WCML Timetable Recast - 2tph Birmingham and Manchester

[Bevan Price]

That xx15 Liverpool is catching the xx10 all day long, I reckon the xx.40 is running down the xx.30 too, especially when you factor in how rubbish the approach to P1 at Rugby is. Id swap the WFJ calls in the Manchester's and push the peak Liverpool out a bit. Either that or the xx10 goes earlier. That Glasgow might catch the Liverpool too.

Yes - that xx:20 Glasgow would be sat on the tail of the xx:15 Liverpool for at least the Stafford to Crewe & Weaver Jn. section.

As for Northampton mentioned in other posts, what it really needs is for the 75 mph limit on much of the Northampton loop to be raised to 90 or 100 mph -- but presumably that would need an expensive resignalling project ?

 

[Purple Orange]

I've wondered that too.

I think the plan (on the various threads we've had) is:

* - Manchester gets too much, so we need to remove a third of their trains, yet always leave Liverpool with it's existing service (half hourly in the peak direction)

* - Wouldn't it be nice if, whilst cutting the main markets of London - Birmingham/ Manchester, we managed to massively boost the number of Long Distance High Speed services stopping at small places like Nuneaton

* - And maybe, as well as adding intermediate stops on existing services, slowed some trains down even more to take the time penalty of serving Northampton

* - Whilst cutting the busiest routes, there's never any suggestion of cutting the operationally awkward fringes (i.e. diesel services to Holyhead/ Wrexham/ Shrewsbury) for some reason. If we are slashing the flagship services between the biggest cities due to the slump caused by Covid (that we assume will continue for a few years) then you'd think there'd be corresponding cuts on the Holyhead route, since the Irish market won't be coming back in big numbers. But, no, despite the "green" credentials that some people like to shout about, we are meant to have dozens of electric carriages sat in sidings due to cutting the main services yet keep all of the direct Wrexham/ Sbrewsbury etc services?

* - Similarly, cuts don't seem to get suggested for Blackpool very often on such threads (?)

I'm not saying I agree with the above points, just trying to show my understanding of the various threads we've had - seems to be a chunk of contrary opinions that would see big cuts from London to Birmingham and Manchester yet no cuts to the Voyager services - if you wanted to take this as an opportunity to rip up the timetable and start again then I'd at least consider moving to an all electric operation and abandoning the "Nice To Have" Wrexham/ Shrewsbury services (maybe you'd have to keep the Holyhead services - Because Politics - but Wrexham/ Shrewsbury would be first to go IMHO)

This. I don’t get the desire to cut the Manchester services in the long term. Ditto Birmingham. It’s like people on a rail forum want, whom you’d think would be advocates for taking the train, wish to push people in to driving their car.

 

[Mag_seven]

This. I don’t get the desire to cut the Manchester services in the long term. Ditto Birmingham. It’s like people on a rail forum want, whom you’d think would be advocates for taking the train, wish to push people in to driving their car.

Indeed - we should be putting all our energies in getting people back onto trains having scared them off rather than accepting reduced demand as a "fait accompli".

 

[Ianno87]

This. I don’t get the desire to cut the Manchester services in the long term. Ditto Birmingham. It’s like people on a rail forum want, whom you’d think would be advocates for taking the train, wish to push people in to driving their car.

Indeed - we should be putting all our energies in getting people back onto trains having scared them off rather than accepting reduced demand as a "fait accompli".

Yep - in normal times the 3tph to each is a big driver of demand as a turn up and go service with a choice of departures, and are highly efficient with metro-like utilisation of the Pendolino fleet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep - in normal times the 3tph to each is a big driver of demand as a turn up and go service

If you're rich.

 

[Ianno87]

If you're rich.

Not sure how reducing services solves that. 3tph drives demand of people who can pay it. Which is a good thing for the railway to stand on its own two feet commercially.

Regardless a choice of departures gives choices of Advance fares around the hour, notwithstanding the Railcard-driven leisure market.

