New London Midland timetable

[radamfi]

I think it must be borne in mind that train travel to London is largely a captive market as the alternatives are largely impractical. However, the car is the dominant mode for long distance inter-city travel outside London, therefore it is particularly important to improve train travel for such journeys.

 

[Hadders]

London Midland's new December timetable appears to ruin northbound journeys from Northampton. For example, Northampton to Manchester is currently around 2h14m (changing at Stoke on Trent) but from December becomes 2h43m (with a change at Birmingham).

There is currently a negative easement prohibiting northbound journeys from Northampton going via Milton Keynes. I believe this was introduced when the Trent Valley service from Northampton was improved a few years ago - I'm not 100% sure on this but the fact that route:Long Buckby and Any Permitted tickets are available suggests that journeys via MKC were valid at some point.

Now that thenorthbound service from Northampton effectively going backwards does anyone know if the easement will be changed to allow journeys via Milton Keynes.

 

[6Gman]

I think it must be borne in mind that train travel to London is largely a captive market as the alternatives are largely impractical. However, the car is the dominant mode for long distance inter-city travel outside London, therefore it is particularly important to improve train travel for such journeys.

A crucial point.

If one of the purposes of having a national rail network is to encourage modal shift for environmental reasons then making journeys like Ely-Crewe or Cambridge-Stoke easier by rail matters.

 

[jaffa]

As far as I am aware, the negative easement restricting passengers from Northampton changing at MKC to places north of Rugby was added around December 2010 so this is a fairly recent 'easement'. Before this it was specifically allowed to go via MKC as a proper easement. I specifically asked LM during the Project 110 consultation the question of whether passengers would be allowed to travel via MKC with no reply.

Therefore I am not expecting LM to back down on this easement, however perhaps with enough pressure from passengers would take note? Journey times are far improved to places in the north such as Manchester and North Wales when travelling via MKC.

I think part of the problem is that fares from Northampton to places north of Rugby were cheaper than those from MKC, and so when it was permitted to travel via MKC perhaps people were buying the cheaper tickets from Northampton rather than from MKC. An easy way to overcome this is to disallow break of journey on those tickets.

I for one very much hope this 'easement' will be removed and journeys via MKC will be allowed!

 

[tbtc]

A crucial point.

If one of the purposes of having a national rail network is to encourage modal shift for environmental reasons then making journeys like Ely-Crewe or Cambridge-Stoke easier by rail matters.

Rail is best suited to dealing with the largest flows, so is generally best at concentrating on the busy routes - whilst National Express may be able to make a Cambridge - Stoke service profitable, the economics of rail make running such routes marginal at best, unprofitable at worst.

Interesting that in all the excitement about cheap fares for Trent Valley stations, nobody seems worried about London Midland's ability to actually operate the services (given the cancellations elsewhere that they are having). Presumably it's okay for them to concentrate on competing with the WCML franchise despite the problems that they have in serving their "captive" market on local journeys in the West Midlands?

 

[MKB]

I haven't seen any specific figures for London Midland - but nationally, in 2009/2010 59% of all rail journeys started or finished in London. (Source: DfT.) East Coast say that approx 60% of their passengers start or finish their journey at King’s Cross.

Being that some TOCs don't serve London at all, it's probably safe to surmise that 'more than 50%' is a reasonable guesstimate.

East Coast and LM are not comparable. LM has many more stops at smaller stations and has routes that don't go anywhere near London. I don't see the relevance of the figures quoted by All Line Rover either. Happy to be proved wrong, but I'd be amazed if more than 50% of LM passenger journeys go via London. Even if you restrict just to the Crewe-Euston line, the train is often packed at places between Crewe and Northampton, but very few of those passengers seem to go the whole way to Euston. Most people seem to be on just for a few stops.

 

[transmanche]

East Coast and LM are not comparable.

I didn't say that they were. But the figures were easy to obtain and in line with the national average.

LM has many more stops at smaller stations and has routes that don't go anywhere near London.

However, since you brought it up, bear in mind that East Coast serve a far wider geographical area than London Midland; with significant passenger flows between Scotland, North East England and Yorkshire. If anything, you might expect East Coat's figures to be below the national average, being as they serve such a wide area.

So, as I said. Based on the national average that 59% of all rail journeys either start or finish in London, it's not unrealistic for more than half of journeys on London Midland to start or finish in London?

 

[kieron]

East Coast and LM are not comparable. LM has many more stops at smaller stations and has routes that don't go anywhere near London.

I quite agree. According to Timetables 2, LM will run 219 trains to or from London Euston on Monday, 176 to or from Birmingham Moor Street and 625 to or from Birmingham New Street (including 47 to or from London).

Another consideration is that London Midland makes up a fairly small part of the rail market. It carried 55 million passengers last year, compared to (for example) 165 million for Southern and 170 for Southeastern.

The key difference with London, as I see it, is that it has a dense rail network. This means that relying on rail for most of your journey is far more practical than it is in other places.

