WMT to Manchester and Cross Country avoiding Birmingham

[Philip]

I'm just wondering what people think about these two proposals; the likelihood of either happening either in the short or long term and the pros and cons:

Reinstating the second Cross Country service out of Manchester, once the new stock arrives and there are enough units to cover this, as well as continuing to run the hourly Birmingham in 8-10 coach formations.
However, whilst the service to the South West would continue to run via Birmingham, the Bournemouth would avoid Birmingham and instead run through the Trent Valley to Nuneaton, where it would branch off to Coventry and then continue on its present route. The advantages of this are obvious; faster journey times between Coventry southards and Manchester, possible new regular service between Trent Valley towns and Manchester. However it would reduce the service between Oxford and Birmingham.

Secondly, extending the London-Crewe LNWR service northwards to Manchester, or even onwards to Bolton and Preston if capacity allows. This again would create new connections between Manchester and the Trent Valley; an alternative cheaper route to London without having to change. This would either be an additional Manchester to Crewe service, or it could replace the TfW which could run via Warrington.

 

[JonathanH]

Reinstating the second Cross Country service out of Manchester

I think it will become established that running a single 8-10 coach train once an hour between Manchester and Birmingham offers a better and more sustainable service than two 4-coach trains an hour.

However it would reduce the service between Oxford and Birmingham.

I don't think that removing this is going to be a runner, particularly if, as seems likely, the Reading to Newcastle service isn't restored. There doesn't appear to be any sizeable flow between the Trent Valley stations and Manchester and it would seem much more important to maintain the link to Birmingham from the Oxford route than to speed up journeys to Manchester.

The advantages of this are obvious; faster journey times between Coventry southards and Manchester, possible new regular service between Trent Valley towns and Manchester.

Is this a stopper in the Trent Valley or a fast? Running via Nuneaton and then stopping at Tamworth and Lichfield is going to slow it up.

Secondly, extending the London-Crewe LNWR service northwards to Manchester, or even onwards to Bolton and Preston if capacity allows. This again would create new connections between Manchester and the Trent Valley; an alternative cheaper route to London without having to change

Does this require more subsidy? Is the creation of an 'alternative cheaper route' primarily abstractive? If either of those things is true, then LNR Crewe services should not be extended. There is no way it is going through the Castlefield corridor either.

This would either be an additional Manchester to Crewe service, or it could replace the TfW which could run via Warrington

The TfW can't go via Warrington - there isn't capacity on the approaches to Manchester.

 

[Falcon1200]

I think it will become established that running a single 8-10 coach train once an hour between Manchester and Birmingham offers a better and more sustainable service than two 4-coach trains an hour.

There would then be either an hourly service between Manchester/Reading/South Coast or Manchester/Bristol/South West; Or alternatively two-hourly if both routes are to be served, instead of the hourly service on both routes pre-Covid. And from experience the Reading/Oxford/Birmingham corridor definitely supports two trains per hour. I'm hopeful, but not confident, that the pre-Covid TT will eventually be restored.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Abstractive no longer matters (other than open access) as franchises are no longer a thing.

I firmly agree with "long trains less frequently" over "short trains more frequently", so maybe keeping it hourly but 10-car is the way to go. I am not sure the additional service is justified, least of all avoiding the UK's second biggest city.

If extending the LNR I'd be inclined to consider Carlisle - that stretch has needed a proper hourly all stations local service for years - or Liverpool (instead of the second Avanti). Manchester already has 3tph to London, and those wishing to travel on a budget can (and do) change at Crewe.

 

[Philip]

I think it will become established that running a single 8-10 coach train once an hour between Manchester and Birmingham offers a better and more sustainable service than two 4-coach trains an hour.


I don't think that removing this is going to be a runner, particularly if, as seems likely, the Reading to Newcastle service isn't restored. There doesn't appear to be any sizeable flow between the Trent Valley stations and Manchester and it would seem much more important to maintain the link to Birmingham from the Oxford route than to speed up journeys to Manchester.


