West Coast Franchise speculation

[pt_mad]

So Stafford will gain a HS2 service, and then loose it a few years later? Seems silly.

The 3tph to Liverpool is annoying. Would rather them keep the LNWR one, and replace the VT ones with Scotland services.

But presumably it'd have to be the West Mids to Scotland service that'd have to stop if it was to stop at Stafford? Can't see the fast Euston to Warrington Glasgow service calling regularly at Stafford.

Couldn't the Manchester via Crewe and Wilmslow call at Stafford hourly rather than the Liverpool?

Regards HS2 never heard any claims it will call at Stafford? Committments were made that Stoke would have at least an hourly HS2 service but Stafford I'm not sure is landmark enough to stop the HS2 trains at? Presumably Stafford will still enjoy a very good service on the classic WCML after HS2.
Admittedly the HS2 map does show a spur onto the old WCML at armitage with Stafford marked on it. But it doesn't indicate whether the HS2 Liverpool service will go via phase 2a fast to Crewe or via Stafford on the classic line with a call there? Also the article mentions Staffordshire, but not Stafford specifically having a regular HS2 service?


As for poster who mentioned LNR Euston to Birmingham service extending to Liverpool from next year. I think what's happening is a Euston Birmingham will continue north of New St and work one of the two current hourly Liverpool's. So essentially the two workings will be joined into one to form one Euston to Liverpool via Birmingham stopper journey. Although I had thought it was this December rather than next year?
So Birmingham to Liverpool will still remain 2TPH.

Also the LNR Crewe to Stoke to Birmingham new stopper service will be joined to a current LNR Birmingham to Euston working to form one through stopper from Crewe to Euston via Stoke and Birmingham.

 

[mmh]

But presumably it'd have to be the West Mids to Scotland service that'd have to stop if it was to stop at Stafford? Can't see the fast Euston to Warrington Glasgow service calling regularly at Stafford.

I'd have thought so too. A stop on the West Mids to Scotland service could give Stafford a lot better northbound service than it's got now, which is just to Manchester or Liverpool.

Couldn't the Manchester via Crewe and Wilmslow call at Stafford hourly rather than the Liverpool?

Not really much passenger benefit to that, Stafford already has 2tph direct to Crewe and 2tph (Cross Country) to Manchester. It would give it direct services to Wilmslow, but it'd remove Crewe's 1tph non-stop to Euston. That's probably not massively important, but I selfishly like it - the northbound service connects well for Chester/Wales so it's the service that effectively makes Chester almost 2tph from London.

(Stafford has 1tph to Crewe LNWR slow via Stoke too, but I didn't include those as I think I read that they might be re-routed fast to Crewe at some point)

 

[pt_mad]

Yes Trent Valley LNR service rerouted mainline via Madeley from December as far as anyone knows.

Excuse my slight ignorance to Stafford. I wasn't really considering their reduced 1tph to Liverpool when I asked about calling the Euston to Manchester via Crewe there instead of the Liverpool. I was thinking more about something soneone else said earlier about redistributing passengers away from busy services such as Liverpool when there are alternatives.

So essentially you could allow Euston to Liverpool itself significantly more capacity and room for growth by potentially omitting the Stafford call and putting a Stafford call on another fast service instead.
And Liverpool does seem the one route which probably will need the extra room by the early 2020s as it looks set to remain 1tph.

Stop the Manchester via Crewe at Stafford and the downside is that it adds a few minutes on the journey for those who got on at Crewe going to Euston. However passengers from Crewe could connect onto XC services at Stafford going south.

And I suspect no bidder will get away with replacing Stafford's current call with the Scotland to Euston via the West Mids service .There would be uproar from local stakeholders if the only fast service they had was via Birmingham and it'd force too large numbers onto the LNR service so that definitely appears a no goer.

 

[All Line Rover]

The Stafford call on the Liverpool services is not burdensome. The number of Stafford passengers is trivial compared to the number of Liverpool passengers, or even the number of Crewe passengers (a calling point Virgin only added in recent years, which they would not have done if the Liverpool services are as persistently overcrowded as you suggest).

That is not to say that the Liverpool services, being (typically) 1tph, struggle to cope during events or on busy Sunday afternoons. But when full & standing from Liverpool (which seems to be far more common than full & standing from Euston), what problem does Stafford pose?

