Could West Midlands Trains operate to Manchester Piccadilly?

[BigCj34]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...low-cost-high-speed-rail-for-everyone.196603/

Wonder why [West Midlands Trains] don't do Manchester as well, or do the franchise terms forbid it? Although it is possible to go to Crewe and change there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wonder why they don't do Manchester as well, or do the franchise terms forbid it? Although it is possible to go to Crewe and change there.

They are looking to go to Manchester Airport (both as a destination and a sort-of-Parkway), I don't think there are any paths to Picc or Vic. The Liverpools are a simple joining-up of existing services across New St requiring no paths.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Changing at Crewe is no hardship IF both trains are on time. On Tuesday I allowed myself 20 minutes there - just pleasant. I paid GBP14 for the entire journey from Stockport - possibly marginally higher than the cheapest coach but a lot more comfortable and still an hour or so quicker. However they turfed us out at Birmingham and we had to await the other sets coming in from Crewe via Stoke (although I think on Tuesday it ran straight to Stafford and waited there for us to go past)
Could WMR run a set to Wilmslow as an alternative to changing in Crewe, using the platforms for the Airport services and through which some freight travels?

 

[Bevan Price]

Changing at Crewe is no hardship IF both trains are on time. On Tuesday I allowed myself 20 minutes there - just pleasant. I paid GBP14 for the entire journey from Stockport - possibly marginally higher than the cheapest coach but a lot more comfortable and still an hour or so quicker. However they turfed us out at Birmingham and we had to await the other sets coming in from Crewe via Stoke (although I think on Tuesday it ran straight to Stafford and waited there for us to go past)
Could WMR run a set to Wilmslow as an alternative to changing in Crewe, using the platforms for the Airport services and through which some freight travels?

Does the track / signalling layout at Wilmslow permit easy train reversals?

 

[coradiafan2000]

I think it'd be a good idea, simply because we need more direct services from Birmingham to Manchester. All we have right now are the XC services, and we all know how bad they can be!

 

[sprinterguy]

I think it'd be a good idea, simply because we need more direct services from Birmingham to Manchester. All we have right now are the XC services, and we all know how bad they can be!

A half hourly service between Birmingham and Manchester seems entirely adequate to me, the problem is the length of the existing trains but unfortunately nothing's going to change that any time soon.

As such I can understand your reasoning from a capacity point of view, but I'd prefer it if no more services were forced through the Birmingham - Wolverhampton corridor, there's absolutely no opportunity for service recovery as it is since the XX:21 Birmingham - Crewe LNWR service was introduced, meaning that the Manchester trains are often delayed in their wake. At present leaving New Street northbound on the Stour lines there is:

XX:15 Edinburgh (Avanti West Coast)
XX:21 Crewe via Stoke (LNWR)
XX:25 Shrewsbury/Aberystwyth (TfW)
XX:31 Manchester (Crosscountry)

Which leaves no margin for error at the slightest delay. The XX:57 Manchester departure from New Street on the other side of the hour seems to fare better, services are a bit more spread out in the 20 minutes before that departure.

I must admit that the XX:21 LNWR services have been useful to take pressure off the XX:31 Manchester Crosscountry service though, and I frequently use them now even though it requires a change at Stafford or Stoke onto the following XC service to get home after work.

 

[coradiafan2000]

A half hourly service between Birmingham and Manchester seems entirely adequate to me, the problem is the length of the existing trains but unfortunately nothing's going to change that any time soon.

As such I can understand your reasoning from a capacity point of view, but I'd prefer it if no more services were forced through the Birmingham - Wolverhampton corridor, there's absolutely no opportunity for service recovery as it is since the XX:21 Birmingham - Crewe LNWR service was introduced, meaning that the Manchester trains are often delayed in their wake. At present leaving New Street northbound on the Stour lines there is:

XX:15 Edinburgh (Avanti West Coast)
XX:21 Crewe via Stoke (LNWR)
XX:25 Shrewsbury/Aberystwyth (TfW)
XX:31 Manchester (Crosscountry)

Which leaves no margin for error at the slightest delay. The XX:57 Manchester departure from New Street on the other side of the hour seems to fare better, services are a bit more spread out in the 20 minutes before that departure.

I must admit that the XX:21 LNWR services have been useful to take pressure off the XX:31 Manchester Crosscountry service though, and I frequently use them now even though it requires a change at Stafford or Stoke onto the following XC service to get home after work.

I don't suppose there are any alternate routes they could take?

 

[trentvalley]

not sure the original poster was talking about the via Birmingham services but the Trent valley to Manchester instead.

but if they were the via Birmingham and wobble services then surely this could go via the chase line and split / join at rugeley Trent valley instead of new street. Removing a train from the Birmingham wolves line.

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't suppose there are any alternate routes they could take?

