New West Midlands Franchise - Standing Room Only?

[The Stationmaster]

DaFT have never said that DOO trains are as safe as crew operated trains, what they have stated is that DOO trains can be as safe as crew operated trains etc etc, the media took this as saying that DOO is as safe as crew working, what they havent done is correct the media's misinterpretation of their statement, which is a straight lift from the McNulty Report.

And of course the facts are that DOO(P) trains are statistically and actually as operationally safe as trains which have a Guard.  And after 30 years of them operating in Britain there are more than enough statistics - including on busy suburban routes - to confirm that.  

 

Of course one could even expand the safety argument a bit further by comparing road and rail accident statistics and potentially finding that if a train is cancelled, especially regularly, that is more likely to result in people making more journeys by road with a potentially higher accident rate.  Thus as DOO(P) has demonstrably improved the reliability of trains (in terms of percentage of trains run) compared with the situation before this form of operation was introduced I bet a statistician could  prove that overall it is actually safer.  There are of course always lies, damned lies, and statistics and we can prove whatever we want.  But one thing which is completely undeniable is that DOO(P) operation of passenger trains has so far had a 100% safe operational safety record.

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[CovDriver]

All it needs is the cross city to go belly up and then everything is screwed when coming into the black hole that is New St the sooner they introduce services around camp hill the better but for the time being I believe it works as best as it can why fix it when it's not really broken.

[Hobby]

A speeded up direct service from Birmingham International to Leamington,, not serving Coventry?

 

I wonder where they could find an alternate route for that then ?

 

I think there are times when a lot of us wish that line was still there!!

[CovDriver]

 

 

I think there are times when a lot of us wish that line was still there!!

 

Remember the plans for the super pit called Hawkhurst moor and the plan of reinstating the line purely for coal traffic.

It should never have been closed and ripped up

As far as I know the signalbox name board for the junction at Kenilworth still survives in my uncles retirement fund collection.

[phil-b259]

I regularly head for the xx39 local to Birmingham International fom New St. This is usually late in, thanks to late running of Beardyrail products, and turnarounds are achieved easily in 2/3 minutes - road permitting.

 

I hope crewing (staff changeover) is nailed down when everything is scheduled to run through....

 

Just because it can be done in that time doesn't mean it should be the norm!

 

If a train has a 10 minute turn round then even if it arrives late then it can form the next outgoing service on time.

 

Also depending on the service routing there may not be the need to change crews at NS.

 

As with everything to do with diagramming though, it all depends on the quality of the planning - through working does give some advantages, but so does cutting complex routes in half. What works for one service won't work for another so lets wait and see how it works before condemning it outright.

[The Stationmaster]

Just because it can be done in that time doesn't mean it should be the norm!

 

If a train has a 10 minute turn round then even if it arrives late then it can form the next outgoing service on time.

 

Also depending on the service routing there may not be the need to change crews at NS.

 

As with everything to do with diagramming though, it all depends on the quality of the planning - through working does give some advantages, but so does cutting complex routes in half. What works for one service won't work for another so lets wait and see how it works before condemning it outright.

 

The turnround times will be set by the Timetable Planning Rules - irrespective of what can actually be achieved on a 'quickie' basis when things are awry and trains are running late.  And I'd lay good money that the Rules for New St show much shorter allowable dwell times for through local trains than they do for reversing local trains.

[Classsix T]

Nooo! XC are a long distance I/C operator and currently stop at far too many stations as it is, in the process picking up short distance passengers (and lots of fare dodgers) causing major issues for people who are travelling long distance and want seats... Stopping Kenilworth would make both issues worse. What would be better would be for LM (or whatever they are called) to run a LMS-COV-NUN service stopping all stations and for XC to run express from International to Leamington. But that would mean they'd lose some of their revenue so they won't.

 

XCountry 'Xpress' services would be an excellent idea in theory, but realise too they have to run services previously operated by Central Trains.

From my own experience, whenever I have to travel West of Peterbrough, it's usually AGA to Cambridge for an ex Stansted to BNS train. Ideally it'd only stop at the junction stations, Cambridge, Ely, Peterborough, Leicester, Nuneaton and New Street right?

Well no, it has to stop all shacks to offer the good people of say Melton Mowbray (to pick one at random) a decent train service. Ah well, EMT from Norwich could do the stoppers couldn't they. Well if you want to give MM a reduction in service frequency, whilst EMT and XC keep out of each other's way.