The Manchester services can be just as overcrowded despite the more frequent service. A few Sundays back there were 4 consecutive trains full & standing from Piccadilly (within the space of 90 minutes), all declassified.

Stopping the Manchester via Wilmslow services at Stafford would butcher the timetable southbound (the fast Glasgow trains run very close behind) and butcher connections at Crewe nothbound (and probably platforming at Stafford for other services). The proposal is a non-starter.

 

[The Ham]

Would there be paths available to extend services North of Birmingham if there was extra rolling stock?

If so could the stations to Wolverhampton cope with 12 coach trains (even if they couldn't fit fully at the platforms)?

As if both of these things were viable then you could provide some extra capacity (admittedly on a slower service, which would probably mean setting the ticket prices a bit lower to balance loadings) by using those extended services and running them with a pair of 6 coach units (which could also supliment or semi replace the 221's).

By using 6 coach units they would have a much better chance of being useful after HS2 is open, in that other TOC's (XC for instance once there's more wires) or an open access operator could be interested in using them. Even if they weren't needed by the HS2/ICWC franchise.

Their introduction could mean that we saw a few of the existing 390's becoming available soon after the opening of HS2 (any of the phases), however even at just about 30 years old that wouldn't be overly wasteful of they were to be scrapped.

If your aiming for about 100 coaches to get a good price on the order then replacing 10 of the 221's (even if not all of those 221's leave the franchise) would get you 60 coaches. Then for each hour of journey time North of Birmingham would gain you an extra 12 coaches for each unit. As such 100 shouldn't be too hard an order to justify.

Especially if you then start to look at other services, maybe a London to Glasgow via Manchester and Bolton*, at times when the main routes served aren't busy (in this case between London and Manchester). As this sort of service could be useful post HS2 as people will want to travel between the intermediate stops and/or use it to get to HS2 services and so could be well used.

By having shorter units (either the new 6 coach units and/or the 221's for routes that aren't wired, especially if the new units can run paired with the 221's) then such services could be viable when extending an existing service wouldn't (either due to unit length or due to the not being the wires).

* The suggestion for London to Glasgow via Manchester and Bolton is just an example, however we one that I could see could be useful. In that:
- new services between Manchester and Glasgow and strations between
- provides Bolton with better services, including new direct services to London and stations to Glasgow (possibly other stations south of Manchester).
- possibly removes a terminating train from the platforms at Manchester (or at least frees up a half platform for use) to provide extra capacity.

Although I'm sure there's going to much that I've missed which will explain why such a service couldn't work, but then I'm sure others will be able to think of better services that could be provided.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So Stafford will gain a HS2 service, and then loose it a few years later? Seems silly.

Stafford will keep an HS2 service, it's just not clear on which route.
The likelihood is a Euston-Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield service (probably continuing to Manchester).

 

[B&I]

Liverpool services still call at Stafford (except maybe the odd peak one).
For HS2 Phase 1 they will join HS2 at Handsacre Junction which will be close to Armitage on the classic line.
So no problem continuing to call at Stafford.
For Phase 2a they will use HS2 to Crewe, and for 2b they will dive under Crewe and have another route into Liverpool.
There may well be a second train which is a combined Liverpool/Preston one, splitting at Crewe.

There's no particular reason why Stafford is served by Liverpool trains, it's just how the stops were distributed in the VHF timetable.
It also gives Stafford a rather pointless 3tph to Liverpool.

Sorry, should have made clear it was phase 2b Liverpool services I had in mind.

There is no reason whatsoever for Stafford itself to have frequent services to Liverpool, or indeed anywhere, beyond what you would expect for a medium-sized regional town. However, Liverpool's exclusion from cross-country services makes Stafford a useful connection point, as it saves another 40 minutes trundling into New Street on the LNR service, and it's physically easier to change than at New Street thanks to the smaller number of platforms and passengers. Indeed, the LNR service is so slow that it's sometimes quicker to get to Brum by taking a London service to Stagford then chaning to Cross-Country. It's also a better place ro change for Trent Valley stoppers than Crewe, at least until the Stoke dog-leg is sorted out.

