Franchise Reorganisation

[hstudent]

Now the the new franchises created last November have been in operation a while, do people think they are better than the old ones?

I personally see it as they've solved certain problems, but created others. For example, Virgin use to run services from Scotland to Birmingham down both the East and West Coast mainlines, now it's two different operators which would likely make it harder to change the route you travel if there are problems on one line. At the same time you can travel from Manchester to London via Sheffield using just one operator rather than two, which should mean it's easier for passengers travelling between Manchester and London to get the green light to travel via Sheffield if there are problems on the West Coast Mainline.

The Central Trains franchise was seen as an under performing one. However, has spilting it up just shared out the problems, or has it improved certain services?

[martin adamson]

Though I was against many at first, I am starting to see the benefits. It is nice to see some new TOCs and I think the split of Central into LM and EMT was a good idea. Before it just looked confusing with all those different trains and liveries, all under the same TOC covering hundreds of miles. Much more profesional looking now. I like the fact that the Leicester through trains to Brum have been added to XC, but my only problem is the fact that XC are aproviding an intercity service of 170s along with very different 220/1s.

[hstudent]

Originally Posted by David A Hicks

I like the fact that the Leicester through trains to Brum have been added to XC, but my only problem is the fact that XC are aproviding an intercity service of 170s along with very different 220/1s.

You'l always get a mixture of trains on routes e.g Preston to Glasgow is run by 185s, 220s and Pendulinos and Leeds to Newcastle is run by different NE East Coast trains, 185s and 220/1s.

[martin adamson]

However they are run by different TOCs, the HSTs and 225s on NEXC are very similar, but the 170s were more designed for a town/city connecting service where passengers would change trains onto a more intercity style unit (e.g. 185 Chorley to Preston, then Pendolino Preston to Euston). It is odd that XC are operating an intercity based TOC using so very different DMUs, it would be like if Virgin took back some 158s and started operating them under their brand along with the 390s.

[hstudent]

Originally Posted by David A Hicks

However they are run by different TOCs, the HSTs and 225s on NEXC are very similar, but the 170s were more designed for a town/city connecting service where passengers would change trains onto a more intercity style unit (e.g. 185 Chorley to Preston, then Pendolino Preston to Euston). It is odd that XC are operating an intercity based TOC using so very different DMUs, it would be like if Virgin took back some 158s and started operating them under their brand along with the 390s.

However, the routes that CrossCountry are using 170s on are former Central Trains routes which must have either had 158s or 170s running them before CrossCountry took over.

170s, like 185s were built for longer distance routes despite the door arrangements and used to be used on Sheffield to St Pancras services before MML decided that a fast accelerating 100mph train was worse than the previous 125mph trains which had poor acceleration.

If more Voyager trains were built could you really justify them going to CrossCountry to replace 170s over other companies such as TP Express and NE East Coast?

[martin adamson]

No because of the operations, voyagers would have real problems on some networks due to short platforms and route speed restrictions. Though voyagers would not suit the XC Leicester routes and Nottingham ones, I think the interiors definitely need refurbishment and are in a bit of a mess from previous use, and don't do the operator any impressional favours. Customers will expect the same level of service from XC whether it is from a voyager or a 170.

[Foghut]

Originally Posted by hstudent

170s, like 185s were built for longer distance routes despite the door arrangements and used to be used on Sheffield to St Pancras services before MML decided that a fast accelerating 100mph train was worse than the previous 125mph trains which had poor acceleration.

Are you suggesting that the MML Class 170s had good acceleration ?

That certainly wasn't my experience. Pulling out of Luton in either direction our 319s left them standing - they seemed little better than HSTs.

Wikipedia agrees..."The acceleration of the Turbostars was a big let down from an operational point of view. They were originally marketed as being far superior to the HSTs on semi-fast work due to "superior acceleration and braking", but in practice HSTs easily outperformed Turbostars on these sort of services."

[hairyhandedfool]

Originally Posted by Foghut

Are you suggesting that the MML Class 170s had good acceleration ?

That certainly wasn't my experience. Pulling out of Luton in either direction our 319s left them standing - they seemed little better than HSTs....

I have to agree with Foghut here, 170s are pants at acceleration, so much so that my sister, who knows nothing about trains, commented, at the time, that 'those new trains are slow, my train [2x319] overtook one at Elstree [northbound]'. Ofcourse there is no accounting for signals, but given that the 170 would have left STP before her train left KXTL there would have to be an 08 in front of it!

Why MML ever selected those units I will never know, and then to pick a slightly longer 222, with fewer seats per coach, the mind boggles.

[hstudent]

Originally Posted by David A Hicks

No because of the operations, voyagers would have real problems on some networks due to short platforms and route speed restrictions. Though voyagers would not suit the XC Leicester routes and Nottingham ones, I think the interiors definitely need refurbishment and are in a bit of a mess from previous use, and don't do the operator any impressional favours. Customers will expect the same level of service from XC whether it is from a voyager or a 170.

OK I misunderstood what you were saying. However, it happened before under previous TOCs:

e.g. FNW using 150s with limited leg room and without catering on Buxton to Manchester to Blackpool services, but using 175s with ample leg room and catering on Manchester Airport to Blackpool services.

Also ATN using 156s and MetroTrain 158s without catering services on selected TP Express services, when the rest were run by designated TP Express 158s mainly with catering services.

[hstudent]

Originally Posted by Foghut

Are you suggesting that the MML Class 170s had good acceleration ?

That certainly wasn't my experience. Pulling out of Luton in either direction our 319s left them standing - they seemed little better than HSTs.

No I'm saying that was the reason MML stated for using 170s, not my opinion.