 

I know what you're saying Hobby, but in my experience at least, all I can hope for is a substantial increase in seat numbers of the XC services I frequent.

I've actively declined meetings in Birmingham purely on the basis of the grief (self perceived admittedly) involved in short and long distance punters cramming a two car 170 at New Street especially during Xmas shopping period and a same day footie match, nightmare. Oh for a March Ped and string of pv MkIIs!

 

C6T.

[Hobby]

I think they'd agree with you regarding the Stansteds! However the 170 routes weren't part of the original XC franchise and many of us still see them as a bit of a strange addition as they don't really fit in with the rest of the routes as they aren't true "long distance intercity" services like the rest. If XC was going to include such service then we should be amalgamated with TPE and also get EMTs LPL - Norwich services... There was talk of the Leicester/Stansteds going over to the new EMT franchise which would make far more sense, they run the stations and it fits in with their routes but I don't know if they really intend to do that...

 

The Nuneaton - Coventry - Leamington Spa is pure commuter territory and should be served by trains suitable for that sort of service, Voyagers and HSTs aren't suitable, hence my comments regarding not stopping at Kenilworth (and Coventry!), an extended NUN - COV service makes far more sense...

Edited September 21, 2017 by Hobby

[dmustu]

XCountry 'Xpress' services would be an excellent idea in theory, but realise too they have to run services previously operated by Central Trains.

From my own experience, whenever I have to travel West of Peterbrough, it's usually AGA to Cambridge for an ex Stansted to BNS train. Ideally it'd only stop at the junction stations, Cambridge, Ely, Peterborough, Leicester, Nuneaton and New Street right?

 

 

There was a plan at the start of the XC franchise to do just that with the Stanstead's, with the Leicester terminators running through all stops to Cambridge, but it required extra units and extra funding, which coinciding with the financial crash of 2008 wasn't forthcoming, so it got put right to the very back of the burner. 

[Zomboid]

I think they'd agree with you regarding the Stansteds! However the 170 routes weren't part of the original XC franchise and many of us still see them as a bit of a strange addition as they don't really fit in with the rest of the routes as they aren't true "long distance intercity" services like the rest. If XC was going to include such service then we should be amalgamated with TPE and also get EMTs LPL - Norwich services... There was talk of the Leicester/Stansteds going over to the new EMT franchise which would make far more sense, they run the stations and it fits in with their routes but I don't know if they really intend to do that...

 

The Nuneaton - Coventry - Leamington Spa is pure commuter territory and should be served by trains suitable for that sort of service, Voyagers and HSTs aren't suitable, hence my comments regarding not stopping at Kenilworth (and Coventry!), an extended NUN - COV service makes far more sense...

Coventry is a not insignificant destination from the south though. Skipping it on the XC services would help people to/from Birmingham, but inconvenience another group. What it really needs is longer trains. I use XC on that route most days, and this week they sent us 9 cars once, and people were *still* sitting on the luggage racks. The next day they sent 4 and it left people on the platform.

[dmustu]

I think they'd agree with you regarding the Stansteds! However the 170 routes weren't part of the original XC franchise and many of us still see them as a bit of a strange addition as they don't really fit in with the rest of the routes as they aren't true "long distance intercity" services like the rest. If XC was going to include such service then we should be amalgamated with TPE and also get EMTs LPL - Norwich services... There was talk of the Leicester/Stansteds going over to the new EMT franchise which would make far more sense, they run the stations and it fits in with their routes but I don't know if they really intend to do that...

 

The Nuneaton - Coventry - Leamington Spa is pure commuter territory and should be served by trains suitable for that sort of service, Voyagers and HSTs aren't suitable, hence my comments regarding not stopping at Kenilworth (and Coventry!), an extended NUN - COV service makes far more sense...

I would disagree on moving the Leicester and Stanstead's to EMT. To do so would require the TUPE of Leicester and Cambridge depots, plus possible TUPE of some Birmingham based staff, all on their own pay and conditions, would EMT want a small Birmingham depot? Probably not. Do EMT get a small fleet of 170's, non standard to their franchise, and where does the heavy maintenance for them get done, would it stay at Tyseley, or get transferred to a depot in EMT territory? If the units and staff are all kept at depot's in the East Midlands, how much will that increase ECS moves to start the first trains out of Birmingham in the mornings?

