WMT to Manchester and Cross Country avoiding Birmingham

[Falcon1200]

The primary purpose of Shap and Tebay stations would be tourism, akin to stations on the Settle - Carlisle line.

Oxenholme and Penrith already fulfil that role.

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 reason drivers, including me, stop at Tebay M6 services is to have a break (comfort and more) and a bite to eat, all of which can be done on the train without it having to stop; Certainly not to visit Tebay itself. Neither service station is actually in Tebay anyway.

 

[507020]

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.

Improved speed as in 110mph is faster than 75mph. I am not attempting to increase line speed run faster trains.

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.

Yes the former L&SWR line east of Weymouth to Bournemouth was electrified in 1988. This was of course where the 442s originally came from. None of the former GWR lines west of Weymouth, to Penzance etc, which cannot be reached directly from Weymouth without reversing somewhere, are electrified. In fact no lines west of Weymouth are electrified. I said “west of Weymouth” because Weymouth is the western extent of electrification.

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.

So I take it this disproves my hypothesis that a 110mph class 350 isn’t able to keep up with a 75mph freight path while stopping at every station.

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.

The use of Bulgarian Class 87s with Hypothetical Class 792s made from Class 442s fitted with Diesel engines is a very interesting proposal, but not at all a serious one. There are a huge number of problems, not least that the 442s are only 100mph units, not the required 110mph.

The Class 769s have succeeded in further degrading the service to Southport, with most Southport services now either cancelled throughout, or cancelled only between Southport and either Wigan or Bolton, leaving Southport with only an hourly or 2 hourly 2 car DMU to Manchester. (Because enough services have been cancelled in a row that there has been a 2 hour wait for the next service that was running)

Oxenholme and Penrith already fulfil that role.

The reason drivers, including me, stop at Tebay M6 services is to have a break (comfort and more) and a bite to eat, all of which can be done on the train without it having to stop; Certainly not to visit Tebay itself. Neither service station is actually in Tebay anyway.

Tebay would of course also serve as the junction for the line to Darlington, via Barnard Castle, where you can alight for an eye test and which would be heavily used by east-west freight.

 

[Bald Rick]

which would be heavily used by east-west freight.

What freight is that?

 

[py_megapixel]

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.

On the other hand, I think a lot of people will see that there is now a service to their destination with one less change; that tips the balance in favour of taking the train; it goes well (which is the vast majority of journeys on the network, assuming you don't count up to 3 or 4 overall minutes of delay as a problem; when making a journey of that length you should allow for that anyway no matter the mode). So they do it again in the future.

They're not going to be kicking their heels at New Street for any longer than currently because every destination's frequency of service from New Street would not change. And if they arrive at some other station on the network late then they can get the next service towards New Street and change there - they haven't lost any of the convenience that they currently have now.

 

[507020]

What freight is that?

Future freight.

Are the east-west Tyne Valley, Calder Valley and Huddersfield lines not congested?

 

[Bald Rick]

Are the east-west Tyne Valley, Calder Valley and Huddersfield lines not congested?

Not with freight.

 

[A0]

On the other hand, I think a lot of people will see that there is now a service to their destination with one less change; that tips the balance in favour of taking the train; it goes well (which is the vast majority of journeys on the network, assuming you don't count up to 3 or 4 overall minutes of delay as a problem; when making a journey of that length you should allow for that anyway no matter the mode). So they do it again in the future.

They're not going to be kicking their heels at New Street for any longer than currently because every destination's frequency of service from New Street would not change. And if they arrive at some other station on the network late then they can get the next service towards New Street and change there - they haven't lost any of the convenience that they currently have now.

There is little evidence that relatively infrequent extensions lead to a better uptake of usage.

That's exactly why the XC network was consolidated and some of the 'marginal' services were removed e.g. Brighton - that's before you consider the fact that the path freed up into Brighton can be *far* better used by Southern or Thameslink.

The point is if you swap a 2TPH service for a 1TPH service if you miss a train you go from having to wait 29 minutes for the next one to 59 minutes - it doesn't matter how you try to argue it - that's the effect. It may not be for *all* passengers, but equally it will for some and it will deter those. And I'm willing to bet you'll deter more of those than you'll gain from some marginal extension.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2021 ==

A0wen said:
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.