 

[Purple Orange]

Indeed - we should be putting all our energies in getting people back onto trains having scared them off rather than accepting reduced demand as a "fait accompli".

All I can conclude is that thankfully decisions are not made by a rail forum. I’m also perplexed as to where the additional demand for Liverpool & Glasgow comes from, while demand for Birmingham and Manchester is assumed to have dropped. I think it’s less about what a WCML timetable should look like in the context of covid, but what should the WCML timetable look like according to the preferences of a forumer.

 

[tbtc]

In response to tbtc above, if you look at my original post you will see I agree with you about the use of Voyagers. *Personally I would make Avanti an all-electric franchise / contract, and hand the 20 221s en bloc to the Welsh Government. Then they could decide what their priorities are in respect of linking:
1) North Wales to South Wales;
2) North Wales to Manchester and Liverpool
3) South Wales to Manchester and Liverpool
4) Chester / Wrexham / Shrewsbury to London.
By giving the responsibility (and associated costs) to the Welsh Government, that might flush out what their priorities really are. The fact that the hourly Voyager Euston - Crewe is already suspended might indicate which way the wind is blowing as regards that service group.
(*This of course assumes that I am a benevolent deity with the power to re-write contracts at will, which might be a bit of a leap of the imagination!)

Fair enough, I 'm partly responding to the general trend of such threads (and comments on other threads from people who want to reduce the flagship London - Birmingham/ Manchester services whilst maintaining the same frequencies to Shrewsbury/ Wrexham/ Holyhead etc - so it's nothing personal about your thread, but more of a general grump about the 'contrary' way that people seem keen on thinning out the main routes (which will mean dozens of 390s carriages sat idle) whilst still running diesel trains long distances on the WCML to ensure that the people of Wrexham/ Shrewsbury retain their London service (bearing in mind that a Crewe - Euston round trip must be 300 miles).

It's not just an Avanti thing - there are people on here who want to thin out the busy services and beef up the irregular services on a number of franchises (e.g. if this Forum had its way then I think we'd see TPE reducing the main Leeds - Manchester service to three or four trains per hour but increasing the Liverpool - WCML - Glasgow service to hourly... GWR would have to cut half of the London - Bristol services but massively increase the number of Bristol - Weymouth services)

As I said on one of the other threads where reducing the London - Manchester service had been suggested, my main problem with the twenty minute frequency inherited from VHF days is that it doesn't fit neatly into other services - e.g. XC have to have more like a 20/40 split at the Manchester end because that fits around the Avanti services through Stoke - I could see the merits of a proposal along the lines of amending the services to provide four trains per hour on the Birmingham and Manchester corridors by absorbing stops from some other services (e.g. if you were starting from scratch then maybe you could amend the LNW/Avanti services to provide twelve "fast" services per hour from Euston, maybe a second London - Crewe - Manchester service would take up the stops from the current TfW service through Stockport - maybe with TfW taking on stops currently served by a Northern service north of Crewe - maybe that would balance things out a bit better)...

...but simply cutting the busy electric services between cities whilst keeping all of the diesel services to much smaller places? I can't argue in favour of that.

 

[CW2]

For the sake of clarity, I am not personally advocating any change in the WCML timetable, and nor do I have any criticism of the existing timetable - which is a masterpiece which took a team of people several years to construct.
What I am querying is if the decision is taken - in the light of reduced demand - to make a permanent reduction in the number of long-distance services running on the WCML, then should that reduced timetable be merely a tweaking of the existing one (as has been done to date), or (as I am proposing here) should it be a more radical rethink of the purpose and philosophy behind the journey times and stopping patterns?

So this is very much a "what if" rather than an "I think we should ..." approach.

Anyway, with all the same caveats, here is version 2, modified in light of responses received.

