WMT to Manchester and Cross Country avoiding Birmingham

[Bald Rick]

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

And getting from the WLL to the South West Main Line! Although I suppose it could call at Chertsey for Thorpe Park

 

[507020]

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

I am being serious about an all stops WCML service, although most of the missing journeys that there is demand for could be satisfied by a Stafford/Crewe - Preston/Blackpool North calling at Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Golborne, Wigan North Western, Coppull, Euxton Balshaw Lane and Leyland.

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

What they have done is elude a northerner who has no concept of the geography that close to London. I found myself having to look at a map for every station until Rugby which was not quite zoomed in enough for these stations. I then got the ones in the Trent Valley in the wrong order and had to change it. North of Crewe I had no problem listing everything to Carlisle from memory in the right order.

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

That’s not a problem for an all stops service though is it?

 

[6Gman]

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.

Your enthusiasm for proposing "interesting" proposals is impressive, but . . .

1. Would this rerouting actually be any quicker?
2. Why serve Nuneaton and Tamworth (two fine towns, but ...) at the expense of Wolverhampton, New Street and International?

 

[507020]

And getting from the WLL to the South West Main Line! Although I suppose it could call at Chertsey for Thorpe Park

Please could you explain the meaning of this as you’ve lost me. I am unaware that a Chersey Park station exists. I believe the track layout at Clapham Junction physically allows trains from the West London Line to reach the South Western Main Line and if not it can be altered relatively easily.

 

[JonathanH]

I believe the track layout at Clapham Junction physically allows trains from the West London Line to reach the South Western Main Line and if not it can be altered relatively easily.

Physically yes but only on non-passenger lines across the throat of the yard. Certainly couldn't take a passenger train that way on a planned basis. As a result, the route through Staines and Chertsey has to be used.

It can't be altered relatively easily.

 

[adrock1976]

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”

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!

The bit I bolded got me thinking of you suggesting whether to partially bring back the "Sussex Scot", but heading in the wrong direction.

Also, if running to Kyle of Lochalsh/Wick/Thurso, an 87 would only be of use as far as Dunblane, as that is where the wires run out at this moment in time. You would have to change to a diesel loco, ideally at Mossend Yard in Bellshill.

 

[507020]

Physically yes but only on non-passenger lines across the throat of the yard. Certainly couldn't take a passenger train that way on a planned basis. As a result, the route through Staines and Chertsey has to be used.

It can't be altered relatively easily.

Relatively easily in that the lines cross with in close enough proximity of each other that a connection could be built and designated a passenger line more easily than some other schemes connecting separate lines which have been done in the past.

The bit I bolded got me thinking of you suggesting whether to partially bring back the "Sussex Scot", but heading in the wrong direction.

Also, if running to Kyle of Lochalsh/Wick/Thurso, an 87 would only be of use as far as Dunblane, as that is where the wires run out at this moment in time. You would have to change to a diesel loco, ideally at Mossend Yard in Bellshill.

It would run in both directions. I was wondering what the northern extent of the wires was. Perhaps you could terminate either there or at Alloa. How far do they go on the line to Fort William/Mallaig/Oban?

Perhaps the 442s could be converted into Class 792 bi-modes able to run on Diesel in the same way as 769s, that way they could push the Class 87 over the unelectrified lines north of Dunblane and west of Weymouth.

 

[Philip]

Your enthusiasm for proposing "interesting" proposals is impressive, but . . .

1. Would this rerouting actually be any quicker?
2. Why serve Nuneaton and Tamworth (two fine towns, but ...) at the expense of Wolverhampton, New Street and International?

I didn't suggest serving Tamworth, by calling only at Nuneaton until Stoke it would improve journey times quite a bit. Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Stafford currently have the same level of capacity to Manchester as they have always had, now in the form of double sets.

 

[Bevan Price]

The problem with many suggestions in this thread is that not enough lines are electrified, and that others are likely to be financially unviable.

