VT Crewe to London services

[Class 92]

From Crewe there is two services to London with VT a few minutes apart. One from Manchester and one from Liverpool. I'm interested to know which one tends to be busier on a Saturday?

For example the 07:20 is a Liverpool to Euston service and the 07:29 is a Manchester to Euston service. Which one is most likely to be busier?

 

[Camden]

I generally find the Liverpool services busier. Bear in mind their services are much less frequent.

Put it this way, for this Saturday there are still cheap Advances to be had on the Manchester service mentioned. None from Liverpool on the corresponding service.

 

[fowler9]

I went from Liverpool to London recently for a Liverpool away game and travelled early on a Saturday morning. It was cheaper to go via Manchester and I had coach U almost to myself from Manchester to London via Crewe. Actually made me wonder how much longer Virgin can justify its service frequency from Manchester.

 

[najaB]

Actually made me wonder how much longer Virgin can justify its service frequency from Manchester.

Weekend morning loadings aren't a good indicator of how busy a route can be overall.

 

[dk1]

I went from Liverpool to London recently for a Liverpool away game and travelled early on a Saturday morning. It was cheaper to go via Manchester and I had coach U almost to myself from Manchester to London via Crewe. Actually made me wonder how much longer Virgin can justify its service frequency from Manchester.

Believe me for much of the day they can get busy & just see what happens on the following train when one is knocked out. Half-hourly would not cut it to Manchester these days. The revenue they make is enormous & growing.

 

[Camden]

Believe me for much of the day they can get busy & just see what happens on the following train when one is knocked out. Half-hourly would not cut it to Manchester these days. The revenue they make is enormous & growing.

I wonder how much of that revenue comes from BBC and various government department peoples whizzing up and down the west coast main line, and therefore little more than a wasteful transfer of money from the public purse and taking up space into the bargain?... (oop did I type that out loud).

Yes yes we all know how wonderful Manchester is, and how only the very best will do for you, but the answer to the OP's question is still that "the Liverpool train will be the busier".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I went from Liverpool to London recently for a Liverpool away game and travelled early on a Saturday morning. It was cheaper to go via Manchester and I had coach U almost to myself from Manchester to London via Crewe. Actually made me wonder how much longer Virgin can justify its service frequency from Manchester.

As someone who has to go to both often, I find the situation massively frustrating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing they could do is better diagramming. I keep seeing 9-cars on busy Scotland via Brum trains - if Manchesters really aren't that busy, surely the 9-cars should go there (and maybe even the single Voyagers sometimes found on the Scotland via Brum trains), and the 11s on the hourly services? It seems almost random at times.

 

[dk1]

I wonder how much of that revenue comes from BBC and various government department peoples whizzing up and down the west coast main line, and therefore little more than a wasteful transfer of money from the public purse and taking up space into the bargain?... (oop did I type that out loud).

Yes yes we all know how wonderful Manchester is, and how only the very best will do for you, but the answer to the OP's question is still that "the Liverpool train will be the busier".

At just one train an hour of course the Liverpool will be busier. When I travel Warrington-Euston I often catch the Scot-Birmingham to Crewe & catch the xx.29 Manchester as more chance of a seat but that really doesn't mean a reduction is needed. I think in the first year 26,000 tickets where purchased by the BBC. It's all business in my book.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One thing they could do is better diagramming. I keep seeing 9-cars on busy Scotland via Brum trains - if Manchesters really aren't that busy, surely the 9-cars should go there (and maybe even the single Voyagers sometimes found on the Scotland via Brum trains), and the 11s on the hourly services? It seems almost random at times.

Trouble with that is you need to look at the bigger picture. Having a 11-car tied to an 11hr round trip to Scotland could deprive trains later in the diagram causing serious crowding on the Manchester/Liverpool routes. Virgin do there upmost to get them where there needed the most but you can't keep every punter happy.

 

[parkender102]

From Crewe there is two services to London with VT a few minutes apart. One from Manchester and one from Liverpool. I'm interested to know which one tends to be busier on a Saturday?

For example the 07:20 is a Liverpool to Euston service and the 07:29 is a Manchester to Euston service. Which one is most likely to be busier?

From a couple of years recent experience travelling down every Monday morning Crewe to London:

09:20 Liverpool to Euston was usually only a 9 Coach Pendolino with an extra stop after Crewe at Stafford - generally got into London a few minutes before the later Manchester Train. Tried it a few times but always fairly busy.

09:29 Manchester to Euston was always an 11 coach Pendolino with U and F coaches being completely unreserved - it's also non stop after Crewe all the way to London so no people getting on and off at other stops as you get with the Liverpool to London train. Every week I parked myself in U with 2 or 4 seats to myself and probably 10 other people in the entire carriage.

