Great Western Coffee Shop

At last, some more common sense!

DB are objecting to ATW's proposals for Aberystwyth - London services. Many of the points I, and others here, have raised before have been mentioned, such as stating that the the new services would have a serious impact on the Evergreen 3 upgrade (by the use of inappropriate rolling stock).

They are also threatening to withdraw the WSMR services!

I am really keeping my fingers crossed that the plan is killed off permanently.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-atw-38sa-chiltern-191009.pdf

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-atw-38sa-chiltern-app1.pdf

Thanks for posting the links, Btline.

I too have serious reservations about ATW's plans, though personally I am not at all convinced that the arguments about 158's being as inappropriate as DB claim actually stack up. There's no way on earth a 168 matches a 165/0 for initial acceleration, whether it was designed to or not! And Evergreen 3 will not allow prolonged 100mph running south of Princes Risborough as the track formation simply won't allow it.

It's a shame that such squabbling and veiled threats have a place in our railways, but I guess it's at least a sign that business is being keenly fought over.

I wouldn't want to be accused of starting rumours, would I? And before anyone claims, I HAVE read them.


Perhaps, but a lot of the route will be 100mph from Dec 10. As well as this, it has been shown that the 158 eat 2 168/loco+coach paths on the route from Leamington and London. This is bad news, esp for when the Oxford service are to be squeezed in!

 ;D

Well I never, they're objecting. As is their right under the ORR process. Just as it is other people's right to object to Chiltern taking over W&S operations during the ORR consultation on that proposal. I would be surprised if ATW and Virgin didn't have something to say about another franchise operator acquiring day-to-day control over an open access operation competing with them.

As for "it has been shown", that's according to DB/Chiltern, who might be expected to put a certain gloss on things. No doubt ATW have calcualtions proving something else. And DB seem curiously reluctant to mention 165/0s top speed of 75mph, other than saying they have better initial acceleration than a 158. There will still be lots of 165 services out there, never mind whether the line speed limit is 90mph or 100mph. And if a 158 isn't stopping anywhere on the Chiltern Line, presumably it will be doing rather less accelerating than Chiltern services making station stops.

And I wouldn't make wisecracks about rumours, when a great deal of the stuff you posted here about W&S has proved to have had no substance whatever.

To me this just highlights the insane way we run our railways.

With a sensible even interval service on all lines there would be room for a through Aberystwyth - London train which would run in the path of a Cambrian train to Brum and then a Chiltern train path once on the Chiltern line. It would have to run via New Street and be allowed to pick up London pasengers at Wolverhampton and New Street. It would leave a gap out of Snow Hill but you could (Horror of Horrors) split/combine the train at say Dorridge or even Tysley, but more likely Leamington, with one of the existing fast Birmingham Snow Hill services.

However, to shoot myself down. It goes against the current philosophy of rail competing against rail, there isn't enough compatible suitable rolling stock and the infrastructure isn't up to carrying extra trains. The lack of a Wolverhapton to Snow Hill direct connection being one of the major obstacles to through service from  North of Birmingham onto the Chiltern line North of Snow Hill.  Which means any train from the LNW at Wolverhampton either has to go via New Street or round the houses via Bescot and Coventry.

Therefore, one has to say that putting an extra 158 path on the Chiltern line will probably be detrimental to the reliability of the overall service.

Also I don't see how Arriva can spare an ERTMS fitted 158 for 4/5 hours off the Cambrian line. Surely it could be better used providing more services on the Cambrian West of Shrewsbury.

I don't envy the ORR their final decision.

Kicking someone for posting unsubstantiated rumour, froth and gossip when they do, that's fine by me. But don't condemn them when they post what's factually accurate, even if you might not like what it says.
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2009/10/wsmr-doomed.html (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2009/10/wsmr-doomed.html)
That quote is straight from the mouth of Andy Hamilton, MD of WSMR.