Yes - use of diesel trains between Manchester and the South Coast is a bad idea, and 4/5 coach trains are totally inadequate. Also, some of the existing routings & stopping patterns could be revised / improved. But the first move should be to electrify every important route through Birmingham New Street, and the chances of that getting beyond DfT and Treasury seem very remote.

 

[JonathanH]

Relatively easily in that the lines cross with in close enough proximity of each other that a connection could be built and designated a passenger line more easily than some other schemes connecting separate lines which have been done in the past.

I doubt it is easy at all. It can currently only been done northbound and involves crossing through the yard and across all the running lines on the 'Windsor' side of the station, then some wrong line running on the curve to the WLL.

 

[Bald Rick]

Please could you explain the meaning of this as you’ve lost me. I am unaware that a Chersey Park station exists. I believe the track layout at Clapham Junction physically allows trains from the West London Line to reach the South Western Main Line and if not it can be altered relatively easily.

There is only one physical connection between the two, and only in one direction (from Wimbledon to the WLL). The connection runs through the arrival / departure lines of Clapham Yard, which are busy all day, not permitted for passenger services, and under control of the Clapham Yard shunter. It’s also 5 mph.

On top of that, if additional track was put in to enable a WLL to SWML service (which is not at all easy), then such a service would have to find a path across the entire East London Line service to/from Clapham Jn, the entire Windsor Line service, and the entire SWML ‘fast’ service. In the standard off peak hour that’s 60 trains an hour to find a gap in, at exactly the same time; and that time would have to fit perfectly with the path on to the SWML (if you can find one) and the path off the WLL, which itself needs to align with the path off the WCML, which also has to align with the crossing move of fast line to slow line somewhere. Unless this train is slow line all the way from Rugby.

There’s a reason why anything off the WLL heading to the SWML goes via Chertsey, or even via Balham and Haydons Road.

 

[CW2]

To me, the strength of the Cross Country network is the very fact that it is (predominantly) a hub and spoke regular interval network, centred on Birmingham New Street. The trains make the same connections at the same times each hour throughout the day. Making connections requires extended dwell times in some instances, so it is often possible to come up with imaginative route proposals as Philipe has done which might (or might not) save a minute or two here or there. However, doing so would detract from the network as a whole, and its inter connectivity.
That's not to say I am entirely averse to alternative route proposals. For example I'd suggest one of the Birmingham - Manchester services might run via Crewe instead of both via Stoke. Likewise, the trains to Reading could become one on towards Southampton and the other to Slough, Old Oak Common (once built) and Paddington. If there was the political will, then a North Wales - Birmingham service might be integrated into the network too, with perhaps one of the Manchester - Birmingham services being curtailed to an electric powered shuttle, and the North Wales service carrying on along the Thames Valley.
I'll put my crayons back in their box now!

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

There are good reasons why through trains operate via New St; Firstly, because the general public do NOT like changing trains, and secondly because it makes far better use of resources, both rolling stock and, at New St in particular, platform capacity; Terminating trains spend longer in the platform than a through service.

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

There are already loops, or at least a loop, at both Tebay and Shap, and seriously, how could such tiny places justify the expense of building new stations, and sacrificing express or freight paths in order to serve them ? There are good reasons why such stations closed over 50 years ago !

 

[A0]

I am being serious about an all stops WCML service

So let's take a look at the simple practicality of journey time - I'm not even going to venture into whether it's viable as others like @The Planner will be able to handle that with far better knowledge.

London - Rugby stoppers (fast south of Leighton Buzzard) currently take 1h 25m - you suggested another 5 stops, so that's going to head towards 1h 40m realisitically - that's just to get to Rugby.

Rugby - Crewe via Stoke - that's about another 1h 45m - so we're already at 3h 10m just to get to Crewe - and that's not even half-way.

Crewe - Lancaster takes about 50 mins with 4 stops - you're suggesting 12 stops and running via Newton-le-Willows - so that's going to be another 1h 20m realistically.

