WMT to Manchester and Cross Country avoiding Birmingham

[py_megapixel]

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 ?

NT would replace LNR, with the LNR continuing to Manchester direct via Macclesfield instead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2021 ==

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.

Or indeed in place of one of the existing London via Stokes.

 

[A0]

How many would they need?

Wet finger in air time - Birmingham - Manchester takes 1h 30m - 1h 45m depending on stopping pattern, so lets say 2 hours with a turnaround, so at least 4.

 

[adrock1976]

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.

Being as there are five platforms at International, there would still be the other four available i.e. two for each direction.

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.


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.

According to the Centro report "HS2 Unlocking the benefits West Midlands Connectivity Package", the diagram on Page 5 has a Manchester Pic - Heathrow Airport via Stoke, Birmingham, Coventry, Oxford, and Reading. How realistic that would be I do not know, as I cannot see where it can fit on the Relief Lines between Didcot and Slough.

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

I've re-read the opening post and there is a reference to long term future.

From this point onwards, I interpret long term future as meaning post-HS2. The Pendolinos by then would most likely have been retired.

 

[Purple Orange]

Could use the existing path from

Wet finger in air time - Birmingham - Manchester takes 1h 30m - 1h 45m depending on stopping pattern, so lets say 2 hours with a turnaround, so at least 4.

Does Liverpool really need a 2nd London service?! Or Blackpool via Brum?

Joking aside, London to Manchester & Birmingham is currently down to 2 tph. Instead of going back to 3 to both, it could be that we have a 3rd run Manc-London via Brum, which would reinstate Brum’s 3rd fast to London, but Manc would have a slower 3rd tph.

XC could be reduced to 1 tph, with 1tp2h running to the south coast and 1tp2h running to the south west. In it’s place a northern commuter service could run from Stoke to Manchester.

 

[A0]

Could use the existing path from


Does Liverpool really need a 2nd London service?! Or Blackpool via Brum?

Joking aside, London to Manchester & Birmingham is currently down to 2 tph. Instead of going back to 3 to both, it could be that we have a 3rd run Manc-London via Brum, which would reinstate Brum’s 3rd fast to London, but Manc would have a slower 3rd tph.

XC could be reduced to 1 tph, with 1tp2h running to the south coast and 1tp2h running to the south west. In it’s place a northern commuter service could run from Stoke to Manchester.

It wouldn't just be slightly slower - it would be incredibly slow Manchester - London.

Currently Euston - Manchester is circa 2h 10m.

Euston - New Street (Avanti) is 1h 25m and New St - Manchester (XC) is 1h 40m ish - that's an end to end journey time of over 3 hours.

And if it were via Stoke, then that would mean Stoke would be down to 1 fast London train an hour (as one Avanti / hour runs via Crewe). And if Avanti takes a XC path, how do you propose to find another Northern path between Stoke and Manchester ? As I understand it the lack of paths is the reason only one of the two Northern commuter services runs south of Macclesfield currently.

 

[Purple Orange]

It wouldn't just be slightly slower - it would be incredibly slow Manchester - London.

Currently Euston - Manchester is circa 2h 10m.

Euston - New Street (Avanti) is 1h 25m and New St - Manchester (XC) is 1h 40m ish - that's an end to end journey time of over 3 hours.

And if it were via Stoke, then that would mean Stoke would be down to 1 fast London train an hour (as one Avanti / hour runs via Crewe). And if Avanti takes a XC path, how do you propose to find another Northern path between Stoke and Manchester ? As I understand it the lack of paths is the reason only one of the two Northern commuter services runs south of Macclesfield currently.

Yes it would be slow for Manchester-London, but Manc-London wouldn’t be the primary service for this. I’m assuming that it doesn’t need to return to 3 tph as it does today and Manc doesn’t need an hourly Bristol & Reading, but does need 2 tph to Brum.

 

[adrock1976]

Could use the existing path from


Does Liverpool really need a 2nd London service?! Or Blackpool via Brum?

Joking aside, London to Manchester & Birmingham is currently down to 2 tph. Instead of going back to 3 to both, it could be that we have a 3rd run Manc-London via Brum, which would reinstate Brum’s 3rd fast to London, but Manc would have a slower 3rd tph.

