• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

London Midland to be broken up?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,790
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
IMO it is London Midland's issue that they are offering cheap long distance fares on local stoppers, rather than implementing a fares structure that encourage people seeking lower fares to use their other, less crowded services. It still doesn't make the choice a bad thing, it just makes it inefficiently implemented by LM.

Eh? LM do not operate any route to Crewe that is not overcrowded - the Liverpools are as well, though not to the same extent. The only trains that often aren't are Euston-Brum.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If the Trent Valley stopper becomes part of the current Virgin franchise then Virgin would clearly have an incentive to offer cheaper tickets on it

Why?

It's overcrowded, the fast Pendolinos aren't. So the Trent Valley stopper should perhaps have a few Advances on the quieter trains, and otherwise full Anytime/Off Peak only. Unless it changes over to be run with an 11-car Pendolino, but I really doubt that.

Neil
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,714
Why though?

We are removing competition on the significantly larger market of Brighton - London.

We've removed competition on Ipswich/ Oxford/ Manchester - London (and virtually eliminated it on Glasgow - London with the bi-hourly EC service reduced to one-a-day).

So what is so special about Stoke?

There is nothing special about it. Its just something that would be nice if they didn't remove as I know many people in Stoke-on-Trent who like to use it as a cheaper way of getting to London.
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
2,135
Location
Charlbury
Agreed. Nobody is suggesting that the big market of Oxford - Reading - Paddington "deserves" competition (so what's special about Stoke?)

Though Oxford-Reading is already served by two ToCs, and before long that will be true of Oxford-London too.

(Personally I don't really give a rat's posterior about competition, I just want trains to be operated competently and affordably.)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,790
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There is nothing special about it. Its just something that would be nice if they didn't remove as I know many people in Stoke-on-Trent who like to use it as a cheaper way of getting to London.

I'm sure they do, but if they are receiving a subsidy well in excess of the VT service to do so then I think it's rather questionable that they are, unless the service were running empty and there was a need to fill seats (quite the opposite).

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Though Oxford-Reading is already served by two ToCs

That it is, though I don't think there is any genuine competition in ticketing terms.

and before long that will be true of Oxford-London too.

I must admit to being rather less understanding of any need for that service, though I believe Chiltern are doing it without subsidy so that's up to them. LM receive a heavy subsidy and so shouldn't be frittering it away abstracting revenue from VT and making the trains some people *have* to use crush loaded.

(Personally I don't really give a rat's posterior about competition, I just want trains to be operated competently and affordably.)

Agree. The real competitor is the car, and the competition between operators for rail can happen at tendering/franchising time.

Neil
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,714
I'm sure they do, but if they are receiving a subsidy well in excess of the VT service to do so then I think it's rather questionable that they are, unless the service were running empty and there was a need to fill seats (quite the opposite).

Neil

If they are being subsidised to run that train fair enough, does anyone pay the full £264 Stoke-London though? I have a railcard so I don't but I wonder if anyone regularly does.

I wish as well London Midland would call at Longport, before with the pathing they had it would have been hard to timetable in a stop there but now I don't think it would be but thats just my personal opinion.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,943
Location
Fenny Stratford
LM make a success of a product and you want to get rid of it because the trains are too full and you have to squash up? :roll: They should be encouraged to put on more trains and keep under cutting Virgin. That way we all get better fares! Is that not the basis of the capitalist economy?

Do you not think the pressure should be on Virgin to improve their fare structure to tempt these people off LM and onto their trains?

I honestly do not understand some of you!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,790
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
LM make a success of a product and you want to get rid of it because the trains are too full and you have to squash up? :roll: They should be encouraged to put on more trains and keep under cutting Virgin. That way we all get better fares! Is that not the basis of the capitalist economy?

Not when they are in receipt of a subsidy to do so, no. If the trains were open-access I'd wish them luck with it, but they are not.

If by increasing the fares to a more sensible level they could reduce their subsidy and reduce the overcrowding, they should certainly do so.

Additionally, VT are (I believe) in receipt of a subsidy, so by undercutting them LM are abstracting revenue and as such causing the subsidy to need to increase.

As a taxpayer (as well as a rail user) I disapprove.