Via Bescot, though that does also interact with Walsall and/or Cross-City line trains depending on which way out of New Street it goes.

If someone was really intent on juggling things to send an LNWR service to Manchester without increasing paths required between Birmingham and Wolves, perhaps the XX:21 Crewe could go to Manchester after Stoke instead, with the XX:31 Manchester running Stafford - Crewe - Wilmslow - Stockport?

Positives

• XX:31 XC still caters for through traffic from Bristol/Birmingham to Wolves, Stafford, Stockport and Manchester.
• XX:31 only has to follow a potentially late running XX:21 as far as Stafford, as opposed to Kidsgrove at present.
• XX:21 would occupy a similarly timed path to the current XX:31 XC between Stoke and Stockport.
• Gives c.13 carriages per hour between Birmingham and Manchester instead of c.9 at present.
• Macclesfield sees a 4x20m service in the place of one of the current 4/5x23m ones, but with Birmingham/Wolves/Stafford -Manchester through traffic transferred to the "via Crewe" XC service.

Negatives

• Stoke loses its direct service to the South West, and 4-5 carriages per hour to/from Birmingham against the current service provision.
• Alternate service provision required Stoke-Alsager-Crewe.
• Not sure if there's an additional path available for an extra train per hour Cheadle Hulme - Stockport.
• Path doesn't work as well southbound from Manchester: You end up with both Manchester-Macclesfield-Stoke trains very close together in the hour.

not sure the original poster was talking about the via Birmingham services but the Trent valley to Manchester instead.

Yeah I was essentially responding to a secondary query.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they did it extending the Trent Valley would be the way, not one of the Brums.

 

[jfollows]

Does the track / signalling layout at Wilmslow permit easy train reversals?

Yes.
I think the up Styal line platform (number 2) is the favoured platform, but depending on other train movements there are alternatives. Currently normally used to terminate and reverse the Cardiff-Manchester service when it's running late (not unknown).

Trains can also use the down Styal line platform (number 1) and continue and reverse using the ground signal (MS 1722) but I don't see that being used very often, again it probably depends on other trains at the time. I think trains can reverse in all Wilmslow's platforms, but getting into platform 4 from the Crewe direction requires using the up main from Alderley Edge.

 

[coradiafan2000]

If they did it extending the Trent Valley would be the way, not one of the Brums.

That does seem to be the easiest to implement. Although including the existing Avanti services, is four trains per hour from London to Manchester potentially overkill? It would be better for passengers in Lichfield, Tamworth and Rugeley etc to have a direct service to Manchester however.

 

[SoccerHQ]

A half hourly service between Birmingham and Manchester seems entirely adequate to me, the problem is the length of the existing trains but unfortunately nothing's going to change that any time soon.

As such I can understand your reasoning from a capacity point of view, but I'd prefer it if no more services were forced through the Birmingham - Wolverhampton corridor, there's absolutely no opportunity for service recovery as it is since the XX:21 Birmingham - Crewe LNWR service was introduced, meaning that the Manchester trains are often delayed in their wake. At present leaving New Street northbound on the Stour lines there is:

XX:15 Edinburgh (Avanti West Coast)
XX:21 Crewe via Stoke (LNWR)
XX:25 Shrewsbury/Aberystwyth (TfW)
XX:31 Manchester (Crosscountry)

Which leaves no margin for error at the slightest delay. The XX:57 Manchester departure from New Street on the other side of the hour seems to fare better, services are a bit more spread out in the 20 minutes before that departure.

I must admit that the XX:21 LNWR services have been useful to take pressure off the XX:31 Manchester Crosscountry service though, and I frequently use them now even though it requires a change at Stafford or Stoke onto the following XC service to get home after work.

Yes very congested. Add in the XX.07 stopper service to Walsall-Wolverhampton sometimes dosen't leave until after 10 past the hour and that starts the backlog.

I have to go to Stoke once a month so I do like the new stopper does have 5 quid one way fares up to there so cheaper than CrossCountry.

 

[jfollows]

Does the track / signalling layout at Wilmslow permit easy train reversals?

Today, Sunday 5 January, the route via Stockport is blocked because of engineering work, so most services are using the Styal line. The exception is the ATW Cardiff services, which simply terminate at Wilmslow from the south, and use platform 3 from which it's an easy reverse back towards Crewe.

 

[43096]

That does seem to be the easiest to implement. Although including the existing Avanti services, is four trains per hour from London to Manchester potentially overkill? It would be better for passengers in Lichfield, Tamworth and Rugeley etc to have a direct service to Manchester however.

There seems to be an obsession with everywhere having to have a direct train to everywhere. What is the demand for services from Rugeley to Manchester? Not much, I'd bet, and what demand there is can easily make it via a change at Crewe.