Bear in mind this is still peak time so I assume any departures later will be Off Peak and these can get busy during school holidays.

 

[Camden]

Don't know when you last did that, Liverpool trains are 11 coaches long. Still busy mind.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Liverpool relieves the Manchester southbound and the Chester northbound at Crewe.
Watching them both, they are usually equally busy.
I think the Manchester generally has all-day business and the Liverpool drops off in the middle of the day (that's why it stops).
Neither of them is as busy as the Glasgow though.
The Chester-Euston is very variable depending on coast peaks, not nice on a single Voyager at times.
Every time I see the Liverpool it is 11-car, the Manchester is a mix.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I often catch the 18:29 Crewe to Milton Keynes (ex Manchester), it's usually 11 coaches which is just as well as it's pretty full with a 9 coach pendo

 

[Camden]

The Liverpool relieves the Manchester southbound and the Chester northbound at Crewe.
Watching them both, they are usually equally busy.
I think the Manchester generally has all-day business and the Liverpool drops off in the middle of the day (that's why it stops).
Neither of them is as busy as the Glasgow though.
The Chester-Euston is very variable depending on coast peaks, not nice on a single Voyager at times.
Every time I see the Liverpool it is 11-car, the Manchester is a mix.

OK, I'm not a trainspotter, so I don't watch them, I just use them. I go off the trains I go on, and the tickets I('m not able to) buy.

I've certainly used a Manchester train to head north before changing to get into a Liverpool one before. I think I'd need my head reading if I did it the other way around. That the Liverpool train is always 11 carriages should say something about usage not dropping off.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

OK, I'm not a trainspotter, so I don't watch them, I just use them. I go off the trains I go on, and the tickets I('m not able to) buy.

Neither am I, but I do a lot of changing at Crewe.
No advances available from Liverpool also applies to Chester, by the way.

 

[Camden]

I know, I've tried going via Chester.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Neither am I, but I do a lot of changing at Crewe.
No advances available from Liverpool also applies to Chester, by the way.

On regular trips to London from Bangor, I now split at Crewe and catch either the Liverpool or Manchester Pendolino, more recently the Liverpool - it is always cheaper than the fare from Bangor and I don't mind a twenty minute wait mid morning. As has previously been stated, it is certainly less crowded than the Voyager.

 

[dk1]

Mornings at Crewe are always worth a wait to enjoy a Brekky Baguette from the Gormet vans on 5/6

The Glasgow has gone from strength to strength since going hourly. Would be good to see them ramp up a gear to go fast from Preston to London & maybe omitting Lancaster with an additional Blackpool/Lancaster Euston doing the honours at Wigan/Warrington.

 

[fowler9]

Weekend morning loadings aren't a good indicator of how busy a route can be overall.

Yeah, good point to be honest. Daft comment from me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Believe me for much of the day they can get busy & just see what happens on the following train when one is knocked out. Half-hourly would not cut it to Manchester these days. The revenue they make is enormous & growing.

Again, daft comment from me really. It had been a long late shift. Ha ha. I still think Manchester is slightly over served though over the course of the day. I once got a service from Liverpool to London where passengers were advised to get off at Crewe and change to a service from Manchester which was pretty much empty and due to arrive a few minutes later. I was getting off the train from Liverpool a Crewe anyway and saw how empty the service from Manchester was. (Good service from Virgin advising people of this by the way. They said people on advances would be allowed to do it as well.) I would advise that this was on a week day afternoon, not peak time. Actually it did shock me how busy the service fro Liverpool was.

 

[dk1]

Again, daft comment from me really. It had been a long late shift. Ha ha.

No worries mate. Didn't mean to sound so dictatorial either

 

[fowler9]

No worries mate. Didn't mean to sound so dictatorial either

You didn't at all mate. No probs. I have added to my comment since if you see the edit but I do agree that Manchester overall warrants a much more frequent service.

 

[185143]

Mornings at Crewe are always worth a wait to enjoy a Brekky Baguette from the Gormet vans on 5/6

The Glasgow has gone from strength to strength since going hourly. Would be good to see them ramp up a gear to go fast from Preston to London & maybe omitting Lancaster with an additional Blackpool/Lancaster Euston doing the honours at Wigan/Warrington.

Noo.....

Not having my local intercity shack only served by vomiters!

 

[AndrewE]

The Glasgow has gone from strength to strength since going hourly. Would be good to see them ramp up a gear to go fast from Preston to London & maybe omitting Lancaster with an additional Blackpool/Lancaster Euston doing the honours at Wigan/Warrington.

