New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[Rick1984]

Could they just not issue station tickets, similar to the footbridge passes at Guildford to cross the station.

Or better yet just leave it as it is.

 

[HowardGWR]

SWT have run services to Wareham already on Summer Saturdays during the period that 2 x 158s have been loaned out. So if they can do that already with the current fleet they should still be able to do it again.

You asked nearly the exact same question at the end of 2015 in this thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=124918&highlight=swanage+railway+wareham

and I referred you back to this one: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2088008#post2088008

...where the relevant track access application for the Saturday Wareham service was discussed. Each time you got a positive answer. So if they can do that already with the 2015/2016 fleet they should still be able to do it again.

There is a commercial impact of through running to Swanage though, which must be accounted for. If SWT went all the way, they'd want to keep the fares wouldn't they? So that would presumably reduce the Swanage Railway income. Probably why most heritage lines around the country don't include through running by the local TOC as a matter of course, it's only done for PR purposes periodically, or for rail tours.

Crikey, Mr Memory Man! Very impressive.

I presume in the through service case, Swanage would charge track access, and one would rather travel in a 158 than a 'heritage' dmu, if one were a day-tripper from Bournemouth and thus not having to change. The access charge could be geared so that it was equitable. It would be different were it steam, though, as the novelty factor perhaps kicks in.

On commuting, the same factor applies. As a commuter or shopper, I want to board at Swanage on LSWR and read my newspaper or tablet, until I draw into Poole, twice as quickly as would have been the case in a car via the A351 Bakers Arms roundabout (and the miserable rest of the road journey, plus parking at the destination). One would rather take the Sandbanks ferry on a bus, at present. Much more pleasant.

I concur (as a user) with what others have written about the Salisbury to Exeter services not generally being over-crowded, but there are summer crushes at the west end, more than occasionally. What's needed is a fuller local service, after redoubling, between Axminster and Okehampton or Barnstaple or Paignton and indeed it would be preferable for GWR to provide that, or even share with the new LSWR, to provide competition. There is a better service between Yeovil and Salisbury already, but that could be improved and made more reliable after redoubling.

The whole line needs redoubling; it's as plain as a pikestaff that this is the clue to growing traffic, which in my view, is suppressed at present.

 

[RichardN]

Could they just not issue station tickets, similar to the footbridge passes at Guildford to cross the station.

After seeing one of the gateline staff getting abuse for not giving someone a pass that second, I don't think copying the Guildford system is a good idea. Personally I'd replace the Guildford bridge passes with a smartcard, issued for a refundable deposit, so that they can track if the bridge pass is being abused.

 

[swt_passenger]

Crikey, Mr Memory Man! Very impressive.

I presume in the through service case, Swanage would charge track access, and one would rather travel in a 158 than a 'heritage' dmu, if one were a day-tripper from Bournemouth and thus not having to change.

I remembered there'd been a service not too long ago, and a TAA for it - but not that the same questions had been asked at the time. That became clear only after a search...

 

[infobleep]

The hand of Orcats raiding is all over this one - traffic at Warminster actually fell in 2015-16, after strong growth between 2012-13 and 2014-15, which probably helped attract SWT's interest. Similar growth spurt at Westbury, and still growing there in 2015-16, and who wouldn't like a few coppers from Castle Cary's Glastonbury Festival week? Frome and Bruton have both grown consistently over the period.

Well they won't get much out of the Glastonbury festival goers in 2018 as its a fallow year for the festival. Unfortunately Glastonbury will have happened this year by the time MTR and First take over the franchise.

 

[infobleep]

TBTC's comparison of passenger numbers spans four years (as you doubtless remember).

One three carriage 159 every hour doesn't compare particularly favourably to the nine carriage rake of mk2's that used to trundle down to Exeter every two hours, twenty-five years ago. It's hardly surprising that a single unit every hour isn't enough in this day and age. It doesn't live up to the growth the railways have seen over that period.

Others on here have backed up my anecdotal observations of people standing in the vestibules. There would be no excuse for units sitting in Salisbury depot.

Ones ticket does not guarantee people a seat. Therefore surely a seat is just a bonus that they offer where available. I sometimes feel that point gets forgotten.

If that is the case then having to stand now and again wheb extremely busy might be considered acceptable by those who decide the rolling stock lengths and service frequency.

 

[infobleep]

Or better yet just leave it as it is.