Train Euston departures Calling Points
A 00 Birmingham WFJ / RUG / COV / BHI
B 07 Manchester WFJ / SOT / MAC / SPT
C 15 Liverpool (Peak) RUG / TAM / LTV / STF / CRE / RUN
D 20 Glasgow MKC / CRE / WBQ / WNW / PRE and principal stations to Glasgow
E 30 Birmingham/Scot MKC / RUG / COV / BHI / BNS / SAD / WVH / CRE and principal stations to Glasgow / Edinburgh alternate hours
F 37 Manchester MKC / CRE / WMW / SPT
G 45 Liverpool WFJ / NUN / STF / CRE / RUN
H 50 Open Access Stops to be determined

Notes:
A Existing xx:03 Birmingham path modified to call additionally at WFJ. (Unchanged)
B Existing xx:20 Manchester path modified to call additionally at WFJ and MAC, further retimed to depart xx:07.
C Modified to be the Liverpool Peak Hours path. MKC stop removed, RUG stop added. Runs SL from Tamworth down the Trent Valley, overtaken by the xx:20 Glasgow.
D Former xx:30 Glasgow path modified to call additionally at MKC and Crewe. (Unchanged).
E Existing xx:43 Birmingham/Scot path modified to call additionally at RUG. (WFJ stop removed).
F Existing xx:40 Manchester path unaltered. (Unchanged)
G Modified to be the hourly Liverpool path (instead of Peak Hours only).
H New path for Open Access or other Peak services (e.g. North Wales).

I've got all the MKC stops within 20 minutes, which is not ideal if you are looking for a fast service from Euston to MKC. However I took the view that the main reason for calling there was to provide connectivity to the north, and not merely a fast commuter service. [Puts crayons back in box]

 

[cle]

Watford doing better in Covid crayoning than real life

I think that when the 'city v city' accusations pop up, demand for Manchester being much higher than Liverpool aside - Manchester is a terminus. 2tph has to be the minimum due to the two routes. Arguably Stoke can justify 2tph toom, and the desire to keep journey times down means alternating MKC and Macclesfield.

Arguments for the Trent Valley calls can apply to both. And in the peaks, this happens well enough. Liverpool covers Stafford (which has good Manchester links otherwise) - whereas the non-stop to Crewe Manchester service acts as a second connection to North Wales. Historically Liverpool covered Nuneaton, which is now missing - but Project 110 has yielded a service basically as good, and much cheaper

 

[Bald Rick]

For the sake of clarity, I am not personally advocating any change in the WCML timetable, and nor do I have any criticism of the existing timetable - which is a masterpiece which took a team of people several years to construct.
What I am querying is if the decision is taken - in the light of reduced demand - to make a permanent reduction in the number of long-distance services running on the WCML, then should that reduced timetable be merely a tweaking of the existing one (as has been done to date), or (as I am proposing here) should it be a more radical rethink of the purpose and philosophy behind the journey times and stopping patterns?

So this is very much a "what if" rather than an "I think we should ..." approach.

Anyway, with all the same caveats, here is version 2, modified in light of responses received.

Train Euston departures Calling Points
A 00 Birmingham WFJ / RUG / COV / BHI
B 07 Manchester WFJ / SOT / MAC / SPT
C 15 Liverpool (Peak) RUG / TAM / LTV / STF / CRE / RUN
D 20 Glasgow MKC / CRE / WBQ / WNW / PRE and principal stations to Glasgow
E 30 Birmingham/Scot MKC / RUG / COV / BHI / BNS / SAD / WVH / CRE and principal stations to Glasgow / Edinburgh alternate hours
F 37 Manchester MKC / CRE / WMW / SPT
G 45 Liverpool WFJ / NUN / STF / CRE / RUN
H 50 Open Access Stops to be determined

Notes:
A Existing xx:03 Birmingham path modified to call additionally at WFJ. (Unchanged)
B Existing xx:20 Manchester path modified to call additionally at WFJ and MAC, further retimed to depart xx:07.
C Modified to be the Liverpool Peak Hours path. MKC stop removed, RUG stop added. Runs SL from Tamworth down the Trent Valley, overtaken by the xx:20 Glasgow.
D Former xx:30 Glasgow path modified to call additionally at MKC and Crewe. (Unchanged).
E Existing xx:43 Birmingham/Scot path modified to call additionally at RUG. (WFJ stop removed).
F Existing xx:40 Manchester path unaltered. (Unchanged)
G Modified to be the hourly Liverpool path (instead of Peak Hours only).
H New path for Open Access or other Peak services (e.g. North Wales).

