Major parts of Thameslink project nearing completion

[Geo Ghost]

Alan, I sincerely do hope these are not more plans or posts that will divulge into such again.
I brought back this topic to talk about the Thameslink Programme so please don't let this ride off-topic again.

[Kevo00]

Surely it would be against EU law for DfT to purchase Open Access operators and fold them into EC?

In any case, I think there is an excellent case for continued competition on the route, particularly as GC bring such a fresh approach to ticketing.

[JamieLei]

I would not include

What I do want most of all however is

PLANS IN SEPARATE THREAD PLEASE!

Plus the Cambridge non-stop services ARE the Kings Lynn services. 2tph non-stop to Cambridge, of which 1 then calls all stations to Kings Lynn (including Waterbeach, which is omitted from all the Greater Anglia services).

[TheGrew]

If parts of FCC were to be ceded to EC, then the Cambridge fasts and Kings Lynn services would be indeed sensible choices, along with the faster Peterborough services. I assume that if this happens, these faster services will continue to run into KX as a terminus, and the slower ones would run into Thameslink.

I would not include Semi-Fast Peterborough/Carnbridge services. Because they would not fit in a Intercity foucsed TOC. Better to include Cambridge Non-Stop services (extended to Kiings Lynn) and Kings Lynn Express Services

Maybe a Overhead version of the 444 (planned for GA London-Norwick services) would be a good choice for thses routes

I agree that I would only merge the Cambridge+Kings Lynn Services into EC with the rest in the new 'Greater Thameslink' Franchise I think this is largely what is suggested with the route diagram someone else posted earlier in this thread.
As for the AC 444s:

The Intercity Express Programme is an initiative of the Department for Transport (DfT) in the United Kingdom to procure new trains to replace the InterCity 125 fleet on the East Coast Main Line and Great Western Main Line, as well as replacing other trainsets on long distance services from London to places including Cambridge, Oxford, Hull and Weston-super-Mare.[1]

[Ameecher]

IEP has already been reduced to just an EC and GW fleet at present.

[EXTspotter]

How about EMT? They still have at least 10 HST sets that will need replacing...

[Ameecher]

No plans currently due to impending electrification schemes on the MML.

[TheGrew]

IEP has already been reduced to just an EC and GW fleet at present.

Though surely then if EC do take over the route from FCC then they might well be using IEP? Unless of course the order is literally just to match the current rolling stock

[Ameecher]

Read Modern Railways and Roger Ford's rantings for further details that is the debacle of IEP.

[GurraJG]

Is it not the case that EU law is broken in the Great Britain (a lot of TOCs have no competition) and in Ireland (both parts) where the rail network is not seperate from the operator of Train services (plus there is no competition on the rail networks)

Nope. Ireland has a derogation from the EU directive requiring open access, which I believe runs until at least next year, at which time, unless they seek an extension, it will have to be implemented. I assume the same applies for Northern Ireland, but I'm not sure.

As for Britain, the EU directive does not specify that competition is required. It simply requires that private operators are allowed to apply to operate a railway company (in simple terms).

[Ameecher]

Until the line is wired, Maybe EC (including FHT and GC) could hand over its 9 Class 180 (in exchage for 13 EMT HST sets) and EMT could extend all the 222s to 10-car

Tried to work this out and the maths don't stack up to me.

[61653]

Until the line is wired, Maybe EC (including FHT and GC) could hand over its 9 Class 180 (in exchage for 13 EMT HST sets) and EMT could extend all the 222s to 10-car

The problems there are many and varied: for one thing HSTs are not passed for Doncaster-Knottingley or Greetland Junction-Dryclough Junction on GCs West Riding services... but I'm drifting further from the topic again- apologies for that!

[EXTspotter]

I agree, 13 sets (well there is 26 Class 43s plus 108 carriages, so in reality it is 13 HST sets at 8 carriages each plus 4 spare MK3s) at 8 carriages each being replaced by 9 units of 5 carriages each is a 57% reduction in capacity for that group of trains. Unacceptable given the rising nature of passenger numbers on the route.

[Kevo00]

I feel that we should focus on services rather than competion!

This misses the point. There are more and better services precisely because there is competition. GC operate to destinations not served by EC and they have a turn up and go ticketing policy, unlike EC, where turn up and go is discouraged by high pricing.

[EXTspotter]

EC have only reopened services to these cities in response to the Open Access operators and even so, they are both at very low frequency - Hull on EC is once a day, so the frequency of First Hull Train's direct services (7 daily) are much better. Similarly the Bradford trains opearted by Grand Central are 3 daily vs East Coast's 1. I think that open access is a fantastic way of offering services deemed to be necessary or useful by the travelling public but which the DfT does not. If these operators can prove to the government of the need for these services then I am sure that in future they will be part of routes which have to be served under a TOC franchise agreement.

[Dave]

Even if a "new" BR did not gain a derogation, I would still keep the rail infrastructure under the same roof as the rail service provider and I will in practise, refuse any application to operate rail services by a private company

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT PLANS!?

GET IN YOUR OWN THREAD!

[Geo Ghost]

Even if a "new" BR did not gain a derogation, I would still keep the rail infrastructure under the same roof as the rail service provider and I will in practise, refuse any application to operate rail services by a private company

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT PLANS!?

GET IN YOUR OWN THREAD!

What does all this have to do with the Thameslink Programme... again.

Alan seriously, I've gone away for a couple of days and come back to see this happening once again. Do you not get the idea? If you want to talk about your silly plans, make your own topic! Stop derailing other ones as I really do not want to come back and see this one has been locked as well because of you.

[Kevo00]

Competition is nothing more than a waste and is not needed on the railways

Also Bradford and Hull is served by both EC and the Open-Access operators

Bradford and Hull are not served very frequently by EC. Northallerton-Sunderland is not served at all by them.

And I know for a fact that as someone living in York, without this competition the service provided to me would be worse.

[JamieLei]

I do wonder whether Virgin will pull out their 1tpd to Wrexham now that WSMR has gone under. It's a perfect example of a town that wouldn't have been served under BR - the direct services to London were removed back in the 1960s I believe. And don't say that BR would have reintroduced them, they had 30 years to do so and they didn't!

[Ameecher]

For a start extending the 222s to 10-car will mean that there will be less of a need for 2 x 5 car units in services, so more 222s can be used in practise, if that still is not enough (or they are planning more services, then maybe more 222s can be ordered

The jigs for the 222s have been destroyed so difficult to reopen production and they no longer meet crashworthiness anyway. and if you reformed the 222s into 10 car sets you'd have a load of unused driving cars doing nothing = net loss in capacity.