DfT consult on new LM franchise

[Bletchleyite]

Many more people than you think finish work early enough to get the 1546 towards the Trent from Euston. Hence it is regularly full and standing.

Is that because of when they want to go home, or is it because it is the last off-peak train? If it's the latter, the cause is bad fares policy, and the fix is good fares policy.

A lot of London workers set their own hours etc, hence there are generally less commuters on the VT services on Friday mornings.

The reason there are fewer commuters on Fridays is because a lot of office workers work from home on Fridays. That's all, it has little to do with times, where most desk-based office workers are doing some approximation of 9-5:30, though weekly commuters tend to head off a bit early on the day they go home.

Also people are joining these busy services from milton keynes and rugby to go north.

I'm sure they are - but again, is that caused by fares policy? An "off peak" LM train where all the VTs around it are "peak"? Does this make sense? I don't think it does.

 

[northwichcat]

let's say Advances are sold only on trains where there are not typically standing passengers

What about FC Advances? Strangely on that service it makes sense to offer some cheap FC Advances to get the a few of the empty FC seats filled by passengers who would otherwise travel in an overcrowded standard section and then it's the usual case of first to book gets the cheap upgrade.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The reason there are fewer commuters on Fridays is because a lot of office workers work from home on Fridays. That's all, it has little to do with times, where most desk-based office workers are doing some approximation of 9-5:30, though weekly commuters tend to head off a bit early on the day they go home.

Yes there are the weekday South East/London residents who regularly go further afield on Friday afternoon/evening to spend the weekend with friends/family, so instead of being on a local stopper they are on the long distance Intercity services.

 

[pt_mad]

Ahh I see so we could be talking about folks travelling from Stafford, Rugby and Milton Keynes to Euston on any operator return tickets who travelled to London on Virgin off peak services, but who want to return during the evening, can't get a VT off peak service so use LM off peak services?

Would we be talking high volumes in this situation??

And they could still use the later 8 car LM services from London during the VT evening peak.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about FC Advances? Strangely on that service it makes sense to offer some cheap FC Advances to get the a few of the empty FC seats filled by passengers who would otherwise travel in an overcrowded standard section and then it's the usual case of first to book gets the cheap upgrade.

Yes, of course FC Advances would be available if on that train not all FC seats were likely to be taken. The principle is that no Advance should be sold if it would cause a passenger to have to stand.

But that's by the by, everyone knows I think that. The point was in modelling whether it's the fares policy (deep discount LM fares, inconsistent peak restrictions) that are the cause of the overcrowding on that train. If they are, they need fixing before we faff about changing the entire service pattern to lengthen it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ahh I see so we could be talking about folks travelling from Stafford, Rugby and Milton Keynes to Euston on any operator return tickets who travelled to London on Virgin off peak services, but who want to return during the evening, can't get a VT off peak service so use LM off peak services?

Would we be talking high volumes in this situation??

Yes, very high volumes indeed. And there are plenty of other LM services they could use if that one had u/s applied, certainly at peak times.

It used to be the case that these services ran as 12-car to Northampton - obviously now not workable.

 

[al green]

I attended a DfT briefing session about the WM franchise in MK yesterday. One of the things that I asked about was Moderation of Competion. When LM started th TV services they weren't allowed to go all the way to Liverpool because of VT objection under MoC. However MoC no longer applies, DFT confirmed that, and so LM TV service could go to Liv. I shall be proposing that the TV service goes to Liv in the path of one of the BHM-LIV services and the BHM goes to Crewe via Stoke in the path of the current TV service.

Longer term I thnk that there should be 2 tph LM TV services. If the xx13 from Euston is upgraded to 110 mph it allows another 110 path behind it in the same slot as the current 100mph path. Just as with xx46 and xx49 the first is a TV and the second a BHM service.

 

[The Ham]

I attended a DfT briefing session about the WM franchise in MK yesterday. One of the things that I asked about was Moderation of Competion. When LM started th TV services they weren't allowed to go all the way to Liverpool because of VT objection under MoC. However MoC no longer applies, DFT confirmed that, and so LM TV service could go to Liv. I shall be proposing that the TV service goes to Liv in the path of one of the BHM-LIV services and the BHM goes to Crewe via Stoke in the path of the current TV service.