Indeed, the posts I made, which - I admit - turned out to be inaccurate*, WERE from sources I thought were reliable, made by people who seemed like they knew what they were talking about (i.e. rail staff, other people "in the know"); people who have been correct about other things. I did not see the post linked to above, although I think it was quoted on an internet site I read, forming the basis of my posts.

*To say that that my W&S news had "no substance whatsoever" is unfair - W&S basically have stopped and Chiltern are using loco and coaches, although in a different way to what I/my sources thought.

Anyway, about the ATW proposal:

*DB say (and I agree) that it would be far better for W&S to operate the Aber services if possible;

*The 158s should be made better use of by having an hourly Cambrian service, the local rail user group thinks this too. The two trains a day will not make a difference when a 3 tph (turn up and go, shouldn't have to wait for much more than 15 mins) connection is available, which is A LOT faster than the ATW service.

*Whether or not the service stops, a 158 will eat TWO 168 paths. This will not improve the service. Most of the 165s will not go beyond High Wycombe, where they are stopping anyway, so probably won't reach 75 much. Chiltern are to operate most HW services with 172s when they get them = better acceleration. Chiltern are to knock 20 mins off the B'ham to London service, I think they know what they're doing, and will path the Stratford Turbos in a way that they do not slow down 100 mph services.

*I don't think VT have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining. THey get gov subsidy, W&S don't. And I hardly call the 5 trains a day serious competition.

Personally I think the Aber-London service is a good idea, its all very well saying to change at Wolves for 3 TPH but on a journey that long some people would rather sit down and relax for the whole journey even if it takes longer than changing (W&S has built their entire business on this basis!!) lets remember, Aberystwyth is a seaside town with families going on holiday with kids and lots of luggage etc.

Also, a town the size of Aber deserves a London service!

As has been pointed out many times before, whether or not it is a good service, it is felt by many within Wales which is the region atw should be focussing on that the stock should be used to ease overcrowding on services that currently exist or giving Fishguard for example a proper service with the unit as currently it has 2 servicesa day, neither of which are suitable for many people. A simple comparison would be if fgw were to use a unit to run a service say to Manchester using a unit that could be used toeither ease over crowding orcould be used to provide Melksham with a proper service which is in the TOCs region. This is the issue that needs tobe addressed and the reason the proposal should be rejected.

In my opinion all Open Access services should not be ran using stock not allocated to a franchise if it can be used within the franchise area before chasing new opporunities. After all, we could end up in a situation similair to the early years of the railway with 2 or 3 companies running the same service with none being viable as a result

Inspector, I was quite clearly not referring to the post at the top of this thread - I know full well what formal official submissions to the ORR look like, as opposed to rumours - but to what preceded it some weeks back, when we were treated to predictions that W&S would cease trading, that the W&S brand would disappear, 168s would operate most of the services, 67s and coaches would run to Snow Hill, etc. Rumours posted elsewhere were repeated here as though they were fact, without any indication of that, until he was challenged - and not just by me.

- as I pointed out yesterday, this is according to... Chiltern, who have a vested interest in claiming this. I think you might find that a Class 67 also eats two 168 paths, because they aren't exactly fleet of foot getting off the mark and are subject to differential speed limits in places, due to the impact of a heavy loco on the track and the iffy embankments.

- so we can manage this pathing for 75mph 165s (and Class 67s, see above) but not for a 90mph 158 - what can I say? And there are plenty of 165 services to Bicester and Banbury as well as High Wycombe.

Remember, the ORR are under no obligation whatever to approve the ATW plan, just as they are under no obligation to allow Chiltern to take over the operating side of W&S - they could still throw a spanner in DB's works there if they want to.

WSMR haven't stopped at all - their management team (which remain in place in Shrewsbury, Andy Hamilton included) will be employed by Chiltern. No other changes as far as I can see. The ORR wil require the open-access company to be ring-fenced away from the Chiltern franchise.


Oh, I bet they do.....I can't see ATW allowing them though. Anyone checked out the background to ATWs Commercial Director. He knows Marylebone *very* well.....