I've got all the MKC stops within 20 minutes, which is not ideal if you are looking for a fast service from Euston to MKC. However I took the view that the main reason for calling there was to provide connectivity to the north, and not merely a fast commuter service. [Puts crayons back in box]

Where do the LNWR services fit in?

And there’s still too many calls at Watford and Nuneaton (and Rugby, assuming there is an LNWR service).

 

[Purple Orange]

I could see the merits of a proposal along the lines of amending the services to provide four trains per hour on the Birmingham and Manchester corridors by absorbing stops from some other services (e.g. if you were starting from scratch then maybe you could amend the LNW/Avanti services to provide twelve "fast" services per hour from Euston, maybe a second London - Crewe - Manchester service would take up the stops from the current TfW service through Stockport - maybe with TfW taking on stops currently served by a Northern service north of Crewe - maybe that would balance things out a bit better)...

But then what would happen to the existing northern service, or are you meaning in addition to? We could still end up with the same level of diesel running between Crewe and Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

Where do the LNWR services fit in?

And there’s still too many calls at Watford and Nuneaton (and Rugby, assuming there is an LNWR service).

To be fair, its just the one on that list at Nuneaton, but that could be what you meant

 

[CW2]

Nuneaton serves as a useful railhead for connections to the East Midlands, as well as a (relatively small) town in its own right.
Rugby loads quite well, and could do with a regular fast service beyond Birmingham.
I stick with the level of WFJ stops proposed, as I believe there may be suppressed demand there.

 

[Purple Orange]

Given that Liverpool is getting 2 tph going forward, is there any need to be seeking a recast? Avanti will be providing a fairly comprehensive service level to the major cities, which is it’s remit after all.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I doubt anyone has any appetite for a "major" recast for the immediate moment , and I hold back some observations on particular calls. One observation that there is a likely greater demand in flows to and from Watford to the West Midlands as particular as the commute is not impossible even now and with crazy London house prices and the affordability of London housing being "low" , (2 bedroom flats in the Jewellry Quarter for £210K - half the price of London) I can see some hope in growing this market in the medium term. You would not build a compelling business case on this basis , but there we are. Not much else around at the moment.

Most of you are very well aware of the role in both operating part of the WCML and planning the recovery of the WCML upgrade (and many other areas !) , I did .A very hard job and much was underwritten by the best possible passenger demand work and resource planning we could find the time to do. Never has the word compromise been so used , for so long.

The smaller stations and flows caused the highest level of "user and stakeholder angst" - and work. I raise you Fflint , Holyhead , Lockerby, (Oxenholme) - links such as Coventry to Milton Keynes , Crewe to Warrington being particularly tricky. Not to mention "fast" Northampton and MK stops in peak directions , cross city Wolverhampton - Coventry all stations , and the whole cats cradle around Crewe and Manchester - not forgetting the tightness of Manchester - Crewe - Cardiff and beyond.

So , good luck on idea formulation. We haven't even mentioned freight yet , sleepers , mails and the importance of journey times (for all)

 

[Bald Rick]

To be fair, its just the one on that list at Nuneaton, but that could be what you meant

I did. Insufficient demand today, services being retrenched as there’s fewer passengers, so add a call?

Nuneaton serves as a useful railhead for connections to the East Midlands, as well as a (relatively small) town in its own right.