 

Non of the above is impossible to solve, but any messing about with the service will increase the cost of providing it. This proposal is nothing more than a political one, made by people with no grasp of the realities of running the service. 

 

Coming round to staff matters, I do wonder how the West Midlands Franchise will manage to run the proposed Saturday services on a Sunday? Given that Sundays are outside of the working week for LM, I can't see them being able to do such a big increase without a change to the working conditions to ensure enough staff are available on a Sunday. I also wonder if such an increase is really necessary?  

[Hobby]

Staff are TUPE'd across at each franchise change so I don't see a problem... Each Depot, even within the same Franchise, have their own T&Cs, and at BHM the TMs and SCs also have their own T&Cs! Also the original XC franchise didn't include 170s which were also "non standard" so EMT getting them would be no big deal There's been plenty of changes such as these in the past franchise changes. Also I can't see why it would cost more, please explain your logic?

 

Zomboid, whoever gets the new XC franchise will be stuck with what we've got now, plus, maybe, the odd extra HST, so not many longer trains I'm afraid... As regards COV as an "important stop" for people from the south, I work those trains all the time and most of the people getting off the train at COV tend to to LMS locals and would not be inconvenienced by swapping to a local train at LMS...

 

By using the same logic you have for COV where would you draw the line? Do we stop all trains at Bromsgrove, for instance? Send all trains via Gloucester and/or Worcester? There are plenty of other stations that would shout that their station needs IC services (for commuting)... A line has to be drawn and when we start getting short distance commuters taking up all the seats on long distance IC trains then something is wrong, I would argue that BHI is more important than COV and there are enough trains doing the BHM/COV corridor already and extending the NUN-COV service to LMS would be the best answer to the current overcrowding on the BMH/MAN services. We already stop at far more stations than we used to in BR days (I have a 77/78 timetable which makes interesting reading for Table 51 (the old XC services)), if we are picking up local commuters then we aren't a long distance IC service and our trains aren't suitable for short distance commuting they are currently used for.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Hobby

[RfDforever]

I'm fairly sure that the reason for running XC trains via Coventry was primarily to serve  Birmingham Airport, not Coventry.

Living in Northampton (population rather more than 200,000 - yes, larger than Milton Keynes) I'd really like to be able to travel to the North by rail without either travelling via Milton Keynes (and pay extra) or via Birmingham (and stop at every village, not to mention a halt built to serve a now long closed car factory).

But the privatised railway seems to be operation- led rather than service-led; a criticism often levelled at BR but  which never seems to be heard nowadays.

[dmustu]

Staff are TUPE'd across at each franchise change so I don't see a problem... Each Depot, even within the same Franchise, have their own T&Cs, and at BHM the TMs and SCs also have their own T&Cs! Also the original XC franchise didn't include 170s which were also "non standard" so EMT getting them would be no big deal There's been plenty of changes such as these in the past franchise changes. Also I can't see why it would cost more, please explain your logic?

 

The extra cost will depend on how it's done, if EMT have a small depot in Birmingham, they will need to set up their own accommodation, or pay another operator to use theirs, something which isn't an issue at the moment. XC will remain in the Lamp Block, regardless of where the work may end up.

 

Which Drivers would TUPE across at Birmingham? Given that there is only 1 link of 40 Drivers that don't sign 170's, the work is very much integrated into the depot, and also bear in mind that seniority is not a sign of link progression, there are Drivers in Link AB that are junior to some link D drivers. And if EMT don't need a Birmingham depot, pulling the work out could potentially mean redundancies. 

 

If EMT decided not to have any Birmingham based staff, I'd imagine that Leicester would have to learn Stanstead. Route learning norm for Birmingham Drivers is 35 days IIRC, so I'd guess a Leicester Driver would need somewhere between 25 to 30 days route learning, that also means 25 to 30 days of that Drivers Diagram covering. And no doubt other existing EMT depot's will be chasing some of the work. Such a move will generate 100's of training days, and hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs. And of course, moves from EMT reps to get a harmonisation deal, especially as XC salary is higher than EMT's.

 

170's are very much a 'standard' traction for XC, there are 29 170's, only 5 less than the 34 220's XC have. The 170 work was very much part of the 2007 XC franchise, also the New St - Hereford work was supposed to go to XC, but got dropped at the 11th hour, supposedly in part due to issues with the cost of XC having a small Worcester Depot.