Between Lancaster & Carlisle, you've added closed stations which don't exist (and probably won't any time soon) but currently that journey with 2 stops takes 53 mins, you want to add another stop so let's say that's 55 mins.

So we're just shy of 5 hours and have only just got to Carlisle.

Carlisle - Glasgow is 1h 25m ish on TPE with 2 stops - again you're suggesting more.

So ultimately you're suggesting a London - Glasgow service which would take nigh on 7 hours and stop dozens of times, be totally beholden to delays all over the network and has an end to end journey time which is getting on for what National Express offer......

I think The Planner's response in post #10 sums this suggestion up quite nicely.

 

[py_megapixel]

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.

I think there is merit in the longer but less frequent idea, but to just give up on half the direct links seems a bit pathetic.

Personally what I'd like to see is alternation. So from Birmingham, for example, on odd hours you'd have a Bristol service that came through from Manchester, while on even hours you'd have one that came through from Newcastle. Similarly on odd hours you'd have a Reading service that came through from Newcastle, while on even hours one that came through from Manchester. And the same in the reverse direction.

(keeping the extensions on some/most services beyond Newcastle, Bristol and Reading, of course)

 

[A0]

I think there is merit in the longer but less frequent idea, but to just give up on half the direct links seems a bit pathetic.

Personally what I'd like to see is alternation. So from Birmingham, for example, on odd hours you'd have a Bristol service that came through from Manchester, while on even hours you'd have one that came through from Newcastle. Similarly on odd hours you'd have a Reading service that came through from Newcastle, while on even hours one that came through from Manchester. And the same in the reverse direction.

(keeping the extensions on some/most services beyond Newcastle, Bristol and Reading, of course)

Longer less frequent is fine if you want to lose custom - fewer people will travel and going 'alternate hours' per your suggestion would make it even worse.

To give a practical example Reading, Bristol, Leeds and Manchester are all between 1h30m and 2h from Birmingham.

If you go to hourly or less then the first time a customer arrives late at the station - either a late in bound train, delayed en route or whatever, they're then going to be kicking their heels at New Street for an hour. So their 1h30m journey to whichever city now becomes a 2h 30m journey or worse. At which point they will rightly take the view the train is infrequent and inflexible so will look at how they can make their journey without that inflexibility or inconvenience.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you go to hourly or less then the first time a customer arrives late at the station - either a late in bound train, delayed en route or whatever, they're then going to be kicking their heels at New Street for an hour. So their 1h30m journey to whichever city now becomes a 2h 30m journey or worse. At which point they will rightly take the view the train is infrequent and inflexible so will look at how they can make their journey without that inflexibility or inconvenience.

Have a trip to Germany and see all their empty trains (they base everything on an hourly pattern).

Oh, they aren't empty.

With most people on Advances it doesn't overly matter anyway - if they miss a train and there are 3tph it's still going to be bad, so they won't miss it.

The important things are capacity, comfort and punctuality/reliability, at least until you get below hourly.

 

[Whistler40145]

If several Manchester Piccadilly to Reading/Southampton Central services were rerouted via Nuneaton, this surely would cause pathing issues, plus XC has Birmingham New Street as a hub for South West services, so I don't see it as an improvement

 

[A0]

Have a trip to Germany and see all their empty trains (they base everything on an hourly pattern).

Oh, they aren't empty.

With most people on Advances it doesn't overly matter anyway - if they miss a train and there are 3tph it's still going to be bad, so they won't miss it.

The important things are capacity, comfort and punctuality/reliability, at least until you get below hourly.

Fine - I think you're wrong and Germany doesn't provide the evidence to support your claim.

If you think people will accept that if they miss the train they'll be waiting around for an hour and that's acceptable, then fine. I think they'll just look to travel in a different way.

