Chiltern Evergreen 3 - Further new Track Access Agreement Application

[whole diary]

[devon_metro]

Just for reference:

Shortest route from (London) Marylebone to Banbury
Distance: 68 miles 64 chains

[ChrisB]

Ahhh, ok, my error - All I remembered was the '64' figure.....

[Btline]

I think the reason HW calls have been removed is to have a pattern of: fast - semi fast - slow - gap - fast - semi fast, etc...on the route to make full use of the track. Remember, Chiltern don't have the luxury of 4 tracks.

However, I think that 1 tph should call at HW, as it is the "Reading" of the Chiltern line. (i.e. the place were people commute to other than London; I'm not talking interchanges)

Another problem with the t/t is that there are no Off Peak Kidderminster trains. The last departure from Kiddy gets in at about 9.55am, meaning that off peak tickets are invalid. At the moment, Chiltern have got the peak/off peak balance just right, with 3 peak and 2 off peak trains from Kidderminster, ensuring they serve the whole market.

However at the end of the day, getting as many people to London in the shortest time possible will always be the priority.

[ChrisB]

Chiltern have wanted to lose off-peak Kiddy trains for a little while - indeed, they tried to in this December's TT - but were persuaded to retain them as London Midland couldn't cover them.....this may still be the case in Dec2010.

[Btline]

Chiltern have wanted to lose off-peak Kiddy trains for a little while - indeed, they tried to in this December's TT - but were persuaded to retain them as London Midland couldn't cover them.....this may still be the case in Dec2010.

Why do they want to loose Kiddy off peak trains? Do they want fewer passengers?

Chiltern only tried to remove 1 out of 2 off peak trains this December. This is because they wanted the unit to strengthen a HW to B'ham service. However, other than the fact that LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) can't cover the service, the reason why they didn't is because they realised that the 2nd off peak train (already very busy) would get swamped.

This behaviour is very strange considering that CHiltern hare pledged a commitment to the area, and have even mooted running their trains on the SVR to Bewdley and perhaps beyond.

[ChrisB]

I think you've answered your own question - in that stock is required to strengthen the services on their main London - Birmingham route. And there isn't any spare.

However, other than the fact that LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) can't cover the service, the reason why they didn't is because they realised that the 2nd off peak train (already very busy) would get swamped

Not sure whether you mean Chiltern or LM by 'they'. LM don't have any extra stock at that time of day either, until the 172s on order start arriving.
With the new Oxford aspirations, I think all previous mentions of running trains beyond Snow Hill have been superceded. I suspect Chiltern wopuld be happy to relinquish both those and maybe the local Birmingham area stoppers....

[Btline]

LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) 172 order provides no more carriages (it actually provides one fewer coach). So there will be noone to cover for the loss.

The Kidderminster to B'ham line is the most overcrowded route in the West Midlands, there will be a uproar if any rush hour services are axed.

By they I meant Chiltern. The main reason CH kept the 7.30 was the effect it would have on the 8.10 CH departure. (not to mention the 7.18 and 7.37 LM departures, both already busy, but both would have swamps of extra people boarding, displaced off the 7.30)

And I don't think Chiltern want to pull out of Kidderminster. The trains are well used and as I said, CH have indicated further plans in the area.

[ChrisB]

Two questions - where's the stock going to coming from if further plans still exist - and if you're right (which I'm beginning to doubt, again) why did they try & pull one service out of Kiddy (and another out of Stourbridge in the evening)

[Btline]

Two questions - where's the stock going to coming from if further plans still exist - and if you're right (which I'm beginning to doubt, again) why did they try & pull one service out of Kiddy (and another out of Stourbridge in the evening)

1.No further stock would be needed, they would just run the stock down from Stour Jn slightly earlier in the morning an return it later. This has happened already, with a special SVR to London service. CH want to repeat this.

2.To enable a HW to B'ham train to be switched from 3 to 4 car operation. But at a huge cost - 4 cars lost between Kiddy and B'ham. Common sense prevailed. The axe of the late service to Stour was a consequence of this, as the unit would not be stored at Stour Jn.

The new phase 2 timetables show a half hourly service to Ox and the Kiddy services. What makes you think CH will pull out?

[ChrisB]

Two questions - where's the stock going to coming from if further plans still exist - and if you're right (which I'm beginning to doubt, again) why did they try & pull one service out of Kiddy (and another out of Stourbridge in the evening)

1.No further stock would be needed, they would just run the stock down from Stour Jn slightly earlier in the morning an return it later. This has happened already, with a special SVR to London service. CH want to repeat this.

Willc is right - you don't read other members posts. See above. You haven't answered my question....

2.To enable a HW to B'ham train to be switched from 3 to 4 car operation. But at a huge cost - 4 cars lost between Kiddy and B'ham. Common sense prevailed. The axe of the late service to Stour was a consequence of this, as the unit would not be stored at Stour Jn.