[Pete the Elaner]

 

Living in Northampton (population rather more than 200,000 - yes, larger than Milton Keynes)

 

I think your data about the population of Northampton & Milton Keynes is out of date:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population

Northampton - 225,000

Milton Keynes - 264,500

 

Although I know this is only Wikipedia data, it won't that far out & MK is now significantly bigger... still growing faster.

 

But as to your point about not travelling via MK or Birmingham: TOCs have to make choices about speed of services & how often they stop & you don't have to use either of these stations.

Euston-Crewe LM services were introduced as fast ones. Routing them via Northampton would slow these down. How would travellers from Nuneaton, Lichfield etc feel about this? These all stop at Rugby with a 5 minute interchange time for Northampton services in both directions, so these have been deliberately designed to interchange.

Rugby has Virgin services too.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Pete the Elaner

[Hobby]

The extra cost will depend on how it's done, if EMT have a small depot in Birmingham, they will need to set up their own accommodation, or pay another operator to use theirs, something which isn't an issue at the moment. XC will remain in the Lamp Block, regardless of where the work may end up.

 

Which Drivers would TUPE across at Birmingham? Given that there is only 1 link of 40 Drivers that don't sign 170's, the work is very much integrated into the depot, and also bear in mind that seniority is not a sign of link progression, there are Drivers in Link AB that are junior to some link D drivers. And if EMT don't need a Birmingham depot, pulling the work out could potentially mean redundancies. 

 

If EMT decided not to have any Birmingham based staff, I'd imagine that Leicester would have to learn Stanstead. Route learning norm for Birmingham Drivers is 35 days IIRC, so I'd guess a Leicester Driver would need somewhere between 25 to 30 days route learning, that also means 25 to 30 days of that Drivers Diagram covering. And no doubt other existing EMT depot's will be chasing some of the work. Such a move will generate 100's of training days, and hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs. And of course, moves from EMT reps to get a harmonisation deal, especially as XC salary is higher than EMT's.

 

170's are very much a 'standard' traction for XC, there are 29 170's, only 5 less than the 34 220's XC have. The 170 work was very much part of the 2007 XC franchise, also the New St - Hereford work was supposed to go to XC, but got dropped at the 11th hour, supposedly in part due to issues with the cost of XC having a small Worcester Depot.

 

There would be a cost for a small depot, but not massive as they wouldn't necessarily have a permanent manager but share with another depot (probably LEI) which is what happens anyhow...

 

If they transferred the LEI and Cambridge depots across and sufficient staff from BHM I can't see the need for route learning. The SCs are already separate at BHM and there are several Drivers links at BHM some who sign 170s and some who don't, I expect they'd ask for volunteers like has been done in the past but from those staff with the necessary knowledge...

 

I said that 170s weren't standard to the original XC franchise, which they weren't. They were then added to the current franchise causing no issues. So the same could be done if they went to EMT, the comment was just about another poster who said that it would be an issue, it wouldn't, as there would be sufficient staff to work them and they'd take over existing maintenance contracts as happens in any franchise change.

 

My view is simply that the Stansteds do not fit with the rest of the XC franchise routes and would be more logically fit into the EMT one, that's my view and I was just expressing it, same as my views on the COV-LMS corridor which I have the pleasure of working on so see the mess first hand...

[Hobby]

I think the issue is that the concept of "express" trains, with limited stops, on the "privatised" railway system has been lost. The reason for that is simple, the more stations we stop at the bigger the slice of the revenue... Shame really because with the use of faster trains and better track alignments modern express trains really would have justified the use of the word "express"!

[Clay Country]

Post deleted

Edited October 16, 2017 by Clay Country

[Christopher125]

IRJ: Bombardier and CAF to supply 107 trains for West Midlands franchise

 

Bombardier will supply 36 three-car 145km/h Aventra EMUs for inner suburban services on Birmingham’s Cross-City Line and 45 five-car trains capable of 177km/h, which will operate outer-suburban and longer-distance services on the West Coast Main Line. Assembly will take place at Bombardier’s Derby plant and the trains will be delivered in 2020-2021.

