Service changes at Liverpool - WMR/long distance

[Urban-Savage]

Am mystified too...

Off on a tangent... i note from the Liverpool Echo today that from Dec next year one of the twice hourly Birmingham Services will extend to Euston - exciting news if correct..... can anyone clarify?

 

[driver_m]

Won’t it just be two existing services just joined together? Potential to go very wrong if so.

 

[Ianno87]

Won’t it just be two existing services just joined together? Potential to go very wrong if so.

Dunno, LM have been doing the same thing cross-Northampton for 3 trains an hour for 6+ years now and works fine - plenty of stand time built in and the odd unit swap when necessary.

If Virgin can do Euston-Birmingham-Scotland reliably every hour (again with recovery time built in), no reason why this shouldn't work...

 

[driver_m]

Dunno, LM have been doing the same thing cross-Northampton for 3 trains an hour for 6+ years now and works fine - plenty of stand time built in and the odd unit swap when necessary.

If Virgin can do Euston-Birmingham-Scotland reliably every hour (again with recovery time built in), no reason why this shouldn't work...

There's a ton of built in recovery time with our trains and it's needed a lot of the time. There's been many a time when I've gone in and out of wolves, with a bare minimum stop. It'll be interesting if we return to the bad old days of central trains when they regularly terminated short of Liverpool with their long distance stansted-liverpool service. That's what I'm basing my thinking on.

 

[childwallblues]

Am mystified too...

Off on a tangent... i note from the Liverpool Echo today that from Dec next year one of the twice hourly Birmingham Services will extend to Euston - exciting news if correct..... can anyone clarify?

As I understand it one of the two LIV-BHM services will divert to become a LIV-EUS taking over the path of the CRE-EUS from STA. The part of the CRE-EUS north of STA will become an hourly CRE-SOT-STA-BHM to cover the loss of one of the LIV to BHM services south of STA.

 

[Camden]

As I understand it one of the two LIV-BHM services will divert to become a LIV-EUS taking over the path of the CRE-EUS from STA. The part of the CRE-EUS north of STA will become an hourly CRE-SOT-STA-BHM to cover the loss of one of the LIV to BHM services south of STA.

No this isn't correct. The Crewe to Euston via Stoke will be diverted to run straight to Stafford, in order to give a faster journey time. It is desired to extend this to Liverpool but isn't allowed for fare abstraction and perhaps capacity reasons. In order to compensate Stoke for the loss of the London service (even though they still have a fast one) is a Stoke to Birmingham New Street, which is a missing link.

For Liverpool, the Birmingham services couldn't be diverted because they are needed. They are already something of a poor relation to the services operating between other major city pairs, and are heavily used so keeping two trains an hour is a requirement. The extension of one of these through Birmingham New Street to Euston, ie joining two services together, can be seen as something of a trial as the post-HS2 implementation diagram notes this happening to both of these. The primary reason for this is simply efficient stock usage and capacity use at Birmingham New Street, to avoid it being used as a terminating station.

The only variable with these Liverpool to London via Birmingham services is whether the route south of Birmingham is changed. As it stands it will be much faster for people travelling to Liverpool to take the existing service to Crewe or Stafford and change there as the direct train might take four hours in total.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Plus, apparently, the 2nd Liverpool-Birmingham service will go through to International.
The Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham service is an extension of the current Wolverhampton stopper.
So really, the number of services is unchanged, but the trains themselves are more useful.

 

[childwallblues]

Plus, apparently, the 2nd Liverpool-Birmingham service will go through to International.
The Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham service is an extension of the current Wolverhampton stopper.
So really, the number of services is unchanged, but the trains themselves are more useful.

Wolverhampton Stopper currently runs to Walsall. Will this continue?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wolverhampton Stopper currently runs to Walsall. Will this continue?

I'm not sure what happens to the Walsalls, but the Rugeley electrification will change all that anyway.

