ORR say no to Alliance operating trains on the WCML again?

[The Planner]

Not got it to hand but I hear ORR have said no again.

 

[ainsworth74]

Which plans would these be? I've lost track of what's what with Alliance

 

[pemma]

It appears to relate to the GNWR application for a 2 hourly Blackpool to Euston service interworked with a 2 hourly Leeds to Euston via Warrington Bank Quay service. Network Rail said it supported but DfT were against and told First TPE to apply for the additional paths required by the next TPE franchisee for 6tph on North TPE, to ensure that paths required for TPE weren't taken by Alliance.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...ilway-company-limited-s18-decision-letter.pdf

 

[yorksrob]

I thought that this had more or less got the ok?

I wonder why open access is encouraged on the ECML but not the WCML.

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought that this had more or less got the ok?

Going off the above (and giving my memory cells a swift kick) Network Rail weren't opposed to Alliance but, and this it the key part, the ORR hadn't yet given permission for the paths to be used by Alliance. It appears from what The Planner has heard they've turned them down.

I guess they had a technical okay but have not got the offical okay.

 

[swt_passenger]

The report goes into mind numbing detail, but AFAICT the application failed on two main points:
Failed the 'not primarily abstractive test, although only marginally.
Reducing TPE benefits from the forthcoming electrification.

 

[pemma]

I wonder why open access is encouraged on the ECML but not the WCML.

One problem with WCML services is they are limited to 110mph unless tilting stock is used. This was the first open access application which stated the rolling stock would be tried and tested Pendolinos. In the past applications have used either stock limited to no more than 110mph or a new tilting Polaris train designed by CSRE (Chinese Sourced Rail Equipment.) Every time a CSRE train was mentioned senior people at Network Rail, ORR and DfT started saying the CSRE designs were fantasy and they would be able to get a reliable train working on UK gauge and even if they could we shouldn't be letting UK trains be built outside the EU.

I recall ORR saying LM's Crewe-Euston direct service should be treated like an Open Access service as while they have franchise requirements to meet, they don't need to run a through service between Crewe and Euston to meet those requirements.

North Western Trains did succeed in running some open access services to Euston but that was pre-Pendolinos.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I recall ORR saying LM's Crewe-Euston direct service should be treated like an Open Access service as while they have franchise requirements to meet, they don't need to run a through service between Crewe and Euston to meet those requirements.

They do now (part of the VHF timetable).

And here's another killer (para 95 of the GNWR decision letter, referring to TP electrification):

95. The original 2018 completion date for electrification works is now unlikely to be deliverable and there are uncertainties around the scope, timing and costs of the project still to be resolved. The expanded project will also still have to go through our own Enhancement Costs Adjustment Mechanism (ECAM) review before plans are finalised

 

[alexl92]

...Leeds - Warrington - Euston? Is there even demand for that?!

 

[WatcherZero]

The expanded project

??

Scope of works increased?

 

[yorksrob]

Going off the above (and giving my memory cells a swift kick) Network Rail weren't opposed to Alliance but, and this it the key part, the ORR hadn't yet given permission for the paths to be used by Alliance. It appears from what The Planner has heard they've turned them down.

I guess they had a technical okay but have not got the offical okay.

Ah, that might explain it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One problem with WCML services is they are limited to 110mph unless tilting stock is used. This was the first open access application which stated the rolling stock would be tried and tested Pendolinos. In the past applications have used either stock limited to no more than 110mph or a new tilting Polaris train designed by CSRE (Chinese Sourced Rail Equipment.) Every time a CSRE train was mentioned senior people at Network Rail, ORR and DfT started saying the CSRE designs were fantasy and they would be able to get a reliable train working on UK gauge and even if they could we shouldn't be letting UK trains be built outside the EU.

I recall ORR saying LM's Crewe-Euston direct service should be treated like an Open Access service as while they have franchise requirements to meet, they don't need to run a through service between Crewe and Euston to meet those requirements.

North Western Trains did succeed in running some open access services to Euston but that was pre-Pendolinos.

Ah yes, I can see the speed might be an issue. Perhaps when mk4's are replaced from the ECML, some might have their tilt activated as I believe was originally intended.

 

[Hadders]

Perhaps when mk4's are replaced from the ECML, some might have their tilt activated as I believe was originally intended.

I believe there was provision for tilt in the class 91's and MkIV's but it was never fitted so it can't just be activated.

Also, I seem to remember reading that when the 91's were re-engineered a few years ago the space earmarked for the tilt equipment was used for some other equipment (although I can't remember what).

 

[NSEFAN]

I believe there was provision for tilt in the class 91's and MkIV's but it was never fitted so it can't just be activated.

Also, I seem to remember reading that when the 91's were re-engineered a few years ago the space earmarked for the tilt equipment was used for some other equipment (although I can't remember what).

I recall this too. I believe it was to improve the reliability of the locos? I'm not sure we would want to replace the tilt equipment in that case!