Is this a stopper in the Trent Valley or a fast? Running via Nuneaton and then stopping at Tamworth and Lichfield is going to slow it up.


Does this require more subsidy? Is the creation of an 'alternative cheaper route' primarily abstractive? If either of those things is true, then LNR Crewe services should not be extended. There is no way it is going through the Castlefield corridor either.


The TfW can't go via Warrington - there isn't capacity on the approaches to Manchester.

The Trent Valley-Manchester market might not be strong, but what about Reading, Oxford, Banbury and Coventry to Manchester? It would improve things considerably for passengers going all the way if the service didn't run through Birmingham. I don't know how many paths are free on the Chiltern or Cherwell Valley lines, but again with new rolling stock for Chiltern and CC, this problem could be solved by running a new shuttle between Reading-Oxford-Birmingham, either into New Street or Snow Hill.
I was thinking the re-routed service could avoid Stafford and run fast from Stoke to Nuneaton.

The LNWR proposal wouldn't really be abstractive, because the Avanti service would still be a lot quicker and more attractive to passengers. You could make the abstractive argument about the service in its present form, as it is an alternative and cheaper route for Crewe passengers.

The TfW could run into Victoria without causing too much trouble. The MRTF proposals could free up enough capacity to allow this and new services from the south to pass through Castlefield northwards, but I concede this would be an extra; the focus would be extending LNWR from Crewe to serve Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester.

 

[JonathanH]

I don't know how many paths are free on the Chiltern or Cherwell Valley lines

The MRTF proposals could free up enough capacity

The whole point though of having free paths, is not to refill them with new services, but to build reliability by having space in the timetable.

The Trent Valley-Manchester market might not be strong, but what about Reading, Oxford, Banbury and Coventry to Manchester? It would improve things considerably for passengers going all the way if the service didn't run through Birmingham.

I'd imagine that they aren't significant enough to justify a full length train. The compromise is to combine Reading, Oxford to Birmingham passengers with Birmingham to Manchester passengers with the Reading and Oxford to Manchester passengers to fill the train.

The LNWR proposal wouldn't really be abstractive, because the Avanti service would still be a lot quicker and more attractive to passengers. You could make the abstractive argument about the service in its present form, as it is an alternative and cheaper route for Crewe passengers.

Indeed you could make that argument about the present day LNR service. I'd imagine that the Treasury and operators are looking the the LNR services and wondering whether there is more revenue that could be gained at an overall level on the relevant routes by removing the operator-specific fares. At the moment, they make sense for LNR because they only get a certain proportion of the Any Permitted fare, but in a combined railway, they won't make any sense at all. If the suggestion is that the extension of Trent Valley services to Manchester is only going to be revenue positive if cheaper fares are offered then it isn't a good idea to extend the services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed you could make that argument about the present day LNR service. I'd imagine that the Treasury and operators are looking the the LNR services and wondering whether there is more revenue that could be gained at an overall level on the relevant routes by removing the operator-specific fares. At the moment, they make sense for LNR because they only get a certain proportion of the Any Permitted fare, but in a combined railway, they won't make any sense at all. If the suggestion is that the extension of Trent Valley services to Manchester is only going to be revenue positive if cheaper fares are offered then it isn't a good idea to extend the services.

Part of the lower fares is to compensate for the inferior service compared with the mainline. If I was paying the "Pendolino rate" I would want a Pendolino.

This is one reason I remain in favour of "regional trains only" discounts on some routes.

 

[Bald Rick]

The advantages of this are obvious; faster journey times between Coventry southards and Manchester,

How much faster? By my rough look at the planning rules, it would be the same time assuming stops at Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Stafford, and 10 minutes quicker if Stafford was avoided. And that assumes a clean path, which given it has to cross Coventry and Nuneaton on the flat is highly unlikely.

The disadvantages, though, are very obvious. Halving the direct links from everywhere south of Coventry to Birmingham and Birmingham International, removing them entirely to Wolverhampton and possibly Stafford. And halving the service between the UKs 2nd and 3rd largest metropolitan areas.

