First / MTR win South Western franchise 2017 - 2024, and CMA raises competition concerns (merged topic)

[whole diary]

[stuving]

The platform extensions on Waterloo-Reading are now finished - Network Rail announced that on march 31st. The news also says that SWT^▸ (South West Trains) will start operating 10-car trains in May, as previously promised. So I guess that means the 458s are coming back "home".

Presumably the Windsor route will be taken over by 707s - that was the plan. The full complement of 15 trains won't be in place until November, but there should be easily enough to run the current service. And of course there are enough 458s to run the 4 tph Reading service. I think that's where I got the idea that that might start early - if the stock exists, and once the infrastructure (mainly Waterloo International) has been reconfigured, why not?

Well, of course the answer now lies in SWR^» (South Western Railway - about)'s hands. Would they want to show willing, or not like to suggest SWT had already provisioned for it?

[RichardB]

I think that's where I got the idea that that might start early - if the stock exists, and once the infrastructure (mainly Waterloo International) has been reconfigured, why not?

I'm guessing SWT^▸ (South West Trains) are employing additional traincrew for the increased services - depends on when their training is completed.   

[stuving]

I think that's where I got the idea that that might start early - if the stock exists, and once the infrastructure (mainly Waterloo International) has been reconfigured, why not?

I'm guessing SWT^▸ (South West Trains) are employing additional traincrew for the increased services - depends on when their training is completed.   

I can only guess about that too. But there doesn't seem a lot of point getting in new trains (including the pseudo-new 458/5s) unless they are going to be used, and that needs drivers. Transferring staff to a new franchisee offers scope for all sorts of things to go wrong, but I don't think "too many drivers" is a likely one.

[paul7575]

The current SWT^▸ (South West Trains) plans, involving the 10 car 458/5s to the Reading route and the 10 car 707s to the Windsor route, and a transfer of 450s elsewhere, followed by 10 car main suburban services from Dec 2017, (455+455+456 from P1-P4 at Waterloo) combine to provide the end results expected of the CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification) capacity project.

Despite taking so long, they were a key feature of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s 2012 HLOS.   It would be rather odd if the expected changes did not happen regardless of the franchisee changing, indeed the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) expressly required the incoming franchisee to complete the introduction of the 707s into service.

Remember though that Waterloo International platforms do not become fully available until Dec 2018.  They reclose for more work immediately after the August blockade.  AFAICT^▸ (as far as I can tell) they are not needed for the Dec 2017 timetable, and 4 tph on the Reading line is already possible in the peaks without them.   It is probably the 4 tph to Windsor itself that needs the extra platform capacity.

Paul

[SandTEngineer]

Oh dear: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/firstgroup-and-mtr-south-western-rail-franchise-merger-inquiry

[ChrisB]

No surprise really, I raised similar concerns on award....

[IndustryInsider]

I predict the outcome will be 'no action needed'.

[ChrisB]

All depends - it's an EU^» (European Union - about) request. They can override the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Commission, if they think action is needed, and the UK do as you say....

[LiskeardRich]

I see it no different to virgin having East and west coast. Two different routes with the same final destination

[paul7575]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) every franchise award over the last few years has been followed a few weeks later by this sort of CMA referral.   They never lead to any significant changes as far as I recall, so I wouldn't read anything significant into it...

Paul

[TonyK]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) every franchise award over the last few years has been followed a few weeks later by this sort of CMA referral.   They never lead to any significant changes as far as I recall, so I wouldn't read anything significant into it...

Paul

Must be seen to go through the motions, I suppose. Someone could complain more easily if the  CMA didn't look at it.

[SandTEngineer]

This interesting link has been posted on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) forum: http://firstmtrswstaff.com

[Oberon]

Reading this I get a feeling that the new franchisees aren't really interested in the Waterloo-Exeter line. This is a great pity, I feel its potential is enormous.

[paul7575]

Reading this I get a feeling that the new franchisees aren't really interested in the Waterloo-Exeter line. This is a great pity, I feel its potential is enormous.

The ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) did not call for any changes on the Waterloo to Exeter line, that will be why. 

Apart from the widely discussed decision to replace all inner suburban rolling stock, there isnt really much at all in the First group offering that wasn't asked for by the service specification.

There was little scope to increase local services around Exeter/Honiton/Axminster as that improvement has effectively been allocated to the GW^▸ (Great Western) franchise, rather than the SW.

Paul

[bradshaw]

In addition the Network Rail RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) for the Basingstoke to Exeter indicates that the infrastructure developments are dependent on decisions made concerning future rolling stock. The location of passing loops depends on the use of diesel or electric EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit). Now the latter is most unlikely, with the probability that the next control period will only fund basic work such is the over-run on current projects.
Another drawback is the sale of railway land as seen at Tisbury and now Crewkerne. Here the down yard has been sold, with an application for housing to be submitted. This together with the platform widening some years back means that the dynamic passing loop mentioned in the RUS will need to be located away from the station.
This could lead to the similar situation as seen at Tisbury where down trains have to be held until the up has passed. Likewise at Templecombe the platform changes mean that it would be expensive to extend the double track into the station. Again late running of down trains can force the up to wait until the down leaves.