Chiltern Evergreen 3 - Further new Track Access Agreement Application

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Posted today here

Plenty of reading.....

It seems as though the new 172s (when they finally arrive) will be doing the local 'metro' services from MYB^▸ (London (Marylebone)) to Gerrards Cross...

[John R]

1 hr 38 London to Birmingham every hour is fairly impressive!

[Timmer]

1 hr 38 London to Birmingham every hour is fairly impressive!

Now that really IS providing an alternative to Virgin between London-Birmingham especially if the Walk-on fares are much cheaper.

[Btline]

1 hr 38 London to Birmingham every hour is fairly impressive!

As I said, this new journey time is NOT a headline, like others here have claimed. It is regular and includes stops.

[ChrisB]

Sorry - only 1tph at that spped is headline - a regular 2tph at that speed, and I'll agree with you.

[Btline]

No, there were people who claimed that the sub 100 timing would only be on a peak to London and a peak from London. That's what a headline timing is.

Chiltern's B'ham timings currently have 1 tph about 10 mins faster than the other, due to the differences in stopping patterns. In the new timetable, one train is 100 mins, the other stops a bit more.

Sorry, but to call a timing that occurs every hour a "headline" is absurd!

[paul7575]

Well done to ChrisB for cross posting my link before I got round to it...

I'm with Btline about headline times though. An hourly fast is different to for instance VWC's 'headline' Glasgow - Euston - which only runs once or twice each way per day.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

As one of the doubters as to the validity of the Evergreen 3 scheme, let me address it.

Firstly, thanks for posting the links to an absolutely fascinating document! All of the rumours and contradicting statements have been answered, and the document(s) provide a very clear indication of Chiltern's ambitions.

Some of their intentions are, quite frankly, staggering! Some of the headlines include the 100 minute journey times that we'd been told about. Other improvements are impressive to say the least; London to Warwick Parkway in 75 minutes (down from 88 minutes); London to Banbury at 52 minutes (down from 63 minutes); London to Wycombe at 22 minutes (down from 29 minutes); 750 car park spaces at the new Water Eaton station; 350 at the revamped Bicester Town station; remodelled junction speeds with massive increases including Aynho Junction in the down direction raising from the current 40mph limit up to 85mph (that will be some track cant!); a rebuilt up platform at Bicester North with linespeed increased from 25mph to 100; and a stated hoped introduction date of December 2010 (for phase 1)- only just over a year away!

Now that little lot is ambitious to say the least. Perhaps too ambitious?

Whilst the scope of the track work goes quite some way beyond what I was expecting, I am still concerned that Chiltern are biting off more than they can chew with some of these proposed schedules. Even non-stop, 52 minutes from London to Banbury (a distance by rail of some 70 miles) is very challenging for a 100mph train with non-exceptional acceleration. I note that Chiltern are expecting a 1.2% worsenment of their PPM^‡(resolve) figures as a result of the Stage 2 timetable - I wonder if that's what the press will pick up on!

Also, there are still a significant number of occasions when I have witnessed a Class 165 working vice a 168 on London to Birmingham services this year (I estimate about 5% of workings). That doesn't sound like much, but a Class 165 on those point-to-point timings will woefully struggle to keep up, whereas now it only loses a couple of minutes.

Added to that, fourteen months to install all of the realigned track, extra junctions and revised signalling is an incredibly tight time-scale in railway terms - even if major work started tomorrow.

I also have concerns about what the new timetable will mean for some existing passenger flows. It's win, win, win for many flows and the vast majority of commuters into and out of London. However, some routes suffer badly. As of now, anybody wanting to travel off-peak from High Wycombe to Banbury has 6 direct trains to choose from (and a couple of indirect ones) between 11am and 3pm. With the proposed timetable, there'll be only two trains - a service every two hours on the Stratford route.

High Wycombe to Birmingham fares even worse with no direct trains at all during those times - indeed with a change at Banbury there will still only be a service every two hours! So that's a huge decrease in the number of trains and options for a town of around 100,000. I suppose you could go from Wycombe to Oxford and change there, but if the AXC^» (Arriva Cross Country - about) timings are the same from Oxford as they are now, you'll be looking at a 25 minute connection time!

Other routes suffer as well; if you want to go from Beaconsfield to Denham, Ruislip or Wembley off-peak you currently have a direct train every 30 minutes (one stopping at West Ruislip and one at South). With Evergreen 3 then all of the direct trains are gone with only an hourly service if you change at Gerrards Cross.

It's a similar type of story to the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) Very High Frequency timetable, with lots of significant flows on the non-London routes suffering badly in comparison with before. Whether Chiltern will be forced to improve things remains to be seen.

So, overall, Chiltern should be congratulated for having the ambition and financial backing to propose such a scheme - and their 'track' record on being able to deliver them on time and on budget has so far been unquestioned -  but many of my reservations remain! Thoughts?

