Rail franchise row: Fears of Great Western 'overcrowding'

[whole diary]

[Southern Stag]

On the Truro issue, I note that your 17:23 is a local unit that has a substantial turn around time in Penzance (perhaps it's even its last working of the day?).  Has anyone suggested running it - say - 20 minutes later, or would that effect dockyard workers, schoolkids in Plymouth, connections to Looe, Padstow, Falmouth and St Ives and trains coming t'other way?

It's a busy service from Plymouth and Dockyard with school children, departing Plymouth at 1557 is probably about right for them.

[LiskeardRich]

On the Truro issue, I note that your 17:23 is a local unit that has a substantial turn around time in Penzance (perhaps it's even its last working of the day?).  Has anyone suggested running it - say - 20 minutes later, or would that effect dockyard workers, schoolkids in Plymouth, connections to Looe, Padstow, Falmouth and St Ives and trains coming t'other way?

The only connections I can see that will be effected by running 20 mins later will be at Liskeard.
Liskeard 1632, Looe line departs at 1641, This service has around 25 mins slack if slightly retimed to match the main line
Par 1657 next Newquay connection isnt until 1829, so no effect there.
Truro 1723 next Falmouth services are 1727 and 1759, so a 20 minute adjustment will just put passengers onto the 1759 with a 15 min connection instead of a 4 min connection.
St Erth 1754, St Ives services run at 18 mins and 48 mins past the hour, so 20 mins later will leave a 4 min connection at St Erth.
Arrival at Penzance 1806, and may form the 1916 return to Plymouth possibly as that is unit operated.
It appears this service runs as a connection from the 1106 paddington to Plymouth service. There is a service slightly later that terminates at Liskeard.

[Southern Stag]

It has no connection at all at Plymouth from London although it does connect with the 1541 XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) arrival from Glasgow. At Penzance it divides, the 153 stays at Penzance overnight and the 150 forms the 1916 to Plymouth.

[paul7575]

  If leasing companies are interested in earning profits why don't they order a few suburban types like the Goblin line has done?  The design is on the shelf.  Why does the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have to be involved at all?

The leasing companies will not order new DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) without DfT guarantees that they will have 30/40 year in service lifetime, AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See). No ordinary TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) can give that future commitment.

The Goblin units do not really create much of a precedent, because they were ordered (by TfL^» (Transport for London - about) who probably do have a long life ahead) before the electrification policy changed, however at least they were given an internal layout allowing use elsewhere (eg Chiltern) if Goblin gets wired - hence they did not get the walk through layout provided in LO's EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) stock. 

They could turn out to be the last order of mainline DMUs for many years.

Paul

[Exeter]

Surely the stock needed is already there! What's wrong with using the day coaches and 57 off the sleeper?? Plenty of time to work a round trip to Plymouth between sleeper commitments!

[John R]

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the day coaches are first class, and I'm presuming that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would want them to be kept in good nick for the sleeper services, so not used in the hurly burly of daytime use (skool-kids feet on seats, etc).

Also, they need to be serviced at some point in the day, along with the 57, though that shouldn't be insurmountable. But generally, splitting the train at Penzance, running the loco round etc etc is all going to be a right palaver, just for one return trip to Plymouth.

[swrural]

I forgot that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is totally in hoc to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) -silly me.  This must be holding back sustainable transport initiatives all around the country, at least where there is no PTE^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) (PTA^▸ (Passenger Transport Authority)).

Yes I see the point about the short lifespan argument.  Perhaps push pull would be better with a class 73 (those bi-mode thingys)?

[Southern Stag]

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the day coaches are first class, and I'm presuming that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would want them to be kept in good nick for the sleeper services, so not used in the hurly burly of daytime use (skool-kids feet on seats, etc).

Also, they need to be serviced at some point in the day, along with the 57, though that shouldn't be insurmountable. But generally, splitting the train at Penzance, running the loco round etc etc is all going to be a right palaver, just for one return trip to Plymouth.

It's not just keeping them in good nick but the capacity of the carriages would just be totally inadequate. Only 105 seats in the whole train, a low density 150/1 has 116 and a further 25 tip seats.

[swrural]

How about 'heritage' dmus?  (see Swanage news).  Nice little earner for the lads who own the 'Hampshire' set!   

[swrural]

Or lasses who own....      plus red face smiley

[paul7575]

How about 'heritage' dmus?  (see Swanage news).  Nice little earner for the lads who own the 'Hampshire' set!   

There'll be a load of hoops to jump through taking one on the main line in normal passenger service. SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s use of Mk 1 EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) stock between Lymington and Brockenhurst came with a number of operational caveats, which were possible because it ran alongside the mainline on what was effectively a parallel separate branch, with P4 at Brockenhurst out of normal use by other stock unless the Mk 1 was down the branch.

At Wareham, the branch unit will have to join the main line - and I think they hope to use the existing platforms to avoid the expense of re-instating a bay.

Paul   

[eightf48544]

Of course the other problem is although there is good case from the pasengers point of view for replacing all 14X and 150 possibly 156 units it's not in the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) interests because leasing these units is all profit.

Also has anyone considered that with modern construction it would be relatively easy to covert DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) into unpowered EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) coaches.  

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

the looe branch is self contained, why not run a heritage dmu on it? 

[Chris from Nailsea]

They do already. 

[grahame]

the looe branch is self contained, why not run a heritage dmu on it? 

There's a limited number of branches where it would be nice to run heritage units (even MORE heritage, Chris!) - not only to release stock but also to boost passenger numbes ... let me see:
Liskeard to Looe
Brockenhurst to Lymington
St Erth to St Ives
Slough to Windsor
Twyford to Henley on Thames
in addition to those where they're used already:
Pier Head to Shanklin
Princes Risborough to Aylebury
Queen Street to Bute Road

However ... there's an issue with heritage stock - it's old, it's hard to maintain, and it might not be as reliable as a public service and businesses in the area require.