 

[Gareth]

No this isn't correct. The Crewe to Euston via Stoke will be diverted to run straight to Stafford, in order to give a faster journey time. It is desired to extend this to Liverpool but isn't allowed for fare abstraction and perhaps capacity reasons. In order to compensate Stoke for the loss of the London service (even though they still have a fast one) is a Stoke to Birmingham New Street, which is a missing link.

For Liverpool, the Birmingham services couldn't be diverted because they are needed. They are already something of a poor relation to the services operating between other major city pairs, and are heavily used so keeping two trains an hour is a requirement. The extension of one of these through Birmingham New Street to Euston, ie joining two services together, can be seen as something of a trial as the post-HS2 implementation diagram notes this happening to both of these. The primary reason for this is simply efficient stock usage and capacity use at Birmingham New Street, to avoid it being used as a terminating station.

The only variable with these Liverpool to London via Birmingham services is whether the route south of Birmingham is changed. As it stands it will be much faster for people travelling to Liverpool to take the existing service to Crewe or Stafford and change there as the direct train might take four hours in total.

Extending one of the Liverpool-Birmingham's to London will be of little use to Liverpool-London passengers due to journey time and the amount of stops. As you say, it'll probably still be quicker to change, if not using the infinitely quicker Virgin Liverpool-London service. There will be direct links to places in the South Midlands and northern Home Counties that we don't currently have but again, it might also still be quicker to change for some if not all of these. I worry that Whitehall/DfT will use this to obfuscate and when people continue to complain about the Virgin frequency insist Liverpool already has 2tph to London, the same way it insists Liverpool's on HS2. Likewise when people complain that Liverpool has no direct links south of Birmingham bar the London service, we'll be told we can get to Tring or somewhere without changing.

The London Midland plan of a few years ago was to divert one of the Liverpool-Birminghams to Preston with the London-Crewe via Stoke being extended to Liverpool. While this would've halved Liverpool's already somewhat substandard service to Birmingham and have also been near useless for getting to London, it would have at least provide a direct connection to Stoke. Really, we could do with a regional service to Stoke which would take in the mid-Cheshire stations plus a faster service to Birmingham, which ideally would then got onward to somewhere useful. Maybe we'll live to see the day. Maybe we won't.

 

[B&I]

Extending one of the Liverpool-Birmingham's to London will be of little use to Liverpool-London passengers due to journey time and the amount of stops. As you say, it'll probably still be quicker to change, if not using the infinitely quicker Virgin Liverpool-London service. There will be direct links to places in the South Midlands and northern Home Counties that we don't currently have but again, it might also still be quicker to change for some if not all of these. I worry that Whitehall/DfT will use this to obfuscate and when people continue to complain about the Virgin frequency insist Liverpool already has 2tph to London, the same way it insists Liverpool's on HS2. Likewise when people complain that Liverpool has no direct links south of Birmingham bar the London service, we'll be told we can get to Tring or somewhere without changing.

The London Midland plan of a few years ago was to divert one of the Liverpool-Birminghams to Preston with the London-Crewe via Stoke being extended to Liverpool. While this would've halved Liverpool's already somewhat substandard service to Birmingham and have also been near useless for getting to London, it would have at least provide a direct connection to Stoke. Really, we could do with a regional service to Stoke which would take in the mid-Cheshire stations plus a faster service to Birmingham, which ideally would then got onward to somewhere useful. Maybe we'll live to see the day. Maybe we won't.

We could indeed do with all of that. Restored Cross-country services through Brum to the south and southwest, whether or not portion worked with Manchester trains, divert the current Sheffield service to Hull, and divert the Nottingham / Norwich service via Crewe and Derby.

 

[edwin_m]

divert the Nottingham / Norwich service via Crewe and Derby

Can't see that happening, as I'm sure this service does more long-distance business in Manchester and Sheffield than in Liverpool. The other problem is the extra conflicts it would create at Crewe, which is busy enough already, although perhaps the Crewe Hub will eventually solve this. Even then I think there's a case to keep the Liverpool-Norwich on its existing route, but there could perhaps be a Liverpool-Crewe-Nottingham.