Longer term I thnk that there should be 2 tph LM TV services. If the xx13 from Euston is upgraded to 110 mph it allows another 110 path behind it in the same slot as the current 100mph path. Just as with xx46 and xx49 the first is a TV and the second a BHM service.

Assuming that a second path from London is possible by using 110mph stock, then wouldn't it be better to run the extended Crewe services to Liverpool with a new 5 coach 444 type train. As by going to Liverpool and running at double the frequency LM are going to attract more passengers. 2tph which are 5 coach trains should be able to cope with demand assuming 7% per year growth, which is higher than normal to try to allow for the changes in the route attracting more passengers.

Such a chance then leads to the question of what to do with the (now shortened route of) Birmingham Crewe, is there line capacity to still run one or both to Liverpool either via Stoke or on the more direct route?

5 coach units for the Eusten Liverpool service would also allow the existing 350's (110mph) to be used to run more services (such as that required to create the second path).

If there were a few more units than needed (or at least options for a follow on order) then if certain services were too busy they could be doubled up.

The only problem if that it would only require something like 10-12 units, which makes it quite a small fleet. However, if the order was as a replacement for all the 350/2's (limited to 100mph) to create extra capacity for the other longer distance services as well then the order might be of a reasocapacity size (circa 50 units with a total of circa 250 coaches).

Even then the 350/2's may be retained by the TOC to replace their 319's and 323's to provide a better quality of unit and/or increase capacity as well as creating a more uniform fleet.

 

[Nym]

Or perhaps one could see 1tph direct to Crewe and 1tph via Stoke? The former splitting for Preston via Newton and Liverpool, the latter for Manchester and Crewe?

8/10 car in the TV and splitting further up at Crewe and Stoke?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a regular LM South user, I'd suggest that that would not meet with my approval because LM, like Chiltern before them, are faffing about with business that is already adequately (if expensively) served perfectly well by another TOC, at the expense of the quality of their core London and South East and Birmingham local business.

 

[The Ham]

As a regular LM South user, I'd suggest that that would not meet with my approval because LM, like Chiltern before them, are faffing about with business that is already adequately (if expensively) served perfectly well by another TOC, at the expense of the quality of their core London and South East and Birmingham local business.

I would suggest that it depends on how broad a range of improvements that the new TOC brings in. If the new Liverpool - Euston service provides 2tph which run fast between Milton Keynes and Euston then that could release capacity (seats) on other services.

Of course if there were to be a large(ish) order of 5 coach trains which could allow the replacement of the 323's as I have suggested above, then this would increase capacity on a number of services (not only those services which could then be run by 5 coach trains) as it may result in the TOC having more units to allow more services to be run with longer length trains.

I doubt anyone on here would suggest that the proposal to run long distance trains would be at the expense of other improvements to local services. The only possible exception could be that of the use of a London bound path which could otherwise be used for more local services (although if the path is on the fast lines, I don't see what difference that would make to "local" services which use the slow lines as any additional stop on the fast lines where there are just 4 lines/platforms would block the path of fast trains behind it).

Just because one possible proposal doesn't directly appear to benefit another group of rail users doesn't mean that they will not see an improvement at all or even that such a proposal will not contribute to improvements for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just because one possible proposal doesn't directly appear to benefit another group of rail users doesn't mean that they will not see an improvement at all or even that such a proposal will not contribute to improvements for them.

No, but equally if it's cheaper to enhance only the core services, e.g. ordering more stock to extend more peak services to 12-car without a timetable change, then my view would be that this option is better value. I remain unconvinced that without the skewed fares system that these trains would be overcrowded - or at least not any more than perhaps one train a day in each direction. And there is space on VT for these passengers if only the fares system stopped directing them onto overcrowded local services.