The biggest growth in the Cross Country network occurred when Virgin introduced Operation Princess and went from hourly to half-hourly services on key routes. We can argue to our heart's content about the shortcomings of only having 4 car trains, but that wasn't the TOC's fault, that was the DFT and presumably they under-estimated the growth it led to. But the fact is the XC services are now *far* better used than under BR days, are *far* more reliable and much more practical and useful. If you want to regress that to have your flight of fancy on Takt then fine - but I hope you're prepared to pay the additional costs which will come of it.

It's not that long ago Northampton - Birmingham was dropped to hourly as part of the WCML upgrade - and it was a deterrent to people using the train, because if you missed one you were then waiting around for an hour on a journey which is about an hour - so all of a sudden you wouldn't be getting home until much later than you thought.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fine - I think you're wrong and Germany doesn't provide the evidence to support your claim.

If you think people will accept that if they miss the train they'll be waiting around for an hour and that's acceptable, then fine. I think they'll just look to travel in a different way.

I think people generally don't miss trains, least of all on long journeys where Advances are the norm these days. It's not just waiting an hour, it's forking out £50+ for a new ticket too.

The biggest growth in the Cross Country network occurred when Virgin introduced Operation Princess and went from hourly to half-hourly services on key routes. We can argue to our heart's content about the shortcomings of only having 4 car trains, but that wasn't the TOC's fault, that was the DFT and presumably they under-estimated the growth it led to. But the fact is the XC services are now *far* better used than under BR days, are *far* more reliable and much more practical and useful. If you want to regress that to have your flight of fancy on Takt then fine - but I hope you're prepared to pay the additional costs which will come of it.

I think that was more about the branches all going to hourly rather than about every 3, not about the core. The increase in the core has taken from regional services, but those regional services could be provided in areas of high demand. Running high frequency XC services when they load heavily from Coventry to Wolves is not the fix - the fix there is to put an hourly Cov-Wolves regional express EMU in the opposite half hour.

It's not that long ago Northampton - Birmingham was dropped to hourly as part of the WCML upgrade - and it was a deterrent to people using the train, because if you missed one you were then waiting around for an hour on a journey which is about an hour - so all of a sudden you wouldn't be getting home until much later than you thought.

I would say on local journeys half hourly is probably your minimum "sweet spot", and that is a local service (the fact that "option C" in Manchester proposed consistent 2tph services on Manchester suburbans was not a random guess). The change at Northampton was probably a bigger barrier to use as a cheapo through service than the frequency, to be honest. XC is primarily a long-distance operation and the situation is very, very different.

 

[507020]

So let's take a look at the simple practicality of journey time - I'm not even going to venture into whether it's viable as others like @The Planner will be able to handle that with far better knowledge.

London - Rugby stoppers (fast south of Leighton Buzzard) currently take 1h 25m - you suggested another 5 stops, so that's going to head towards 1h 40m realisitically - that's just to get to Rugby.

Rugby - Crewe via Stoke - that's about another 1h 45m - so we're already at 3h 10m just to get to Crewe - and that's not even half-way.

Crewe - Lancaster takes about 50 mins with 4 stops - you're suggesting 12 stops and running via Newton-le-Willows - so that's going to be another 1h 20m realistically.

Between Lancaster & Carlisle, you've added closed stations which don't exist (and probably won't any time soon) but currently that journey with 2 stops takes 53 mins, you want to add another stop so let's say that's 55 mins.

So we're just shy of 5 hours and have only just got to Carlisle.

Carlisle - Glasgow is 1h 25m ish on TPE with 2 stops - again you're suggesting more.

So ultimately you're suggesting a London - Glasgow service which would take nigh on 7 hours and stop dozens of times, be totally beholden to delays all over the network and has an end to end journey time which is getting on for what National Express offer......

I think The Planner's response in post #10 sums this suggestion up quite nicely.

How long may I ask would a 75mph freight train to complete the same route without all the stops? Is there no way that a 110mph passenger train (be it a Class 350 EMU or Class 87) could actually run in a freight path to 75mph freight timings and fit all or most of the stops in through increased speed?

