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

[whole diary]

[Richard Fairhurst]

I believe its a hoax, but I could be wrong.

Yes, it does appear to be a Photoshop job* by someone on RailUK Forums.

* well, more likely Illustrator or equivalent...

[chrisr_75]

Just a few of these could cover much if not all of the Waterloo Exeter services.

Hmmm, class 50's anyone?!

On a more serious note, don't forget the stock need to be OK for third rail electrics if working into Waterloo - I thought some of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) mk3's were unable to work over third rail territory due to the bogie design?

[bradshaw]

The ticket from Axminster or Crewkerne to Bristol is valid via Exeter or Salisbury. At the latter I catch the first train in rather that a specific one. Interestingly it was pointed out the during the Waterloo work tickets to London are valid via Basingstoke and Reading to Paddington; it seems that this might be true at any time not just then - but it is not advertised.

I was at a meeting in Yeovil last night; one of the speakers was Chris Loder of SWT^▸ (South West Trains). He was saying that the value of the 159s was flexibility to adjust to trends in loadings, adding or removing a set. Likewise the extension of some services to Yeovil Junction in the evening was set up to relieve the loadings on the Exeter trains.
From this the use of fixed formation trains on this line would not be seen as advantageous.

[paul7575]

On a more serious note, don't forget the stock need to be OK for third rail electrics if working into Waterloo - I thought some of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) mk3's were unable to work over third rail territory due to the bogie design?

That in itself ought not to be a problem, as they had enough suitable "short swing link" stock to run hourly services all day to places such as Plymouth and Penzance during the various diversions for Reading rebuilding.

But as already said 159s and 158s are a lot more flexible in terms of splitting and joining to reflect the different loadings as services head through Salisbury.  Or even to send portions of Exeter trains off to Bristol...

Paul

[onthecushions]

The HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s (half sized trains) that seem to be in demand at both ends of Britain might be more numerous if the stored Mark 3 DVT^‡(resolve)'s were used instead of a second power car at least for the 4 trailer units. They seem very adaptable.

OTC

[The Grecian]

Full length HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) wouldn't be able to keep to 159 timings west of Salisbury in any case due to slower acceleration than 159s. The HSTs might save a minute or two east of Basingrad with a 100mph linespeed, but with a 90mph max from there to Salisbury and 85mph Salisbury-Exeter, there would be an overall increase in journey times.

Another factor is reliability - one broken down train on a single line section can screw up the timetable for the rest of the day. The start-sprint-stop nature of the route with several inclines has defeated the class 42s, 50s and 47s over the last 50 years. Using 40 year old HSTs isn't likely to help. They are brilliant intercity trains - no-one can seriously dispute that - but asking them to accelerate rapidly to 85mph over an incline then brake to a halt every 7-8 miles isn't going to end well IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

[The Grecian]

In terms of moving stock around, my understanding is after sorting out the WC^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority)) / XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) split in 2007, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) don't like TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) moving stock around. Any attempt by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to move 158s or 159s from SWT^▸ (South West Trains) to GWR is likely to be stopped.

What I suspect is more likely is the end of Bristol-Waterloo services or the new services from Yeovil Pen Mill to Waterloo via Westbury given they effectively compete with GWR. I'd assume peak services from YPM via Yeovil Junction to Waterloo and back must have picked up some custom and would be safer, although the passenger usage figures for 2015/16 don't seem to show any improvement for YPM after the new services were introduced in December 2015.

[John R]

I wonder whether FG might think of using HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s on the busy workings West of Salisbury and offer some of the 159's to Scotland (IIUC).

I can't see the sense of making passenger trains shorter at the moment.

OTC

Where is the evidence that First are actually proposing making their West of England services shorter?  And Abellio's franchise commits them to replacing 158's with HST's, so they would hardly agree to that suggestion.

[paul7575]

What I suspect is more likely is the end of Bristol-Waterloo services or the new services from Yeovil Pen Mill to Waterloo via Westbury given they effectively compete with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway).

This is covered explicitly in the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) service level specification so unless First have negotiated it away then the situation is this:   

The former service (Bristol - Salisbury) is a required long term part of the franchise, however the franchisee is also required to discuss any services in excess of the current numbers after Dec 2018.

The Yeovil Junction - Pen Mill services are an experimental service but they must run until Dec 2018.

The Frome, Bruton, Castle Cary services are also experimental but must run until Dec 2018.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

Meanwhile, still no comment from The SHRUG!

[grahame]

Meanwhile, still no comment from The SHRUG!

For newcomers - that's the South Hampshire Rail User's Group. http://www.shrug.info/HISTORY%20OF%20SHRUG.html

[TonyK]

I don't understand the logic of crammed service trains and stored carriages - wasn't privatisation supposed to stop that?

OTC

You make some very simple things sound so complicated...


Tony

[grahame]

I don't understand the logic of crammed service trains and stored carriages - wasn't privatisation supposed to stop that?

OTC

You make some very simple things sound so complicated...


Tony

Privatisation discourages the addition of a carriage to your train until that carriage earn its keep.  At (say) £200k per annum to hire, fuel and service you need to add £800.00 revenue per (Monday to Friday) day by running it, and if it's only that busy for 20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes at night, the conductor / Ticket office / TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) needs to be pulling in an extra £20 per minute for that period because the train's a carriage longer. 

[onthecushions]

I can't see the sense of making passenger trains shorter at the moment.

OTC

Where is the evidence that First are actually proposing making their West of England services shorter? 

I meant the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s going from 2+8 to 2+4 and 2+5.

11 sets West of Exeter, I understand and 27 sets in Scotland.

OTC

[JayMac]

It's the net number of carriages that's important. Not the length of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) when they move to secondary services.