It's as bad as DB - the Wochenendticket is great fun for riding around the place, but when it was either heavy discount for travelling local only or hefty Anytime-equivalent for ICE with no other options, the local services were full and standing and the ICEs had spare capacity. It's mad.

 

[The Ham]

No, but equally if it's cheaper to enhance only the core services, e.g. ordering more stock to extend more peak services to 12-car without a timetable change, then my view would be that this option is better value. I remain unconvinced that without the skewed fares system that these trains would be overcrowded - or at least not any more than perhaps one train a day in each direction. And there is space on VT for these passengers if only the fares system stopped directing them onto overcrowded local services.

It's as bad as DB - the Wochenendticket is great fun for riding around the place, but when it was either heavy discount for travelling local only or hefty Anytime-equivalent for ICE with no other options, the local services were full and standing and the ICEs had spare capacity. It's mad.

Although the current LM services can be busy (especially off peak services near peak services) there is scope to lengthen many of these (and/or possibly add an additional long distance service).

However, how do the comparable VT services compare? If they are empty then there is a valid point, but if they are also fairly busy then what does it matter that LM are muscling in on the long distance market, as without them then the VT services could be even busier.

Also, as I alluded to in my previous post, would the path created by having 110mph paths rather than 100mph paths be able to serve stations (such as Watford, Hemel Hempstead and Berkhamsted) where a train calling there would potentially block fast services behind it?

If not then LM might as well use the path for long distance services as either they have it and use it for long distance services or the don't have it and don't provide extra capacity. The only possible way which such a path could be used would be if it started on the fast line out of Euston and then moved to the slow lines (if such a movement could be undertaken without messing up capacity) in the "shadow" of a slow line service which had terminated further south.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, how do the comparable VT services compare? If they are empty then there is a valid point

They certainly aren't, by and large, full at most times of day.

Also, as I alluded to in my previous post, would the path created by having 110mph paths rather than 100mph paths be able to serve stations (such as Watford, Hemel Hempstead and Berkhamsted) where a train calling there would potentially block fast services behind it?

More paths on the WCML just make it even less reliable. We might be better *not* having the path at all and simply extending the current trains such that all peak services (into Euston between 0730-1030, say, and out of it 1600-1915ish) are 12-car as far as Northampton and mostly 8-car beyond, and all off-peak services are 8 car except the Crewes. This would provide plenty of commuter and off-peak capacity for genuine south WCML users even if they were barred from the Crewe service itself.

If not then LM might as well use the path for long distance services as either they have it and use it for long distance services or the don't have it and don't provide extra capacity. The only possible way which such a path could be used would be if it started on the fast line out of Euston and then moved to the slow lines (if such a movement could be undertaken without messing up capacity) in the "shadow" of a slow line service which had terminated further south.

This is precisely how the south WCML is already operated - the services that run fast to LBZ run on the fasts and move across at Ledburn to the slows. It makes connections from fast to slow at LBZ very reliable, because not making the slow wait at Ledburn would knacker the whole service.

It is a real shame the lines are paired by speed rather than direction. Were they paired by direction, this could be done far more effectively and with less disruption.

 

[Ianno87]

It is a real shame the lines are paired by speed rather than direction. Were they paired by direction, this could be done far more effectively and with less disruption.

Obviouisly! Of course, apart from needing:
-A flyover somewhere north of Wembley to swap from the existing arrangement into Euston (needed for correct access to Euston Platforms from Fast/Slow lines, access for freight to Wembley Yard, and access to the West London Line
-A flyover somewhere just south of Bletchley to swap everything back to the existing arrangement (to get the Slow Lines into Northampton, enable trains to join from East West Rail at Denbigh Hall, and to enable trains to turn back at Milton Keynes)
-A flyover at Tring to allow trains to turn back
-Major works at stations (bridges/lifts) to feed passengers onto different platforms
-Works to provide 125mph EPS operation on one of the current Slow Lines (including tunnel works to aid air circulation)
-An entirely new Maintenance strategy for the southern WCML (the current one being based on taking evening and weekend Fast *or* Slow Line blocks)

..or you could acheive exactly the same result with a single grade-separated junction at Ledburn.