Was the confirmation for Alliance from NR on the basis of 125mph stock? If not then 110mph non-tilt operation might be acceptable, although the comparatively poor acceleration of a Mk4 set vs a Desiro might still not make it acceptable to use displaced trains from the ECML.

 

[yorksrob]

I recall this too. I believe it was to improve the reliability of the locos? I'm not sure we would want to replace the tilt equipment in that case!

Was the confirmation for Alliance from NR on the basis of 125mph stock? If not then 110mph non-tilt operation might be acceptable, although the comparatively poor acceleration of a Mk4 set vs a Desiro might still not make it acceptable to use displaced trains from the ECML.

Although they might not necessarily import the loco's as well as the Mk 4's.

Of course, if non tilting 125mph would be fine, we're going to have an abundance of HST stock available in the near future, which would be an easy solution.

 

[DarloRich]

Although they might not necessarily import the loco's as well as the Mk 4's.

Of course, if non tilting 125mph would be fine, we're going to have an abundance of HST stock available in the near future, which would be an easy solution.

it wont be fine though as 125mph running on the WCML is limited to tilting vehicles - or so i understand

The whole Alliance plan is wibble anyway

 

[yorksrob]

it wont be fine though as 125mph running on the WCML is limited to tilting vehicles - or so i understand

The whole Alliance plan is wibble anyway

Huddersfield seems a bit out of the way to me, but Blackpool seems more likely. People probably thought Bradford to London via Wakefield Kirkgate was wibble, but the trains seem pretty full now.

 

[sprinterguy]

I believe there was provision for tilt in the class 91's and MkIV's but it was never fitted so it can't just be activated.

Also, I seem to remember reading that when the 91's were re-engineered a few years ago the space earmarked for the tilt equipment was used for some other equipment (although I can't remember what).

I didn't think that the class 91s were ever designed to tilt: Just the mark four coaches. It's more of a passenger comfort thing. The APT-P power cars tilted, but I'm not aware that the anti-tilt mechanisms that were fitted to their pantographs were ever part of the class 91 design.

The East Coast mark 4s were never intended to tilt, anyway. The provision for tilt was only passive in the design of the coach: I believe that SIG had developed a slightly different design of bogie that would have been fitted to any tilting West Coast sets, for one.

 

[47802]

Why has this turned into wibble about class 91's? their plan was to use 6 car pendy's

 

[pemma]

...Leeds - Warrington - Euston? Is there even demand for that?!

Probably not intended for end to end use. Huddersfield, Victoria and Eccles currently have no direct London services, while Leeds would have been given best links to destinations on the WCML north of London.

 

[ainsworth74]

Why has this turned into wibble about class 91's? their plan was to use 6 car pendy's

Indeed I find myself wondering the same!

Perhaps we return to topic of Alliance and the ORR seemingly saying no and where they go next?

People wishing to discuss 91s and tilting are welcome to start a new thread in an appropriate sub-forum.

Thanks

 

[pemma]

Perhaps we return to topic of Alliance and the ORR seemingly saying no and where they go next?

They still have an active application with the ORR for GNER services: http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/acc...-applications/new-contracts-section-17-and-18

I would think the sensible thing to do for GNWR services is to wait until the next TPE and WC franchises are awarded but I imagine they'll be getting impatient given they were originally told to come back when the WC franchise was coming to an end and they did, but the award for the next franchise was rescinded.

 

[47802]

I would be amazed if that gets anywhere particularly the Edinburgh and West York's services especially as the new East Coast franshise P**** all over that West York's service.

 

[WatcherZero]

They still have an active application with the ORR for GNER services: http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/acc...-applications/new-contracts-section-17-and-18

I would think the sensible thing to do for GNWR services is to wait until the next TPE and WC franchises are awarded but I imagine they'll be getting impatient given they were originally told to come back when the WC franchise was coming to an end and they did, but the award for the next franchise was rescinded.

They were told to comeback after the 2016 recast plan was completed but again they couldn't wait.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

So who thought that London Queens Park (NW6) was a really sensible option for a long distance service to start and terminate at.....?

 

[Bodiddly]

I wonder why open access is encouraged on the ECML but not the WCML.

Might have something to do with old beardy having more money than the government and could bankrupt us all with the legal challenge.

 

[Iskra]

So who thought that London Queens Park (NW6) was a really sensible option for a long distance service to start and terminate at.....?

It's an application for paths to/from London Queens Park, not for trains to start/terminate there.

 

[The Planner]

Yes it was as they werent getting into Euston, they went into the loop to turnround.

 

[TDK]

Might have something to do with old beardy having more money than the government and could bankrupt us all with the legal challenge.

At least someone is on the right track in this discussion

 

[Carlisle]

The APT-P power cars tilted, but I'm not aware that the anti-tilt mechanisms that were fitted to their pantographs were ever part of the class 91 design.

I thought the ATP power cars were actually non tilt

 

[yorksrob]

Why has this turned into wibble about class 91's? their plan was to use 6 car pendy's

I wasn't aware there was money sloshing around for new Pendolinos. It would certainly break the mold for an open access TOC to start by introducing brand new trains.