They could do that but it's not the route they took at Guildford. Guildfordbmirebthab likely has more services departing from it though.

 

[infobleep]

After seeing one of the gateline staff getting abuse for not giving someone a pass that second, I don't think copying the Guildford system is a good idea. Personally I'd replace the Guildford bridge passes with a smartcard, issued for a refundable deposit, so that they can track if the bridge pass is being abused.

As it is a public right of way across Guildford footbridge, I doubt they could legally issue a smart card for a refundable deposit. However I'm not a Public Rights of Way expert.

Long term a separate bridge to avoid the station might work but that would require money to build the bridge. They were able to divert the route around the road bridge between 1.30 and 4am or is it 4.30 but would a court allow a permanent diversion? I'm not sure. The footbridge is a safer route that the road bridge. I'm not saying First / MTR would want to apply for a permanent diversion. Just being hypethical.

 

[3141]

One thing which may help with loadings is making Basingstoke a Pick-up only stop on both the 17:20 & 17:50 services [I believe the 17:20 skips Woking and the 17:50 is pick-up only at Woking].

I believe there is only one 10-carriage service in the morning peaks (arrives into Waterloo around 08:20, returns with the rear 158 locked out of use due to short platforms at Overton & Whitchurch which I believe can only handle 9 carriages)

18:20 is 9-coaches.

The recent lengthening in the evening peaks is:
16:20 8-car all week rather than just Thursday and Friday.
17:20 9-car instead of 8-car.
17:50 8-car instead of 6-car.

There was similar, if not more lengthening in the morning peak.

The trouble with set-down only stops is how they can be enforced. I've seen plenty of people getting off the set-down only train at Woking.

In 2008 or 2009 I attended a meeting at which Stuart Palmer who was at that time the Managing Director of SWT said they hoped to provide at least one peak-time 10-car train. If it was desirable then it's certainly desirable now. Clearly it would be possible to run one more 10-car train if two 158s hadn't been used for other purposes.

I've checked at Overton today and the last stopping marker board on the down platform is for 8-10 car trains. On the up platform there is just one marker which says S car stop, but both platforms are the same length and if one morning peak train is 10 cars then there seems no reason why a down train in the evening peak could not be that length.

Obviously there are no current plans to provide more capacity on the West of England Line and I appreciate that if the DfT didn't require it the bidders probably wouldn't offer it, but there is strong evidence that over the next seven years overcrowding will increase and we will have to hope that the new management will be as active as SWT in recognising the need for more capacity and finding ways to provide it; and there may be more DMUs becoming available a few years from now.

Meanwhile those who experience problems on this line will continue to be aware that the razzmatazz about "improvements" under the new franchise isn't universally true.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I presume in the through service case, Swanage would charge track access, and one would rather travel in a 158 than a 'heritage' dmu, if one were a day-tripper from Bournemouth and thus not having to change. The access charge could be geared so that it was equitable. It would be different were it steam, though, as the novelty factor perhaps kicks in.

Both road routes into Swanage can be a nightmare in the summer, from Bakers Arms through Sandford can often be nose-tail at snails pace at best and via Sandbanks the queues for the ferry can be quite long and the 50 can often fill right up early on in the route (I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes the 50 would be full all the way from Bournemouth Square).

Could a Swanage DMU in theory go all the way to Bournemouth or would there either not be enough paths or it would screw up the timetable?

 

[Muzer]

Both road routes into Swanage can be a nightmare in the summer, from Bakers Arms through Sandford can often be nose-tail at snails pace at best and via Sandbanks the queues for the ferry can be quite long and the 50 can often fill right up early on in the route (I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes the 50 would be full all the way from Bournemouth Square).

Could a Swanage DMU in theory go all the way to Bournemouth or would there either not be enough paths or it would screw up the timetable?

I don't know about pathing (I'd suspect it isn't much of an issue, except maybe platform capacity at Bournemouth), but most obviously, they would need more DMUs!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I don't know about pathing (I'd suspect it isn't much of an issue, except maybe platform capacity at Bournemouth), but most obviously, they would need more DMUs!

I don't think platform capacity would be a problem as both lines are bi-directional and both platforms can access both lines

 

[Goldfish62]

As it is a public right of way across Guildford footbridge, I doubt they could legally issue a smart card for a refundable deposit. However I'm not a Public Rights of Way expert.

