My idea for a reduced Avanti timetable

[Hardcastle]

I quite like the additional Crewe stops on the Glasgow expresses for example today the 1000 departure from Preston (0733 ex Glasgow) even with the slack timetable arrived in Euston 21 minutes early ie 1221 so even with the Crewe stop its possible to do a fast run plus considering the bad weather we have had in the north today.

 

[tetudo boy]

Could the LNR timetable also be rewritten?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could the LNR timetable also be rewritten?

I'm sure it could, but I suspect they would want to keep any changes simple while things settle down.

 

[tetudo boy]

I'm sure it could, but I suspect they would want to keep any changes simple while things settle down.

I might actually make a post-covid LNWR timetable rewrite thread if I can.

 

[The Planner]

I might actually make a post-covid LNWR timetable rewrite thread if I can.

You generally cannot re-write one TOC without hitting the other, especially when you get to places like the Coventry corridor.

 

[London Trains]

If it made sense to reduce Birmingham to Manchester to 2tph made sense, I'd rewrite the timetable completely to have something like this:

00 Glasgow (Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Motherwell)
03 Liverpool (Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn)
07 Manchester (Milton Keynes, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport)
10 Birmingham (Watford Jct, Rugby, Coventry, Bham Intl)

16 LNWR Crewe (Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley, Stafford)
19 LNWR Birmingham (Watford Jct, Milton Keynes, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry, Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell, Bham Intl, Marston Green)

30 Chester (Crewe)
33 Liverpool (Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn)
37 Manchester (Nuneaton, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport)
40 Birmingham (Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Bham Intl)

46 LNWR Crewe (Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley, Stafford)
49 LNWR Birmingham (Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry, Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell, Bham Intl, Marston Green)

 

[Purple Orange]

Can anyone explain please, why do the Avanti services need reducing?

Reading through the posts, people are suggesting reducing Birmingham & Manchester services to 2 tph, but without a corresponding suggestion as to what benefits that can bring. Additional stoppers can be the only positive change.

 

[Bald Rick]

Can anyone explain please, why do the Avanti services need reducing?

Two likely reasons:

1) they may be short of traincrew if absence is rising
2) to save the Government some money (but not much)

Or both.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reading through the posts, people are suggesting reducing Birmingham & Manchester services to 2 tph, but without a corresponding suggestion as to what benefits that can bring.

1. Save money in light of reduced demand
2. More punctual/reliable by ensuring there are spare paths

 

[tetudo boy]

Can anyone explain please, why do the Avanti services need reducing?

Another primary reason is to add more capacity to the WCML, at least until the opening of the HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

More punctual/reliable by ensuring there are spare paths

Not really an issue on the south end of the WCML at present. The Avanti Public Performance Measure (PPM) for the current reporting period is 95%, and we’re in the middle of autumn.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really an issue on the south end of the WCML at present. The Avanti Public Performance Measure (PPM) for the current reporting period is 95%, and we’re in the middle of autumn.

Wouldn't it be good if we could get it to say 99.5% and keep it there, by changing the culture to having a timetable that is simple, robust and punctual rather than trying to cram every last train possible into the infrastructure?

The dip in passenger numbers provides a wonderful opportunity here. People might be attracted back to a railway that you can set your watch by.

 

[Purple Orange]

@Bald Rick @Bletchleyite @tetudo boy therefore this can only be a covid issue if it is due to reduced demand. Yet from the perspective of Avanti, a TOC that is not subsidised, surely they would make the commercial decision (or at least make the case to DfT) to reduce service levels if it is deemed necessary.

If permanent, I’m not adverse to seeing 2 tph, but only if the vacant path(s) are given to local commuter services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@Bald Rick @Bletchleyite @tetudo boy therefore this can only be a covid issue if it is due to reduced demand. Yet from the perspective of Avanti, a TOC that is not subsidised, surely they would make the commercial decision (or at least make the case to DfT) to reduce service levels if it is deemed necessary.

That is what they're doing, isn't it? I've not been anywhere near a train for a month or so, but when I did Avanti was very quiet indeed.

 

[Purple Orange]

That is what they're doing, isn't it? I've not been anywhere near a train for a month or so, but when I did Avanti was very quiet indeed.

But if services have been reduced (or avanti feel that the Covid timetable reductions are sufficient), then what is the point of the question?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But if services have been reduced (or avanti feel that the Covid timetable reductions are sufficient), then what is the point of the question?

It's Speculative Ideas - that's never stopped people on here before!

 

[Purple Orange]

It's Speculative Ideas - that's never stopped people on here before!

That is true. This forum never ceases to surprise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is true. This forum never ceases to surprise.

To be fair, it's about the least ridiculous idea that's appeared on here over the years...but then some of those "ridiculous" ideas happened, e.g. TPE LHCS

 

[The Planner]

Another primary reason is to add more capacity to the WCML, at least until the opening of the HS2.