 

CAF will deliver 14 four-car and 12 two-car Civity DMUs for suburban services on non-electrified lines into Birmingham Snow Hill. The fleet will be delivered in 2020.

[wombatofludham]

That's a surprise.  I'd have thought given that Abellio have placed a big order with Stadler they would have negotiated some sort of add-on deal for the longer distance stock although the Aventra for the Cross City is less of a surprise.

​So it looks like a scaled down LizzyLine unit for Lichfield to Redditch and Bromsgrove.  I wonder how that will go down with the gin and Jag set of Sutton and Lichfield.

[caradoc]

I think the issue is that the concept of "express" trains, with limited stops, on the "privatised" railway system has been lost. The reason for that is simple, the more stations we stop at the bigger the slice of the revenue... Shame really because with the use of faster trains and better track alignments modern express trains really would have justified the use of the word "express"!

 

I'm not sure that's entirely true; Cross Country, who are being discussed above, do not stop at locations such as Didcot (a key junction) or Solihull (which the Paddington/New Street services of old did !) Virgin have very few trains calling at Motherwell or Lockerbie, and the majority of Glasgow C/Euston (via the Trent Valley, not Birmingham) are non-stop between Euston and Warrington; Which IMHO is a mistake, as stops (even if only every other train) at say Rugby or Milton Keynes would be extremely useful for onward connections.

[Supaned]

I'm not sure that's entirely true; Cross Country, who are being discussed above, do not stop at locations such as Didcot (a key junction) or Solihull (which the Paddington/New Street services of old did !) Virgin have very few trains calling at Motherwell or Lockerbie, and the majority of Glasgow C/Euston (via the Trent Valley, not Birmingham) are non-stop between Euston and Warrington; Which IMHO is a mistake, as stops (even if only every other train) at say Rugby or Milton Keynes would be extremely useful for onward connections.

 

But wouldn't stops at Solihull and Didcot nowadays be classed as ORCATS raids , and the likes of Chiltern (albeit a DB company) and GW would soon be crying to the regulators about it , regardless of any benefits to passengers who may wish to travel from those places?

 

To be honest , the XCs via Solihull may as well stop there. On the up they are booked to follow a Chiltern which goes into the loop at Dorridge for the XC to overtake , and on the down they are booked to follow an LM to Tyseley .

 

Likewise , with Didcot , most XCs are booked to follow a Late Great Western from Didcot to Oxford on the down , so a station stop will just mean less time for passengers to admire the engineering stock assembled at Hinksey Yard.

[D854_Tiger]

I think there are times when a lot of us wish that line was still there!!

 

Part of the former Kenilworth to Berkswell line is on the route of HS2. 

[Hobby]

To be honest , the XCs via Solihull may as well stop there. .

 

When we did most of the ones we picked up were commuters,Richard, which rather makes my point... The rest is more about timekeeping, if GWR/LM/Chiltern services are on time then there's no issue, in fact the GWR trains are doing what they should, they are acting as "feeders" for Express trains (i.e. the "old" concept of the services and what we've now lost), just because they are late shouldn't mean we have to go backwards, we should instead be looking at ways of making them run on times (a novelty I know!)...

 

Caradoc, take a look at Table 51 (Crossscountry's timetable in BR days) and take a look at the stops, there are very few on some routes compared with today, hence they were "express" trains. Interestingly on the Bournemouths they stopped at Solihull roughly every 2 hours but didn't go via Coventry, but the rest of the stops were the same, Didcot didn't feature even then (1978 is the timetable I was looking at)...

 

There's also whether there's a "need" to stop, you mention Didcot but on the southbound Bournemouths there's a local 5 minutes after we leave and northbound there's no need anyhow as we follow a local into Oxford. Also it's quicker to run non-stop to Reading most times and change there for Plymouth/South Wales/Bristol trains than change at Didcot, I've had to check that one many times and invariably the answer is stay on to Reading. Didcot would only be a main junction if all of GWR's trains stop there but they don't and some SW services don't go via Didcot. If we did stop at Didcot it would only make overcrowding worse and slow the journey times which was the point I was making... Unless you mean by stopping Didcot we can drop the reversal at Reading and go round the curve non-stop in which case I'm all for it!!

 

Reducing the stops speeds up the journey times and reduces overcrowding but is not something the TOCs will consider as the key issue is that it reduces revenue which is more important than the other two...

Edited October 19, 2017 by Hobby