(The result in either case being an extra path per hour, or two if you're lucky)

 

[trainophile]

Just heard on Midlands Today that "some trains" (with a shot of a LM) are considering removing toilets to help reduce overcrowding. Then they added "also removing some seats and not allowing bicycles".

So we're all going to have to stand - nothing new there then :roll: .

 

[Class 170101]

Longer term I thnk that there should be 2 tph LM TV services. If the xx13 from Euston is upgraded to 110 mph it allows another 110 path behind it in the same slot as the current 100mph path. Just as with xx46 and xx49 the first is a TV and the second a BHM service.

110mph running won't open the door for two paths per hour at that time. I already looked. Discussed above

Secondly the 110mph running would have to let the xx20 Manchester pass at Rugby then follow along the Trent Valley.

However a new franchise may order 125mph trains which may solve this problem.

 

[JonathanH]

Just heard on Midlands Today that "some trains" (with a shot of a LM) are considering removing toilets to help reduce overcrowding. Then they added "also removing some seats and not allowing bicycles".

So we're all going to have to stand - nothing new there then :roll: .

Sounds like the cheap option to satisfy the accessibility requirements post-2020 for the class 323 fleet.

 

[al green]

As a regular LM South user, I'd suggest that that would not meet with my approval because LM, like Chiltern before them, are faffing about with business that is already adequately (if expensively) served perfectly well by another TOC, at the expense of the quality of their core London and South East and Birmingham local business.

It may not meet your approval but you seem to under the impression that the only people who want to go to Liverpool live in London. What about those in MK, Rugby and TV stations? They are not served by VT because the VT to Liv runs non-stop to Stafford. They would be the main users of an LM TV service extended to Liv. If a few pax want to use it from London because it's cheaper than VT I don't see any problem with that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may not meet your approval but you seem to under the impression that the only people who want to go to Liverpool live in London. What about those in MK, Rugby and TV stations? They are not served by VT because the VT to Liv runs non-stop to Stafford. They would be the main users of an LM TV service extended to Liv. If a few pax want to use it from London because it's cheaper than VT I don't see any problem with that.

If I want to go to Liverpool from MK I change at Crewe.

 

[The Ham]

If I want to go to Liverpool from MK I change at Crewe.

You might and I probably would, but there are a significant number of people who much prefer a direct service. If course there are people at other stations (such as Nuneaton amongst others) for whom a direct service on LM would likely be quicker. Likewise for the more minor stations north of Crewe going direct to London may be comparable to changing at Crewe in terms of journey times.

If course like the Penzance to Scotland XC services it could well be that it is better to run a long distance service rather than 2 shorter route services. Not for end to end journey but rather because there are a lot of people that use it for short to medium distance travel.

 

[northwichcat]

You might and I probably would, but there are a significant number of people who much prefer a direct service.

The thing to remember is a number of people don't travel from city centre to city centre, so while you can say one change wouldn't be that inconvenient or add much to the journey time, for a number of people it would be an additional change and might be enough to put them off travelling by train.

 

[pt_mad]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/west-midlands-rail-franchise

Page 39/40 of the consultation document:

5.18 Since the Trent Valley part of the service was introduced in 2008, passenger numbers
have grown significantly. There is an issue, however, that some of the stations between
Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe have shorter platforms that can only cater for four carriages.
This means trains either have to be limited to four carriages and often become crowded
or they are longer but have to run directly from Stafford to Crewe, missing out Stone,
Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Alsager.
5.19 We would like people’s views on whether the current service should continue to
operate as it does now, or whether a direct route from Stafford to Crewe should be run
at all times, providing a consistent timetable and allowing longer trains to operate. It is
possible that this service could be provided by another operator through another
franchise.

Note it says this service could be provided by another operator through another franchise. Do they mean VT could take over the Crewe service?