 

[transmanche]

I quite agree. According to Timetables 2, LM will run 219 trains to or from London Euston on Monday, 176 to or from Birmingham Moor Street and 625 to or from Birmingham New Street (including 47 to or from London).

The number of services operated is a meaningless statistic in this context. Some of the Birmingham services will be a single 153. Some of the Euston services will be 12-carriages.

 

[radamfi]

Rail is best suited to dealing with the largest flows, so is generally best at concentrating on the busy routes - whilst National Express may be able to make a Cambridge - Stoke service profitable, the economics of rail make running such routes marginal at best, unprofitable at worst.

You don't need to develop direct routes for such routes, though. With a well planned timetable, you can make obscure journeys attractive by having convenient connections, like what we currently have with the Rugby and Stafford connections.

 

[tbtc]

You don't need to develop direct routes for such routes, though. With a well planned timetable, you can make obscure journeys attractive by having convenient connections, like what we currently have with the Rugby and Stafford connections.

I agree - good connections are under-rated - especially on this forum where there seems to be an obsession with everywhere having direct services.

If this new timetable means losing the clever connections at Rugby etc (to chase more London passengers) then it's a bad thing.

As for the "London" argument - almost every East Coast service serves London (apart from placing journeys etc). A minority of London Midland services serve London (they don't even all serve Birmingham).

A better comparison would be LM vs EMT.

 

[All Line Rover]

London Midland's local services have nothing to do with this thread, as the new timetable only alters Crewe/Birmingham to London services.

The comment about the Northampton easement is very interesting. London Midland have slowed journeys between Northampton and 'The North', even though fast journeys are still possible, like they have always been, by travelling via the very reasonable route of Milton Keynes, which London Midland have blocked. (I suspect it was Virgin who asked for it to be blocked).

If you look on National Rail Enquiries the suggested route for most journeys to 'The North' is almost always to travel via Milton Keynes, but through tickets are not available. It would be impractical for London Midland to introduce new "via Milton Keynes" tickets for every possible journey between Northampton and north thereof (and who would dictate the price?), so I expect London Midland to remove this easement by the time the new timetable starts operating.

Anyone living in Northampton should complain to London Midland, and if they don't alter the easement, consider contacting their local MP. A little extra pressure can do no harm.

 

[Hadders]

It is interesting to compare the SVR fares from Northampton to Manchester with those from Milton Keynes:

NMP-MAN:
route:Long Buckby £53.60
Any Permitted £64.10

MKC-MAN
Any Permitted £58.00

The Any Permitted fare from Northampton is utterly useless as journeys are only allowed via Long Buckby since the negative easement was introduced.

The Any Permitted fare from Northampton is interesting as it is more expensive than from Milton Keynes, even though Northampton is nearer to Manchester. Presumably this premium reflected the assumption that journeys using this ticket would be via Milton Keynes.

 

[jaffa]

On the other hand, a SVR from Northampton to Chester Any Permitted is £48.80 (which used to be valid via MKC), whereas a SVR from MKC to Chester Any Permitted is £59.70.

 

[transmanche]

[Duplicate]

 

[MKB]

And to repeat myself, I didn't say they were. See previous posts for an explanation.

Yes, you've said that twice since I said (once) "East Coast and LM are not comparable." Are you repeating, juxtaposed with my posting, because you wanted me to respond?

Ok then.

I never said you said they were comparable. But you did compare them. Even though you don't seem to think they're comparable. I have no idea what all that means, but hey ho.

Whatever the percentage of LM journeys made that don't go to/from/via Euston, there are some excellent arguments being made by others in this thread as to why a transport policy cannot be based solely on satisfying London passengers to the detriment of others.

 

[transmanche]

Are you repeating, juxtaposed with my posting, because you wanted me to respond?

Er, no. The forum presented your post to me again this evening as a 'new post' and I thought it was someone else... simple as that.

 

[Pumbaa]

Whatever the percentage of LM journeys made that don't go to/from/via Euston, there are some excellent arguments being made by others in this thread as to why a transport policy cannot be based solely on satisfying London passengers to the detriment of others.

While I am fairly vocal about connections being lost, I am aware that previously LM have said over 75% of their journeys begin/end at Euston.

It is a sad truth that most London and regional TOCs will always cater to the majority, in most cases, London based flows and passengers!

 

[DiscoStu]

Anybody got a link to the new timetable please? I can't find it anywhere!

Cheers.

 

[All Line Rover]

Anybody got a link to the new timetable please? I can't find it anywhere!

Cheers.

It's not on the London Midland website but is available to view on most booking engines by searching for a date after 8th December.

 

[tbtc]

While I am fairly vocal about connections being lost, I am aware that previously LM have said over 75% of their journeys begin/end at Euston.

It is a sad truth that most London and regional TOCs will always cater to the majority, in most cases, London based flows and passengers!

Presumably they mean 75% of journeys on their WCML services?

If not then their Snow Hill services can't be that busy?