 

[AndrewE]

Can't see that happening, as I'm sure this service does more long-distance business in Manchester and Sheffield than in Liverpool. The other problem is the extra conflicts it would create at Crewe, which is busy enough already, although perhaps the Crewe Hub will eventually solve this. Even then I think there's a case to keep the Liverpool-Norwich on its existing route, but there could perhaps be a Liverpool-Crewe-Nottingham.

Would it be that difficult to fit in one movement Stoke - Crewe - Liverpool each hour? You have the option of using either the up or the down side platforms, so depending on the timing it could cross over S or N of the station. The southbound trains would not conflict with anything, apart from the .11 ex Euston to Manchester trains and the Cardiffs.

 

[driver_m]

Not as if anything gets a clear run through Crewe anyway. Not known as the crucible for nothing.

Your issue would probably be Lime St itself with those 3 extra paths an hour. Arent they already spoke for? Frodsham Curve service, 2nd Tpe/Scottish service and the eventual 2nd London that's showing on the Crewe HS2 Hun plan?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Your issue would probably be Lime St itself with those 3 extra paths an hour. Arent they already spoken for? Frodsham Curve service, 2nd Tpe/Scottish service and the eventual 2nd London that's showing on the Crewe HS2 Hun plan?

The Halton Curve service replaces the Preston/Blackpool extension to LPY (recently withdrawn), so no new path needed at Lime St.
The Calder Valley service will be additional (when it comes).
Glasgow TPE service is only 3tpd.

 

[The Planner]

Not as if anything gets a clear run through Crewe anyway. Not known as the crucible for nothing.

I thought that was Sheffield where there was always a red before a colour.

 

[MarkyT]

I thought that was Sheffield where there was always a red before a colour.

Agreed the Crucible theatre is in Sheffield, but I've heard the epithet applied elsewhere as well. Another large junction where red before a colour once applied was Reading, home to the Hexagon theatre, another regular televised snooker venue. When I worked for BR there in the 80s and 90s, the game analogy was used by some people, as in 'snooker junction' but not the connection to either of the theatres. I don't recall any such events being held at the Hexagon recently however, and since the major remodelling the analogy would be rather less appropriate anyway!

 

[snowball]

A quick search shows that the following places have been referred to as the Crucible on these forums within the last year: Sheffield, Birmingham New Street, Crewe South, Preston South, Basingstoke, Herne Hill, Redhill.

 

[driver_m]

Definitely not just Sheffield that has a crucible, as has been shown above!! Each region probably has a stopemall junction too. (Ours is Allerton in the West Coast)

 

[edwin_m]

Crewe has to accommodate 3TPH of extra non-stopping Manchester trains between HS2 phases 1 and 2B, losing only the 1TPH London-Manchester it has now, so I doubt anyone will want to consider any other extra service during that period. Extending the Crewe-Derby has its benefits, especially for Stoke, but I think Manchester Airport is a more likely northern destination than Liverpool.

 

[Ianno87]

A quick search shows that the following places have been referred to as the Crucible on these forums within the last year: Sheffield, Birmingham New Street, Crewe South, Preston South, Basingstoke, Herne Hill, Redhill.

I've known the term applied to Proof House Jn (pre-late 90s remodelling), and the whole of the Three Bridges ASC control area (probably Windmill Bridge Jn specifically)

 

[GW43125]

I’ve probably missed something, but if the Crewe-London goes fast to Stafford, what picks up the run via Alsager and Stoke?

 

[Starmill]

I’ve probably missed something, but if the Crewe-London goes fast to Stafford, what picks up the run via Alsager and Stoke?

