Stations managed by operators that do not stop there

[MidnightFlyer]

Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge are FGW-managed as the Cardiff-Portsmouth (and locals between Westbury and Southampton etc) used to serve there as there was no SWT service until the line via Chandlers Ford reopened in 2004~, which saw the start of the 'Romsey 6' service, and the removal of the two stations from FGW's services. As you imply in the title, it's just an anomaly.

As for SWT taiking over the North Downs line, if FGW take their 166s with them, what stock would SWT use?

 

[Greenback]

1. Have SWT got the capacity to operate the route? Do they have spare diesel sets that can be used to allow the FGW units to be utilised elsewhere?

2. Assuming SWT would be able to run the services, what advantages would that have over the way FGW run things at present?

3. Are you only saying that SWT should manage Romsey for geographical reasons?

 

[SussexSpotter]

Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge are FGW-managed as the Cardiff-Portsmouth (and locals between Westbury and Southampton etc) used to serve there as there was no SWT service until the line via Chandlers Ford reopened in 2004~, which saw the start of the 'Romsey 6' service, and the removal of the two stations from FGW's services. As you imply in the title, it's just an anomaly.

But to me it seems rather strange that a TOC which no longer calls at these particular stations, still manages them.

One anomaly which needs addressing is that Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge stations are served only by SWT but managed by FGW. It would make sense to transfer these two stations, along with Romsey, to the SW franchise.

www.railfuture.org.uk/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=353

1. Have SWT got the capacity to operate the route? Do they have spare diesel sets that can be used to allow the FGW units to be utilised elsewhere?

I have always thought there was a greater shortage of spare FGW diesel sets than there is with SWT. Of course if SWT were to take over the running of these services then it would require the same number of units as FGW currently use to run the services, but i'm not sure how many it requires to opperate the current level of service. FGW could take control of the Romsey shuttles.

2. Assuming SWT would be able to run the services, what advantages would that have over the way FGW run things at present?

I think that the stations are better suited within the SWT franchise area and perhaps one advantage other than transfering FGW diesel sets to more appropriate areas is that it would allow greater flexability of SWT only tickets.

3. Are you only saying that SWT should manage Romsey for geographical reasons?

I feel that the station would be better served by FGW 'if' Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge were as well, otherwise you would be left with the situation of Romsey station being managed by FGW whilst all other stations inbetween Salisbury and Southampton/Eastleigh are managed by SWT. It would therefore be more appropriate if SWT took over the running of this station as well.

Of course if like is suggested in response to your first question that FGW took over the running of the shuttle services, then the transfer of management of the stations would not be needed.

 

[tractakid]

Related discussion: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=77463

 

[swt_passenger]

I feel that the station would be better served by FGW 'if' Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge were as well, otherwise you would be left with the situation of Romsey station being managed by FGW whilst all other stations inbetween Salisbury and Southampton/Eastleigh are managed by SWT. It would therefore be more appropriate if SWT took over the running of this station as well.

Of course if like is suggested in response to your first question that FGW took over the running of the shuttle services, then the transfer of management of the stations would not be needed.

Dean, Mottisfont & Dunbridge, and Romsey are down to transfer to SWT before the GW franchise next changes hands, it is mentioned in the ITT. (We also discussed this all a few days ago, as has just been posted...)

Bidders should be aware that the Franchisee is currently in discussions with Stagecoach South West Trains regarding the potential transfer of Station Facility Ownership of Dean, Mottisfont & Dunbridge and Romsey stations to Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited. No Great Western franchise trains currently call at Dean or Mottisfont & Dunbridge stations. This change should be assumed to have taken place before franchise commencement.

But why would the calls be transferred back to FGW anyway - SWT only took them on a few years ago, because the current system of an hourly service (Mon - Sat)was deemed better than the previous set up where there were fewer calls in the Portsmouth - Cardiff service.

 

[SussexSpotter]

Dean, Mottisfont & Dunbridge, and Romsey are down to transfer to SWT before the GW franchise next changes hands, it is mentioned in the ITT. (We also discussed this all a few days ago, as has just been posted...)



But why would the calls be transferred back to FGW anyway - SWT only took them on a few years ago, because the current system of an hourly service (Mon - Sat)was deemed better than the previous set up where there were fewer calls in the Portsmouth - Cardiff service.