Of course, many of these problems could be solved if Liverpool had a) 2 TPH to London, with different stopping patterns b) cross-country services, or at least a Brum service that wasn't required to stop at every lamppost.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Sorry, should have made clear it was phase 2b Liverpool services I had in mind.

There is no reason whatsoever for Stafford itself to have frequent services to Liverpool, or indeed anywhere, beyond what you would expect for a medium-sized regional town. However, Liverpool's exclusion from cross-country services makes Stafford a useful connection point, as it saves another 40 minutes trundling into New Street on the LNR service, and it's physically easier to change than at New Street thanks to the smaller number of platforms and passengers. Indeed, the LNR service is so slow that it's sometimes quicker to get to Brum by taking a London service to Stagford then chaning to Cross-Country. It's also a better place ro change for Trent Valley stoppers than Crewe, at least until the Stoke dog-leg is sorted out.

The issue I have when people say Stafford doesn’t deserve a fast service, which it currently holds, is that Stafford serves the surrounding area, which is growing. Now Norton Bridge is gone, people from eccleshall go to Stafford etc.

As well as this, if we were left with LNWR services, I’d rather just drive. LNWR is slow, always rammed, and the stops just make it depressing.

The HS2 connection will ensure that I don’t take the car, and the train will get my money

 

[edwin_m]

A London-Stafford-Stoke service is suggested for Phase 2b, using HS2 as far as Hansacre.

 

[DenmarkRail]

A London-Stafford-Stoke service is suggested for Phase 2b, using HS2 as far as Hansacre.

So would that be to JUST stoke, or onwards to Manchester?

 

[Chester1]

So would that be to JUST stoke, or onwards to Manchester?

Probably terminating at Macclesfield due to lack of capacity for 4tph of HS2 services in and out of Manchester prior to phase 2b and needing to avoid it being filled with Manchester passengers before reaching Macclesfield, Stoke and Stafford. It would likely join and split with another 200m set at Birmingham Interchange. The decision to not run to Heathrow has freed up 2tph which has not been allocated yet but the indications are that it will be used to provide services to areas not or under provided for in the original plan. Blackpool/Preston and extra Liverpool services are other obvious contenders.

 

[The Planner]

Only splits I have heard of are at Crewe. The Macclesfield option isnt 2b AFAIK, its earlier.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The HS2 detailed timetable is not fixed yet, and won't be until the WCP winner works out what is preferred between WCML and HS2 routes and stops.
Then it will all have to be consulted on and approved by all the parties.
Before then (c2022?) there's no point in getting worked up about stopping patterns.
I can't see Stafford losing its fast service to Euston.
Chester is another place still waiting for confirmation of its long term service after HS2 arrives.

 

[pt_mad]

Sorry, should have made clear it was phase 2b Liverpool services I had in mind.

There is no reason whatsoever for Stafford itself to have frequent services to Liverpool, or indeed anywhere, beyond what you would expect for a medium-sized regional town. However, Liverpool's exclusion from cross-country services makes Stafford a useful connection point, as it saves another 40 minutes trundling into New Street on the LNR service, and it's physically easier to change than at New Street thanks to the smaller number of platforms and passengers. Indeed, the LNR service is so slow that it's sometimes quicker to get to Brum by taking a London service to Stagford then chaning to Cross-Country. It's also a better place ro change for Trent Valley stoppers than Crewe, at least until the Stoke dog-leg is sorted out.

Of course, many of these problems could be solved if Liverpool had a) 2 TPH to London, with different stopping patterns b) cross-country services, or at least a Brum service that wasn't required to stop at every lamppost.

Stafford will retain at least 1 fast call per hour within the West Coast Partnership. That's set in stone. It's in the minimum service requirement. So we don't need to speculate about dropping a Stafford stop.

What we can think about is whether an alternative to the Liverpool would be better stopping there. A poster said that loadings from Euston to Stafford were mediocre compared to Liverpool, which we'd expect. Another poster said there is 5% spare capacity on the Liverpool to last until 2026.
Some have argued that the Liverpools aren't that full. However, the 1907 off Euston had to have all stops except Runcorn removed. And that was because of regular overcrowding. So at that time of day 1tph to Liverpool isn't enough IF it was to call the normal stopping pattern. Only way to make it work it was run right away Euston to Runcorn so as Crewe and Stafford alighters don't board.