Que? (quoting Manuel)
The only "Glasgow" trains from Crewe are still alternate hours with the Edinburghs and, now that they are Pendolinos, have nearly adequate capacity, but it's still an inadequate service pattern...
It would be better if some other Glasgow-Euston trains stopped at Crewe, so that passengers feeding into the WCLML at Crewe had options other than the current all-stations-through-Lancashire offering. If "it can't be done" because the direct Euston-Scotland trains are already as full as those through the west midlands, then we need a timetable recast to give a more even service across the network.
The biggest problem we have is that all services seem to be specified by people who want to serve London or travel through it.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I think dk1 was referring to London-Glasgow services via Trent Valley, not Crewe-Glasgow services

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only "Glasgow" trains from Crewe are still alternate hours with the Edinburghs and, now that they are Pendolinos, have nearly adequate capacity

There are quite a lot of cheap Advances from London on those trains. If they end up full again, removing those Advances to encourage London passengers to use the fast trains would likely solve it.

 

[dk1]

Que? (quoting Manuel)
The only "Glasgow" trains from Crewe are still alternate hours with the Edinburghs and, now that they are Pendolinos, have nearly adequate capacity, but it's still an inadequate service pattern...
It would be better if some other Glasgow-Euston trains stopped at Crewe, so that passengers feeding into the WCLML at Crewe had options other than the current all-stations-through-Lancashire offering. If "it can't be done" because the direct Euston-Scotland trains are already as full as those through the west midlands, then we need a timetable recast to give a more even service across the network.
The biggest problem we have is that all services seem to be specified by people who want to serve London or travel through it.

Crewe has plenty of options for Glasgow in my opinion ion with a simple change down the line & direct every 2hrs seems ok to me. Virgin are trying to win people from the Airlines on the critical Scotland-London route & that will only happen in this time sensitive market by running a fast competing service.

 

[AndrewE]

2 is not plenty, given its importance as a node on the network. Remember that lots of the peope at Crewe are already changing off trains from Salop or Stoke directions (and both of the LM stoppers), and as someone said on another thread additional journey stages really discourage business.

When the Bristol Glasgow service ran in the '70s and '80s the train split at Carstairs so that both Scottish cities were served. Belgium has a clever service pattern where a pair of EMUs will join with another one, run coupled through the central section of the journey then split to serve 2 destinations. This gives through seats for 3 out of the 4 possible journeys and would be a good option for Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

It's also a pity that you think the airlines end-to end are the main competition (or customers worth serving.) Railway lines run through the whole country and inflict noise and other constraints on everyone. They should therefore benefit us all, not just the people who think that their own need to get to the other end of the country fast over-rides all other needs.

 

[The Planner]

Belgium has a clever service pattern where a pair of EMUs will join with another one, run coupled through the central section of the journey then split to serve 2 destinations. This gives through seats for 3 out of the 4 possible journeys and would be a good option for Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
.

Nice idea, performance risk city to me though. What happens when it goes wrong (which it would)

 

[AndrewE]

We seem to be able to join and split services south of the Thames still... why could they not do the same again on the N side? (If there were suitable lines/services.)
It's a good way of maximising through journey options and economising on train paths through congested areas. I think the russians couple and split pairs of full-length trains just outside the termini to maximise capacity on single-track routes.

Maybe "not invented here" applies, I also fear the H&S obsessives might be trying to eliminate the coupling of loaded trains on principle (see conversation going on in parallel.) I accept that for it to work you have to be able to run a reliable railway in the first place (and to get the best out of it you need EMUs with through gangways.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

When the Bristol Glasgow service ran in the '70s and '80s the train split at Carstairs so that both Scottish cities were served. Belgium has a clever service pattern where a pair of EMUs will join with another one, run coupled through the central section of the journey then split to serve 2 destinations. This gives through seats for 3 out of the 4 possible journeys and would be a good option for Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The XC 158s were used, twice daily, to do precisely that. The Manchester one ran coupled as far as Bolton with a then NWRR 156 to Windemere, which split off there and ran via Wigan.

Worked surprisingly well.

 

[dk1]

2 is not plenty, given its importance as a node on the network. Remember that lots of the peope at Crewe are already changing off trains from Salop or Stoke directions (and both of the LM stoppers), and as someone said on another thread additional journey stages really discourage business.

When the Bristol Glasgow service ran in the '70s and '80s the train split at Carstairs so that both Scottish cities were served. Belgium has a clever service pattern where a pair of EMUs will join with another one, run coupled through the central section of the journey then split to serve 2 destinations. This gives through seats for 3 out of the 4 possible journeys and would be a good option for Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

It's also a pity that you think the airlines end-to end are the main competition (or customers worth serving.) Railway lines run through the whole country and inflict noise and other constraints on everyone. They should therefore benefit us all, not just the people who that their own need to get to the other end of the country fast over-rides all other needs.

Portion working has huge performance implications unfortunately. Virgin or whoever runs the West Coast franchise needs to chase the main market & whether we like it or not, on this route it is London first & foremost.