[John R]

A very thought provoking review. Chiltern's attempt to provide an alternative competitive to Virgin on the Birmingham route is to be commended, but not if it results in the deterioration to local services that you seem to indicate.   

[Btline]

The loss of links to HW is a shame, but the majority of flows are to and from London, so this new timetable will benefit many.

I personally can't wait for it. 2 hours 25 minutes for Kidderminster to London! That's competition for both FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises)!

And as for 75 mins to Warwick P'way..... let's just say that a car park extension may be required!!

[JayMac]

The loss of links to HW is a shame, but the majority of flows are to and from London, so this new timetable will benefit many.

That 'many' obviously doesn't include hundreds of thousands of potential passengers in the 'Chiltern' area who may want to go somewhere other than London, and currently can.

I personally can't wait for it. 2 hours 25 minutes for Kidderminster to London! That's competition for both FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises)!

And all those pax at HWY left out by the changes to Chiltern's calling patterns? Have they got two other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to choose from?

[Mookiemoo]

The loss of links to HW is a shame, but the majority of flows are to and from London, so this new timetable will benefit many.

I personally can't wait for it. 2 hours 25 minutes for Kidderminster to London! That's competition for both FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises)!

And as for 75 mins to Warwick P'way..... let's just say that a car park extension may be required!!

I personally do not think the obsession with London is a good thing ........ not everyone wants to go there!

Getting From liverpool to AN other place anymore is significantly worse now the VT train stopping pattern has changed. 

There needs to be a balance.  Note this is from someone who likes FAST^▸ (Federation Against Software Theft) services to London - but if the intermediate services suffer as much as this and the VHF service causes - then it is NOT a GOOD THING. 

Several (several depending on the proportion of overall services e.g. cotswolds - 1 in each peak - virgin - 1 an hour or maybe even every two hours) being FAST services with the rest giving a balance. 

FFS^▸ (for goodness' sake (a more polite definition)) - NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO GO TO LONDON

If I could never go there again - I'd weep with joy

[ChrisB]

Even non-stop, 52 minutes from London to Banbury (a distance by rail of some 70 miles)

Last time I looked, the distance in the printed National Rail TT was 64 miles....

I note that Chiltern are expecting a 1.2% worsenment of their PPM^‡(resolve) figures as a result of the Stage 2 timetable
....
Also, there are still a significant number of occasions when I have witnessed a Class 165 working vice a 168 on London to Birmingham services this year (I estimate about 5% of workings).

Those two things may very well be connected!

Added to that, fourteen months to install all of the realigned track, extra junctions and revised signalling is an incredibly tight time-scale in railway terms - even if major work started tomorrow.

I understand that a number of blockades are being planned.....services redirected to Padd during Northolt Junction works, for example....

As of now, anybody wanting to travel off-peak from High Wycombe to Banbury has 6 direct trains to choose from (and a couple of indirect ones) between 11am and 3pm. With the proposed timetable, there'll be only two trains - a service every two hours on the Stratford route.

Something that User Groups have already picked up on & at least one is already in discussion with their TT planners about. You'd be surprised at the number of pax doing HWY - BAN....

So, overall, Chiltern should be congratulated for having the ambition and financial backing to propose such a scheme - and their 'track' record on being able to deliver them on time and on budget has so far been unquestioned -  but many of my reservations remain! Thoughts?

Ambition, definitely yes - but the financial backing? On this showing, all they're proposing is to spend money that's been specified in their franchise since they won it. Not to spend it would mean loss of the extension to 20 years....wehich would hit them severely in their pockets. It's a shame that more rolling stock isn't also on the shopping list. THose 8 carriages of 172 stock will be insufficient well before the end of the extended franchise. If I were the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), I'd be looking at moving the Oxford - Bicester spend into stock....or spend extra on the Oxford project.

[IndustryInsider]

Even non-stop, 52 minutes from London to Banbury (a distance by rail of some 70 miles)

Last time I looked, the distance in the printed National Rail TT was 64 miles....

I note that Chiltern are expecting a 1.2% worsenment of their PPM^‡(resolve) figures as a result of the Stage 2 timetable
....
Also, there are still a significant number of occasions when I have witnessed a Class 165 working vice a 168 on London to Birmingham services this year (I estimate about 5% of workings).

Those two things may very well be connected!

Added to that, fourteen months to install all of the realigned track, extra junctions and revised signalling is an incredibly tight time-scale in railway terms - even if major work started tomorrow.

I understand that a number of blockades are being planned.....services redirected to Padd during Northolt Junction works, for example....

As of now, anybody wanting to travel off-peak from High Wycombe to Banbury has 6 direct trains to choose from (and a couple of indirect ones) between 11am and 3pm. With the proposed timetable, there'll be only two trains - a service every two hours on the Stratford route.

Something that User Groups have already picked up on & at least one is already in discussion with their TT planners about. You'd be surprised at the number of pax doing HWY - BAN....