So on that principal, and going by the fact that the next franchise will need to cater for loadings and growth in numbers until 2026, the ONLY logical way to give any extra capacity on the one Liverpool per hour is to remove the Stafford stop and put it on another service.
Let's say 15% of the train's passengers intend to alight at Stafford. If you remove the Stafford call and put it on the Manchester, you are instantly adding an extra 15% capacity on the Euston to Liverpool and Runcorn through journey which is really going to help.

Can't see any alternatives if 1tph has to last until 2026. Those who say they're not full, are they confident they won't be full by 2025?


Another point to add. The LNR Euston to Crewe service will soon be rerouted mainline from Stafford to Crewe. And most should be 8 car by December 19. And the 8 car units are likely to be fairly lightly loaded going north by the time they leave Stafford. So that will give Stafford some extra capacity and seats to get up to Crewe on the mainline in addition to the two LNR Liverpool services.

The issue I have when people say Stafford doesn’t deserve a fast service, which it currently holds, is that Stafford serves the surrounding area, which is growing. Now Norton Bridge is gone, people from eccleshall go to Stafford etc.

As well as this, if we were left with LNWR services, I’d rather just drive. LNWR is slow, always rammed, and the stops just make it depressing.

The HS2 connection will ensure that I don’t take the car, and the train will get my money

Stafford will retain a fast service .That's in stone until at least 2026. It's just a case of whether the Liverpool is the most suitable to stop.

 

[B&I]

The issue I have when people say Stafford doesn’t deserve a fast service, which it currently holds, is that Stafford serves the surrounding area, which is growing. Now Norton Bridge is gone, people from eccleshall go to Stafford etc.

As well as this, if we were left with LNWR services, I’d rather just drive. LNWR is slow, always rammed, and the stops just make it depressing.

The HS2 connection will ensure that I don’t take the car, and the train will get my money

The issue I have is that Liverpool, a city with a metropolitan area about 10 times the size of Stafford, has substantially worse intercity services

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue I have is that Liverpool, a city with a metropolitan area about 10 times the size of Stafford, has substantially worse intercity services

Stafford has the service it has because of railway geography; it's an important junction for interchange.

Crewe is utterly nondescript and quite small - but it still gets a huge service because people change there. It is one of many such stations which appear to receive a disproportionate service but only receive it either because there is no significant cost in doing so (think the likes of Aughton Park, Town Green, Little Sutton, Overpool etc on Merseyrail which really do not justify 4tph but receive it because it's easier) or because they are interchanges (Llandudno Junction is one such example, but there are loads of them).

I grew up a Scouser and even so really don't understand the ridiculous complex the city seems to have about this kind of thing. Though FWIW I would extend the Trent Valley semifast to Lime St (providing a genuine alternative at a very good price, and I would expect it to be VERY popular) rather than a Euston-Brum which could instead run to Crewe only.

 

[B&I]

Probably terminating at Macclesfield due to lack of capacity for 4tph of HS2 services in and out of Manchester prior to phase 2b and needing to avoid it being filled with Manchester passengers before reaching Macclesfield, Stoke and Stafford. It would likely join and split with another 200m set at Birmingham Interchange. The decision to not run to Heathrow has freed up 2tph which has not been allocated yet but the indications are that it will be used to provide services to areas not or under provided for in the original plan. Blackpool/Preston and extra Liverpool services are other obvious contenders.

How about sending 1 of Manchester's 3 hourly London services that way, in recognition of how many current passengers on Manchester services are actually headed to and from intermediate stations ?

 

[pt_mad]

Stafford has the service it has because of railway geography; it's an important junction for interchange.

Crewe is utterly nondescript and quite small - but it still gets a huge service because people change there. It is one of many such stations which appear to receive a disproportionate service but only receive it either because there is no significant cost in doing so (think the likes of Aughton Park, Town Green, Little Sutton, Overpool etc on Merseyrail which really do not justify 4tph but receive it because it's easier) or because they are interchanges (Llandudno Junction is one such example, but there are loads of them).