5.20 For those passengers using the current service between Stafford and Crewe at Stone,
Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Alsager this would mean having to change trains at
Stafford to travel to London. However, despite needing to change trains, initial
investigations show that this could lead to a journey time saving for passengers as
connecting services to London would be quicker than the current through service.
For example, the journey time from Stone to Euston could be reduced from around
2 hours 14 minutes to around 1 hour 45 minutes if timetables between connecting
trains can be co-ordinated at Stafford. The operator would also be required to deliver
measures to make sure that changing between trains at Stafford meets the needs
of passengers.
5.21 We would also ensure that there is no reduction to the number of services per hour at
each station between Stafford and Crewe via Stoke-on-Trent. We are currently
exploring options for through services to alternative destinations for passengers at
these stations, for example to Birmingham. We are therefore keen to understand as
part of this consultation whether people would prefer a link to a destination other than
London and if so where people would wish to go. We will then use this feedback
together with business case work to inform which option we proceed with.

Well from that, common sense would suggest it would actually be in Stone etc.'s interests to have a separate hourly service as it could well be that they end up with a much shorter journey time to London whilst keeping hold of an hourly local service. This then allows the current Euston - Crewe service to run as 8 car direct from Stafford - Crewe, improving journey times for all in the Trent Valley who are travelling beyond Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd imagine that's one option (as it is increasingly a poor fit with LM) and another might be that a replacement local service from Crewe to Stoke would be operated by EMT as an extension of the Derby service, though that would leave an issue with Stone. I suppose XC could be coerced into stopping there instead

Actually, while it would result in DMUs under the wires, could you merge Crewe-Derby with Manchester-Crewe stopping services, thus allowing a useful (if slow) direct hourly-ish service from Manchester to Derby, a journey which presently requires a change at Sheffield?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for Norton Bridge, Barlaston and Wedgwood just be honest and close them. There is no genuine desire to give them a proper service, nor indeed an awful lot of need for one.

 

[The Planner]

I would still put money on one of either Barlaston or Wedgwood getting re-opened. Norton Bridge is dead as a do-do and will never come back.

 

[pt_mad]

I know there has been some suggestion above^^^ of using class 444 style 5 car units on the Crewe service. But are these really suitable for the short hops between stations through the Trent Valley? On the face of it they aren't as accessible as the class 350. The wider doors, vestibule standing areas and accessible area on the 350s are more suited to bikes/pushchairs/multiple wheelchair users and standing passengers.

A full and standing 444 would be like a full and standing voyager.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know there has been some suggestion above^^^ of using class 444 style 5 car units on the Crewe service. But are these really suitable for the short hops between stations through the Trent Valley? They aren't as accessible as the 350. The wider doors and vestibule standing areas are more suited to bikes/pushchairs/multiple wheelchair users and standing passengers.

I'd say so. They comply with the same accessibility rules as the 350s do, being built at a similar time. They just have the doors at the ends.

 

[pt_mad]

I'd imagine Voyagers also comply with these rules. However they are known for being awkwardly inaccessible. Narrow doorways, small standard W/C space which can accommodate one wheelchair user and no luggage, nowhere for unfolded pushchairs, standing passengers in closed vestibules next to the toilets. These do some short hop stops through Cornwall for example.

Do 444s have a far superior level of accessibility?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd imagine Voyagers also comply with these rules. However they are known for being awkwardly inaccessible. Narrow doorways, small standard W/C space which can accommodate one wheelchair user and no luggage, nowhere for unfolded pushchairs, standing passengers in closed vestibules next to the toilets.

True. But if you've ever been on a 444, they really aren't bad in those terms. They are more like a 350 with the doors moved around a bit.

 

[pt_mad]

True. But if you've ever been on a 444, they really aren't bad in those terms. They are more like a 350 with the doors moved around a bit.

Do they have the big accessible space for multiple wheelchair users/bikes/pushchairs etc? The one with the fold down seats?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do they have the big accessible space for multiple wheelchair users/bikes/pushchairs etc? The one with the fold down seats?

Not sure to be honest, and I can't find a seating plan for them online.

 

[pt_mad]

Could it not be that a 4 car class 350 would hold more passengers than a 5 car class 444 anyway? What with the bigger first class and less room for standing.