@Bald Rick @Bletchleyite @tetudo boy therefore this can only be a covid issue if it is due to reduced demand. Yet from the perspective of Avanti, a TOC that is not subsidised, surely they would make the commercial decision (or at least make the case to DfT) to reduce service levels if it is deemed necessary.

If permanent, I’m not adverse to seeing 2 tph, but only if the vacant path(s) are given to local commuter services.

Are we talking why people are coming up with often unworkable timetable ideas, or why Avanti are reducing? if it is the latter, the DfT have told them to apparently. No, it isn't currently permanent. We aren't going to fundamentally re-write the structure of the WCML any time soon (genuinely think of how wide that would affect). No, nothing is going to back fill. No, it isn't to add more capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wouldn't it be good if we could get it to say 99.5% and keep it there,

Taking more services out won’t do that.

Yet from the perspective of Avanti, a TOC that is not subsidised,

Avanti is very much subsidised at present, and has been for 7 months.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taking more services out won’t do that.

Rediagramming could, though, by ensuring there is more slack in the diagrams and in the WCML itself. Though if it's being done to cost-cut to the max, I guess you'd off-lease some stock and reduce staffing, and thus not gain anything there?

 

[Bald Rick]

Rediagramming could, though, by ensuring there is more slack in the diagrams and in the WCML itself. Though if it's being done to cost-cut to the max, I guess you'd off-lease some stock and reduce staffing, and thus not gain anything there?

Rediagramming wouldn’t help much. The amount of reactionary delay on the network has fallen dramatically, and with more spare drivers (and trains!) around delays are much more quickly recovered and not transferred to other services.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, to save anything other than token amounts of cash you must off lease the stock (when the contract makes that a sensible thing to do) and make people redundant. I don’t see this happening ... yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, to save anything other than token amounts of cash you must off lease the stock (when the contract makes that a sensible thing to do) and make people redundant. I don’t see this happening ... yet.

Does Avanti make heavy use of rest day working and other overtime? If so, would abolishing the need for this save money, or is that just tweaking round the edges?

 

[Purple Orange]

Avanti is very much subsidised at present, and has been for 7 months.

Everything has been subsidised for the past 7 months. I’ve been subsidised for 7 months, but as of Monday I’ll be back to being self sufficient again. We need to think in terms of what normal looks like.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Everything has been subsidised for the past 7 months. I’ve been subsidised for 7 months, but as of Monday I’ll be back to being self sufficient again. We need to think in terms of what normal looks like.

Or "new normal" (not being used in a perjorative sense, but rather taking into account the changes to working practices which would have happened anyway but have been accelerated), which could actually mean Avanti gets busier if people move out of London and go into London 1-2 days a week, say. Avanti does carry commuters south of MKC but it isn't primarily a commuter operation, so the effect on it will massively differ from the effect on say WMT.

Even if people drive more in other contexts, people aren't going to be driving to London more, as it's grim and (ever more) expensive. So if they are going there they'll go by train. (You can forget coach for business travel).

 

[Bald Rick]

Everything has been subsidised for the past 7 months. I’ve been subsidised for 7 months, but as of Monday I’ll be back to being self sufficient again. We need to think in terms of what normal looks like.

In the current circumstances, and those reasonably forecast for the coming years, a non subsidised railway is no railway. If that’s what normal looks like, I don’t want to look.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the current circumstances, and those reasonably forecast for the coming years, a non subsidised railway is no railway. If that’s what normal looks like, I don’t want to look.

Even in the worst plausible situation (e.g. us getting something Serpell-like), the WCML isn't going to close.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does Avanti make heavy use of rest day working and other overtime? If so, would abolishing the need for this save money, or is that just tweaking round the edges?

I don’t know, but I don’t think they have more than any of the other TOCs. Clearly running without RDW and OT does save money, but it’s unlikely to be more than a % or two of a TOCs cost base.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2020 ==

Even in the worst plausible situation (e.g. us getting something Serpell-like), the WCML isn't going to close.

Oh I agree, but the point I was making is that the Avanti operation is going to need subsidy for a considerable time to come.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh I agree, but the point I was making is that the Avanti operation is going to need subsidy for a considerable time to come.

I don't disagree, I think the Government just wants to reduce the sum a bit, particularly while their main market (Manchester-London) is being asked not to travel even for leisure.

 

[30907]

If it made sense to reduce Birmingham and Manchester to 2tph, I'd rewrite the timetable completely to have something like this:

30 Chester (Crewe)
33 Liverpool (Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn)
37 Manchester (Nuneaton, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport)

Adding an extra Liverpool when you are reducing services because of low demand is a courageous idea (as Sir Humphrey might have said), and LNR might complain at the Nuneaton stop.
Stafford instead of Nuneaton on the xx37 would suffice.

But in any case, if you recast the timetable properly now you will have trouble reinstating the old version as demand recovers.