Long term a separate bridge to avoid the station might work but that would require money to build the bridge. They were able to divert the route around the road bridge between 1.30 and 4am or is it 4.30 but would a court allow a permanent diversion? I'm not sure. The footbridge is a safer route that the road bridge. I'm not saying First / MTR would want to apply for a permanent diversion. Just being hypethical.

You're correct. Access cannot be restricted to a public right of way.

 

[yorksrob]

being a regular user of services West of Salisbury I'd agree, most services on a normal day I get two seats to myself and the two "shuttles" that run to Honiton (1636 from exd) and Axminster (1746 from exd) nicely spread the load at peak time, only on the 1725 from exd have I ever actually had to stand and even then after Honiton there's a lot of fresh air.

I've never used the trains that terminate part way so am unable comment on them. The occasions of overcrowding that I have experienced have been most marked from the Salisbury end, so perhaps its an issue with travel from the East.

 

[yorksrob]

Ones ticket does not guarantee people a seat. Therefore surely a seat is just a bonus that they offer where available. I sometimes feel that point gets forgotten.

If that is the case then having to stand now and again wheb extremely busy might be considered acceptable by those who decide the rolling stock lengths and service frequency.

Whilst it's true that nobody is guaranteed a seat, providing people with one on longer distance journeys is certainly something the railway should aspire to. I certainly wouldn't be happy with the railway treating getting a seat as a 'bonus'.

 

[The Ham]

As it is a public right of way across Guildford footbridge, I doubt they could legally issue a smart card for a refundable deposit. However I'm not a Public Rights of Way expert.

Long term a separate bridge to avoid the station might work but that would require money to build the bridge. They were able to divert the route around the road bridge between 1.30 and 4am or is it 4.30 but would a court allow a permanent diversion? I'm not sure. The footbridge is a safer route that the road bridge. I'm not saying First / MTR would want to apply for a permanent diversion. Just being hypethical.

Although you may not be allowed to enforce smart card only access to the bridge you could offer it, as there are often times when people want to use the madness gate to get in/out with large items and are held up by groups of people wanting bridge passes. If there was an option to touch in/out with a smart card lots of people would be willing to use it. That would leave less people using bridge passes and so it could be easier to monitor who was using them to avoid paying for travel.

 

[jimm]

The trouble with set-down only stops is how they can be enforced. I've seen plenty of people getting off the set-down only train at Woking.

Do you mean getting off the pick-up only trains heading west in the afternoon peak? I wasn't aware there are any that are set down only at Woking.

Since we don't know the future timetable details yet, it may well be the case that some Woking stops get pulled from WoE peak trains as a result of the enhanced suburban capacity that is promised - an example elsewhere is that GWR Oxford/Cotswold Line fasts don't call at Slough in the peak periods.

Obviously there are no current plans to provide more capacity on the West of England Line and I appreciate that if the DfT didn't require it the bidders probably wouldn't offer it, but there is strong evidence that over the next seven years overcrowding will increase and we will have to hope that the new management will be as active as SWT in recognising the need for more capacity and finding ways to provide it; and there may be more DMUs becoming available a few years from now.

Meanwhile those who experience problems on this line will continue to be aware that the razzmatazz about "improvements" under the new franchise isn't universally true.

If there is strong evidence, that would surely have come to light during the consultation before the invitation to tender was issued - and from the information that TOCs are required to gather and report about use of their services as a matter of routine.

There is plenty of evidence of serious issues with peak overcrowding in lots of other parts of the country, not least the North, where providing just a four-car train would be a huge improvement in many cases.

First-MTR will need to look at whether the east Somerset services will continue past December 2018 and there may be a wait of undetermined length for an emu to take over the Lymington branch on weekdays, so until those things become clear, I'm not sure what you expect anyone to announce about the WoE route - I doubt things would have been any different had Stagecoach kept the franchise.

 

[emil]

Do you mean getting off the pick-up only trains heading west in the afternoon peak? I wasn't aware there are any that are set down only at Woking.

Since we don't know the future timetable details yet, it may well be the case that some Woking stops get pulled from WoE peak trains as a result of the enhanced suburban capacity that is promised - an example elsewhere is that GWR Oxford/Cotswold Line fasts don't call at Slough in the peak periods.



If there is strong evidence, that would surely have come to light during the consultation before the invitation to tender was issued - and from the information that TOCs are required to gather and report about use of their services as a matter of routine.

