Cancellations and New Company

salopiangrowler · Post by **salopiangrowler** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:59 pm

Cancellations:

Feb 11th Cambrian Coast express from shrewsbury - london paddington has been cancelled due the engineering works on the paddington station approaches.

New Company:

Ressiance (Spelling please) Railways or commonly known as Hull Trains and building on there Success. Janurary saw the formation of the Wrexham, Shropshire & Marylebone Railway Company, this company has express genuine interest in running a direct service from Wrexham General - London Marylebone calling at Ruabon, Gobowen, Shrewsbury, Telford Central, Cosford, Wolverhampton, Birimingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Leamington Spa and the usual stop to marylebone.

This should start runing around june 2007 with 6 trains a day each way possibly upto 10 trains a day each way as the current timetable does allow for this.

If you read the shropshire star ignore the calling at oswestry bit it should have said gobowen for oswestry.

Campainers are still fighting for a Shrewsbury - London Euston Service, (No ones easily pleased around here)

samuelbennett · Post by **samuelbennett** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:21 pm

how the heck are they going to find the extra capacity at Marylbone its nearly full with chiltern at the moment

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:38 pm

Marylebone is expanding though - mainly for Chiltern's services.

Is there any capacity at Paddington?

samuelbennett · Post by **samuelbennett** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:17 pm

true but I think the extra capacity at marylbone has been already booked for in future timetables with a twice a hour half all stops to gerrads cross and the alysbury via harrow on the hill trains using the platforms since there are smaller in length and means the high capacity long distance trains dont have to be put in front of the all stoppers

johncard · Post by **johncard** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:25 pm

If my memory serves me right Renaissance own 49% of HT, and First 51%. There was an article in RAIL last year about them considering operating Nottingham to Glasgow trains, don't know whether it's still on the cards although I'd much rather see MML HSTs running over the S&C to London.

John

salopiangrowler · Post by **salopiangrowler** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:12 pm

Very true john, and is also true about marylebone, they are in partnership with laing (Liang) Railways on this one with help from ATW, for obvious depot reasons.

It would be interest to see the type of traction since ATW have now expressed interest in new units probably displacing the 142's and 150's moving the 158's onto valley line services with the 175's doing the welsh marchs solidly. Meaning that whatever TPE get rid of Renaissance has to by unless they oder more hull voyagers.

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:23 pm

If current growth on the Chiltern Line is anything to be believed, what capacity exists at Marylebone in two years time will be almost gone within ten. However, Marylebone is not the issue, The Pit - Birmingham New Street - is. That route they propose to take has obviously not been investigated for its suitability to take more trains. Wolverhampton to New Street is a dog's breakfast, but there is possibly space in the hours when certain services do not run - which is barely any these days. Birmingham New Street to Coventry - just WHERE do they think they'll find a path?! The ONLY free paths in the current timetable are at the very start and very end of the day - and are therefore completely insane in marketing terms - people would rather have to connect at Wolverhampton or Birmingham than get up at 4am for a direct service whose return service gets them back at gone 10pm. Birmingham New Street to Coventry is FULL - the only way to get more capacity is to recast the timetable AGAIN!. Coventry to Leamington - single track, with just enough capacity to take the hourly Voyager in each direction plus an ever-increasing number of freight trains. Even with a potential recast of the Coventry Corridor, and the extension of the double-track a slight extra distance, it will still only free up one path/direction/hour - and that's been reserved by CrossCountry for the (xx33) Reading/Brighton services, to relieve the overcrowding on (xx03) Bournemouth-bound services. The only option for this open-access operator is to route via Solihull. Not to mention - do they really think they'll get a path through New Street and across Proof House Junction?

So in current terms it's not workable. Is there a market, however? Does Shrewsbury really warrant direct services to London, or is it merely the ramblings of special interest groups? If this Wrexham-London service happens, then what of the possibility of financial failure, if ridership doesn't pick up and Virgin get even more aggressive with special lower through fares on connecting services?

It's all but official that Arriva want new units - Class 170s is the preferred choice. Those sets will be exclusively for Valley Lines services, with 75mph gearing and a suburban interior. The Pacers will probably then be eliminated, the Sprinters sent to strengthen other services. Class 158s are completely unsuitable for the Valleys, with the narrow coach-end doors and low-density 2+2 seating, and the high ratio gearbox unsuitable for stop-start working. With a Turbostar derivative, the gearbox can be purpose-specified for good stop-start performance, and the wide 1/3-2/3 doors are suitable for fast loading times.

allypally · Post by **allypally** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:59 am

As far as I know this service is not intended to call at Brum International or Coventry, it's intended to run via the curve into Tyseley and down to Leamington.

The service obviously has Marylebone capacity in mind, as Chiltern are the ones who are largely responsible. Wolverhampton to New Street is possible with some very careful planning, as far as I can tell in the down direction there would be a path available at least between the xx21 departure for Liverpool and the xx33 Arriva Wales service.

