VT Crewe to London services

[Senex]

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

Also, splitting/joining portions has become a very much slower process than once it was. To do it at Preston and Carstairs would be a significant deceleration to trains that are already not particularly fast.

And anyone who has experienced portion working on long-distance trains, not just in this country but also in a good many European countries, will be well aware of that risk to performance when one portion or another is running late or when something fails to connect properly in the joining process ...

 

[AndrewE]

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.

It's agreed that portion working depends on being able to run a reliable railway in the first place, but

You have just made my point for me again. I can assure you that there are a lot of people in the Midlanda and NW England who would strongly disagree that London to wherever is the only business worth chasing. It's a good job for the rest of us that some companies have been given a "Provincial" remit, or we would be left out altogether.

 

[455driver]

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.

Or Liverpool!
One an hour on that flow is rather ****e!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, splitting/joining portions has become a very much slower process than once it was. To do it at Preston and Carstairs would be a significant deceleration to trains that are already not particularly fast.

And anyone who has experienced portion working on long-distance trains, not just in this country but also in a good many European countries, will be well aware of that risk to performance when one portion or another is running late or when something fails to connect properly in the joining process ...

Not a problem on SWT at Woking, Eastleigh, Salisbury, Southampton etc
Or FGW at Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth!

Of course some pen pushers don't understand the concept of portion working and make it out to be some black art when in actual fact its just banging two trains together and it can be done in 2 minutes!

 

[najaB]

Of course some pen pushers don't understand the concept of portion working and make it out to be some black art when in actual fact its just banging two trains together and it can be done in 2 minutes!

Agreed that the actual joining/splitting is a simple thing to do, but portion working does introduce schedule risk as delay to one service automatically has an impact on two.

Edit: That's not to say that it is a bad thing overall as it allows better utilisation of rolling-stock, so it's a double-edged tool with the balancing point being very much in favour.

 

[455driver]

Agreed that the actual joining/splitting is a simple thing to do, but portion working does introduce schedule risk as delay to one service automatically has an impact on two.

Not necessarily, the on time bit can carry on with the delayed bit either carrying on alone or gets attached to something else, if it is delayed by such a margin that the other bit has gone then the service is probably up the wall anyway!

 

[AndrewE]

Glad to see that feet-on-the-ground railwaymen aren't phased by this. I just wonder whether nowadays there would be a spare crew to take the late-running portion forward?

Given that capacity (i.e. paths) seems to be a/the critical constraint nowadays (besides shortage of rolling stock or unwillingness to hire it) I'm surprised it's not being tried more... but then I shouldn't really be surprised as our entreprenurial "leaders" don't seem to have much railway knowledge or even basic nouse, e.g.

2 trains in a platform not allowed unless Network rail run the station,

single-lead junctions still being installed off main lines, (rather than a section of double track that would allow the main to be cleared in the event of a delayed branch train),

Virgin XC doubling their frequency with voyagers while reducing the overall number of seats... exactly repeating the mistake made a few years earlier when hourly Liverpool- Newcastle l/h sets were replaced by 2 and 3 coach DMU's 3 times an hour. Result: Transpennine passengers regularly left behind at Leeds due to more attractive service but with less capacity!

Short-sighted singling to make road improvements cheaper (Wrexham-Chester, Crewe-Alsager to name but 2)

The bean-counters seem to make sure that we only ever get just enough investment to work when things go to plan, but ensuring that a minor glitch is almost guaranteed to turn into a major headache.

 

[dk1]

Provincial introduced some portion workings on their newly launched EXPRESS network from 1988. One of these was a Liverpool-Harwich PQ (The Lorely) which combined with a Birmingham-Harwich PQ at Peterborough. This caused such chaos there that it was amended to do the business at Ely instead after just one timetable before later being dropped altogether. Obviously Peterborough is far more versatile these days than then.

 

[darloscott]

Don't forget the exact same portion working happens every day at Preston with TPE services from Barrow/Blackpool to Manchester, seems to be pretty reliable.

 

[Harryn9000]

there needs to be more VT from Liverpool 1 an hr isn't good enough anymore

 

[fowler9]

I think one an hour is enough for the existing number of passengers. No enough to attract any more.

 

[6Gman]

there needs to be more VT from Liverpool 1 an hr isn't good enough anymore

I use the VT from Liverpool reasonably often. Have never had to stand.

Just saying ...

A second service would be nice, BUT:

a) can it justify 18 coaches ph?
b) can it be pathed south of Rugby?

c) stock.