There is plenty of evidence of serious issues with peak overcrowding in lots of other parts of the country, not least the North, where providing just a four-car train would be a huge improvement in many cases.

First-MTR will need to look at whether the east Somerset services will continue past December 2018 and there may be a wait of undetermined length for an emu to take over the Lymington branch on weekdays, so until those things become clear, I'm not sure what you expect anyone to announce about the WoE route - I doubt things would have been any different had Stagecoach kept the franchise.

Unless the previous plans by SWT have been changed by First/MTR, once the 707's start being available in numbers the 458's will be redeployed thus more 450's will be available including one unit for the Lymington branch.
The single 158 needed for Lymington will be available for West of England duties.

 

[DelW]

Long term a separate bridge to avoid the station might work but that would require money to build the bridge. They were able to divert the route around the road bridge between 1.30 and 4am or is it 4.30 but would a court allow a permanent diversion? I'm not sure. The footbridge is a safer route that the road bridge. I'm not saying First / MTR would want to apply for a permanent diversion. Just being hypethical.

I can't see that the walk via Guildford Park Road and Farnham Road bridge is really any less safe than via the station footbridge - the only 'road' crossing involved is over the car park access which is not usually very busy. It's not even much longer if heading for Bridge Street and the town centre, so I suspect the main (genuine) users of bridge passes are heading for the river footbridge towards the Odeon site. Anyone coming from the university campus or heading further north on Walnut Tree Close can use Yorkie's bridge anyway.

Not that any of that would necessarily make it easier to close the station bridge as a right of way though.

 

[swt_passenger]

Unless the previous plans by SWT have been changed by First/MTR, once the 707's start being available in numbers the 458's will be redeployed thus more 450's will be available including one unit for the Lymington branch.
The single 158 needed for Lymington will be available for West of England duties.

Good luck with this. I've been making exactly the same point for at least two years, and only a few days ago. I recall that SWT announced the change to a weekday 450 in the Lymington local press ages ago, but it didn't happen as planned because the 458/5s were late.

But some posters appear desperate to see some sort of unusual and completely illogical solution, such as retaining a single 455, or a single 456, even though all the indications are that the entire fleets will be returned to their Roscos.

 

[The Ham]

The next franchise could, assuming that it works well, use 319 flex's to run the Salisbury 6 services (Salisbury to Romsey via Southampton and Eastleigh) freeing up some 158's. If they were cheaper than the current EMU's they could even use one for the Lymington Branch to release a 450 for use elsewhere.

In doing so there are options to strengthen services without changing very much.

 

[pompeyfan]

The next franchise could, assuming that it works well, use 319 flex's to run the Salisbury 6 services (Salisbury to Romsey via Southampton and Eastleigh) freeing up some 158's. If they were cheaper than the current EMU's they could even use one for the Lymington Branch to release a 450 for use elsewhere.

In doing so there are options to strengthen services without changing very much.

Again, why would you want a micro fleet of about 10 flexi-319s when you have enough stock already. Also, good luck getting a full door release at mottisfont or Dean. There can't be many TOCs in the UK that have less than 5/10 of a particular unit class (sleepers excluded)

 

[The Ham]

Again, why would you want a micro fleet of about 10 flexi-319s when you have enough stock already. Also, good luck getting a full door release at mottisfont or Dean. There can't be many TOCs in the UK that have less than 5/10 of a particular unit class (sleepers excluded)

There could be enough rolling stock at present, however even over the next 5 years there could be pressure to increase capacity on the WofE services, given that there's a shortage of DMU's although it could be a costly way of doing so it could be a possible solution to free up 158's for peak hour services into/out of London so that they are 10 coach trains.

 

[3141]

Do you mean getting off the pick-up only trains heading west in the afternoon peak? I wasn't aware there are any that are set down only at Woking.

Since we don't know the future timetable details yet, it may well be the case that some Woking stops get pulled from WoE peak trains as a result of the enhanced suburban capacity that is promised - an example elsewhere is that GWR Oxford/Cotswold Line fasts don't call at Slough in the peak periods.



If there is strong evidence, that would surely have come to light during the consultation before the invitation to tender was issued - and from the information that TOCs are required to gather and report about use of their services as a matter of routine.

There is plenty of evidence of serious issues with peak overcrowding in lots of other parts of the country, not least the North, where providing just a four-car train would be a huge improvement in many cases.

