Posted 31st July 2013 | 7 Comments
ORR refuses Virgin bid for Blackpool, Shrewsbury
The ORR is concerned that adding train paths risks damaging West Coast performance, which is already under pressure
THE OFFICE of Rail Regulation has rejected Virgin Trains' bid to run services to Blackpool North and Shrewsbury, at least for the time being.
Virgin said it was 'extremely disappointed', while one union leader said the shortage of paths proved the need for HS2.
The ORR explained that 'extensive analysis of Virgin Trains' recent application for new passenger services on the WCML showed that there is not currently sufficient space on the line. The proposals would have also caused further deterioration in punctuality by adding traffic to what is already a very busy route, on which Network Rail is currently not meeting the punctuality targets it has been funded to deliver. The proposals would have a detrimental impact on the journeys of millions of passengers travelling on the route.'
It added that Network Rail and the rest of the industry were 'striving' to improve performance on the West Coast Main Line. The ORR has recently been deeply critical of Network Rail's contribution to performance, and the company has announced a £40 million project to improve the infrastructure south of Rugby, with an emphasis on overhead line equipment and also improvements to lineside fencing as a deterrent to trespassers, particularly would-be cable thieves.
ORR chief executive Richard Price added: "We understand that many people will be disappointed that ORR cannot at this stage give the go-ahead for new direct train services from London to Blackpool and Shrewsbury. We recognise the public support for these proposals, however our analysis shows the introduction of new services would see performance deteriorate on this key route.
"Although we are unable to grant access now, we are putting pressure on Network Rail both to improve its performance and to carry out improvements on the West Coast Main Line so that the question of new services from London to Blackpool and Shrewsbury can be looked at again as soon as possible."
In a statement, Virgin Trains responded: "The people of Blackpool and Shrewsbury have been very clear about their desire for these services, both for the economic growth of their towns and the convenience of the people who live and visit there. Virgin Trains was committed to making this happen and is extremely disappointed about the outcome. We will continue to engage with the ORR and Network Rail to establish when these proposed services may be able to run.”
Following the decision, TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes commented: "This is proof positive that we need High Speed 2 to provide badly needed extra capacity on the West Coast line.
"By blocking extra services from Blackpool and Shrewsbury, the regulator has said what the industry already knows, the West Coast is now full to bursting point.
"The only way to provide extra services is by providing extra capacity throughout the whole network. And that means High Speed 2 from London to Manchester and Leeds via Birmingham."
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
claydon william, Norwich Norfolk
There is a very simple answer to this problem, without using any extra WCML slots, extra trains or any electrification.
Just extend a/some Wolverhampton-Euston services back at Shrewsbury & Wrexham using 57's or hired 67's.
The current Wrexham-London (Class 221) service attaches to the morning Holyhead service at Chester. Instead of running the Wrexham-Chester section, start it in Blackpool at around 07:00 and attach it at Crewe.
So long as the extra revenue surpasses the extra crewing and loco hire/operating costs then it seems a reasonable solution. If this revenue level is not attained, then these extra destinations can't justify the service.
It seems to me this is a stand-off between Virgin who want the additional revenue support, and the DfT doesn't want to spend the money. If Branson put his money where his mouth is, he would under-write these new services, for an experimental period of say eighteen months.
Des, STAFFORD
How could it be that the ill-fated WCML franchise was initially awarded to FirstGroup on the basis of these through trains! These were also contained in the failed Virgin bid. Surely franchises should be awarded on the basis of delivering on promise with any service enhancements fully underwritten by Network Rail, otherwise the whole process is invalidated?
Clearly performance is an issue but most of these trains were to run outside peak hours in windows less congested than in the absolute peak clock-face (i.e.125 mph departures from Euston at xx57, xx00, xx03, xx07 and xx10). It may be the case that existing performance targets are simply unrealistic given the varied speeds of traffic and tight headways that apply at key junctions etc. One single train delay has a 'domino' effect and these ought to be the basis of assessing realistic performance targets rather than be used to surpress potential customer service improvements.
In the final analysis, will the benefit of running some or all of these trains be of greater benefit than their negative impact on performance? Surely that is the equation parties need to negotiate. Targets are just targets - lets think about the wider customer benefits? Do that and I think the citizens of Shrewsbury will be happily re-connected with London in the quickest ever journey time!
RicP, London
This is the problem with fixed formation Pendolinos. Way back in time you had trains with a Blackpool portion and a Barrow portion from Euston, train splitting at Preston. There was a big crowd years back on 3 August 1968, when 45212 was on the Blackpool portion. What was the significance of this?
PS You don't need HS2 to run trains with portions, you just couple up 2 5-car sets. Easy Peasy!
Peter, Swindon
All the more reason to have allowed the defunct Wrexham, Shrewsbury, London service to compete for traffic east of Shrewsbury.
Jim Campbell, Birmingham
We're the provision of these services not a requirement under the failed re franchising process for the WCML. If it is not possible to accommodate them why was that demand included.
claydon william, Norwich Norfolk
Someone will have to explain to me why exactly the Shrewsbury/Telford service plan has been rejected.
Surely, the only requirement here is to use some of those redundant Class 57's to diesel-haul existing Wolverhampton-London 'Pendolino' services back at Shrewsbury. I think I've just counted 8 weekday Wolverhampton-Euston trains departing before the first London train arrives.
On the same basis, I suppose you could argue that you could diesel-haul a Manchester-London 'Pendolino' service or two back in Blackpool.
(This would solve the problem of no wires to Blackpool North (yet) or Shrewsbury (not on the horizon) but I suspect the Class 57 solution would be costly. It didn't last on the Holyhead route-- Ed.)
These options obviously avoid using additional WCML slots
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham
Do you reckon that somewhere in StopHS2 offices, they've got press releases A and B ready, where A says the acceptance proves there is spare capacity on the WCML and B says rejection proves the ORR is in cahoots with the government (because if they were free to make up their own mind, they would of course agree with us)?
On a less flippant note, I've had a look at the documents and it appears that the problem with the Blackpool services is that Virgin were proposing entirely new services, rather than extend or re-route any existing services. If I was on Blackpool council I'd be pressing for a new scheme that involves extending existing ones (and maybe Shrewsbury too, if they can find a way of extending Wolves trains).
(Can't extend Wolves trains, Chris -- no wires to Shrewsbury!--Ed.)