 

[323235]

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.

Last time I did the 1055 from Manchester to Euston the coach I was in was almost empty but I think having 3 tph , one of which serves the Wilmslow / Crewe market are important for different reasons other than just seeming to provide 3tph from Manchester plus if they are growing them that is evidence they will provide much more of an end to end benefit for more people in the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

a) can it justify 18 coaches ph?

Are there enough Voyagers that those could be used singly? Though an increase in frequency could increase demand such that they were inadequate.

 

[AndrewE]

I use the VT from Liverpool reasonably often. Have never had to stand.

Just saying ...

A second service would be nice, BUT:

a) can it justify 18 coaches ph?
b) can it be pathed south of Rugby?

c) stock.

Can Pendolinos run coupled as TGVs can? If so, how about this then? (it addresses path availability S of Crewe, possisble unnecessary ("excess") seating capacity initially and some of the stock aspects, although I guess a few more driving coaches would be needed

1) reduce some pendos by a couple of coaches (and use the spares to make up some more 11-coachers)
2) put the shortened ones on the up Liverpool and Manchester services that call at Crewe within about 5 mins of each other and run coupled to Euston. Would mean swapping the down trains round do do the same though...
It would be better than introducing voyagers onto wholly electrified routes, with the environmental and quality disbenefits that would bring...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are there enough Voyagers that those could be used singly? Though an increase in frequency could increase demand such that they were inadequate.

Not without stealing from Scotland/North Wales/Chester/Shrewsbury services.

 

[6Gman]

Can Pendolinos run coupled as TGVs can? If so, how about this then? (it addresses path availability S of Crewe, possisble unnecessary ("excess") seating capacity initially and some of the stock aspects, although I guess a few more driving coaches would be needed

1) reduce some pendos by a couple of coaches (and use the spares to make up some more 11-coachers)
2) put the shortened ones on the up Liverpool and Manchester services that call at Crewe within about 5 mins of each other and run coupled to Euston. Would mean swapping the down trains round do do the same though...
It would be better than introducing voyagers onto wholly electrified routes, with the environmental and quality disbenefits that would bring...

If I'm reading you correctly are you suggesting 7car Pendolinos?

Doubled up they would be 14car.

How many platforms at Euston could take 14?

(A quick look suggests 1-4, 15 & 16; but Crewe & Stafford look tight to put it mildly!)

 

[The Planner]

A 7 car would be 170m near as, so 14 car at 340m, plus a bit more for the coupling, so call it 342m. So only 1, 2 and 15 at Euston, no to Stafford and 6 only at Crewe.

 

[dk1]

A 7 car would be 170m near as, so 14 car at 340m, plus a bit more for the coupling, so call it 342m. So only 1, 2 and 15 at Euston, no to Stafford and 6 only at Crewe.

I didn't dare comment like I think so many others :roll:

 

[AndrewE]

A 7 car would be 170m near as, so 14 car at 340m, plus a bit more for the coupling, so call it 342m. So only 1, 2 and 15 at Euston, no to Stafford and 6 only at Crewe.

...So it's do-able then?
3 platforms available at Euston, Pfm 6 accessible from both up and down Liverpool and Manchester lines at Crewe, and non-stop between Crewe & Euston... Surely the sleepers are up to 16 real coaches plus a loco...
Would you have replied with this negative carping if I had suggested taking 3 cars off the pendos? It's got to be better than the same journey on Voyagers...

 

[Class 170101]

I would suggest there are insufficient Pendolinos between the peaks to run the service.

Looks like only three available Pendolinos, two at Wembley and one at Longsight with possibly five or six needed.

 

[The Planner]

Anything is do-able if you want to re-write an entire timetable to fit one service group and be restricted at two locations, which you wouldn't in this case so why is it negative?

 

[fowler9]

Are the paths or stock available to shorten the trains on the Liverpool service and increase the frequency even just from Liverpool to Crewe? I would guess not to be honest although people with more knowledge than me could provide a better answer.

 

[AndrewE]

How did we get here?
1) Liverpool needs more direct London services (probably)
2) Manchester services are currently over-provided regarding capacity (maybe)
3) (Mine) Paths are fully taken south of Crewe
4) Joining portions is not beyond the capability of even the current UK operators (agreed here I think)
so why not re-jig what stock we have and reinforce it where needed to get as much as we can out of the infrastructure (with a few tweaks)?