Which the LNWR service covers more than adequately. There really is very little demand from WCML destinations to the ‘East Midlands’ via Nuneaton, and never has been.

Rugby loads quite well, and could do with a regular fast service beyond Birmingham

Coventry loads quite well, so does Stoke, and Birmingham International, Etc. They are losing service. So why not Rugby?

I stick with the level of WFJ stops proposed, as I believe there may be suppressed demand there

Not enough to justify stops today (other than in the Birmingham), and with fewer passengers around you can be sure there will be less justification in future. I use Watford to New St regularly, and in normal times it’s rare for more than 20 people to be boarding there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not enough to justify stops today (other than in the Birmingham), and with fewer passengers around you can be sure there will be less justification in future. I use Watford to New St regularly, and in normal times it’s rare for more than 20 people to be boarding there.

Part of that might be because for a shorter journey the LNR Only fares to Brum are attractive.

 

[Bald Rick]

Part of that might be because for a shorter journey the LNR Only fares to Brum are attractive.

Maybe, but a much more significant part is that London and it’s hinterland has about 20 times as many people as Watford and it’s hinterland!

 

[HS2isgood]

For the sake of clarity, I am not personally advocating any change in the WCML timetable, and nor do I have any criticism of the existing timetable - which is a masterpiece which took a team of people several years to construct.
What I am querying is if the decision is taken - in the light of reduced demand - to make a permanent reduction in the number of long-distance services running on the WCML, then should that reduced timetable be merely a tweaking of the existing one (as has been done to date), or (as I am proposing here) should it be a more radical rethink of the purpose and philosophy behind the journey times and stopping patterns?

So this is very much a "what if" rather than an "I think we should ..." approach.

Anyway, with all the same caveats, here is version 2, modified in light of responses received.

Train Euston departures Calling Points
A 00 Birmingham WFJ / RUG / COV / BHI
B 07 Manchester WFJ / SOT / MAC / SPT
C 15 Liverpool (Peak) RUG / TAM / LTV / STF / CRE / RUN
D 20 Glasgow MKC / CRE / WBQ / WNW / PRE and principal stations to Glasgow
E 30 Birmingham/Scot MKC / RUG / COV / BHI / BNS / SAD / WVH / CRE and principal stations to Glasgow / Edinburgh alternate hours
F 37 Manchester MKC / CRE / WMW / SPT
G 45 Liverpool WFJ / NUN / STF / CRE / RUN
H 50 Open Access Stops to be determined

Notes:
A Existing xx:03 Birmingham path modified to call additionally at WFJ. (Unchanged)
B Existing xx:20 Manchester path modified to call additionally at WFJ and MAC, further retimed to depart xx:07.
C Modified to be the Liverpool Peak Hours path. MKC stop removed, RUG stop added. Runs SL from Tamworth down the Trent Valley, overtaken by the xx:20 Glasgow.
D Former xx:30 Glasgow path modified to call additionally at MKC and Crewe. (Unchanged).
E Existing xx:43 Birmingham/Scot path modified to call additionally at RUG. (WFJ stop removed).
F Existing xx:40 Manchester path unaltered. (Unchanged)
G Modified to be the hourly Liverpool path (instead of Peak Hours only).
H New path for Open Access or other Peak services (e.g. North Wales).

I've got all the MKC stops within 20 minutes, which is not ideal if you are looking for a fast service from Euston to MKC. However I took the view that the main reason for calling there was to provide connectivity to the north, and not merely a fast commuter service. [Puts crayons back in box]

Sorry bc I'm new in here, but what is WFJ? I guess it's in the wcml before Rugby.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry bc I'm new in here, but what is WFJ? I guess it's in the wcml before Rugby.

Watford Junction.

 

[Ianno87]

Part of that might be because for a shorter journey the LNR Only fares to Brum are attractive.

Watford Junction stops have never been massively loaded, even before the lure of LM/LNW's cheap fares. Back in late 2008 (pre-VHF timetable) I boarded an evening peak Euston-Manchester service at Watford (when it got a two-hourly Manchester call). I recall there were less than 10 of us on the platform.