So, overall, Chiltern should be congratulated for having the ambition and financial backing to propose such a scheme - and their 'track' record on being able to deliver them on time and on budget has so far been unquestioned -  but many of my reservations remain! Thoughts?

Ambition, definitely yes - but the financial backing? On this showing, all they're proposing is to spend money that's been specified in their franchise since they won it. Not to spend it would mean loss of the extension to 20 years....wehich would hit them severely in their pockets. It's a shame that more rolling stock isn't also on the shopping list. THose 8 carriages of 172 stock will be insufficient well before the end of the extended franchise. If I were the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), I'd be looking at moving the Oxford - Bicester spend into stock....or spend extra on the Oxford project.

Well, perhaps the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) timetable is wrong? I've just mapped the whole route very accurately on Google Earth and it comes out at 68.7 miles. It also comes out at 62 miles as the crow flies. Perhaps Google Earth is inaccurate? Hopefully Chiltern know the exact distance and have not underestimated the time needed!

In terms of providing a more acceptable service for the non-London flows, stopping one of the 2tph between London and Birmingham at High Wycombe (off peak at least) would improve things quite significantly. Yes, it would add a couple of minutes to the overall journey time, but with Wycombe having the slowest line speed of the whole route (only set to rise from 50mph to 60mph as a result of Evergreen 3), the overall time lost by a stop isn't as great.

In the phase 2 timetable from London if the xx:00 stopped then it would provide an hourly northbound service from Wycombe (at xx:24) to Banbury and stations to Birmingham with a third service every two hours to Banbury and Stratford at xx:08. The xx:24 departure at Wycombe would connect in well with an arrival at Wycombe from Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield (at xx:18).

Coming the other way, if the xx:32 from Birmingham Moor Street was retimed two minutes earlier then made a stop at Wycombe at xx:55, again that would connect in reasonably well with the xx:08 from Wycombe to Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross.

In my opinion those would be the minimum changes required to provide Wycombe, Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield with a reasonable spread of services to and from the north. Though I'm sure the various RUG^» (Rail User Group - about)'s will have other issues with it too.

I'm not sure of the totality of Chiltern's franchise agreement. I know in exchange for their 20 years deal, they have committed to spending on the Oxford services and speed up the Marylebone to Birmingham time, but have they actually committed to a 100 minutes journey time? If not, then major works like rebuilding the layout and up platform at Bicester and rebuilding Aynho Junction and its approaches could be considered as extra expenditure purely on business case merits. Either way this is going to cost them a significant sum of money.

One additional point is the lack of mentions about W&SMR in these documents. Taking the timetable proposals for example, there's provision for freight paths in the timetables (though the document says they 'need improving'), but no mention at all of actual paths to/from Wrexham. With the incredible detail included in the performance modelling document using RailSys (see the RWA Report document for details), you'd assume that these trains had been fully modelled into the system, too? In which case why aren't they marked on the timetable?

[ChrisB]

Can't disagree with any of that, and those thoughts on Wycombe stops mirror our User Groups - and we're already working on them!

There is an aspiration for 100 minute Birminghams (possibly only a secondary one, but it's definitely there) - what isn't there is any aspiration or requirement to go to Oxford. All the expeditures identified in the franchise are specified to be spent on improving the services / stations / track on those services specified in their franchise

Chiltern are looking for DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) approval as they wish to spend money outside that specification. I understand the DfT are actually still to take a final decision (partly dependent on the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) agreeing with Network Rail on these three Track Access Applications (TAA) currently with the ORR)

The remainder of the proposed Evergreen 3 works definitely come under their franchise specification. But in a recession, they obviously don't want to spend above the required spend required by the franchise, hence the reduction of works on the Oxford - Bicester Town line where they're no longer dualling the entire line.

One aspect of their Oxford application  - the ORR don't like open-access applications (which this is as it isn't in Chiltern's franchise) where the major income is abstracted from other franchisees. A point made well in Chiltern's objection to ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)))'s Marylebone service application (see other thread) - but where are Chiltern likely to get major income from serving Oxford / Water Eaton? The latter will draw commuters off the Cotswold Line, and it's obvious who'll use their service from Oxford! So little or no 'new' rail customers. The only 'new' customers are likely to be those wanting to go to Wycombe (less than 100 / day, I reckon)

So, if ORR dismiss ATW's application, logically they are likely to similarly dismiss Chiltern's application to Oxford. A possible alternative is if the DfT agree with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for FGW to give up Bicester Town in favour of Chiltern & add it to Chiltern's franchise - but FGW will definitely want compensation! (Thought - why not give FGW the Stratford services back? - Chiltern can't make them pay....)

They can't put WSMR^▸ (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) paths in this application as it's a Chiltern application - and WSMR are still their own entity as at time of submission. One of the other TAAs requests permission to roll WSMR into Chiltern. Chiltern / WSMR have currently got 3 TAAs with the ORR (maybe 4 actually - 3 Chiltern & 1 WSMR)