Neil
 
Last edited:

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
5,078
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
What one has to understand with LM is that the leases for the Desiros are mileage based. So LM will not make money by selling a load more price-dumped Super Off Peaks and having to pay to get more Desiros out to put the passengers on.
That's no excuse, pretty much all post privatisation stock is on that lease setup. Other TOCs however bite the bullet and do what is right not what is cheapest. Given experence on Southern as well its just another Govia `save every last penny` output.
 

bussnapperwm

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2014
Messages
1,527
Personally I'd have the following carve up

Northern extend their Stokes to Birmingham replacing the LM service to stone

Liverpools to Cross Country along with Trent Valleys.
Bedford Bletchley line to East Midlands
Tring and St Albans Abbey to CrossRail/LO respectively.
Northampton/Milton Keynes to Southern/Virgin

All other lines to WM franchise with branding as WM overground.

Introduction of Daily Service to Bridgnorth via SVR

Transfer of Chilterns Leamington shorts to the WM franchise.

Extension of nnetwork zone to cover the new franchise.

Oh,I almost forgot
Worcester to Hereford to move to GW franchise
 

Tony2215

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2013
Messages
109
The proposed Birmingham-Preston LM service would solve lots of little problems, rather than one big one.

.

It might solve a few problems but at the same time will open up new problems as im not sure Liverpool residents will be very happy having their half hourly service to the West Midlands cut to just an hourly service. Demand must be higher at Preston for trains to Birmingham than it is at Liverpool.
 

Paul Kelly

Verified Rep - BR Fares
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
4,235
Location
Reading
The only criticism I have of them with regard to the Super Off Peak restrictions is that, despite me reporting it multiple times, they are implemented wrongly in the journey planner. They are meant to be valid on any train starting its overall journey after 1030, but the restriction as implemented does not do that and so the first northbound off MKC on the Super Off Peak is the 1219, despite the 1119 having left Euston after 1030.

Very interesting; I wasn't aware of that anomaly. The problem is that they are using the same restriction code (LG) for both northbound and southbound fares, and the departure time of the 1119 train clashes with the banned departure times from MKC for southbound trains.

Funnily enough the electronic version of the restriction code (full details here) has special gaps hacked into it whereby departures from Milton Keynes Central at 1126, 1149 and 1154 are allowed - the latter two cover trains to Northampton and Birmingham respectively, but there is no train that departs MKC at 1126 so that exception makes no sense!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,943
Location
Fenny Stratford
Not when they are in receipt of a subsidy to do so, no. If the trains were open-access I'd wish them luck with it, but they are not.

If by increasing the fares to a more sensible level they could reduce their subsidy and reduce the overcrowding, they should certainly do so.

Additionally, VT are (I believe) in receipt of a subsidy, so by undercutting them LM are abstracting revenue and as such causing the subsidy to need to increase.

As a taxpayer (as well as a rail user) I disapprove.

Neil

So what you are saying is that there should be a cartel on pricing (meaning we all pay the highest fare) and by extension only the richest may use the train?

Are LM not just using market forces and suing the system they have to work within to boost their income? Is that not what private companies do? Should you not be criticising Virgin for not cutting their fares to complete?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I honestly can not understand why people are advocating (if not encouraging)these ideas which will result in us all being ripped off and being offered less choice as consumers!
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,042
If I understand the thought process, the idea with splitting up LM is to make better franchises post HS2.

If that is the case then maybe we are looking at the carving up of LM the wrong way. Maybe it is better to look at it as LM gaining the current Virgin services whilst losing the local services.

If viewed that way then the Virgin rail fares will pass to HS2 leaving LM to carry on providing good value on the slower services.
 

Sparks807Evo

Member
Joined
22 Aug 2010
Messages
465
LM on the Snow Hill services have been excellent - rarely had any problems on the line and find it a reliable service. If LM was to split up, then personally Chiltern should be able to take on the Snow Hill services - their efforts on the Mainline services are to be commended highly - just today had the pleasure of the refurbished Mk3 stock - my dad was very impressed with the finished product. I would not want Centro to operate it - they can barely co-ordinate the local bus network effectively.
 

moggie

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2010
Messages
426
Location
West Midlands
My other observation is that the Camp Hill line chord would allow Chiltern to operate the Herefords into Moor Street...

