Should Manchester-London go quarter-hourly?

[Philip]

With a fairly high number of direct services now operating between Birmingham and London, aside from Avanti's own services, should Avanti remove one it's own Birmingham services and use the stock to run a 4th service per hour to Manchester? I realise there might not be quite enough stock because of the longer distance, but with a bit of shuffling around and tightening of the timetable it should work. No reason why a train can't hang around in Manchester for 10 minutes rather than the current 25-30.

Such a service would re-connect with Manchester the places which lost their direct link in Virgin HF, such as Watford, along with increasing capacity between London and Manchester. Birmingham has fast services to London courtesy of three different operators (Avanti, WMT and Chiltern), so it wouldn't be much of a loss diverting one of the three Avanti services to Manchester.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I think planning on a ten minute turnaround would be asking for a performance hit, I'm afraid. In normal times it takes the best part of ten minutes to get everyone off a Manchester arrival and clear the platform, let alone boarding the return loading.

What might be more worthwhile if the stock diagramming could stretch to it ( maybe add another 2 or 3 IETs to the Avanti order? ) would be extending the Birmingham working which still terminates in and returns from New Street through the Manchester. That way you would still have three an hour to Birmingham and get your 4th Manchester working.

There is, however, a flaw with that as well... Nobody would travel through on it because it would be overtaken by one of the existing direct Manchester services and the stations via Birmingham already have a direct service to Manchester.

 

[David Goddard]

Is the demand for a fourth service actually there (pre Covid let alone currently)?
Three seems ample really. Capacity better used by the extra Liverpool service.

 

[stuu]

No reason why a train can't hang around in Manchester for 10 minutes rather than the current 25-30.

Yes, there is. You have to allow a certain amount of recovery time, and then time to clean and restock the train. There is no way you could reliably turn an intercity train around in 10 minutes. Nowhere in the world sensibly does that, not even in Japan

 

[markymark2000]

What might be more worthwhile if the stock diagramming could stretch to it ( maybe add another 2 or 3 IETs to the Avanti order? ) would be extending the Birmingham working which still terminates in and returns from New Street through the Manchester. That way you would still have three an hour to Birmingham and get your 4th Manchester working.

There is, however, a flaw with that as well... Nobody would travel through on it because it would be overtaken by one of the existing direct Manchester services and the stations via Birmingham already have a direct service to Manchester.

The pro of this is the widely mentioned proposal of removing an XC services between Birmingham and Manchester to reduce diesels under wires and provide much needed capacity between Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[hexagon789]

Even with the present situation I don't think withdrawing one of the Birmingham services would work for the amount of passengers normally. Manchester is of course a busy route in its own right but I don't feel it should gain an extra service at Birmingham's expense.

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolutely not. A few reasons:

No spare capacity into, or at, Piccadilly.
It would need an extra 2 diagrams.
Manchester doesn’t need the extra capacity, yet. That’s what HS2 is for.
The ‘fast’ WMT services are anything but.
Coventry and International would lose service, as would one of MK, Rugby or Watford in losing a service to the West Midlands.

Seems a very odd suggestion.

 

[scrapy]

Also a 15 minute service wouldn't be possible on the paths to and from Euston. Currently the Birmingham trains leave Euston 3 minutes behind the Manchester ones so if you replace a Birmingham with a Manchester you'd get as one example departures from Euston at 00, 03, 20 and 40 past each hour. So the 03 past would be empty. Switching these to every 15 minutes would not be possible without taking out a London Midland fast (even if there were unlimited paths further north) which would mean even less trains towards Birmingham.

 

[CW2]

The service to / from Manchester is perfectly adequate as it is.
If Birmingham services were to be reduced to half-hourly, then the beneficiaries should be Liverpool, going to half-hourly through the day.
It wouldn't be a simple matter to re-write the WCML timetable, so this isn't for the impatient or faint hearted.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, there is. You have to allow a certain amount of recovery time, and then time to clean and restock the train. There is no way you could reliably turn an intercity train around in 10 minutes. Nowhere in the world sensibly does that, not even in Japan

Off Memory, Japan does about 12-16 minute turnrounds on the Tohuku Shinkansen at Tokyo (where it works off 4 platforms).

And that's with pretty much dedicated Shinkansen infrastructure (apart from through the Seikan Tunnel) and a literal army of cleaners boarding the train on arrival (some videos available on YouTube)

 

[Bletchleyite]

No reason why a train can't hang around in Manchester for 10 minutes rather than the current 25-30.