 

[coradiafan2000]

There seems to be an obsession with everywhere having to have a direct train to everywhere. What is the demand for services from Rugeley to Manchester? Not much, I'd bet, and what demand there is can easily make it via a change at Crewe.

Just trying to see any potential advantages, that's all. As you say changing at Crewe isn't too much of an inconvenience.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually know someone who makes that journey (Nuneaton to Manchester) regularly, and the combination of poor punctuality from WMT and iffy connections means her journey is decidedly less smooth than it was with a same-platform change at Stoke on Trent before. I suspect she'd be in favour.

Even Manchester Airport might be less of a faff connection wise.

 

[RT4038]

There are too many trains on the network already, resulting in poor punctuality and general unreliability. The current frequency of services from Birmingham to Manchester are more than adequate. What is needed is more carriages on them.

 

[Elecman]

Another Ooerator running a service on the route would drive pricing competition, good for the consumer

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I’m personally a big fan of CrossCountry taking over a part of what is currently WMT/LNWR; and then having a map re-shuffle. I’d use the 350s and make them ‘super premium’, and pairs would operate hourly to each of Picc and Lime Street; with the voyagers then doing an hourly Picc and Lime Street as well. No increase in paths, a serious uplift in capacity and some decent use of electrics.

I’d flight the departures in so that the ‘Voyager’ (limited stop) Manchester is followed by the Desiro (more stops) Liverpool and vice versa; therefore the Manchester / Liverpool Desiros would stop at Smethwick and Penkridge; with the Manchester Desiros also stopping at Congleton and the Liverpool Desiro stopping at Winsford, Hartford etc.

I’d also extend the Desiros services back every 30 mins to International, with stops on the way so as to remove the need for a WMT International starter. Marston Green and Stechford would benefit here.

Both Voyagers then from the South Coast could operate via Solihull; and people from Coventry would need to make a change.

 

[The Planner]

Both Voyagers then from the South Coast could operate via Solihull; and people from Coventry would need to make a change.

Which is against everything that XC and NR want to do and will eventually happen, no XC services will go via Solihull.

 

[agbrs_Jack]

with the Manchester Desiros also stopping at Congleton

I approve of this :P

I've also always thought that WMT could somehow run a service to Macclesfield turning back using P3 and calling at Congleton only. (Kidsgrove has fewer passengers and is overserved with 3tph to Stoke.

 

[greatvoyager]

I think it'd be a good idea, simply because we need more direct services from Birmingham to Manchester. All we have right now are the XC services, and we all know how bad they can be!

That does seem to be the easiest to implement. Although including the existing Avanti services, is four trains per hour from London to Manchester potentially overkill? It would be better for passengers in Lichfield, Tamworth and Rugeley etc to have a direct service to Manchester however.

It would certainly help to have another Birmingham-Manchester service, as you say XC can be very crowded. If they had a London-Birmingham-Manchester service as the 4th service, then I think that would be advantageous. Then again, there probably isn't much room for that.

 

[greatvoyager]

I actually know someone who makes that journey (Nuneaton to Manchester) regularly, and the combination of poor punctuality from WMT and iffy connections means her journey is decidedly less smooth than it was with a same-platform change at Stoke on Trent before. I suspect she'd be in favour.

Even Manchester Airport might be less of a faff connection wise.

That's the one problem with a lack of direct services. It can be very difficult when the first train is late and you miss a connection.

 

[agbrs_Jack]

That's the one problem with a lack of direct services. It can be very difficult when the first train is late and you miss a connection.

Good reason to serve Congleton then

It would be better for passengers in Lichfield, Tamworth and Rugeley etc to have a direct service to Manchester

Why does more trains for places that already have loads of services come above 2 tph for Congleton that has loads of suppressed demand and a rubbish 1tph with abysmal Sunday services? Rugeley also only has 160,000 pax/yr...

 

[ZL exile]

Surely it would be simple to get some proper size trains for for XC to solve the overcrowding? Bin the 4/5 car voyagers order 10 x 26 hybrid, massive capacity uplift, no extra paths required. Then order more proper size trains for the other routes of XC,. This also reduces the pollution around New Street, and gives electric running under the wires like it was back in the days of old (on some trains).

Then look at other services regarding their train length and calling patterns to address the real demand. There are just too many short trains on too many routes at present. What the North needs are a standardised fleet of longer through corridor trains, and a programme of platform extension works to make sure that a 6/8 car train can run on all routes, with robust connections at suitable hubs with waiting rooms toilets and buffets open when trains run, so that you do not need a train from everywhere to everywhere.

 

[coradiafan2000]

Good reason to serve Congleton then



Why does more trains for places that already have loads of services come above 2 tph for Congleton that has loads of suppressed demand and a rubbish 1tph with abysmal Sunday services? Rugeley also only has 160,000 pax/yr...

As I said previously, I was only trying to think of some positives...