Now that is utter rubbish!

On Stratford services, Bicester / Banbury / Oxford services. The 168s are fully utilised twice a day in the current Monday-Friday timetable, so if they are to be used on the proposed Oxford services, what will replace them? It'll either be 165s or the odd loco-and-coach stock (but those are expensive to run - they've already decided against running them in next year's timetable).


Can you point me to where this is fact please? I don't think that decision has yet been taken - indeed, they haven't yet decided on the interiors / seating arrangements yet - these will be different for Birmingfham use than for local 'Metro' pack-'em-in services.


Only if they retain 168s on those services will they achieve the faster timings. In which case, 165s will be in use to Oxford. They (and you) can't have it both ways - there just isn't the stock available, to do as you are suggesting.

And if Chiltern are clever enough to path Stratford turbos (you're wrong there too - at least two Stratfords will be 168s next year) "in a way that they do not slow down 100 mph services", then I'm certain that ATW can do the same with their two or three trains a day.

You need to lose your DB-centric attitude and look at the wider picture more fairly.

With respect, Will, the ORR application to move WSMR under Chiltern does include the ability to run 168s as alternative stock to their loco & coaches. Although as WSMR are proud of their use of the latter, I'm not sure the intention is to use many 168s.....

67s & Coaches are also a possibility for Chiltern - they now own many Mark III coaches. Indeed, until the recession hit, there were plans to run a set in the peaks, I understand - but that has receeded until at least Dec2010.
 
Completely concur with the remainder of your posts though - a number of posters here seem to be very DB-centric, and aren't looking at the wider picture.

And that DB threat of pulling out of WSMR isn't serious, either. IMHO.

I'm with eight f here - this whole process highlights a major problem with privitisation. A ridiculous amount of resource is being ploughed in to arguing who should run what and how. Some of this resource should be used to build some more 100mph DMU's which the network is crying out for so we can have an hourly Aber service, a couple of which could be extended to London each day.

There ain't much point in my opinion spending all this money on ETRMS if the service level on the Cambrian is going to stay the same.

I can't disagree with autotank / 8f either - and I'd go further and say that I'd rather see more 168-equivalent stock for current / enhanced Chiltern services rather than their exercise in trying to rob FGW of customers by running trains to Oxford.

But that's another topic....

Welcome to the forum ChrisB

I thought the ETRMS was being fitted to the Cambrian precisely because it has very few trains.  This makes it lower risk for a trial which might go wrong.  If and when ETRMS is working well and bringing down operational costs it might make sense to increase services

It's not brand new technology - they are already using it in on the continent aren't they? There shouldn't be that many teething problems introducing it to the Cambrian surely?

The trains to Aber are often wedged, especially in the Summer - the infrastructure needs to be used more! Surely the cost of extra trains is small compared to the annual maintenance bill of the 60-70 miles of line through relatively sparse country.

I'm not sure. I suspect the economics are on a knife edge, hence the consolidation with Chiltern.

They'll suffer more if Virgin return to Wrexham. And that must have taken into account already - and they're still running.

I agree. It would strike me as a sensible operational safeguard to have, if for example the booked Class 67 or DVT fails at Marylebone then they might well be able to rustle up a 168 to run all or part of the way as a substitute. Also, in the event of engineering work, it would allow the loco hauled set to work from, say, Wrexham to Wolverhampton and a Class 168 operate from Tame Bridge to Marylebone.

The whole point of the Cambrian upgrade is to allow for an hourly service on this heavily congested route! Put instead, ATW are going to waste stock by running to London and thus waste the upgrade.

I'm not sure what Chiltern's plans are for rolling stock. As you say, they can't run 2tph to Oxford with the 168s unless other stock is used on B'hams. I would think that they'll use loco + coaches on several services to free up 168s. They won't use 165s as (a) they are cutting the journey down by 20 mins, so will need 100 mph trains.

Willc, the differentials between loco + coaches and 168s has been diminished since recent upgrades, and will be eliminated within a year. For most of the route it will be 100 mph for all.