 

[Purple Orange]

I doubt anyone has any appetite for a "major" recast for the immediate moment , and I hold back some observations on particular calls. One observation that there is a likely greater demand in flows to and from Watford to the West Midlands as particular as the commute is not impossible even now and with crazy London house prices and the affordability of London housing being "low" , (2 bedroom flats in the Jewellry Quarter for £210K - half the price of London) I can see some hope in growing this market in the medium term. You would not build a compelling business case on this basis , but there we are. Not much else around at the moment.

Most of you are very well aware of the role in both operating part of the WCML and planning the recovery of the WCML upgrade (and many other areas !) , I did .A very hard job and much was underwritten by the best possible passenger demand work and resource planning we could find the time to do. Never has the word compromise been so used , for so long.

The smaller stations and flows caused the highest level of "user and stakeholder angst" - and work. I raise you Fflint , Holyhead , Lockerby, (Oxenholme) - links such as Coventry to Milton Keynes , Crewe to Warrington being particularly tricky. Not to mention "fast" Northampton and MK stops in peak directions , cross city Wolverhampton - Coventry all stations , and the whole cats cradle around Crewe and Manchester - not forgetting the tightness of Manchester - Crewe - Cardiff and beyond.

So , good luck on idea formulation. We haven't even mentioned freight yet , sleepers , mails and the importance of journey times (for all)

I’m very sceptical of the idea of there being large numbers of people commuting from Birmingham to London due to the house price differential - even post HS2. The cost of a season ticket is £7,700 including tube (excl. Avanti) or £11,900 if you want to travel with Avanti, which is the only realistic way to commute from Brum. Therefore you could either buy a cheaper flat in Birmingham and spend longer on the train, or use a big chunk of that £1,000 per month to fund a larger mortgage for a flat in or near to London. Plus to afford the £11,900 season ticket, you’d need to be on a pretty decent salary to begin with.

 

[OnTripsJen]

I would rather see ICWC serve MKC every 10 minutes than trying to maximize the number of paths with stops at WFJ.

Actually! Even I've did this so. It's a convenient option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m very sceptical of the idea of there being large numbers of people commuting from Birmingham to London due to the house price differential - even post HS2. The cost of a season ticket is £7,700 including tube (excl. Avanti) or £11,900 if you want to travel with Avanti, which is the only realistic way to commute from Brum. Therefore you could either buy a cheaper flat in Birmingham and spend longer on the train, or use a big chunk of that £1,000 per month to fund a larger mortgage for a flat in or near to London. Plus to afford the £11,900 season ticket, you’d need to be on a pretty decent salary to begin with.

It's not the London-Brum house price differential that is considerable, really. It's London-<not London> - and prices in Brum aren't markedly lower than say Northampton. So I wouldn't think there are many daily Brum-London commuters at all - they will exist, usually because of job relocations or similar needs - but there won't be many.

There will be even fewer, if any, Brum-Watford commuters, as Watford isn't really a centre of high-wage employment you need to pay those season ticket prices.

You will get people living in Brum who spend 1 or 2 days a week in a London office, but you'll get them in Manchester, Bristol, Liverpool, Preston, wherever. Journey time becomes less important then, especially if it's possible to work on the train.

 

[cle]

Watford Junction stops have never been massively loaded, even before the lure of LM/LNW's cheap fares. Back in late 2008 (pre-VHF timetable) I boarded an evening peak Euston-Manchester service at Watford (when it got a two-hourly Manchester call). I recall there were less than 10 of us on the platform.

I'm sorry, but this isn't true, or anecdotal to that one occasion at best. Watford was historically a big draw on the WCML. I used it a lot (growing up in NW London, it was often quicker and less faff than via Euston). Every two hours, there were trains to Liverpool, Manchester and Lancs/Glasgow (they used to alternate with Milton Keynes) - and it was a very established railhead for a big area. Always well used.

