There is nothing similar about running local\commuter services to Oxford and running local\commuter services to Aylesbury, Bicester, Oxford and Banbury? One operator at Paddington is logical but two or three operators at Euston, St Pancras, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, London Bridge and Victoria isn't?
No I don't think it is it is completely logical to have different operators for different services groups or as BR called them sectors.
I describe the Oxford service as just a short working as the Worcester service because they call at the same stations and form a combined headway. Therefore I still call it an intercity service despite that it doesn't run intercity distance.
So they couldn't share said facilities at Oxford? They partly use the same stock. Would it not be efficient to maintain the rump GWR Turbos with the bigger Chiltern pool? Minimal geographic connection? Both serve same and adjacent counties. Major stations of Oxford, Aylebury and Bicester are within 30 miles of each other. London terminals are within a mile of each other.
The one a day return 'parlimentary service' for Finstock et al is actually four on the line as the rain needs to get to and from the depot. It is currently one two car Turbo. Not sure how running this 'odd' service formed using different stock by a different operator is hiving off it all ready is a seprate 'thing' to the IET services.
GWR have a crew depot. Housing drivers who are trained to drive similar Turbos as Chiltern. Same at Paddington. Chiltern Banbury drivers operate direct services to Oxford as well as Chiltern's
Bicester had 3 million journeys pre covid I wouldn't call that minor plus there are all the new houses. Read all about it in the Oxford Mail. Paddington has no relevance? Two terminals less than a mile apart with services running to the same city 40 odd miles away running similar stock not relevant at all.
They are in effect run by a separate operator now. Different stock and crews to the 800s. They would run the other GWR Turbo services as now or it could possibly be served by Chiltern crews\equipment laying over at Oxford.
Thats actually not too bad a proposal, taking some of the Paddington terminators to better use. Would need some mega chord to the WLL near Scrubbs Lane but probably doable.
It could be Chiltern 165s or even 168s then they would only need to route learn. The competencies of the various depots would evolve over time. Ongoing training is need all the time with new starters\transfers. There is also the desire to have more services to Hanbough and to also serve the Cowley Branch which would need more resource. The exact details would need to be worked through but we are talking about a larger pooled operator of much the same services serving the same core 40 mile sector NW of London. It's likely some of the crews and managers are even neighbours now.
Reading would still be a Thames and Chiltern Depot. It quite possibly would make sense logistically and due to dissimilarities to keep the maintenance separate. Although there would be synergies in parts, heavier work and fitter knowledge. i.e. you could do heavier bogie\engine work at Reading and heavier interior work at Aylesbury or vice versa. You could move stock about on diagrammed services just like other operators.
An extension of Crossrail up the WCML was definitely looked at, but it would not have used the West London Line, but via a new curve west of Old Oak Common; and IIRC it wouldn’t have gone through Willesden Jn either.
Reading is the first station call by long distance trains beyond Greater London, therefore I believe it should be the limit of where the all stations inner suburban trains go.
Why wouldn't stay onto Paddington and travel to West Ealing from there?
Cost?
Making further calls in the EL trains makes for an even longer journey for customers on these trains from Twyford and Maidenhead, who have aready seen a downgrade in service when the 345s took over.
There are still semi-fast trains serving these stations. If there is no pathing issue I don't see why the stopper shouldn't call at all intermediate stations.
I think there’s definitely a case for the Greenford branch to transfer to the Overground operating on this basis, if anything the better promotion of what is a very underused service would help, although I don’t think that the branches outside of London could reasonably be transferred.
The operators own stock, in this case Crossrail fixed formation 9 car, is just far too long for any branch.
But they could get short form 345s if it was electrified, so could operate one fleet. Of course, Overground would still likely be the better option, with shorter stock it has access to, as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong).
It's not one fleet, then, is it? You go from a uniform fleet of 9-car 345s to adding a small microfleet of units to operate some branch line(s). In the case of Romford-Upminster the current situation is the most sensible: similar trains to the 345s but part of the Overground's much bigger fleet.
As soon as a Speculative idea is created, I notice you’re immediately there to shut it down cynically.
I appreciate that this is a Speculative thread. Even so surely there needs to be some actual advantage to a proposal other than because it would be neat or because it can be done!
Not quite my intention. What I really want to see is more explanation as to why it is a good idea. To be fair to the OP they gave a fairly detailed argument, but overlooked the practicalities.
I very much welcome a good idea. It would be great to have debate about very practical ideas based on workable concepts where the consequences are thought through.
There isn't but what does it offer passengers, how does it build custom, does it have pitfalls, does it cost money for money's sake, does it make things better for passengers, does it make the railway better from an operational point of view?