Why anyone would think this is a good idea is beyond me.

even onwards to Bolton and Preston if capacity allows

Capacity doesn’t allow.

 

[cle]

What about the path out of Birmingham to Coventry and down to Oxford. You would want something taking that up to fill in all the various intermediate journeys you are removing. A Birmingham-Oxford (Chiltern platforms) or Reading if you could path it, at minimum.

If something like this was done, I'd think better to wait until EWR and at least add MKC to the mix - but as an additional frequency. May only be possible after HS2, when XC/Avanti services reduce out of Piccadilly and new paths towards Crewe and Stoke open up.

 

[The Planner]

Mental

 

[A0]

Mental

I take it you don't think this suggestion has any merit then ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2021 ==

If extending the LNR I'd be inclined to consider Carlisle - that stretch has needed a proper hourly all stations local service for years -

Go on - humour us - where is this pent up demand for an hourly all stations service between Crewe and Carlisle ?

 

[PHILIPE]

Cross Country have a hub where everything passes through and provides connections countrywide - Birmingham New St

 

[Purple Orange]

I’m torn on this.

On the one hand, I think an hourly double voyager (should really be a train with pendolino capacity) could work, which in turn could free up a path for an additional commuter service in to both Manchester & Birmingham.

On the other hand, two city regions of almost 3 million people each, only 90 miles apart should be better served than 1 train per hour.

I don’t think (until HS2 changes everything) that we should have cross country avoiding Birmingham.

 

[adrock1976]

I take it you don't think this suggestion has any merit then ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2021 ==



Go on - humour us - where is this pent up demand for an hourly all stations service between Crewe and Carlisle ?

Although maybe not intended for a straight end to end journey, there would be at least a couple of flows that are not possible to do at this moment in time, such as Hartford - Warrington Bank Quay (and points north), and Earlestown/Newton-le-Willows - Wigan North Western (and points north). The M6 is close by, hence with those journeys not possible to do by rail, it would not encourage people to leave cars at home and use public transport.

Also Lancaster University if a station is ever opened there as it would be highly unlikely (read: Greater chance of finding Elvis still alive and well hiding in the broom cupboard at Prestwick Airport) that both HS2 and the traditional InterCity trains would call there.

 

[Philip]

Mental

Not a particularly constructive response to what I think are very credible proposals, whether or not they 'work' or not.

 

[507020]

Although maybe not intended for a straight end to end journey, there would be at least a couple of flows that are not possible to do at this moment in time, such as Hartford - Warrington Bank Quay (and points north), and Earlestown/Newton-le-Willows - Wigan North Western (and points north). The M6 is close by, hence with those journeys not possible to do by rail, it would not encourage people to leave cars at home and use public transport.

Also Lancaster University if a station is ever opened there as it would be highly unlikely (read: Greater chance of finding Elvis still alive and well hiding in the broom cupboard at Prestwick Airport) that both HS2 and the traditional InterCity trains would call there.

I don’t understand why there isn’t a WCML all stations service. There’s more that isn’t possible besides Acton Bridge/Hartford/Winsford - Warrington Bank Quay avoiding Liverpool or Warrington Bank Quay - Wigan North Western via Earlestown/Newton-le-Willows and more importantly Golborne. What about anyone wanting to get from those stations to Leyland, Euxton Balshaw Lane or Coppull.

I would introduce an hourly all stops service from Euston to Glasgow Central calling at Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamstead, Tring, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Rugeley Trent Valley (or alternatively all stops via Birmingham New Street rather than the Trent Valley), Stafford, Stone, Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe, Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Golborne, Wigan North Western, Coppull, Euxton Balshaw Lane, Leyland, Preston, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Hest Bank, Carnforth, Oxenholme, Tebay, Shap, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Carstairs, Carluke, Wishaw, Shieldmuir, Motherwell, Bellshill, Uddingston, Newton, and Cambuslang, if not any other new/reopened stations along the route. Perhaps a loop could be constructed to allow this service to additionally serve Gretna Green.