Well, there is a very good reason it can't - punctuality and reliability.

This should absolutely not happen. HS2 is there to allow places like Watford to be reconnected.

If you don't agree, see the mess LNR made by doing that sort of thing and think again. No, no, a million times no.

Also the demand is not there for 4tph. If anything, dropping to 2 is more likely now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

The pro of this is the widely mentioned proposal of removing an XC services between Birmingham and Manchester to reduce diesels under wires and provide much needed capacity between Birmingham and Manchester.

That could be done by terminating one of the Manchester bound XCs at Wolves and putting an EMU on from Intl instead, though. There's no shortage of those. Pairs of 350/2s with the seats swapped for something decent would be perfect, for example.

 

[Bald Rick]

The pro of this is the widely mentioned proposal of removing an XC services between Birmingham and Manchester to reduce diesels under wires and provide much needed capacity between Birmingham and Manchester.

Widely mentioned by whom?

 

[Ianno87]

Widely mentioned by whom?

The RailForums UK Rail Transport Board, I think...

 

[Bald Rick]

The RailForums UK Rail Transport Board, I think...

Advisory capacity

 

[markymark2000]

That could be done by terminating one of the Manchester bound XCs at Wolves and putting an EMU on from Intl instead, though. There's no shortage of those. Pairs of 350/2s with the seats swapped for something decent would be perfect, for example.

I don't agree with that proposal, it was just the only advantage that I could see.

Widely mentioned by whom?

It's quite often put on this board putting EMUs on from Birmingham to Manchester to cut back XC diesels under wires. Not saying I agree or disagree with that but it has been mentioned on multiple threads over time.

 

[Philip]

Northbound from London Euston on the fast lines:

xx:00 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:34)
xx:15 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:49)
xx:30 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:04)
xx:45 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:19)

xx:12 Birmingham
xx:42 Scotland via Birmingham

xx:07 Liverpool

xx:10 Chester/North Wales

xx:33 Glasgow

WMT and TfW for example can run on the slow lines north from London Euston and south from Manchester, to provide free paths for the Avanti services I've listed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

WMT and TfW for example can run on the slow lines north from London Euston and south from Manchester, to provide free paths for the Avanti services I've listed.

Ridiculous idea. More people use the WMT services which use the fasts than would use another extra fresh-air-express to Manchester.

And why should Birmingham lose?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Ridiculous idea. More people use the WMT services which use the fasts than would use another extra fresh-air-express to Manchester.

And why should Birmingham lose?

They shouldn’t Hs2 provides the equivalent of 4tph on the WCML to Birmingham and Manchester with 400m trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

They shouldn’t Hs2 provides the equivalent of 4tph on the WCML to Birmingham and Manchester with 400m trains

No, it shouldn't, and to be honest I don't think it actually will, either, however much they bleat about it. 2tph is more likely, with a couple of peak extras. Not 4tph all day. That or it'll be 4tph with 200m trains (so a bit shorter than today's Pendolinos which are about 260m long - today's service gives you 780m of train per hour, 4tph at 200m would give you 800m, so comparable in capacity terms).

With Manchester I could see an argument to drop to 2tph all day but with maybe 2-3 peak extras in each direction, but that will depend on the landscape post-COVID.

 

[Ianno87]

Northbound from London Euston on the fast lines:

xx:00 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:34)
xx:15 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:49)
xx:30 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:04)
xx:45 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:19)

xx:12 Birmingham
xx:42 Scotland via Birmingham

xx:07 Liverpool

xx:10 Chester/North Wales

xx:33 Glasgow

WMT and TfW for example can run on the slow lines north from London Euston and south from Manchester, to provide free paths for the Avanti services I've listed.

WMT running on slow lines equates to killing the journey time for Northampton passengers.

And where do Watford/MK calls fit in your pattern?

 

[Bald Rick]

Northbound from London Euston on the fast lines:

xx:00 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:34)
xx:15 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:49)
xx:30 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:04)
xx:45 Manchester (southbound from Manchester xx:19)

xx:12 Birmingham
xx:42 Scotland via Birmingham

xx:07 Liverpool

xx:10 Chester/North Wales

xx:33 Glasgow

WMT and TfW for example can run on the slow lines north from London Euston and south from Manchester, to provide free paths for the Avanti services I've listed.

Which of Watford, MK or Rugby loses its Birmingham train?