There are already loops, or at least a loop, at both Tebay and Shap, and seriously, how could such tiny places justify the expense of building new stations, and sacrificing express or freight paths in order to serve them ? There are good reasons why such stations closed over 50 years ago !

The primary purpose of Shap and Tebay stations would be tourism, akin to stations on the Settle - Carlisle line. The largest settlement in the vicinity of the Settle - Carlisle line is Hawes and yet they closed the Hawes branch! I am very much in favour of the “Upper Wensleydale Railway” proposal to extend some Rochdale - Clitheroe services to Hawes via Hellifield. With regards to Shap and Tebay stations, they would be built *WITHOUT* sacrificing express or freight paths by putting the platforms on new tracks on a loop built at the same time as the station. Many road drivers stop at Tebay services on the M6, so why would they be opposed to a train stopping in the same place. The owners of Tebay services could run a high end shop at Tebay station.

The biggest growth in the Cross Country network occurred when Virgin introduced Operation Princess and went from hourly to half-hourly services on key routes. We can argue to our heart's content about the shortcomings of only having 4 car trains, but that wasn't the TOC's fault, that was the DFT and presumably they under-estimated the growth it led to. But the fact is the XC services are now *far* better used than under BR days, are *far* more reliable and much more practical and useful. If you want to regress that to have your flight of fancy on Takt then fine - but I hope you're prepared to pay the additional costs which will come of it.

An interesting example is Merseyrail running 6 car trains every 20 minutes from Hunts Cross to Southport, instead of the previous 15 minute interval with a 3, 6, 3, 6 pattern. Ultimately there is no difference in capacity as there are still 18 carriages an hour, the only difference is a 25% reduction in the number of staff required. A 4/5 car CrossCountry service every half an hour is equal to an 8/9/10 car train every hour, with no difference to capacity.

Surely there must be a way to balance capacity with frequency. We don’t see anyone attempting to run a 110 car Pendolino once a day from Euston to Glasgow with nothing in between, or a 153 every 5 minutes to equal a Pendolino hourly.

I think people generally don't miss trains, least of all on long journeys where Advances are the norm these days. It's not just waiting an hour, it's forking out £50+ for a new ticket too.

People don’t tend to choose for the connecting train they had planned to get to meet the one they had bought an Advanced ticket for to be late or cancelled, causing them to miss their train through no fault of their own and then be required to buy a new ticket. It is for this reason that I don’t tend to buy advance tickets unless I’m already at the station and aware that the train I intend to get is definitely running.

I would say on local journeys half hourly is probably your minimum "sweet spot", and that is a local service (the fact that "option C" in Manchester proposed consistent 2tph services on Manchester suburbans was not a random guess). The change at Northampton was probably a bigger barrier to use as a cheapo through service than the frequency, to be honest. XC is primarily a long-distance operation and the situation is very, very different.

Most local journeys in Manchester are neither long enough nor frequent enough, so improvements are required by both metrics.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People don’t tend to choose for the connecting train they had planned to get to meet the one they had bought an Advanced ticket for to be late or cancelled, causing them to miss their train through no fault of their own and then be required to buy a new ticket. It is for this reason that I don’t tend to buy advance tickets unless I’m already at the station and aware that the train I intend to get is definitely running.

You're aware that as long as you have contiguous connecting tickets you don't have to pay again in that scenario, right?

In any case, it's not about what you do or what I do, it's about what most people do, and that's now buying Advance tickets online before their long distance journey.

 

[Bald Rick]

How long may I ask would a 75mph freight train to complete the same route without all the stops?

8-9 hours, for overnight services with nothing much else around and no looping.

Is there no way that a 110mph passenger train (be it a Class 350 EMU or Class 87) could actually run in a freight path to 75mph freight timings and fit all or most of the stops in through increased speed?

No. Because the freight paths are used most days.