Improved speed as in 110mph is faster than 75mph. I am not attempting to increase line speed run faster trains.

Your statement makes precisely no sense - the timing I estimated for the suggested 'stopper' from London - Glasgow was based on current timetabling - you're not suddenly going to achieve huge increases on that.

And the current services which I based that on *use* 110mph / 125mph stock already (350s or 390s) - you could have 200 mph trains but it wouldn't make a huge difference because you will be restricted to some extent by linespeed e.g. if you run via Northampton the loop to Rugby is limited (75mph ? happy to be corrected by those who know more) again if you run via Stoke to Crewe you've got a lower line speed between Kidsgrove and Crewe. I'm sure others can offer up similar examples where the linespeed on the WCML is sub 100 mph.

 

[507020]

Not with freight.

Is that because there isn’t room for said freight?

Your statement makes precisely no sense - the timing I estimated for the suggested 'stopper' from London - Glasgow was based on current timetabling - you're not suddenly going to achieve huge increases on that.

And the current services which I based that on *use* 110mph / 125mph stock already (350s or 390s) - you could have 200 mph trains but it wouldn't make a huge difference because you will be restricted to some extent by linespeed e.g. if you run via Northampton the loop to Rugby is limited (75mph ? happy to be corrected by those who know more) again if you run via Stoke to Crewe you've got a lower line speed between Kidsgrove and Crewe. I'm sure others can offer up similar examples where the linespeed on the WCML is sub 100 mph.

I will clarify. An existing 110mph capable Class 350 EMU obeying existing linespeeds and stopping at all stations, but keeping to the timings of a freight train running at 75mph without stopping anywhere. If Northampton to Rugby, this may be an issue, but on other sections where 100, 110 or 125mph is permitted, running at 100 or 110mph to get ahead of the freight train travelling at 75mph, stopping at the station and then accelerating back to 110mph in the time it would have taken for the non stop freight train to pass at 75mph.

In simpler terms, a WCML all stops service, with 110mph maximum speed, but 75mph average speed including all stops, in order not to impede freight paths. If this is possible then it does not need to happen.

 

[py_megapixel]

There is little evidence that relatively infrequent extensions lead to a better uptake of usage.

That's exactly why the XC network was consolidated and some of the 'marginal' services were removed e.g. Brighton - that's before you consider the fact that the path freed up into Brighton can be *far* better used by Southern or Thameslink.

The point is if you swap a 2TPH service for a 1TPH service if you miss a train you go from having to wait 29 minutes for the next one to 59 minutes - it doesn't matter how you try to argue it - that's the effect. It may not be for *all* passengers, but equally it will for some and it will deter those. And I'm willing to bet you'll deter more of those than you'll gain from some marginal extension.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here, because I never proposed a frequency reduction!

 

[Ianno87]

.

The point is if you swap a 2TPH service for a 1TPH service if you miss a train you go from having to wait 29 minutes for the next one to 59 minutes - it doesn't matter how you try to argue it - that's the effect. It may not be for *all* passengers, but equally it will for some and it will deter those. And I'm willing to bet you'll deter more of those than you'll gain from some marginal extension.

However, the proportional effect of 1tph versus 2tph on perceived journey time is much lower for a longer journey than a shorter one, as the longer the journey gets, the lower the relative effect/benefit of frequency gets.

 

[The Planner]

Is that because there isn’t room for said freight?

I will clarify. An existing 110mph capable Class 350 EMU obeying existing linespeeds and stopping at all stations, but keeping to the timings of a freight train running at 75mph without stopping anywhere. If Northampton to Rugby, this may be an issue, but on other sections where 100, 110 or 125mph is permitted, running at 100 or 110mph to get ahead of the freight train travelling at 75mph, stopping at the station and then accelerating back to 110mph in the time it would have taken for the non stop freight train to pass at 75mph.

In simpler terms, a WCML all stops service, with 110mph maximum speed, but 75mph average speed including all stops, in order not to impede freight paths. If this is possible then it does not need to happen.

It doesnt work as I explained earlier. The freight would be faster until you get to stretches where stations are far enough apart.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that because there isn’t room for said freight?

No, it’s because there’s very few freight flows in that part of the country. Carlisle to Newcastle is hardly busy with any traffic, let alone freight.