I think you'll find Chiltern still want to do this swap - and it is a swap - so why weren't they simply moving the 3car replaced by the 4 at HWY to Kiddy? I suspect that is what is happening now. The reason they put it back was that both Passenger Focus and Centro put pressure on them to reinstate. I saw the correspondence (Or some of it)

The new phase 2 timetables show a half hourly service to Ox and the Kiddy services. What makes you think CH will pull out?

Until the 172s arrive I meant. Phase 2 has shortened journey times which does release a modicum of stock. But until both Evergreen 3 and the 172s arrive, Chiltern is VERY short of stock.

[ChrisB]

Two questions - where's the stock going to coming from if further plans still exist - and if you're right (which I'm beginning to doubt, again) why did they try & pull one service out of Kiddy (and another out of Stourbridge in the evening)

1.No further stock would be needed, they would just run the stock down from Stour Jn slightly earlier in the morning an return it later. This has happened already, with a special SVR to London service. CH want to repeat this.

Willc is right - you don't read other members posts. See above. You haven't answered my question....i.e. for these further plans?

2.To enable a HW to B'ham train to be switched from 3 to 4 car operation. But at a huge cost - 4 cars lost between Kiddy and B'ham. Common sense prevailed. The axe of the late service to Stour was a consequence of this, as the unit would not be stored at Stour Jn.

I think you'll find Chiltern still want to do this swap - and it is a swap - so why weren't they simply moving the 3car replaced by the 4 at HWY to Kiddy? I suspect that is what is happening now. The reason they put it back was that both Passenger Focus and Centro put pressure on them to reinstate. I saw the correspondence (Or some of it)

The new phase 2 timetables show a half hourly service to Ox and the Kiddy services. What makes you think CH will pull out?

Until the 172s arrive I meant. Phase 2 has shortened journey times which does release a modicum of stock. But until both Evergreen 3 and the 172s arrive, Chiltern is VERY short of stock.

[IndustryInsider]

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

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^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) (maybe 4 actually - 3 Chiltern & 1 WSMR)

Thanks for those insights, ChrisB - and welcome to the forum by the way. We always need those who are closely associated with projects to help guide us (especially Btline  ) as to why and how certain decisions manifest themselves.

I still find the WSMR omissions a little strange though - I take your point about them no being joined at the hip with Chiltern yet, but as I said freight paths are identified and included in the draft timetable. Assuming WSMR have rights to their paths as part of their seven year agreement with NR^» (Network Rail - home page), then I just find it strange that they are not there on the timetable.

[Btline]

1.Willc is right - you don't read other members posts. See above. You haven't answered my question....

2.I think you'll find Chiltern still want to do this swap...

3.Until the 172s arrive I meant.

1. I think I have. No extra stock would be required, just it would be in use for an extra hour or so a day.

2. It wasn't a swap. The 4 car would run the HW to Snow Hill service where it would become what was the 7.30 from Kiddy. The Kidderminster to Snow Hill section was to be axed. I'm not sure where the 3 car train displaced off the HW-B'ham service was to end up.

3. Chiltern wouldn't axe Kiddy services just for a few years. It would kill off demand and would set passenger growth back by many years. My guess is that Chiltern will make use of loco hauled stock.

Any attempts to cut down on Kiddy services will be met with huge amounts of opposition. When the 7.30 cut was announced, the Stourbridge line user group, Centro, Worcestershire County Council, Bromsgrove Rail User Group, West Midlands Campaign for Better Transport and RailFuture ALL sent individual letters of complaint!

By the way Chris B, thanks for all this information you have been posting regarding these issues. It is very interesting!

[ChrisB]

2. It wasn't a swap. The 4 car would run the HW to Snow Hill service where it would become what was the 7.30 from Kiddy. The Kidderminster to Snow Hill section was to be axed. I'm not sure where the 3 car train displaced off the HW-B'ham service was to end up.

On that 'scrapped' Kiddy service perhaps?.....
My point exactly - if Chiltern had wanted to keep Kiddy services, why wouldn't they have just suggesting swapping the two trains around, instead of scrapping it?
I suggest to you that it was the pressure you noted from various groups that persuaded them to keep it, and don't be so sure that they won't think of doing it again.

[eightf48544]

Love or loath Chiltern they have put a considerable amount of money into the route and they are proposing even more with these proposals.

I do think the ommission of many HW stops to Brum is detrimental to the overall service on the line.

I do wonder what the point of running 100 minute trains from London to Brum which cannot compete with the West Coast except for the leisure market at very cheap fares. i would have thought Chiltern would benefit from two way traffic from intermediate staions to both London and Birmingham. After all they are the two largest conurbations in the British isles. I know people that have commuted from Leamington to London I wouldn't be surprised if they're aren't Wycombe to Brum commuters. Certainly Banbury inwards to Brum.