I was under the impression that direct Stratford trains were being reduced, that's why I said most 165s will stop at HW. Oxford and B'ham trains will be 168/loco, what else will be 165 north of HW?

Go check that new (73rd) Track Access Application on the ORR website here (http://tinyurl.com/yfhej4u) - you'll see what other services they are running - it won't just be 2tph Birmingham & 2tph Oxford north of Wycombe, that's for sure!

Just have, the new timetable will be terrific! I can't wait...

With respect Chris and II, I know they are asking for consent to use 168s but they have been adamant that they will continue to offer first class and restaurant service, which would be rather hard with a 168 - indeed they are now asking if standard class passengers would be interested in booking an at-seat meal in advance, formalising the slightly ad hoc arrangements that they operate at present, see http://www.wrexhamandshropshire.co.uk/catering-form.php (http://www.wrexhamandshropshire.co.uk/catering-form.php) - and the current issue of Modern Railways says the following "the company insists the use of 168s would not be a regular occurrence as they do not have first class accommodation".


The differentials are not about what the maximum line speed is - a Class 67's acceleration is different to lightweight DMUs, as is its braking, and as I said last night, if there are places where there are concerns about the impact of locos on track or embankments - a particular issue much of the way from Princes Risborough to Aynho, hence the recent extensive work south of Bicester and the huge bills for redoubling a few years back - then again locos have to run at lower speeds.

Do you read other people's posts? I only ask because I said last night many services which turn back at Bicester and Banbury - or start at Banbury in the morning and end there in the evening - are 165s. If anyone wants a clearer picture of what units work which Chiltern services, then go to the following link on the December timetable that was put out for consulation, open up the pdfs and look at the top of the column for each train, where the type of unit allocated is printed http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/news-archive/ttconsult-dmr09/ (http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/news-archive/ttconsult-dmr09/)


Er, no. Yes, the Cambrian line upgrade will allow an hourly service - as yet unfunded by the Welsh Assembly government, which so far only aspires to start it by 2011 - but you could say the same thing about the Cotswold Line redoubling.

Just as the Cotswold scheme offers benefits above and beyond simply allowing an hourly service, so does the Cambrian upgrade, with major work at Dovey junction to raise the tracks to reduce the threat of closures due to flooding, along with reinstatement of the loop there, extending the Welshpool loop, level crossing improvements and replacement of the life-expired radio signalling with ERTMS - all helping provide a more robust, reliable, punctual service, whatever the frequency, just like the Cotswold scheme.

No. I spoke to an ATW guard a few years ago when the work was starting, and he said that it was for an hourly service to alleviate the overcrowding.

And Chiltern say that the acceleration of the loco is similar to a 168.

I'll ask again. Do you read other people's posts?

No-one disputes the work will allow an hourly service and that's a key aim - if the WAG cough up for its operating costs - but there's more involved in the overall project, which, according to Network Rail, should deliver a projected 5% improvement in the route's public performance measure once the work is complete.

For example, raising the track and platform at Dovey junction is nothing whatever to do with operating an hourly service. But take that out of the package and you would continue to have closures of the line when there would be no trains an hour, sometimes for several days, due to the flooding that bit of work will help to tackle.

And the upgrade work began 18 months ago, not a few years ago.

That really is splitting hairs willc. I admire your dogged investigation into this topic, but please cut Btline a bit of slack. An alternative point of view is what makes the topic interesting. Nit-picking isn't.

*tongue firmly in cheek*

18 months and ten days, actually. It's in a local paper so must be true.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2008/03/29/13m-rail-upgrade-starts-next-month-55578-20689960/ (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2008/03/29/13m-rail-upgrade-starts-next-month-55578-20689960/)

Network Rail website actually...

Actually, if you *read* their complaint letter's annex, it somewhat amazingly states that a 67 & coaches has higher acceleration than a 168.....

He won't appreciate it, you know ;D

;D Good one!