First-MTR will need to look at whether the east Somerset services will continue past December 2018 and there may be a wait of undetermined length for an emu to take over the Lymington branch on weekdays, so until those things become clear, I'm not sure what you expect anyone to announce about the WoE route - I doubt things would have been any different had Stagecoach kept the franchise.

Yes, I did mistakenly refer to setting down when I meant picking up only. The difficulty of preventing people from getting off a train when officially it's only stopped to let people on is why a pick-up only stop is of limited help in providing more seats for people travelling further than that stop who've joined the train where it started.

For some WoE peak trains to omit Woking would help, but as you say we don't know the future timetable details, so assistance from that direction is purely speculative at this stage, unlike the certainty that two DMUs which could have been used will cease to be available. (Missing out Woking would contribute to the promised acceleration of the services.)

I think the "strong evidence" is apparent to regular peak-hour travellers on these services. I don't know how the strength of the evidence needs to present itself. There are forceful user groups on the Portsmouth line who probably presented the arguments for more seats and a return to 2 + 2 seating more strongly than those who represented the stations between Basingstoke and Salisbury.

I don't think the problems in the North have much to do with this case: there wasn't a franchise competition going on there at the same time requiring the DfT to choose between expansion there or on the South Western routes. If there are locations that would benefit from a 4-car EMU there'll be plenty of them available pretty soon, and if they need a DMU the shortage is nationwide.

I don't "expect" anyone to announce anything about the WoE route. What I'd like to hear is that more peak-hour trains will run at the maximum length of 10 x 23m. cars, but that is not in current proposals.

 

[swt_passenger]

There could be enough rolling stock at present, however even over the next 5 years there could be pressure to increase capacity on the WofE services, given that there's a shortage of DMU's although it could be a costly way of doing so it could be a possible solution to free up 158's for peak hour services into/out of London so that they are 10 coach trains.

As well as the known internal cascade of 450s following the planned arrival of 30 x 707s, there are going to be an unknown number of 450s displaced off the Portsmouth route by 442s - but likely to be around 20 or more units. It is not possible to soak up nearly 50 x 450s on trains into Waterloo, as the vast majority are already operating at full length in the peaks.

So it is inconceivable that they won't be able to find just one 450 to run the Lymington branch.

There is some logic in bi-modes for the Salisbury- Romsey service to release 158s or 159s, but is it worth it for such a small requirement? Might as well just go for more 158s released from somewhere else.

 

[infobleep]

Although you may not be allowed to enforce smart card only access to the bridge you could offer it, as there are often times when people want to use the madness gate to get in/out with large items and are held up by groups of people wanting bridge passes. If there was an option to touch in/out with a smart card lots of people would be willing to use it. That would leave less people using bridge passes and so it could be easier to monitor who was using them to avoid paying for travel.

I maybe wrong but I'm not sure if people would be bothered with the hassle of the smart card to cross the bridge.

If it was included on the same smart card they usee to travel maybe.

 

[infobleep]

I can't see that the walk via Guildford Park Road and Farnham Road bridge is really any less safe than via the station footbridge - the only 'road' crossing involved is over the car park access which is not usually very busy. It's not even much longer if heading for Bridge Street and the town centre, so I suspect the main (genuine) users of bridge passes are heading for the river footbridge towards the Odeon site. Anyone coming from the university campus or heading further north on Walnut Tree Close can use Yorkie's bridge anyway.

Not that any of that would necessarily make it easier to close the station bridge as a right of way though.

Given that two people died after being hit by a car on Bridge Street, I imagine the road bridge is less safe than the footbridge. Maybe not less safe than any other main roads in the area but certainly less saw than the footbridge.

 

[infobleep]

Currently South West Trains have a policy that they try not to disrupte the same people each time where are service disruptions. I wonder if First / MTR will continue this practice.

I'm not certain how South West Trains are able to implement it, given they need to get staff to their next diagram and so fourth but they mentioned it in a live web chat so must be able to do something.

 

[Muzer]

Yes, I did mistakenly refer to setting down when I meant picking up only. The difficulty of preventing people from getting off a train when officially it's only stopped to let people on is why a pick-up only stop is of limited help in providing more seats for people travelling further than that stop who've joined the train where it started.

Requiring people to buy tickets to Basingstoke (or get Penalty Fared in the case of RPIs) is the way it's done. That should be pretty effective if the guard can get through an unpredictable part of the train.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Or just remove it from the public timetables,but keep it in the WTT as an OP call.