XC could be reduced to 1 tph, with 1tp2h running to the south coast and 1tp2h running to the south west. In it’s place a northern commuter service could run from Stoke to Manchester.

I would suggest the following for post HS2:

London Euston - Liverpool Lime Street via Birmingham New Street traditional InterCity calling Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham NS, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Hartford, Runcorn, maybe Liverpool South Parkway, and Liverpool Lime Street.

London Euston - Shrewsbury via Birmingham New Street traditional InterCity calling as the Liverpool to Wolverhampton, then Telford Central, Wellington Telford West, and Shrewsbury.

London Euston - Manchester Pic via Stoke traditional Intercity calling Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Nuneaton, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport, and Man Pic.

London Euston - Chester/Holyhead traditional Intercity calling Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Stafford, Crewe, and Chester, with two-hourly extensions to Holyhead.

London Euston - Blackpool North traditional InterCity calling Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston, Kirkham & Wesham (for Fylde Coast), and Blackpool North.

Manchester Pic - Bournemouth via Coventry traditional InterCity as per the present day service

Blackpool North (or Barrow-in-Furness) - Reading/Southampton via Coventry traditional InterCity taking over the sections of the Preston - Birmingham - Coventry present day West Coast Glasgow/Edinburgh, and running to Reading/Southampton taking over the present day Newcastle - Reading/Southampton via Doncaster. Both of the above would fulfil both the XC between Birmingham and Leamington Spa running via Coventry, as the ex Newcastle via Doncaster runs via Solihull.

Leeds - Penzance via Birmingham NS, as per present day service.

Edinburgh Waverley - Plymouth via Doncaster and Birmingham NS. This would be the present day Newcastle extended to Edinburgh, and swapped to run to Bristol and the South West.

Liverpool Lime Street - Exeter St Davids via Craven Arms calling Runcorn, Crewe, Shrewsbury, Hereford, Abergavenny, Severn Tunnel Junction, Bristol Temple Meads, Taunton, Tiverton Parkway, and Exeter St Davids.

Crewe - Liverpool Lime Street local calling all stations.

Crewe - Preston via Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows local calling all stations.

All of the above to run every 60 minutes each.

Manchester Pic - Stoke-on-Trent local calling Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, and all stations to Stoke-on-Trent every 30 minutes.

 

[The Planner]

Being as there are five platforms at International, there would still be the other four available i.e. two for each direction.

Not all hour, you have the TfW occupying a platform from xx.48 to xx.06 and a WMT occupying a platform from xx.58 to xx.17 as well as another WMT occupying between xx.36 and xx.44

 

[Falcon1200]

Edinburgh Waverley - Plymouth via Doncaster and Birmingham NS. This would be the present day Newcastle extended to Edinburgh, and swapped to run to Bristol and the South West.

There is already an hourly Birmingham/Edinburgh via Leeds XC service, is your proposal in addition to this ? Bear in mind that this route takes an hour longer than the Avanti WC Birmingham/Scotland trains, which don't appear in your plan at all, meaning not only a slower journey between Edinburgh and Birmingham, but also no service at all between Glasgow and Birmingham (albeit Avanti believe that is acceptable now - which it most certainly is not).

 

[adrock1976]

There is already an hourly Birmingham/Edinburgh via Leeds XC service, is your proposal in addition to this ? Bear in mind that this route takes an hour longer than the Avanti WC Birmingham/Scotland trains, which don't appear in your plan at all, meaning not only a slower journey between Edinburgh and Birmingham, but also no service at all between Glasgow and Birmingham (albeit Avanti believe that is acceptable now - which it most certainly is not).

It is post HS2 I'm referring to here.

Regarding the present day Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via Preston, that will be going over to HS2 from the table of service patterns I've seen on the HS2 Wikipedia page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2 and scroll to the Operations section. This may have subsequently altered since then) that references the DfT report from 2017 (see https://assets.publishing.service.g...80/high-speed-two-from-concept-to-reality.pdf. for details as it is a large file size).

 

[Falcon1200]

It is post HS2 I'm referring to here.