Thanks for the info I hadn't realised some of this had already been discussed, or had been agreed in the GW ITT.

I think there should still be some calls by FGW at these stations during peak time, or even just the Brighton services and those which only run as far as Southampton. I feel that it would provide a better service, after all FGW did used to stop there at one time.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I think you need to give a bit more credit to the travelling public who understand a bit more than 'the red train' and 'the blue train' They aren't pre-schoolers!

Gonna stick my neck on the line here, and assume that you've never worked with the general public, in a customer facing role? :roll:

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Thanks for the info I hadn't realised some of this had already been discussed, or had been agreed in the GW ITT.

I think there should still be some calls by FGW at these stations during peak time, or even just the Brighton services and those which only run as far as Southampton. I feel that it would provide a better service, after all FGW did used to stop there at one time.

Bearing in mind both Dean and Mottisfont have just 26,000 passengers a year each (obvious maths there says 500 a week, and 1tph as it stands), why do they need more services? There may be a bit of a gap with no extra peak trains, but is it really worth stopping the usually rammed FGW there to compensate?

 

[SussexSpotter]

Bearing in mind both Dean and Mottisfont have just 26,000 passengers a year each (obvious maths there says 500 a week, and 1tph as it stands), why do they need more services? There may be a bit of a gap with no extra peak trains, but is it really worth stopping the usually rammed FGW there to compensate?

Well why do the Brighton services call at Dilton Marsh (by request of course) when that tiny station only got 12,400 passengers in 2010/2011. Whereas Dean and Mottisfont got 26,700. Surely an increased peak time service would be justified, given that the passenger usage is more than double, even if they were made as FGW request stops only like Dilton Marsh? To be honest I think the Dilton Marsh stops should be missed out on the Brighton's altogether and 2 extra stops added in at Dean and Mottisfont instead.

 

[Greenback]

Apologies, I missed the other thread too, so I have merged them.

 

[Urban Gateline]

With regards to Dean and Mottisfont and Dunbridge, I agree that they should ideally be transfered to SWT. An advantage of this happening is that SWT may choose to install a TVM at both, therefore giving better ticketing facilities than at present. I don't think either of those stations have help points either so that would also make a good addition!

At present, there is not much incentive for FGW to invest in those stations if they don't serve them!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Would it not make more sense for all of the stations listed above to be managed by Network Rail? As an example its hard to make a case for EMT giving care and attention to Willington when they are never likely to use it!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

No incentive. As Clip explained, NR only go where there's money from shop rents etc to be had.

 

[RichmondCommu]

No incentive. As Clip explained, NR only go where there's money from shop rents etc to be had.

But of course the same could be said for TOC's like EMT at Willington; what's in it for them? I understand the value of shop rents to NR but as a state owned organisation they need to act in the best interests of the customer ie tax payers! And I'm not convinced that the TOC's would!

 

[BestWestern]

Dean, Mottisfont & Dunbridge operated by FGW but only SWT stop there. Romsey is also an FGW station and SWT operate the majority of services calling there.

To be fair though, there are 2 FGW services per hour through Romsey, plus the odd additional service to/from Brighton (more on sundays), and FGW do a healthy trade from there. I would say that the FGW's are the primary service. Dean and Dunbridge are just silly though! As for SWT taking Romsey back in house, I would imagine they are reluctant as I know for certain that the station requires a lot of maintenance investment, the former station house is in very poor condition indeed.

Well why do the Brighton services call at Dilton Marsh (by request of course) when that tiny station only got 12,400 passengers in 2010/2011. Whereas Dean and Mottisfont got 26,700. Surely an increased peak time service would be justified, given that the passenger usage is more than double, even if they were made as FGW request stops only like Dilton Marsh? To be honest I think the Dilton Marsh stops should be missed out on the Brighton's altogether and 2 extra stops added in at Dean and Mottisfont instead.

The Brighton services are what you might call 'dual purpose'; operating as express runs on the southern part of the network and then becoming stoppers once they reach Warminster. Hence they call at Dilton, as well as Avoncliff and Freshford. Patronage is minimal, but it fulfills a franchise obligation. I'm sure the maths regarding Dean and Dunbridge have been looked at, and if there was money to be made from a share of any ticket sales then I'm sure FGW would be stopping!