And what happens on the Coventry corridor?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

It's quite often put on this board putting EMUs on from Birmingham to Manchester to cut back XC diesels under wires. Not saying I agree or disagree with that but it has been mentioned on multiple threads over time.

Oh, I see. You mean “proposed on these pages”, not “proposed by any railway undertaking”

 

[Philip]

WMT running on slow lines equates to killing the journey time for Northampton passengers.

And where do Watford/MK calls fit in your pattern?

The Watford can be served by one of the Manchester services, to restore the link, with Milton Keynes picked up by the :42 Scotland and :15 Manchester. Northampton could be served by the additional Avanti to Manchester, that way it wont lose out so much by putting WMT on the slow lines.

And people are forgetting the Chiltern option for Birmingham - London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

Which of Watford, MK or Rugby loses its Birmingham train?

And what happens on the Coventry corridor?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==



Oh, I see. You mean “proposed on these pages”, not “proposed by any railway undertaking”

Watford losing it would make the most sense, given there is a (albeit slower) WMT option.

 

[Bald Rick]

Watford losing it would make the most sense, given there is a (albeit slower) WMT option.

Notmfor the people who use Watford! There’s always been much more traffic from Watford - W Mids than Watford - Manchester.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

Northampton could be served by the additional Avanti to Manchester, that way it wont lose out so much by putting WMT on the slow lines.

Which would put it right on top of the following Manchester from Rugby, making arrival times at Manchester bunched. So no one would get it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Watford can be served by one of the Manchester services, to restore the link, with Milton Keynes picked up by the :42 Scotland and :15 Manchester. Northampton could be served by the additional Avanti to Manchester, that way it wont lose out so much by putting WMT on the slow lines.

Sending one via Northampton will make a right muck of your timings!

And people are forgetting the Chiltern option for Birmingham - London.

What's that got to do with south WCML commuters and leisure journeys? People forget that's what WMT is there for; cheap through journeys to Brum are incidental. Chiltern is not much use for getting to/from MK unless you drive to Bicester/Aylesbury or something.

Your argument is like saying "let's cut the Chiltern service because there's the WMT service" - it would leave those on the "stockbroker belt" stood on the platform wondering what you were playing at.

 

[The Planner]

I have come to this a bit late it seems, but it has given me a good laugh for a Saturday morning! 10 minute turnarounds, nope. 2 minute headway out of Euston, nope.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd be more tempted to extend the Crewe stopper. Then at least you'd get some cheap walk-on fares.

Alternatively a service to St Pancras via Bakewell and the East midlands.

 

[Purple Orange]

Should London-Manc go to 4 tph? No.

We should focus on better serving the communities that surround Manchester. We need more frequent stoppers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

Ridiculous idea. More people use the WMT services which use the fasts than would use another extra fresh-air-express to Manchester.

And why should Birmingham lose?

Not only would Birmingham lose, but communities north of Brum would also need to lose a service in to Manchester. Get rid of a TfW, XC or a Northern service? No chance.

 

[Jozhua]

The current offering from London to Manchester seems adequate. The train is a decent bit faster than driving and quarter hourly services would only serve the purpose of saying "we have quarter hourly services".

Considering COVID's hit perticularly to London-bound services, with regional bouncing back much faster, we should use the limited paths for that.

Manchester - Birmingham is very poorly served, considering the size of the two cities. I don't know if HS2 will offer direct services between them, though. If it does, that will be fantastic.

For now, I think there is some merit in putting a pendolino between the two, especially if the extra capacity helps to increase the number of affordable advance fares, something XC severely lacks. Plus, it's an easy way to reduce running under the wires.

 

[Bald Rick]

Manchester - Birmingham is very poorly served, considering the size of the two cities. I don't know if HS2 will offer direct services between them, though. If it does, that will be fantastic.

Yes they will. In about 40 minutes.

 

[Purple Orange]

For now, I think there is some merit in putting a pendolino between the two, especially if the extra capacity helps to increase the number of affordable advance fares, something XC severely lacks. Plus, it's an easy way to reduce running under the wires.

There used to be a pendolino services between Brum & Manc, which was usually a train that had just come in to New Street from Euston. I don’t think it was a service that happened from Manc-Brum-Euston. But given how crap XC is, I would certainly ‘trade’ a Manc-Brum-Reading service for an Avanti Manc-Brum-Euston, given it is often faster getting to Reading via London than the direct train.