Except that the overwhelming evidence is that the users don't want to go there! They want New St or University. if they wanted Moor St they'd use the glossy new trains provided. they don't . They don't fill up until they depart Kiddy. I know. I and everyone else on the platform watch the empty four car depart DTW for Dorridge Preferring to join the fast two car to New St.
 
Last edited:

Class 170101

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,664
Except that the overwhelming evidence is that the users don't want to go there! They want New St or University. if they wanted Moor St they'd use the glossy new trains provided. they don't . They don't fill up until they depart Kiddy. I know. I and everyone else on the platform watch the empty four car depart DTW for Dorridge Preferring to join the fast two car to New St.

Sounds more like a slow journey time rather than destination that the problem here. Moor Street and New Street are only between 5 and 10 minutes apart.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,498
If that is the case Chiltern might pick up some of the faster Hereford/Worcester services.
My observation on this is that whether its done by separating the franchises, or by creating a 'West Midlands local' business unit within LM, that there are a few problematic services:

Shrewsbury
Hereford
Liverpool

My other observation is that the Camp Hill line chord would allow Chiltern to operate the Herefords into Moor Street...
...will this leave the areas in between as lower priorities? Why would a "Greater Birmingham" or a "Rail North" be that interested in the needs of people outside the area (like Staffordshire)? Something to consider...

As I posted earlier in this thread, Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire County Council are part of the 'West Midlands Rail' partnership that is behind this proposal, so are Staffordshire County Council and Shropshire Council. :roll:

If I understand the thought process, the idea with splitting up LM is to make better franchises post HS2.

No, the 'thought process' can be read here in the proposal submitted to the DfT in October by West Midlands Rail on behalf of all the local authorities involved: http://www.westmidlandsrail.com/media/1038/wmr-proposition-and-business-case.pdf


LM on the Snow Hill services have been excellent - rarely had any problems on the line and find it a reliable service. If LM was to split up, then personally Chiltern should be able to take on the Snow Hill services

If this proposal comes to pass, the last thing that'll happen is the splitting of Birmingham's suburban rail network between two different TOCs. This thing is partly about the integration of the different public transport networks; Bus, Rail and Tram. Splitting the rail network in two is completely counter to that idea!

Anyway, the Snow Hill side of LM would be largely unaffected by this remapping, it'd be business as usual post 2017/LM.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,790
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
That's no excuse, pretty much all post privatisation stock is on that lease setup. Other TOCs however bite the bullet and do what is right not what is cheapest. Given experence on Southern as well its just another Govia `save every last penny` output.

I don't agree that wasting subsidy on price-dumped Super Off Peak tickets *is* the right thing, though. Scarce funds can be spent better, and would be spent better on getting those Desiros out for south WCML services on weekends, rather than for providing bargain basement services for the few.

As far as I am concerned there are only two valid situations under which the LM Crewe trains should be extended to 8-car.

1: If they would still be overcrowded were the only fares available the present Any Permitted ones.

2: If London Midland can make an entirely commercial case for doing so (i.e. there will not need to be any increased subsidy nor fares increase on any other route, nor capacity reduction on any subsidised route, in order for them to do so).

I don't see either of those scenarios as even vaguely likely.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Funnily enough the electronic version of the restriction code (full details here) has special gaps hacked into it whereby departures from Milton Keynes Central at 1126, 1149 and 1154 are allowed - the latter two cover trains to Northampton and Birmingham respectively, but there is no train that departs MKC at 1126 so that exception makes no sense!

That's probably the error. If I recall rightly, previously on a Saturday the hourly Euston-Watford-MKC-(Brum/Crewe) splitter departed MKC at xx26. So the error is that that hasn't been updated. But I'm having a hell of a time convincing them that it is broken, and in the meantime people are being overcharged.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So what you are saying is that there should be a cartel on pricing (meaning we all pay the highest fare) and by extension only the richest may use the train?

Given a full choice? There should be a national fares system based around either mileage or zones with specified discounts, and the TOCs should only be competing with one another at the point of contracts being issued.

