|
11854
|
Journey by Journey / Chiltern Railways services / Re: Chiltern Evergreen 3 - Further new Track Access Agreement Application
|
on: October 29, 2009, 13:51:54
|
|
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» 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» 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▸ '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▸ 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▸ 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)
|
|
|
|
|
11857
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture - related rail and other transport issues / Re: London Tube - double whammy of incidents!
|
on: October 29, 2009, 09:38:16
|
No, the reason why fares have gone up is that Boris has scrapped certain Congestion charge proposals (put forward by Ken), meaning there is a funding gap. If he scraps the Western congestion charge zone watch the fares go even further. The reason Ken made those proposals was because HE KNEW he had a funding gap, and his only choice was implementation (to fill this gap) or to put up fares himself.... Boris made the difficult choice. No one knows what Ken would have done because the public kicked him out first.... And London's fares are really expensive. You can get a day ticket on the Paris Metro for less than a single tube journey! That's bollocks! Show me Paris Metro webpage that shows me the price being less than ^1.60 (about 2 euro) Whether you like Boris or not, Ken was better for London's tranport. Just look at what's been done since Boris took over! Go on, tell us..... Btline - you obviously don't live or work in LOndon, and seem to allow your views to be politically slanted. I suggest you do some research and until then, don't talk about stuff you know nowt about..... [/quote] |
|
|
|
|
11859
|
Journey by Journey / Chiltern Railways services / Re: Chiltern Evergreen 3 - Further new Track Access Agreement Application
|
on: October 28, 2009, 14:16:46
|
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‡ 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» , I'd be looking at moving the Oxford - Bicester spend into stock....or spend extra on the Oxford project. |
|
|
|
|
11865
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture - related rail and other transport issues / Re: DB complain about ATW's London services
|
on: October 27, 2009, 10:21:40
|
- 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. 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▸ . |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