 

[A0]

How long may I ask would a 75mph freight train to complete the same route without all the stops? Is there no way that a 110mph passenger train (be it a Class 350 EMU or Class 87) could actually run in a freight path to 75mph freight timings and fit all or most of the stops in through increased speed?

The timings I put together were based on existing timetables which means the trains in user are 350s, 390s or equivalents - so, no, you're not likely to find improved speed on that basis, because it's already what is achievable.

An interesting example is Merseyrail running 6 car trains every 20 minutes from Hunts Cross to Southport, instead of the previous 15 minute interval with a 3, 6, 3, 6 pattern. Ultimately there is no difference in capacity as there are still 18 carriages an hour, the only difference is a 25% reduction in the number of staff required. A 4/5 car CrossCountry service every half an hour is equal to an 8/9/10 car train every hour, with no difference to capacity.

There's a world of difference in reducing a service frequency from 3 tph to 4 tph - the worst case if you miss a train is a 5 minute longer wait for the next one. Reducing from 2tph to 1tph makes that wait an hour up from 30 mins. The former, particularly on metro lines is probably not noticeable - the latter where the services tend to be longer distance is eminently noticeable.

 

[Grecian 1998]

Perhaps the 442s could be converted into Class 792 bi-modes able to run on Diesel in the same way as 769s, that way they could push the Class 87 over the unelectrified lines north of Dunblane and west of Weymouth.

Off-topic I know, but what lines west of Weymouth are these? If you mean Bournemouth - Weymouth, that's east of Weymouth and it was electrified 33 years ago.

 

[The Planner]

How long may I ask would a 75mph freight train to complete the same route without all the stops? Is there no way that a 110mph passenger train (be it a Class 350 EMU or Class 87) could actually run in a freight path to 75mph freight timings and fit all or most of the stops in through increased speed?

Bear in mind there is an argument that 75mph freight are hindered by stoppers, there is definitely a strong case in places that the mindset of the passenger going first is wrong. Factor in that you have to plan on green aspects, you really don't want freight on yellows as passenger trains can cope with that better.

Take for example a Class 4 from Milton Keynes to Watford, a clean time is 33 minutes, an equivalent LNWR stopper does that in 39 minutes, and that doesn't include Apsley or Kings Langley as they are covered by the Trings.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

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.

Thank you - it's a pity there's not loads of 5-car Voyagers as 10 coaches on most Voyager services every hour are way better than single sets every half an hour!

 

[Neptune]

Relatively easily in that the lines cross with in close enough proximity of each other that a connection could be built and designated a passenger line more easily than some other schemes connecting separate lines which have been done in the past.

It would run in both directions. I was wondering what the northern extent of the wires was. Perhaps you could terminate either there or at Alloa. How far do they go on the line to Fort William/Mallaig/Oban?

Perhaps the 442s could be converted into Class 792 bi-modes able to run on Diesel in the same way as 769s, that way they could push the Class 87 over the unelectrified lines north of Dunblane and west of Weymouth.

BINGO!! Not only ‘yet another use for the class 442’ but even converting it to bi-mode (such a resounding success with the 769), using a class 87 for the overhead bits (I’m assuming repatriating some of the 21 from Bulgaria) and even giving it a made up classification.

 

[mrcheek]

For those travelling through, Birmingham can be a pain. It takes so long for services to get from one side of Birmingham to the other. I often think it would be great if Birmingham could be avoided somehow.

But, its a nonsense idea. On most XC services, the train completely empties and fills up again at Birmingham. This is why, some years ago, there were suggestions that all XC services would terminate at Birmingham, anyone travelling beyond would have to change

 

[A0]

BINGO!! Not only ‘yet another use for the class 442’ but even converting it to bi-mode (such a resounding success with the 769), using a class 87 for the overhead bits (I’m assuming repatriating some of the 21 from Bulgaria) and even giving it a made up classification.

For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely was not being serious with that suggestion.