Failing that? TOCs should not be price-dumping tickets unless they are willing to provide the capacity on a commercial basis to avoid this price-dumping causing overcrowding. That might not mean the abolition of the LM-only fares, but certainly would mean increasing them to a more realistic level.

Are LM not just using market forces and suing the system they have to work within to boost their income? Is that not what private companies do?

They should not be ramming trains full with price-dumped fares to the disadvantage of those who have no choice but to use them and for whom a subsidy is paid by the taxpayer, no.

On a long-distance service off-peak there should not be any trains loaded >100%. If their fares system is causing loads >100%, fares should be increased or, if commercially viable without additional subsidy, additional capacity should be provided.

Should you not be criticising Virgin for not cutting their fares to complete?

How can VT realistically compete with an operator spending subsidy on ramming trains to the rafters off-peak? All that is is a race to the bottom.

I honestly can not understand why people are advocating (if not encouraging)these ideas which will result in us all being ripped off and being offered less choice as consumers!

Once again, VT off-peak walk-up fares are not a "rip-off". They are lower than most other IC operators for equivalent distances.

The Anytime fares are pricey, but nobody is going to be travelling in the morning peak unless they have to, whatever the fare, as it simply isn't fun. And it's not the peak-time LM trains that have an overcrowding problem anyway - the 4 cars of the 1805 that proceed beyond Northampton appear to load to about 90% at MKC. It's the off-peak ones where people are paying 29 quid all the way to Crewe (return). That fare is simply not realistic on a non-quota-controlled basis, and it is not remotely surprising its existence is causing overcrowding.

Neil
 
Last edited:

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,442
Personally I'd have the following carve up

Northern extend their Stokes to Birmingham replacing the LM service to stone

Liverpools to Cross Country along with Trent Valleys.
Bedford Bletchley line to East Midlands
Tring and St Albans Abbey to CrossRail/LO respectively.
Northampton/Milton Keynes to Southern/Virgin

All other lines to WM franchise with branding as WM overground.

Introduction of Daily Service to Bridgnorth via SVR

Transfer of Chilterns Leamington shorts to the WM franchise.

Extension of nnetwork zone to cover the new franchise.

Oh,I almost forgot
Worcester to Hereford to move to GW franchise
So you want to transfer a line which is way outside London and goes nowhere near to LO do you? Boris he say a million and one times NO WAY JOSE!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,943
Location
Fenny Stratford
@Neil Williams - Whilst i acknowledge and appreciate your view i cant agree with it. You are suggesting (by extension) that only the most affluent or those who hold a railcard may travel by train while the rest can basically get lost. You may be able to easily afford Virgins fares but many of us on a budget can not often afford them

You are criticising a train company for seeing a way to increase passenger numbers and fill up otherwise empty trains. Those trains are going to run anyway so why not run them full. Is that not the best way to use the subsidy? I honestly can not believe that you are advocating the policy, used by Virgin, of running around with empty trains off peak. It really annoys me to see my money used to cart empty space around. Why not use that money to fill the seats? It seems so terribly wasteful and denies the existence (which LM have proved) of a large section of the market demanding off peak rail travel.

LM have found a gap in the market for lower cost off peak travel and exploited it. Surely the capitalist supermen at Virgin dont need protection from the application of market forces? Surely they can show that their fares offer a much better "journey experience" because they are faster, cleaner, longer, more frequent, more comfortable, more reliable etc and that it is worth paying the extra money for that better service.

Are Virgin services run entirely free of subsidy? Are they suffering serious financial harm from the cheap LM fares? Or have they been outmaneuvered and failed to offer a service to a section of the market?

Is it not up to Virgin to respond to the challenge? If their product is as good as many on here suggest they should "win" such a competition hands down. The fact they dont should be a worry for them. Price is a key driver for many, that should be their area of focus if they are even worried by the loss of passengers. Are the LM passengers even in Virgins natural target audience?

Where i do agree with you is that the LM trains need to be more than 4 car lengths, if only to offer more people the opportunity to travel ( ;) ) Their mileage based maintenance regimen doesn't help, nor does their focus on shifting peak hours crowds into London, nor at times do their staffing issues and nor does (looking outside in) there seem to be a management desire to address this.

