Chiltern Evergreen 3 - Further new Track Access Agreement Application

[whole diary]

[Not from Brighton]

Adrian Shooter and his management team, backed by Laing and 3i, knew exactly what they were about when they went after the Chiltern franchise. They could see the potential.

I think the growth potential of the route is not to be underestimated. It's one of the newer Victorian lines originally built to a very high standard - I think it's got more grade-separated junctions than the whole of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) empire. It has (almost) dedicated terminals in the country's two largest city's. Consider that in it's heyday Moor Street had the same number of tracks entering from the south as New Street (albeit with less platforms) but Chiltern only have to share with one other route as opposed to Virgin having to share even just the LNWR^▸ (London North Western Railway) half of New Street with numerous other routes. Chiltern managed to massively upgrade the capacity of their main line for a fraction of the cost of the West Coast Line project. I very shrewd investment if you ask me.

[paul7575]

Let's hope Evergreen 4 includes some 4 tracking in the Ruslip and Solihul areas.

There is no Evergreen 4 in this franchise - as I understand it, not in the current (extended) franchise. So nothing more until a new franchise post-2021.

Some of the franchise 'agreed aspirations' are given slightly different Evergreen designations (they have letters in the on line version of the spec).

Evergreen C was capacity improvements High Wycombe to South Ruislip with some four tracking at Northolt Jn and Beaconsfield station etc. Evergreen D is a linespeed improvement in the High Wycombe area that includes redoubling Princes Risborugh to Aylesbury!  But there are other enhancement possibilities listed, not least of which are the current Oxford route and East West Rail, inserted in 2007. However the West Hampstead interchange, Ardley Parkway (near M40), Crossrail extensions, M6/M1 Parkway etc etc are all still in the 'shopping list' of enhancements.

Having now read the franchise spec in context - it seems the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) basically allowed Chiltern to propose a number of enhancements, some of which would be drawn off as and when financially possible in order to maintain the franchise length. In the past there was criticism of Chiltern in the rail press for not progressing certain of them - I remember at one stage, possibly after Warwick Parkway opened, people asking why wasn't M6/M1 parkway (to be on the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) route towards Leicester) also being progressed. It would seem it was never required as such, just a possibility. All Chiltern have had to do is come up with enough periodic improvements that keep the DfT happy. "The parties may make such variations as they consider appropriate from time to time" as they say in legalese...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/cr/chiltern.pdf

As I said earlier, unfortunately the pdf franchise isn't searchable. The 'aspirations' are on pages 395-7 of what is a pretty large pdf file, that'll take a while to download...

Paul

[ChrisB]

Yes, there are Primary aspirations, which I understand have to be implemented by the required spends itemised in the franchise and secondary aspirations (Oxford was one of therse) which required DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) approval before being allowed within these spends.

I was linking 'Evergreen x' and being related to the required spends in the franchise, rather than each aspiration. The spend on Evergreen 3 is the last major spend required in the current franchise.

I guess Chiltern may in future want to progress other secondary aspirations, but having to spend their own money over & above franchise requirements means 'real' investment, rather than investing what was specified, and thus could be called taxpayers money. Whether the recession will allow them any fuirther investment opportunities won't be known for at least 5 years, I reckon - when passenger numbers might have recovered to pre-recession plus figures.

[willc]

And First are perfectly capable of aggressive pricing themselves, eg South Wales main line FGW^▸ (First Great Western)-only fares

Not possible - The TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) that sets the fares on any flow can't also set TOC-only lower fares.

Nothing to stop them lowering the Oxford-London fares and promoting that in their own advertising - your average passenger won't have a clue such fares will also be valid on Chiltern. In any case, Water Eaton is clearly the key point in Chiltern's calculations, not Oxford itself.

If the county council are so worried about the traffic implications, then they could always switch the money they are now paying for the Bicester service to the Cotswold Line to ensure that there is a shuttle out to Moreton-in-Marsh, with good London connections at Oxford or Didcot, giving you two trains an hour from the west Oxfordshire stations as well - and a powerful incentive to leave the car at home, or at least a station closer to home.

[ChrisB]

Chiltern I'm sure will be advertising like mad, I'm sure....

"Come and try us for no extra cost!"

And Chiltern can set their own Oxford fare, lower than FGW^▸ (First Great Western), for their own service! Whereas if FGW drop the 'Any Permitted' fare, they'll gain no advantage & just sugffer a drop in their takings. Unwise, I feel.

In any case, you can be sure that Chiltern will be getting the Rail Settlement Plan changed in their favour - so they'll get a share of Oxford ticket revenue whether or not they carry many from there.

The Section 106 money is from Bicester Village I think - it has to be spent locally....

[paul7575]

Chiltern I'm sure will be advertising like mad, I'm sure....

"Come and try us for no extra cost!"

And Chiltern can set their own Oxford fare, lower than FGW^▸ (First Great Western), for their own service! Whereas if FGW drop the 'Any Permitted' fare, they'll gain no advantage & just sugffer a drop in their takings. Unwise, I feel.