I'm surprised no-one has yet said that it is impossible/forbidden because Virgin run Crewe station and not Network Rail.

How come there are such negative responses to something which might benefit the travelling public, even if it does mean the railway has to get smart? It's just an idea that could help, given that all over the UK we are currently suffering from shortage of infrastructure capacity and inflexible train lengths. Almost the only intelligent response currently is the joining and splitting of D- and EMUs and (sadly) the similar use of Voyagers in multiple between Chester/Crewe and Euston.
Truly "not invented here."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anything is do-able if you want to re-write an entire timetable to fit one service group and be restricted at two locations, which you wouldn't in this case so why is it negative?

2 up trains within 5 minutes at Crewe begging to be combined, 2 down from the same operator also close together... not such a major timetable re-write after all.

(I thought the current service might have been planned so that it could be thinned out without leaving too bad a gap in the public offering. )

Restricted at 2 locations? One complaint is that WCML trains S of Crewe hardly stop anywhere anyway, and it wouldn't do any harm if the combined one was the one selected to be first-stop Crewe.

 

[Pumbaa]

I don't know where you've got this idea from that permissive working is only allowed in at NR managed stations. It happens all over the shop - has nowt to do with it.

 

[The Planner]

I still don't see where there is negativity, it is about the pro's and con's of it.

Whilst yes you suddenly have a 14 car train that now takes up one path, the other side of it doesn't match up, you have restricted yourself to 3 platforms at Euston where as currently you have your pick and flexibility of many more, the same at Crewe where you are now stuck in platform 6 with three conflicting moves, two at the north and one at the south end and a massive platform occupation time with the split and join. You then have any implications south of Rugby (Crewe to Rugby is neither here nor there really) as if you are in a different path it is going to cause problems (in this case you are likely to clash with a Birmingham Euston at Rugby). The current service is planned to be thinned out in disruption, the first to go are normally a Euston Birmingham and a Euston Manchester.

Then you have the issue of the time and cost of re-organising the 390 fleet.

In my view that says leave it alone as any payback is only going to be over 11-12 years until Crewe is dealt with and HS2 gives you that opportunity to make it much much better or you try and shoe horn an extra Liverpool in.

 

[dk1]

I'm surprised no-one has yet said that it is impossible/forbidden because Virgin run Crewe station and not Network Rail.

Excuse me?

 

[AndrewE]

I believed that permissive working was only allowed at NR (maybe that was Railtrack)-controlled stations. Glad to hear that it's not like that now.

Crewe Pfm 5 could easily be extended south to give a longer platform and feed into the up lines towards/past the Carriage shed. It would have the added benefit of removing the conflicts and congestion created when one of the late-running up sleeper services has to block pfm 6 (which seems to take ages, maybe because of conflicts with down trains,) and it would also allow clearance of pfm 5 when the up through is set for a non-stop train. This is another consequence of the cheapskate refurb at Crewe 20(?) yrs ago just to give APTs a straight non-stop path through the station..

Why is a 14- or 16-coach train a problem S of Rugby? It's only using one of the existing paths, and is a lot shorter and faster than a freight. I think you have confirmed my guess that one of the Manchesters is the first to be sacrificed and I have no problem with that, it seems sensible for it to be the one with something with a similar path on a congested line.
If 14 cars really is a problem then would 6-car portions work? They would be better than 5-car Voyagers.
Re-organising the 390 fleet is what engineers exist to do... if line capacity approaching London is our limiting factor and this might help out then why not give it serious consideration?

 

[6Gman]

If 14 cars really is a problem then would 6-car portions work? They would be better than 5-car Voyagers.

But wouldn't a 2x6 Pendolino have less capacity than an 11 Pendolino?

Rather defeats the purpose.

 

[dk1]

I believed that permissive working was only allowed at NR (maybe that was Railtrack)-controlled stations. Glad to hear that it's not like that now.

You seem to be confused about 'managed' stations. It doesn't matter if it's controlled by Virgin, Abellio GA, Network Rail, Northern or South West Trains. Network Rail still control anything to do with infrastructure & signalling. The 'manager' of the station just looks after the pretty side of things such as retail & customer service/despatch.

 

[fowler9]

I am probably being daft but wouldn't more shorter Pendolinos require more driving cars to be built or having intermediate cars lying around doing nothing and more shorter trains in service? It is of course possible that more shorter trains could be providing more capacity at the right time. Not saying I am right, just wondering. Not sure that shorter Pendolinos is the answer myself.