I trhink they have been a little caught out by the success of the Trent Valley 110 services and the numbers this has attracted to their longer distance routes. It is up to them to respond to this challenge and offer more carriages. Certainly at weekends they have idle stock.
 
Last edited:

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
It might solve a few problems but at the same time will open up new problems as im not sure Liverpool residents will be very happy having their half hourly service to the West Midlands cut to just an hourly service. Demand must be higher at Preston for trains to Birmingham than it is at Liverpool.

Liverpool Chamber of Commerce are against the proposed changes while Liverpool Airport support the proposed changes.

It's worth noting southbound that catching the Virgin service to Stafford and picking up the XC service to Birmingham from there takes the same amount of time as the direct LM service so cutting back the frequency doesn't necessarily mean it'll take longer to get between Liverpool and Birmingham.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,790
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
OK, having read a lot of it, the idea isn't to merge any LM services with ICWC.
So do you read the "West Coast"' bit as meaning "the residual LM West Coast operation" as I originally did?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So you want to transfer a line which is way outside London and goes nowhere near to LO do you? Boris he say a million and one times NO WAY JOSE!
What, St Albans? It meets LO at Watford.

Neil
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,308
So do you read the "West Coast"' bit as meaning "the residual LM West Coast operation" as I originally did?

l

Looking at it again, the Modern Rail article uses the word 'transfer'.

A current LM long distance service remaining in the rump LM franchise on the WCML wouldn't need to be a transfer surely? In any case though, why would the future West Midlands Rail organisation need to have a policy view on something more relevant to DfT's future franchise plans for trains out of Euston? They may not have mentioned it because it isn't their problem.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,790
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
@Neil Williams - Whilst i acknowledge and appreciate your view i cant agree with it. You are suggesting (by extension) that only the most affluent or those who hold a railcard may travel by train while the rest can basically get lost. You may be able to easily afford Virgins fares but many of us on a budget can not often afford them

The Government has decided this by increasing regulated fares over a long period. Virgin are not to blame.

You are criticising a train company for seeing a way to increase passenger numbers and fill up otherwise empty trains.

Where are these empty trains? They are overcrowded, not empty.

I trhink they have been a little caught out by the success of the Trent Valley 110 services and the numbers this has attracted to their longer distance routes. It is up to them to respond to this challenge and offer more carriages. Certainly at weekends they have idle stock.

And it has been explained why it is not economically viable to use it.

With regard to the bit about them concentrating on London commuter operations, that is exactly what they should be doing - they are primarily a London commuter operation.

Neil
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,042
So do you read the "West Coast"' bit as meaning "the residual LM West Coast operation" as I originally did?

Neil

I'm not sure how else to read:

As a principal driver of the development of the West Midlands Rail Network, WMR would seek to
develop active, innovative industry relationships and partnerships with:
• DfT - in respect of services in the West Midlands provided by :
- The West Midlands Rail Contract and West Coast Connect

- The West Coast, Cross Country, East Midland and Chiltern Railways contracts Coast, Cross Country, East Midland and Chiltern Railways contracts
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,790
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm referring to the bit about where the Crewe services are going (sorry can't quote it, magazine is at home).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Though I could see it being merged in at the next WC franchising, in the manner of FGW Link.

Edit:
Now I’m home…the bit that is causing confusion is this:

“Following discussions it is almost certain that the London Midland franchise will be split to create West Midlands Rail and a new franchise for the residual London Midland services which operate on the West Coast main line out of London, nominally named ‘West Coast Connect’. The proposals under consideration would also see the London-Crewe semi-fast and Birmingham-Liverpool services currently operated by London Midland transferring to the West Coast franchise.”

That can be read either way as being “to Virgin West Coast or their successor”, or “to the West Coast Connect franchise”. I’m really not sure which way to read it.

Neil
 
Last edited:

Class 170101

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,664
The other reason for the cheap fares is that they are LM fares it means that LM gets all the money from that fare (minus the selling fee if they didn't sell it). The Open fare Virgin usually gets most of the money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top