Regarding the present day Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh via Preston, that will be going over to HS2 from the table of service patterns I've seen on the HS2 Wikipedia page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2 and scroll to the Operations section. This may have subsequently altered since then) that references the DfT report from 2017 (see https://assets.publishing.service.g...80/high-speed-two-from-concept-to-reality.pdf. for details as it is a large file size).

Thanks for the clarification adrock1976, I missed the post-HS2 bit !

 

[class26]

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.

But if you are on an advanced fare you have only train, just one you can use. If you are late the ticket is useless and it doesn`t matter if the next train is 20, 30 or 60 minutes

 

[A0]

But if you are on an advanced fare you have only train, just one you can use. If you are late the ticket is useless and it doesn`t matter if the next train is 20, 30 or 60 minutes

But not everybody is on an advanced ticket - for journeys like Birmingham - Manchester, Birmingham - Reading or Birmingham - Leeds I suspect the majority aren't.

 

[class26]

But not everybody is on an advanced ticket - for journeys like Birmingham - Manchester, Birmingham - Reading or Birmingham - Leeds I suspect the majority aren't.

true, but X Country is horrendously expensive, I only ever travel with them if i can get an advanced ticket otherwise I drive. This is why I don`t think an hourly service would be the deterrent you think. It is price that is the decisive factor more than frequency

 

[A0]

true, but X Country is horrendously expensive, I only ever travel with them if i can get an advanced ticket otherwise I drive. This is why I don`t think an hourly service would be the deterrent you think. It is price that is the decisive factor more than frequency

You might, others don't.

And I disagree with you on frequency.

Birmingham - Bristol or Manchester is ~90 miles, similar to London - Ipswich or London - Southampton, both of which have >hourly frequency.

 

[Purple Orange]

You might, others don't.

And I disagree with you on frequency.

Birmingham - Bristol or Manchester is ~90 miles, similar to London - Ipswich or London - Southampton, both of which have >hourly frequency.

It’s a strange world we live in, where we have two city regions the size of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, with almost 6 million people between them, and folk think 1 train per hour is sufficient. It’s sure to push people on to the M6, which is already hugely overcrowded. The railways need to be getting people off that motorway, not put on it.

 

[A0]

It’s a strange world we live in, where we have two city regions the size of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, with almost 6 million people between them, and folk think 1 train per hour is sufficient. It’s sure to push people on to the M6, which is already hugely overcrowded. The railways need to be getting people off that motorway, not put on it.

It's a balance - city centre to city centre, the train wins. Equally if you're going from Sutton Coldfield to Altrincham then car wins. It's not about getting everybody out of their cars - neither the rail network nor the Treasury could cope with that. It is about having sensible options for both - and on a flow like Birmingham - Manchester or Bristol, hourly isn't enough - equally I'd argue every 15 mins would probably be excessive.

 

[Purple Orange]

It's a balance - city centre to city centre, the train wins. Equally if you're going from Sutton Coldfield to Altrincham then car wins. It's not about getting everybody out of their cars - neither the rail network nor the Treasury could cope with that. It is about having sensible options for both - and on a flow like Birmingham - Manchester or Bristol, hourly isn't enough - equally I'd argue every 15 mins would probably be excessive.

Well of course. I’ve not advocated for everyone to get off the motorway, but there are a significant number of journeys that can transfer from road to rail.

 

[class26]

You misunderstand me. I think the service between B`ham and manchester is bad and slow. it should be far, far better with electric stock and probably 3 or 4 times an hour, afterall manchester to leeds is 6 times an hour ? What I was getting at was that I don`t think on X Country frequency is the main issue, it is stratospherically high fares that is the detriment to travel

 

[Gareth]

Manchester-Leeds is closer and so the two cities will naturally have a closer economic relationship.

2tph Manchester-Birmingham seems about right to me; although the quality of the service offered may well not be as good as it could be.

 

[507020]

It's a balance - city centre to city centre, the train wins. Equally if you're going from Sutton Coldfield to Altrincham then car wins. It's not about getting everybody out of their cars - neither the rail network nor the Treasury could cope with that. It is about having sensible options for both - and on a flow like Birmingham - Manchester or Bristol, hourly isn't enough - equally I'd argue every 15 mins would probably be excessive.

