http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...h-to-retain-south-west-trains-until-2019.html.

He was referring to the proposed new South West (England) franchise covering roughly the old Wessex Trains Area, not the Sotuhern Region (Western Division) franchise.

 

[The Ham]

Well if a 125mph unit is the answer for the Newquay branch, then we have solved pacer replacement at one fell swoop...

The unit on the Newquay branch is not used very heavily as there is a fair amount of sitting around waiting for the next service, it also has to travel to get there and is only 4 services each way a day. Meaning that if it costs more to run the overall GW bill is hardly any different, however some of the extra costs would likely be offset by increased ticket sales from people being more attracted due to the direct nature of the service. Compare this with Pacers where they are often running a frequent intensive service and there are a lot of them, meaning that the extra costs would be significant with little chance of extra income (or only fairly small value ticket sales).

A few razor blades is better than a whole lot of them - which is the only obvious thing to do (unless Iran wants to buy 222s after being landed with 141s) given that people seem detemined to insist on ruling out any and every possible alternative - especially if the process results in 158/159 stock going to help solve problems elsewhere.

If you are willing to accept a lot of end coaches being scrapped (which is what would likely happen to minimise the loss of peak hour seats into Waterloo) then there would be more uses for the 22x's. For instance once XC can have all the 221's and/or they start being able to run EMU's then they could scrap end coaches to enable longer sets rather than needing to run units in pairs.

Yes, well aware of all that thanks, which is why the IEP line should keep running beyond the current firm orders and get the GW fleet replacement done at one go. No stopgaps, whether HSTs or 222s.

One way to keep the production line running and still having the 222's as a stop gap for a few years for GW services (so the follow on order could also include train lengthening) and increasing capacity into Waterloo would be a new order of class 800's for SWT's (given parts of their network would need to be cleared for them anyway).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He was referring to the proposed new South West (England) franchise covering roughly the old Wessex Trains Area, not the Sotuhern Region (Western Division) franchise.

Although others have been talking about parts of the Wessex franchise area joining the SWT's franchise. Personal I think that it might be worth investigating the remove the WofE services from the SWT's franchise and have that as part of the Devon and Cornwall franchise. Although it would mean that it still had services into London, this wouldn't be the majority of their services (unlike GW) and would mean that there were less fights over the line between Exeter and Axminster where capacity may be a problem