I grew up a Scouser and even so really don't understand the ridiculous complex the city seems to have about this kind of thing. Though FWIW I would extend the Trent Valley semifast to Lime St (providing a genuine alternative at a very good price, and I would expect it to be VERY popular) rather than a Euston-Brum which could instead run to Crewe only.

As far as I know the Trent Valley service isn't allowed to run to Liverpool due to revenue extraction and competition constraints. And presumably a third of the direct Euston to Liverpool market would move over to LNR on day one, filling their longer 8 car trains within an instant.



What about the possibility of splitting off the Holyhead double voyagers at Crewe instead of Chester? With one set working to Holyhead, and the other set continuing on to somewhere else on the WCML? Such as Liverpool? Rather than whole double set to Chester and split there?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As far as I know the Trent Valley service isn't allowed to run to Liverpool due to revenue extraction and competition constraints. And presumably a third of the direct Euston to Liverpool market would move over to LNR on day one, filling their longer 8 car trains within an instant.
What about the possibility of splitting off the Holyhead double voyagers at Crewe instead of Chester? With one set working to Holyhead, and the other set continuing on to somewhere else on the WCML? Such as Liverpool? Rather than whole double set to Chester and split there?

The only double Voyagers east of Chester/Crewe are peak services (3 each way) and one reverse Holyhead service which is supposedly the peak ferry/tourist service.
All bar the ferry train are there for WCML peak traffic (Nuneaton, Crewe etc), not for Chester.
Sending a single Voyager to Liverpool is asking for trouble with overloading.
The Liverpools stop at Crewe particularly to stop overloading the existing Chester off-peak single Voyagers.

There are no competition restrictions any more, but the DfT insists on separating the VT and LNWR flows at Crewe in the franchise specs.
They are concerned about total revenue, and sending "cheap" trains to Liverpool works against that.
The same reasoning seems to stop them allowing LNWR to reach Preston or Manchester.
In any case, LNWR is supposed to be concentrating on Trent Valley and Northampton route commuter services.
Life would be easier with more stock for either franchise, but that is one luxury the DfT does not seem to want on the WCML.
Lack of paths because of Euston rebuilding is another problem.

Finally, the most overcrowded WCML service is the Glasgow fast (south of Preston), not the Liverpool.
The new Blackpool off-peak services (3tpd) will do a bit for that problem, but not much.

 

[centraltrains]

argh I spent way too long reading all of this!

Why can't LNWR or alternatives take over existing "local" flows on short services once HS2 is implemented? Surley the whole idea of them doing "WCML Connect services" is to facilitate journeys like these? The inter-working seems to over complicate things imo.

 

[B&I]

Stafford has the service it has because of railway geography; it's an important junction for interchange.

Crewe is utterly nondescript and quite small - but it still gets a huge service because people change there. It is one of many such stations which appear to receive a disproportionate service but only receive it either because there is no significant cost in doing so (think the likes of Aughton Park, Town Green, Little Sutton, Overpool etc on Merseyrail which really do not justify 4tph but receive it because it's easier) or because they are interchanges (Llandudno Junction is one such example, but there are loads of them).

I grew up a Scouser and even so really don't understand the ridiculous complex the city seems to have about this kind of thing. Though FWIW I would extend the Trent Valley semifast to Lime St (providing a genuine alternative at a very good price, and I would expect it to be VERY popular) rather than a Euston-Brum which could instead run to Crewe only.

I didn't grow up a Scouser, but I do.live there, and spend a lot of time trying to get places from it. It's not a ridiculous complex to want a decent level of service for one of the country's largest metropolitan areas. Places like Stafford and Crewe may get good levels of service because if physical geography. Liverpool should get them because of human geography - the large numbers of people living in and around it

But it seems that it's easier to mark those sorts of demands down to Scouse chippiness, rather than actually addressing the issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I genuinely don’t think there is any problem at all with Liverpool’s service level, other than that they need to ensure 11 car sets on the London services and 8 car sets on the Birminghams.

The whole thing seems to be an inferiority complex against Manchester, despite Merseyrail being markedly better than Metrolink.

 

[6Gman]

Stafford has the service it has because of railway geography; it's an important junction for interchange.

Crewe is utterly nondescript and quite small - but it still gets a huge service because people change there.