You could charge an extremely cheap fare for a painfully slow journey between main centres also served by InterCity services, but also allow all possible combinations of intermediate journeys which otherwise aren’t possible, as well as being able to remove the Lockerbie/Motherwell calls from TransPennine Express services.

 

[JonathanH]

You could charge an extremely cheap fare for a painfully slow journey between main centres also served by InterCity services,

No you couldn't. People really have to get away from the idea that slow = cheap.

This service would a) cost more to provide because the rolling stock and traincrew work fewer end to end services, and b) have limited demand.

 

[The Planner]

Not a particularly constructive response to what I think are very credible proposals, whether or not they 'work' or not.

As others have said, why would XC want to miss out their largest markets and connectivity? There has been absolutely nothing to stop them doing this in the past, they haven't, there is a reason for that...

 

[JonathanH]

As others have said, why would XC want to miss out their largest markets and connectivity? There has been absolutely nothing to stop them doing this in the past, they haven't, there is a reason for that...

"Nothing to stop them" - presumably the specification XC have bid against requires a minimum level of service to go via Birmingham.

At which franchise renewal could bidders have actually proposed a service via the Trent Valley? Would it have been on an 'open access' basis? I doubt it was part of the Operation Princess vision in the Virgin proposal and it seems that the 2007 franchise specification was fairly tightly defined in the light of the capacity issues which had arisen by then and the desire to use 221s in the West Coast franchise.

 

[tbtc]

The problem with these kind of ideas (generally, I mean, I'm not picking apart the OP's suggestions particularly) is that the plans for a faster A-C service (or at least a train from A to C that avoids B) is that you then end up filling in lots of other "gaps" to cover the existing links that you've replaced (you need a new service from A-B and a new service from B-C, which means additional paths at both A and C).

For example, there are regular suggestions on here for regular daytime services from Cardiff to Pembrokeshire. But, since those services currently run via Swansea, there's then also suggestions for Cardiff - Swansea services and Swansea - Pembrokeshire services to ensure that existing links aren't reduced.

Run XC services via Pontefract (as is sometimes suggested) and you lose the Birmingham/ Sheffield - Leeds market and the Leeds - Edinburgh market, so generally the thread sees suggestions for additional services to fill these gaps

In this thread, we'd divert the Manchester - Bournemouth service away from Birmingham, but if you then need an additional hourly path over Stockport Viaduct (for the extended Euston - Crewe service to get to Piccadilly) and then an additional hourly path from Birmingham to Oxford, plus maybe you'd also need something to fill the gap from Stafford to Wolverhampton/ Birmingham... all of a sudden you're running a number of additional trains just to fill all of the links that your marginally faster service no longer does

However, the idea of running an all-stops service on the (mainly) two track railway from Crewe to Carlisle, given how carefully pathed services already have to be to deal with freight over Shap etc... I really can't see the point (unless there's some misplaces nostalgia for FNW's crayoning twenty-odd years ago?) - which pairs of current stations are missing a reasonable service at the moment? Is there a huge untapped Warrington - Penrith demand? Because you're going to have a lot of angry people if your justification is "...this allows us to remove Warrington/ Wigan/ Lancaster/ Oxenholme/ Penrith services from the current London trains"!

 

[Philip]

If the capacity allowed then I think the best thing would be separate shuttle services between Reading and Birmingham and then between Birmingham and Manchester. The Manchester to South Coast services are compromised by having go through Birmingham - slower and less reliable because of conflicts.

 

[daveo]

I don’t understand why there isn’t a WCML all stations service. There’s more that isn’t possible besides Acton Bridge/Hartford/Winsford - Warrington Bank Quay avoiding Liverpool or Warrington Bank Quay - Wigan North Western via Earlestown/Newton-le-Willows and more importantly Golborne. What about anyone wanting to get from those stations to Leyland, Euxton Balshaw Lane or Coppull.