I thought this view that 'Chiltern cannot have their own Oxford fare' was a bit dubious when it was originally posted. It is really no different to Southern's fares to London from stations between Southampton and Havant, which all now provide a major reduction on SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s any premitted fares, and are  described as 'route SN only' - previously they were 'route Hassocks/Horsham'. 

So I'd expect a route High Wycombe fare that undercuts FGW's any permitted, at least from Oxford. The situation at Water Eaton onwards is presumably slightly different as Chiltern will be the lead operator for the new flows?

Paul

[ChrisB]

Yup - sorry, I'd have kiboshed that statement if I'd been reading the board at the time.

The rule is that whoever the fare-setting TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) is for any flow, they can't then also set their own TOC-only fare. Any other operator on that flow is permitted to have their own TOC-only fare. It's to prevent a TOC from undercutting itself, which is seen as anti-competitive.

Chiltern will be the fare setter at Water Eaton, so will only set the Any Permitted fare (which will be via HWY, *not* Oxford, to London). As there will be no competition from there, it will be the only fare available.

I'm sure it will undercut the Any Permitted fare from Oxford, but presumably would be set at the same or only slightly less than the Chiltern fare from Oxford....but would need to be less again than the Bicester fare to London.

Now the Bicester Any Permitted fare will be an interesting topic - currently there are different fares from Bicester North & Bicester Town to London Terminals. Once Chiltern take over routes from both stations, the stations in Bicester will need to be 'grouped' ['Bicester Stations'] (to enable punters to go out from one & return to the other, for example), and thus the fare would have to be the same from each station. That might restrict the fare chargeable from Water Eaton.

[brompton rail]

Not sure that is always the case though.  NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast) have First Class fares that are lower than the Any Permitted, and are only valid on NXEC, with no restrictions, they are in effect a Anytime Single/Return ONLY valid on NXEC. So what is there to stop FGW^▸ (First Great Western) having Oxford - Padd fares that are FGW only thus cutting out use of Chiltern and XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) (change Reading)? They probably wouldn't do that with First mind, as Chiltern are standard only and anyone wanting to go First has to travel FGW (for all or part of journey).

[ChrisB]

I think you'll find that either -

a) those NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast)-only First Class fares are on flows that NXEC don't price; or -

b) That rule only applies in Standard class.

I can ask the head fare-setter at FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in a couple of weeks though - that rule definitely exists.

Can you provide some examples please?

[super tm]

Yes that is right.  The TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) which sets the fare for a journey CANNOT set their own lowerv TOC only fare.

If you remember a couple of years ago FGW^▸ (First Great Western) set a TOC only fare between Swansea and Newport.  Arriva were unable to set a similar TOC only fare as the set the fare for that route.  What they did do is set the interavailable fare ten pence lower than the FGW only fare so there was no point in buying the FGW ticket.  After a couple of years FGW withdrew their fares and now we are back to only one fare between Swansea and Cardiff.

[ChrisB]

Indeed - FGw achieved what they set out to do, which was to bring down those inter-available fares.

[brompton rail]

East Coast Fares ........
example:
Doncaster to Kings Cross - First Class Anytime Return (Singles exist at half the stated amount)
FOR: ^271 Any permitted, no (time) restrictions (i.e. All operators including other routes - eg St Pancras (and I think, Liverpool Street) Priced XEC (NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast))
GFR: ^255 NXEC trains only, no (time) restrictions. Priced XEC (i.e. NXEC)
FOR: ^200 Hull Trains only, no (time) restrictions. Priced HT^▸ (Hull Trains) (First Hull Trains)
Similarly there are other fares along the East Coast where cheaper operator specific first class fares (Open Returns and Singles) with NXEC only being cheaper than "Any permitted", and XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) only fares too (though why you would want to travel FC^‡(resolve) in XC I don't know)
There are no equivalent Standard Class fares however, though Hull Trains only Standard Fares are cheaper too.

Is this because only Standard Class fares are regulated, and the operator can increase First class fares at a greater rate than standard?

[ChrisB]

It looks as thouigh this rule only does apply to Standard class fares.

Hull Trains could of course have their own fare - as it's a NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast)-owned flow.

[eightf48544]

I understand Evergreen 3 was approved yeasterday.

Work alleged to start today.

There will be a number of weekend blockades of the Chiltern line next year. Possibly starting January.

W&S^▸ (Wrexham and Shropshire (Open Access Operator)) drivers will be commencing route learning Coventry Willesden (mainline and via Northampton) to Willesden, Acton Canal Wharf Junction (still semaphores?) Acton Wells Junction Acton East West Ealing Jn Greenford West Junction South Ruslip (reverse) then into Marylebone. One for the track bashers.

Presummably a quid pro quo for all the Virgin Voyagers on Chiltern last year during WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) work.

Bicester spur to Oxford to open 2012! 

[ChrisB]

It had to be signed off by Monday, so that's good news.

Now, I wonder how quickly we can get the details, both of the actual work & the timetable for it to be done?