After HS2, this may well return. Demand is there, for sure - at least for an hourly to Manchester as is planned.

Usage is at ~8.5m for last year (whereas MKC scraped 7m, with much better inter city service).

Sadly, I think the Met extension would have exploded this purpose for WFJ even more, linking it better with the LBs of Brent, Harrow and also Three Rivers. That's nearly 700k people. And before crayoning in Chiltern opps too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Usage is at ~8.5m for last year (whereas MKC scraped 7m, with much better inter city service).

And about 95% of that will be to London, which doesn't involve Avanti at all.

MKC will have less London commuting than Watford because it has more local employment plus it's closer to Brum so some will commute there. Also don't forget that Wolverton and Bletchley split the London market in three (Bushey probably splits WFJ a bit, to be fair, but because of the poor service probably not to the same extent). So really for London commuting (which is mostly not involving Avanti anyway) you're comparing Bushey+WFJ with Wolverton+MKC+Bletchley.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm sorry, but this isn't true, or anecdotal to that one occasion at best. Watford was historically a big draw on the WCML. I used it a lot (growing up in NW London, it was often quicker and less faff than via Euston). Every two hours, there were trains to Liverpool, Manchester and Lancs/Glasgow (they used to alternate with Milton Keynes) - and it was a very established railhead for a big area. Always well used.

After HS2, this may well return. Demand is there, for sure - at least for an hourly to Manchester as is planned.

Usage is at ~8.5m for last year (whereas MKC scraped 7m, with much better inter city service).

Sadly, I think the Met extension would have exploded this purpose for WFJ even more, linking it better with the LBs of Brent, Harrow and also Three Rivers. That's nearly 700k people. And before crayoning in Chiltern opps too.

Watford stops kind of are a throwback to the days of picking up paper timetables from the rack of your local station and seeing "look, I can get my mum to drop me off at Watford".

Nowadays, people put it in the journey planner and it tells them to head into London and out of Euston, and that's what they do.

Quoting usage figures isn't very informative, given that Watford usage is so heavily dominated by demand to/from London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2020 ==

And about 95% of that will be to London, which doesn't involve Avanti at all.

MKC will have less London commuting than Watford because it has more local employment plus it's closer to Brum so some will commute there. Also don't forget that Wolverton and Bletchley split the London market in three (Bushey probably splits WFJ a bit, to be fair, but because of the poor service probably not to the same extent). So really for London you're comparing Bushey+WFJ with Wolverton+MKC+Bletchley.

That's an important point - Watford-North and MK-North are very different markets.

MK is about connecting MK based employers and the Oxford-Cambridge arc. Watford is about saving people a trip into London to get a train.

 

[cle]

The Oxford - Cambridge arc doesn't really exist yet, not in rail terms. And the journey planner would show Watford as a potential option if it had the calls, and was included in a "LON" type code (per the airports) against key WCML destinations.

I agree on a bit of "drop me at Watford mum" - my dad did that for me often as it was far easier than heading to Euston. I went to uni in Manchester and stayed on for a while.

Watford has northbound demand also. And a lot of big employers in Watford itself, so there is plenty of inbound, from both northwards and from London/counter commuting, including the Southern service and the options that creates. It's not as simple as a dormitory pattern (e.g. Leighton Buzzard or Harpenden), it is much more nuanced.

And MKC has a massive amount of London and London/counter commuting too. I would think not too different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Oxford - Cambridge arc doesn't really exist yet, not in rail terms. And the journey planner would show Watford as a potential option if it had the calls, and was included in a "LON" type code (per the airports) against key WCML destinations.

It isn't London, those for whom it's useful would know to put it into the planner themselves. Imagine how confusing it'd get if we did that on all lines. It'd lead to things like Slough, Stratford, Stevenage, East Croydon or whatever counting as London, and that'd be downright silly.