I would introduce an hourly all stops service from Euston to Glasgow Central calling at Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamstead, Tring, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Rugeley Trent Valley (or alternatively all stops via Birmingham New Street rather than the Trent Valley), Stafford, Stone, Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe, Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Golborne, Wigan North Western, Coppull, Euxton Balshaw Lane, Leyland, Preston, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Hest Bank, Carnforth, Oxenholme, Tebay, Shap, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Carstairs, Carluke, Wishaw, Shieldmuir, Motherwell, Bellshill, Uddingston, Newton, and Cambuslang, if not any other new/reopened stations along the route. Perhaps a loop could be constructed to allow this service to additionally serve Gretna Green.

You could charge an extremely cheap fare for a painfully slow journey between main centres also served by InterCity services, but also allow all possible combinations of intermediate journeys which otherwise aren’t possible, as well as being able to remove the Lockerbie/Motherwell calls from TransPennine Express services.

Would the morning departure be a sleeper?????

 

[507020]

No you couldn't. People really have to get away from the idea that slow = cheap.

This service would a) cost more to provide because the rolling stock and traincrew work fewer end to end services, and b) have limited demand.

Slow has to equal cheap when fast is available otherwise no one will pick the slow option. The rolling stock could be freed up by abolishing services which currently run all stops for a short distance and replacing them with one that runs the full length of the West Coast Main Line.

When LNWR ran a (mostly) all stops “slow” service from Liverpool to Euston, there were posters all over Liverpool advertising that the cheapest Super Off Peak fare was under £20, compared to almost £100 on what was then still the Virgin Trains “fast” service.

However, the idea of running an all-stops service on the (mainly) two track railway from Crewe to Carlisle, given how carefully pathed services already have to be to deal with freight over Shap etc... I really can't see the point (unless there's some misplaces nostalgia for FNW's crayoning twenty-odd years ago?) - which pairs of current stations are missing a reasonable service at the moment? Is there a huge untapped Warrington - Penrith demand? Because you're going to have a lot of angry people if your justification is "...this allows us to remove Warrington/ Wigan/ Lancaster/ Oxenholme/ Penrith services from the current London trains"!

So the answer to this must be to quadruple all the way to Carlisle. I have checked some early 20th century Ordnance Survey maps and unfortunately, it appears that north of Preston, there were never 4 tracks throughout. If the cost of quadrupling the entire line is prohibitive, the best solution may be to provide stations at locations such as Shap and Tebay as I have suggested, with passing loops to at least partially solve some of the capacity issues this would introduce, even if my new service has to sit and wait for half an hour at Tebay for a freight train to pass it for example.

If the capacity allowed then I think the best thing would be separate shuttle services between Reading and Birmingham and then between Birmingham and Manchester. The Manchester to South Coast services are compromised by having go through Birmingham - slower and less reliable because of conflicts.

I’m guessing you regularly use the CrossCountry to travel from Manchester to the South West and have experienced issues passing through Birmingham. If you were to run a faster Manchester service that ran via the Trent Valley as far as Nuneaton, avoiding Birmingham, additional Birmingham - Oxford paths could be provided by reopening the line from Stratford-upon-Avon to Honeybourne.

Would the morning departure be a sleeper?????

This is a very good idea. Perhaps this exactly what’s needed to differentiate such a slow service from the fast expresses and create a market for it.

 

[the sniper]

I would introduce an hourly all stops service from Euston to Glasgow Central calling at Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamstead, Tring, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Rugeley Trent Valley (or alternatively all stops via Birmingham New Street rather than the Trent Valley), Stafford, Stone, Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe, Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Golborne, Wigan North Western, Coppull, Euxton Balshaw Lane, Leyland, Preston, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Hest Bank, Carnforth, Oxenholme, Tebay, Shap, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Carstairs, Carluke, Wishaw, Shieldmuir, Motherwell, Bellshill, Uddingston, Newton, and Cambuslang, if not any other new/reopened stations along the route. Perhaps a loop could be constructed to allow this service to additionally serve Gretna Green.

You could charge an extremely cheap fare for a painfully slow journey between main centres also served by InterCity services, but also allow all possible combinations of intermediate journeys which otherwise aren’t possible, as well as being able to remove the Lockerbie/Motherwell calls from TransPennine Express services.