Not sure what you mean by "nondescript" in this context? Apart from its own size (there's a population of c.100,000 within 5 miles) it also has a catchment area from South and Mid Cheshire, and even parts of North Staffs and North Shropshire which is high value.

Though its strategic role clearly contributes to the level of service.

 

[6Gman]

I genuinely don’t think there is any problem at all with Liverpool’s service level, other than that they need to ensure 11 car sets on the London services and 8 car sets on the Birminghams.

The problem with 8-car sets would surely be some of the more rustic stations at which they call?

A "fast" Liverpool - Birmingham would be nice, but difficult to path.

(Actually, between Wolverhampton and Birmingham a fast anything seems to be difficult!) You might be sitting on a Pendolino but it usually only jogs along.

 

[Bletchleyite]

350s have Unit Deselect for short platforms.

 

[hawk1911]

Regarding Stafford. I think people are greatly under estimating the current number of daily commuters between Stafford and Euston; indeed, the local forum, for the town, is getting regular requests for information from people moving up from the south, to use Stafford as a base to commute to London, so this is only going to grow.

Add to that, that Stafford has been designated as the HS2 hub for Wolverhampton and the Black Country, and the growth in demand is going to be huge.

Wolverhampton council leader Roger Lawrence, who is also the West Midlands' leading transport boss, said: "For the northern part of the Black Country this gives us a lot of opportunities.

"Rather than go into Birmingham and change stations, we will be able to jump on a short journey to Stafford and link up with high speed services and make substantial savings on journey times not just to Euston but also Birmingham Airport too."

https://www.expressandstar.com/news...h-journey-times-from-black-country-to-london/

I agree that, ultimately, it doesn't have to be Liverpool services that provide Stafford's HS2 service, but the demand is there, and is only going to increase.

 

[B&I]

I genuinely don’t think there is any problem at all with Liverpool’s service level, other than that they need to ensure 11 car sets on the London services and 8 car sets on the Birminghams.

The whole thing seems to be an inferiority complex against Manchester, despite Merseyrail being markedly better than Metrolink.

Let's just try that again, shall we ?

Manchester has 3 trains an hour to London, including substantially later evening services, with more direct trains to intermediate stations as a result. It has direct services to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Carlisle, Windermere, Lancaster, Blackburn, Burnley, Halifax, Bradford, Middlesbrough, Hull, Birmingham Airport, Coventry, Oxford, Reading, Southampton, Bournemouth, Gloucester, Bristol, Taunton, Exeter, Plymouth, Shrewsbury, Hereford, Newport, Cardiff, Swansea, Llandudno, Bangor and Holyhead.

Liverpool has 1 service per hour to London, considerably slower services to Birmingham (despite these being the way the city's residents are supposed to travel to everywhere south and east of Brum, except London), and direct services to none of the places I've listed (with only a handful in the pipeline). If I remember rightly, a recent survey found that only Bradford is worse-served among major cities. What logical reason is there why Liverpool, which is not actually that much smaller than Manchester, receives so much worse provision ?

People like me, who live in Liverpool but have to travel frequently, find life more difficult than if they lived somewhere better served. In my case, that means extra overnight stays with work because I can't get where I need to be for work early enough due to extra connections and slow journeys from Liverpool, or find myself unable to get back at night. More widely, lack of connectivity is one of a number of factors hamstringing the city's economy.

That's not having a chip on your shoulder, that's pointing out an actual substantial difficulty which arises from living in one place rather than another. Like many people who have moved away from Liverpool, you may be reluctant to argue for better treatment for the city for fear of people waving their hands at you and telling you 'eh calm down, calm down', but that doesn't make the situation any fairer or more logical.

 

[6Gman]

350s have Unit Deselect for short platforms.

I'm aware of that. But I'm not sure that extended dwells at Smethwick/Coseley, Penkridge, Winsford, Acton Bridge and South Parkway while people sorted themselves out would help timekeeping.

 

[6Gman]

Liverpool has 1 service per hour to London, considerably slower services to Birmingham (despite these being the way the city's residents are supposed to travel to everywhere south and east of Brum, except London),

Surely for quite a few places changing at Stafford makes more sense?

 

[6Gman]

What logical reason is there why Liverpool, which is not actually that much smaller than Manchester, receives so mich worse provision ?

Geography. And the demographics.