I will clarify. An existing 110mph capable Class 350 EMU obeying existing linespeeds and stopping at all stations, but keeping to the timings of a freight train running at 75mph without stopping anywhere.

As @The Planner says - the 350 couldn’t keep up. On a 100 mph stretch of track a stop costs a unit 3 minutes minimum. To get that 3 minutes back against a 75mph freight, the unit needs to run for 15 miles at 100mph non stop.

Besides as I said before, the freight paths are used!

 

[6Gman]

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.

By how much?

And what about people travelling from Stafford and Wolverhampton to Leamington, Banbury, Oxford etc ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2021 ==

What freight is that?

In the case of Barnard Castle the general cummings and goings of freight traffic.

 

[Bevan Price]

What freight is that?

Coal, Iron Ore, etc - when UK discovers it should no have closed most of its own steel industry. (Some hope !!!!!!)

 

[A0]

Coal, Iron Ore, etc - when UK discovers it should no have closed most of its own steel industry. (Some hope !!!!!!)

Why? If producing steel locally costs 2 or 3 times more than importing it, why would you produce locally?

And if you hadn't noticed coal demand has collapsed, something to do with the main users of it 40 years ago don't want to use it now due to the emissions when burning it. So if you can't burn it, it's not edible what do you suggest doing with it? Dig it out the ground, move it around and leave huge piles all over the place just to employ a few people?

 

[JonathanH]

Why? If producing steel locally costs 2 or 3 times more than importing it, why would you produce locally?

It is recognised that security of supply could be an issue if there is no domestic steel industry.

 

[A0]

It is recognised that security of supply could be an issue if there is no domestic steel industry.

Depends where your alternative supply is from - the EU started out as the European Coal and Steel Community. There are enough other sources that produce - and all steel is not the same, so whilst countries like the USA produce steel they both export and import it - depending on what they need. It's highly unlikely the UK could be reliant on domestic steel production (even if we still had the steel making capability of the 1960s).

 

[Purple Orange]

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

Even starting your journey at Birmingham is a pain. You get to your platform, it’s crowded with people that probably constitute 75% of the passengers heading north, a train arrives and then 75% get off. For a moment, we have a situation where there is significantly more than one train load of passengers on the dark, polluted, platform with cases etc.

Heaven forbid the train arrives and you’re stood in the middle of the carriage - you’ve got no chance of getting to your seat. Everyone crushes on for at least a 90 min journey. It’s curious that common folklore on this forum states that Cross Country is a series of short journeys stitched together. No, it’s not. The Birmingham to Manchester leg is mostly Birmingham to Manchester passengers and not an equal distribution of Brum-Wolves, Wolves-Stoke, Stafford-Stockport or Macclesfield-Manchester.

Perhaps it is better that it all terminated at New Street. Or perhaps it is better that HS2 forces the hand on this. Passengers do not like cross country, we tolerate it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even starting your journey at Birmingham is a pain. You get to your platform, it’s crowded with people that probably constitute 75% of the passengers heading north, a train arrives and then 75% get off. For a moment, we have a situation where there is significantly more than one train load of passengers on the dark, polluted, platform with cases etc.

Heaven forbid the train arrives and you’re stood in the middle of the carriage - you’ve got no chance of getting to your seat. Everyone crushes on for at least a 90 min journey. It’s curious that common folklore on this forum states that Cross Country is a series of short journeys stitched together. No, it’s not. The Birmingham to Manchester leg is mostly Birmingham to Manchester passengers and not an equal distribution of Brum-Wolves, Wolves-Stoke, Stafford-Stockport or Macclesfield-Manchester.

Perhaps it is better that it all terminated at New Street. Or perhaps it is better that HS2 forces the hand on this. Passengers do not like cross country, we tolerate it.

There is considerable Manchester-Brum traffic, yes. To be honest, one long, long distance XC (e.g. 10.22x) per hour plus one long EMU (e.g. 8.350) terminating at International might be better than two short XCs.

The short distance traffic spoken of is mostly Brum area commuters who really could do with a dedicated provision with enough capacity.

 

[30907]

Perhaps it is better that it all terminated at New Street. Or perhaps it is better that HS2 forces the hand on this. Passengers do not like cross country, we tolerate it.