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:58 pm

There is a down slot at xx24 out of New Street to Wolverhampton, except at 1724 - however there may be booked freight paths in certain hours. The problem lies in getting into New Street between the 4tph local service between Dorridge and Tyseley, 2tph Chiltern and 1tph Virgin, plus freight. Then getting a path through Proof House Junction. And then they have to all match up in a schedule which is realistic. And that's just Down trains - Up trains would be further constrained by the 2tph Walsall fast service joining at Soho South Jn.

I'd be amazed if they actually find a path which meets all expectations without putting excessive dwell time or pathing allowances in. Then they have to get permission from the Office of Rail Regulation to run - which is the hard bit. I certainly wouldn't use such a service for getting from Birmingham to London - 6 trains/day taking 2-3 hours simply isn't fast and frequent enough compared to Virgin's proposed 3 trains/hour at 80-90 minute running times.

AlanP46 · Post by **AlanP46** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:12 am

Is it possible for them to bypass New St completely? I know you can go under proof house from Tyseley to Saltley, but is there a connection from that line to Aston / Walsall? If so...there's your virgin free paths

If only they could put back the line through West Brom to Wolves Low Level...

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:59 am

There's only one way to avoid New Street and get onto the Solihull line is to take the Sutton Park line (between Walsall and Water Orton). It's technically freight-only, and speed-limited accordingly. Unfortunately that means not only extended journey times, but also a squeeze between 6tph (plus freight) through Saltley. And it means a loss of potential custom to/from New Street - which will undermine the business case.

As to the line through West Brom - I'm not sure how many people would wish to travel Shrewsbury-London by tram...

viperskil · Post by **viperskil** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:09 pm

My theory of what should happen (not at all detailed) If possible switch Chiltern to Paddington, electrify Marlybone for WCML locals the West Brom:D wolves LL :@ (as you can guess im a west brom fan) should be reinstated and capacity increased.

AlanP46 · Post by **AlanP46** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:18 pm

mattvince wrote:As to the line through West Brom - I'm not sure how many people would wish to travel Shrewsbury-London by tram...

Thats why if only the could put it back! (the railway). Could reroute the Holyhead - London trains that way too...get rid of voyagers from the lower WCML

(I'm sure the welsh MPs would *love* me for that suggestion!)

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:22 pm

I also believe the line to be severed between the former Low-Level station and Priestfield tram stop, although I can't say I've properly investigated (some places are best avoided). That's why the Metro takes to the streets for the final leg into St Georges. The cost of rebuilding it to full main-line specifications is possibly not affordable in view of the benefits - it'd possibly be cheaper to electrify the North Wales Coast and use Pendolinos on OHLE. And then there is the politics - you want to close down Centro's baby - you want to do WHAT???!!! It's hard enough getting Him who is getting His own personal tram line to His constituency home to approve a mile of track through Birmingham city centre - without having to worry about digging the existing bit up so a bunch of North Wales MPs can get to London five minutes quicker.

Switching Chiltern Railways to Paddington is a rubbish idea, not least as it'll completely split the Chiltern service - with Aylesbury line passengers continuing into Marylebone but Bicester line passengers running into Paddington - thus increasing Chiltern's costs by needing two London termini. Then there's the actual getting into Paddington problem on the ever-growing GWML, and the cost of redoubling the line through Greenford. Aylesbury could not be added to the Metropolitan (if thought possible) partly because Underground stock is unsuitable for such a long journey and partly because the 'Northern Circle' is full. Then trying to put the West Coast suburbans in - you'd need far more platforms than present to accomodate those services, and in any case, the West Coast slow lines are almost full as it is - so you'd be delivering little benefit for a lot of cost - and bearing in mind it'll require putting in a connection to the Marylebone line at West Hampstead, it'll be a lot of cost.

The solutions to the various problems are:
- Recast Birmingham-Wolverhampton to release capacity where necessary.
- Build all the Midland Metro bits - the present Line 1 is the core of Centro's expansion plan.
- Relieve Euston in three ways:
1. Transfer the Watford DC line to the Bakerloo Line - presently scheduled for 2010-ish;
2. Add additional platforms at Euston - plans already being formulated;
3. Eventually build Superlink's WCML link, taking most, if not all, WCML locals into the cross-London tunnels - possibly at the expense of dropping the Abbey Wood/North Kent link of Crossrail and using the paths for Essex-bound trains.

There are better options than simply fiddling about with Marylebone. If HSL North ever happens, there will be plenty of paths for Voyagers down the West Coast...

AlanP46 · Post by **AlanP46** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:31 pm

mattvince wrote:I also believe the line to be severed between the former Low-Level station and Priestfield tram stop... cut ... without having to worry about digging the existing bit up so a bunch of North Wales MPs can get to London five minutes quicker.

I think going via Wolves LL, Shrewsbury and Wrexham would add a good 2 hours to their journey!

mattvince wrote:There are better options than simply fiddling about with Marylebone. If HSL North ever happens, there will be plenty of paths for Voyagers down the West Coast...

Hope not! Running under specified short trains down the countries busiest mainline is terrible.