You should call this service the 'Delay Repayer'! You won't need the cheap fares.

 

[JonathanH]

Slow has to equal cheap when fast is available otherwise no one will pick the slow option.

I agree with that much but the point is whether the railway will be making money as a result or a loss. There is no point running slow services to make a loss.

To date, it has made sense for LNR and its predecessors to offer cheap fares because of the amount they get allocated from the 'Any Permitted' fares. However, in the future, with GBR setting the fares and a lot of public complaints about 'complicated' fares it will not be in the interests of the railway to offer those operator restricted fares. If that means fewer people travel but at higher fares the railway may make more money overall. One person paying £100 beats four paying £20 (and there may be the added bonus for the railway of not incurring the cost of running the slower service or reducing frequency / capacity).

 

[A0]

I would introduce an hourly all stops service from Euston to Glasgow Central calling at Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamstead, Tring, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Rugeley Trent Valley (or alternatively all stops via Birmingham New Street rather than the Trent Valley), Stafford, Stone, Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe, Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Golborne, Wigan North Western, Coppull, Euxton Balshaw Lane, Leyland, Preston, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Hest Bank, Carnforth, Oxenholme, Tebay, Shap, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Carstairs, Carluke, Wishaw, Shieldmuir, Motherwell, Bellshill, Uddingston, Newton, and Cambuslang, if not any other new/reopened stations along the route. Perhaps a loop could be constructed to allow this service to additionally serve Gretna Green.

What a lack of ambition, surely it could also serve Bushey and Harrow & Wealdstone the latter providing an essential link to the Bakerloo line. At a push you could add Wembley Central to cover any demand from people heading to the football as well.

I assume you were planning to use 442s for this service on a push/pull basis with Class 87s repatriated from Bulgaria?

 

[507020]

I agree with that much but the point is whether the railway will be making money as a result or a loss. There is no point running slow services to make a loss.

To date, it has made sense for LNR and its predecessors to offer cheap fares because of the amount they get allocated from the 'Any Permitted' fares. However, in the future, with GBR setting the fares and a lot of public complaints about 'complicated' fares it will not be in the interests of the railway to offer those operator restricted fares. If that means fewer people travel but at higher fares the railway may make more money overall. One person paying £100 beats four paying £20 (and there may be the added bonus for the railway of not incurring the cost of running the slower service or reducing frequency / capacity).

It is not in the interests of the railway for there to be separate operators at all. What would the sense in duplicated “fast” and “slow” services with different fares be in a scenario similar to the one around 30 years ago, with an “InterCity” running the fast service and a “Regional Railways” running an all stops service. The problem with that would be that Euston - Milton Keynes should be “Network SouthEast” or what about earlier with a single “British Rail” running both services as well as freight.

To update this for modern times, replace “Network SouthEast” with “Transport for London” and “British Rail” with “Great British Railways”

What a lack of ambition, surely it could also serve Bushey and Harrow & Wealdstone the latter providing an essential link to the Bakerloo line. At a push you could add Wembley Central to cover any demand from people heading to the football as well.

I assume you were planning to use 442s for this service on a push/pull basis with Class 87s repatriated from Bulgaria?

Connections with the Bakerloo line pose the same “Network SouthEast” issue as I described above, however I must praise you for your excellent choice of rolling stock. I am sure that the Bulgarian maintenance regime on the Class 87s is more than adequate for an hourly service on the West Coast Main Line. On second thought, Glasgow Central is completely inadequate as a northern terminus for the service. It must be extended at least as far as the Kyle of Localsh, if not Wick or Thurso itself.

A more sensible option than running into Euston for 87s and 442s running in push-pull formation is to serve all Watford DC stations and then divert onto the West London Line at Willesden Junction to join the South Western Main Line at Clapham Junction for the run to Weymouth in order to make use of their dual voltage capability, of course calling at all stations on the way. At Weymouth, the class 87 must be replaced by a class 50 if the 442s are ever to reach Exeter or Penzance, but they must reverse there and run all the way to St Ives in order not to inconvenience the droves of people wanting to alight at Carbis Bay, who I am sure will include several people from every station previously called at.