 

[sprinterguy]

Presumably they mean 75% of journeys on their WCML services?

If not then their Snow Hill services can't be that busy?

Or the Cross City line! Which, given that at peak times a 6-car 323 formation can be full and standing (Ok, a 12-car 350 out of Euston can probably have similar loadings) certainly isn't the case. When you think about the frequency and length of London Midland trains leaving Euston though, it does become evident that Euston commuters must account for a large proportion of their business.

 

[tbtc]

Or the Cross City line! Which, given that at peak times a 6-car 323 formation can be full and standing (Ok, a 12-car 350 out of Euston can probably have similar loadings) certainly isn't the case. When you think about the frequency and length of London Midland trains leaving Euston though, it does become evident that Euston commuters must account for a large proportion of their business.

I'm sorry if my reply to Pumbaa looked sarcastic (wasn't meant to!), I'm just aware of how statistics are used. I could understand if 75% of passengers on a LM service departing Euston were on the train at Euston (so a few on local journeys like Watford to Milton Keynes, but most using Euston), of course, just not of the total number of LM passengers (given what lines like the Cross City can be like at rush hour!)

 

[Old Hill Bank]

I too find the 75% figure a little high, whilst we do not have 12 car sets in the west midlands, there are far more peak morning arrivals and peak evening LM trains serving Birmingham city centre than into or out of Euston.

 

[87015]

Given they can't resource the existing service - no trains on Bedford or St Albans branches today - you wonder how these extra trains are going to be crewed. The latest course has ground to a halt because they don't have enough driver instructors.

 

[tbtc]

Given they can't resource the existing service - no trains on Bedford or St Albans branches today - you wonder how these extra trains are going to be crewed. The latest course has ground to a halt because they don't have enough driver instructors.

I've questioned how they can staff these new services (when they don't have enough staff to run existing ones) and got the response that

London Midland's local services have nothing to do with this thread

I think that they do have a lot to do with this thread.

 

[Bevan Price]

The only concern I have for Nuneaton residents is being able to get a seat. It's not unusual for 4-car Desiros to be full once they reach Nuneaton. I hope London Midland either introduce seat reservations for actual seats, or double-up busy services to 8-car.

The problem is that several stations north of Nuneaton are too short for 8 car formations. Even with selective door opening, you would get passengers in the wrong coach when trying to alight at stations such as Rugeley (TV) or Atherstone .

And I think that seat reservations would make life difficult on services with so many calling points (personally, I find them a menace on Trans Pennine services, particularly when the conductor fails to remove labels from unclaimed seats, or when the train has passed beyond the destination to which the seats were reserved.)

 

[Pumbaa]

The problem is that several stations north of Nuneaton are too short for 8 car formations. Even with selective door opening, you would get passengers in the wrong coach when trying to alight at stations such as Rugeley (TV) or Atherstone .

And I think that seat reservations would make life difficult on services with so many calling points (personally, I find them a menace on Trans Pennine services, particularly when the conductor fails to remove labels from unclaimed seats, or when the train has passed beyond the destination to which the seats were reserved.)

It hasn't stopped 8 car running before... Another favourite myth that does the rounds here...

Just as short platforms at Winsford and Acton Bridge doesn't stop 8 cars on a daily occurence.

 

[London_Midland]

Thanks for all your feedback so far. We’ll look into the NMP-northbound via MK easement as it does seem to be a valid point.

The problem with the 8 car operation is actually about signal siting and foot/level crossing locations at locations such as Stone. We're trying to get it resolved, though, as 8 car operation is sorely needed and increased frequency (the alternative) would be very resource hungry from a traincrew perspective. The bay platforms 2-4 at Crewe are also too short, which potentially would lead crossing the throat of Crewe station twice an hour.

In terms of peak service, that will be sorted in 2014. To provide enough trains to Northampton and up the Trent Valley via Weedon during the peak we need extra units, so the timetable is dependant on the arrival of our 10 x 350/3s.

With regard to the current staff shortages, that shouldn't be a problem as we head into December, partly through efficiencies within the new timetable and partly through the completion of our current training programme. The issue has been driven by a high number of drivers moving to XC, as well as some higher than normal losses due to ill health, over a relatively short period.

We'll look at the connections that have been highlighted to see what can be done in future, to ensure the route continues to grow. LM is one of the UK's fastest growing TOCs in terms of passenger numbers and currently the only one of the 2007-let franchises to have managed to avoid going back to the Govt for revenue support. We'd like to keep it that way!

Just as an aside, there will be some fare increases on tickets to London from January, but off-peak prices will only change by a couple of pounds, which we hope you agree is pretty good value for a round trip saving of almost an hour.

David

p.s. Only 350/1s will be allowed on the Trent Valley fast services from December due to the 110mph running, so that is another bit of good news!

 

[All Line Rover]

Thank you for the informative response. I hope you consider removing the Northampton easement in its entirety (for both northbound and southbound journeys), as the reason for introducing it will no longer be applicable when the new timetable begins.