But how would it improve things if you had everyone change at New Street? And where would you put all these terminating trains anyway, even post HS2?

 

[A0]

There is considerable Manchester-Brum traffic, yes. To be honest, one long, long distance XC (e.g. 10.22x) per hour plus one long EMU (e.g. 8.350) terminating at International might be better than two short XCs.

The short distance traffic spoken of is mostly Brum area commuters who really could do with a dedicated provision with enough capacity.

Terminating at International is a PITA though - and it doesn't help the more fundamental problem of capacity between International and New Street. There are already 3 terminators an hour arriving at International (2 x WMR 1 x TFW), they're going to sit for at least 5 and probably 10 mins before returning, so there's effectively one platform unavailable for 30 mins in an hour already.

Terminating at International is a daft idea and really not helping anyone - you'd be better off finding somewhere more useful to terminate. Northampton might make more sense but there's still the capacity constraints between Coventry and New Street to contend with.

 

[Purple Orange]

Perhaps this is strolling in to the territory of 1 tph being taken away from XC and 1 Avanti tph running Manc-Brum-London, although it would be better for there the to be a terminus destination for Manc-Brum EMUs.

But how would it improve things if you had everyone change at New Street? And where would you put all these terminating trains anyway, even post HS2?

Post HS2 you’d have Carson Street as a terminal for Manc-Brum and possibly Leeds/Newcastle/Scotland-Brum, with Moor Street as the terminal for Bristol-Brum and Reading-Brum.

 

[py_megapixel]

Could the two Northern services via Cheadle Hulme effectively be made a circular service, reversing in the bay at Stoke and additionally serving Kidsgrove and Alsager? Then, what is currently the WMT Birmingham-Crewe service could continue from Stoke to Manchester rather than Crewe.

Possibly the Penkridge and Stone calls would be undesirable to have on a Manc-Brum service, though, and it's not clear what else you could give them to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps this is strolling in to the territory of 1 tph being taken away from XC and 1 Avanti tph running Manc-Brum-London, although it would be better for there the to be a terminus destination for Manc-Brum EMUs.

That's not an entirely terrible idea and would save a platform at New St being blocked for Avanti to terminate twice an hour.

 

[Purple Orange]

That's not an entirely terrible idea and would save a platform at New St being blocked for Avanti to terminate twice an hour.

Oh yes, is there still a London-Bruno that terminates at New Street? I had assumed all three Brum Avanti services had gone elsewhere.

 

[A0]

That's not an entirely terrible idea and would save a platform at New St being blocked for Avanti to terminate twice an hour.

Where do you propose they get the extra Pendolinos from to run such a service ?

 

[Purple Orange]

Where do you propose they get the extra Pendolinos from to run such a service ?

How many would they need?

 

[A0]

Could the two Northern services via Cheadle Hulme effectively be made a circular service, reversing in the bay at Stoke and additionally serving Kidsgrove and Alsager? Then, what is currently the WMT Birmingham-Crewe service could continue from Stoke to Manchester rather than Crewe.

Possibly the Penkridge and Stone calls would be undesirable to have on a Manc-Brum service, though, and it's not clear what else you could give them to.

Alsager - Crewe is single line for about half its length. There's already 2tph along there - 1 x LNW and 1 x EMR - not sure you can get much more down there ?

 

[py_megapixel]

Where do you propose they get the extra Pendolinos from to run such a service ?

I'd suggest Longsight TMD

No, seriously - diverting one of the two pre-existing hourly Manc-Eus via Stoke services via Birmingham would make a lot of sense, and assuming it also took the place of the terminating Birmingham service would presumably reduce the rolling stock requirement slightly, not increase it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh yes, is there still a London-Bruno that terminates at New Street? I had assumed all three Brum Avanti services had gone elsewhere.

One of the three does, yes. One goes to Scotland, one (sometimes) goes to Shrewsbury, the other one terminates at New St, so given enough rolling stock could go to Manchester in place of one of the XCs.

How about extending the LNR Crewe to Liverpool (probably enough slack in LNR's fleet for that once the Aventras arrive) instead of the second Avanti (I think this would be very popular if fares were kept low - the 5 hour through journey was popular enough!), and using the 7-car 80x to "bulk out" the existing fleet enough to do this?