In all seriousness I do think a direct service from the North West to the South West running via the West London Line would be a good idea, perhaps Liverpool Lime Street or Manchester Piccadilly to Bournemouth or Weymouth, using either Class 350s fitted with 3rd rail capability or Class 450s fitted with pantographs, not such a difficult proposition as repatriating Class 87s or 442s, either from Bulgaria or the scrap yard, especially since they are really of a single design and a much newer one at that!

 

[cle]

When extra paths open up, clearly it would be great to add more services from Reading and Oxford to the North.

HS2 will cover Birmingham-Manchester incredibly quickly. But the interim pairs (Wolves to Stockport etc) will still need servicing, even if that takes on more the form of the 350s on Birmingham-Liverpool with more stops added, like Congleton.

So I can see the same services as today running, with a few more stops here and there. Watford and MKC will need an hourly Manchester by then, and New St will still get about 4-5tph from Euston, as MKC and Northampton and Rugby still need services to both London and Brum.

So expect much of the same, but more semi-fast. And a few more commuter services where paths genuinely are released (e.g. Manc - Stockport - onwards commuter services, more Trings/Northampton line, etc).

Didcot-Oxford would need quadding before a major uplift in services. Firstly, EWR would want to run to Reading and/or out west also, but can't.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not a particularly constructive response to what I think are very credible proposals, whether or not they 'work' or not.

How can a proposal be ‘very credible’ if it doesn’t work?

I don’t understand why there isn’t a WCML all stations service. There’s more that isn’t possible besides Acton Bridge/Hartford/Winsford - Warrington Bank Quay avoiding Liverpool or Warrington Bank Quay - Wigan North Western via Earlestown/Newton-le-Willows and more importantly Golborne. What about anyone wanting to get from those stations to Leyland, Euxton Balshaw Lane or Coppull.

I would introduce an hourly all stops service from Euston to Glasgow Central calling at Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamstead, Tring, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Rugeley Trent Valley (or alternatively all stops via Birmingham New Street rather than the Trent Valley), Stafford, Stone, Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe, Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Golborne, Wigan North Western, Coppull, Euxton Balshaw Lane, Leyland, Preston, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Hest Bank, Carnforth, Oxenholme, Tebay, Shap, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Carstairs, Carluke, Wishaw, Shieldmuir, Motherwell, Bellshill, Uddingston, Newton, and Cambuslang, if not any other new/reopened stations along the route. Perhaps a loop could be constructed to allow this service to additionally serve Gretna Green.

You could charge an extremely cheap fare for a painfully slow journey between main centres also served by InterCity services, but also allow all possible combinations of intermediate journeys which otherwise aren’t possible, as well as being able to remove the Lockerbie/Motherwell calls from TransPennine Express services.

I’ll admit it, I thought you were being serious for a moment.

What a lack of ambition, surely it could also serve Bushey and Harrow & Wealdstone the latter providing an essential link to the Bakerloo line. At a push you could add Wembley Central to cover any demand from people heading to the football as well.

Ant to know what Kings Langley and Apsley have done to deserve seeing this express service swish through at high speed.

The Manchester to South Coast services are compromised by having go through Birmingham - slower and less reliable because of conflicts.

As I said above, it’s not slower, and the conflicts at Coventry and Nuneaton are just about as difficult to resolve as getting through Birmingham. Also the XC trains currently have a long dwell at Birmingham which helps reliability. You will need that somewhere (probably Nuneaton), which would make going this way slower than via Birmingham.

 

[A0]

In all seriousness I do think a direct service from the North West to the South West running via the West London Line would be a good idea, perhaps Liverpool Lime Street or Manchester Piccadilly to Bournemouth or Weymouth, using either Class 350s fitted with 3rd rail capability or Class 450s fitted with pantographs, not such a difficult proposition as repatriating Class 87s or 442s, either from Bulgaria or the scrap yard, especially since they are really of a single design and a much newer one at that!

The biggest problem is capacity on the WLL and it's relatively slow linespeed.