A service from Crewe to Birmingham New Street. This will probably be very useful as a direct Birmingham service from Alsager, Kidsgrove and especially Stone is probably more useful than a direct London service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A service from Crewe to Birmingham New Street. This will probably be very useful as a direct Birmingham service from Alsager, Kidsgrove and especially Stone is probably more useful than a direct London service.

Allegedly running through to Euston from Birmingham.

 

[childwallblues]

Crewe has to accommodate 3TPH of extra non-stopping Manchester trains between HS2 phases 1 and 2B, losing only the 1TPH London-Manchester it has now, so I doubt anyone will want to consider any other extra service during that period. Extending the Crewe-Derby has its benefits, especially for Stoke, but I think Manchester Airport is a more likely northern destination than Liverpool.

The current Crewe-Derby is a successor to a very useful Skegness-Manchester Airport.

 

[LowLevel]

The current Crewe-Derby is a successor to a very useful Skegness-Manchester Airport.

Which was regularly obscenely late at either end of the journey which was most unhelpful considering the layouts the train ran over.

 

[sd0733]

The current plan AFAIUI will be:

Liverpool starters:
1tph Liverpool to Birmingham international via new street
1tph Liverpool to London via Birmingham and Northampton

Crewe starters:
1tph Trent valley: Stafford, rugeley, Lichfield, Tamworth, atherstone, Nuneaton, rugby, mkc, Euston.
1tph Alsager, kidsgrove, stoke, stone, Stafford, penkridge, wolves, stations to London via Birmingham

 

[ashworth]

The current Crewe-Derby is a successor to a very useful Skegness-Manchester Airport.

And the very unreliable Skegness to Manchester Airport was a successor to an hourly Lincoln -Nottingham - Derby - Crewe service which was far more relatable and also useful. This provided useful links from Lincoln with connections at Derby for the Birmingham and the South West. Also connections from Nottingham at Crewe for the WCML and North Wales without the now very inconvenient extra change at Derby.

 

[B&I]

Can't see that happening, as I'm sure this service does more long-distance business in Manchester and Sheffield than in Liverpool. The other problem is the extra conflicts it would create at Crewe, which is busy enough already, although perhaps the Crewe Hub will eventually solve this. Even then I think there's a case to keep the Liverpool-Norwich on its existing route, but there could perhaps be a Liverpool-Crewe-Nottingham.

I think you'd be surprised about user numbers on the EMT service. I use it frequently, and find it busy either side of Manchester. Admittedly, it's probably at its busiest from Manchester to Warrington at peak times, but this role could be taken over by more commuter services along the CLC, or by a Liverpool-Sheffield service continuing to somewhere other than East Anglia.

If you divert the Liverpool-Sheffield service to Hull, you maintain part of the existing route while creating a useful new connection. The East Anglia-Yorkshire link could be maintained with something like a Norwich-Bradford service. The Manchester to East Midlands link could be preserved by extending an MML Nottingham service over the Hope Valley line, or by extending some Sheffield terminators over it, or by having a service from Manchester to Leicester or somewhere suitable beyond, whether via Nottingham or Derby.

 

[B&I]

Not as if anything gets a clear run through Crewe anyway. Not known as the crucible for nothing.

Your issue would probably be Lime St itself with those 3 extra paths an hour. Arent they already spoke for? Frodsham Curve service, 2nd Tpe/Scottish service and the eventual 2nd London that's showing on the Crewe HS2 Hun plan?

Lime Street clearly needs more capacity. It has only coped (just about) for years because of how weak long-distance services are to Liverpool. If, as I am told, the throat limits the potential for improvements in the high level, then the Edge Hill Spur should be revived to clear space for long-distance trains (while also improving local links across Liverpool). Perhaps supplementing the Wirral Line loop with a link to Edge Hill, and integrating stopping services towards Wigan, Bank Quay and South Parkway into it, while diverting CLC stoppers onto the Northern Line at Hunts Cross, would free up the most capacity.