Now if it was possible to get directly from Crewe to Middlewich and join the Mid-Cheshire line at Northwich, you would have direct access theoretically to Altrincham from Lichfield Trent Valley or Birmingham New Street, being able to change there for The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield without going all the way into Manchester and doubling back, so clearly that line should be reopened to passengers to facilitate flows like that. Likewise Bolton to Rochdale to take East-West through traffic out of Manchester.

Non city centre to city centre flows need to be taken out of city centres, freeing up capacity for actual city centre to city centre journeys.

 

[A0]

Now if it was possible to get directly from Crewe to Middlewich and join the Mid-Cheshire line at Northwich, you would have direct access theoretically to Altrincham from Lichfield Trent Valley or Birmingham New Street, being able to change there for The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield without going all the way into Manchester and doubling back, so clearly that line should be reopened to passengers to facilitate flows like that. Likewise Bolton to Rochdale to take East-West through traffic out of Manchester.

Non city centre to city centre flows need to be taken out of city centres, freeing up capacity for actual city centre to city centre journeys.

Let's put the crayons away. The number of people making such journeys is relatively small and certainly won't cover the costs of making such changes.

As with freight, let's get the railways focused on what they can offer within their current capabilities and doing it well - that's where the real benefit is, not trying to cover random or marginal flows "just to stop people using cars" or whatever slogan we're looking for today.

 

[Neptune]

Let's put the crayons away. The number of people making such journeys is relatively small and certainly won't cover the costs of making such changes.

As with freight, let's get the railways focused on what they can offer within their current capabilities and doing it well - that's where the real benefit is, not trying to cover random or marginal flows "just to stop people using cars" or whatever slogan we're looking for today.

I like that. Too often people are focussing on what they want to see rather than the realism of the bigger picture.

The railway is about to go through dramatic changes with GBR however what is generally in place works for the majority. Is it perfect? No. It can’t ever be perfect but to alter services for marginal flows away from the core is foolish at best.

 

[185]

extending the London-Crewe LNWR service northwards to Manchester

The first managing director (JCVDV), prior to Covid did say plans were afoot to extend the Trents to Manchester Airport, but the sticking point was dwell time at the airport... even though a 160m 8-car train does fit, the issue I hear was 'all four other platforms' (?) are being used by trains on a lay over, and Network Rail had said the train would have to be split before proceeding north of Crewe, making it impractical - that should never be an excuse to prevent the introduction of a new, likely to be well used route.

With Avanti's current 1-train an hour (33% of ordinary service) out of Manchester Piccadilly to London, this could have been very useful.

 

[The Planner]

The first managing director (JCVDV), prior to Covid did say plans were afoot to extend the Trents to Manchester Airport, but the sticking point was dwell time at the airport... even though a 160m 8-car train does fit, the issue I hear was 'all four other platforms' (?) are being used by trains on a lay over, and Network Rail had said the train would have to be split before proceeding north of Crewe, making it impractical - that should never be an excuse to prevent the introduction of a new, likely to be well used route.

With Avanti's current 1-train an hour (33% of ordinary service) out of Manchester Piccadilly to London, this could have been very useful.

Those plans are years old and i dont think they ever got very far pre COVID. Performance and resilience is very much a reason why a train service should or shouldnt be introduced.

 

[185]

Performance and resilience is very much a reason why a train service should or shouldnt be introduced.

The uncoupling shenanigan would justify this.
Suggestions that all four (160m) platforms at Manchester Airport are in use almost all of the time, or lack of paths through Wilmslow & Styal doesn't.

Those plans are years old and i dont think they ever got very far pre COVID.

The franchise is 3 years old.
Network Rail were asked to consider paths 12 months in, and one can assume plans were reasonably well advanced given discussions about platform space.
Just five months ago, the DfT contract (ERMA) was signed which quite clearly mentions Manchester / Manchester Airport - although I am under no illusion this will happen anytime soon.

 

[A0]

The first managing director (JCVDV), prior to Covid did say plans were afoot to extend the Trents to Manchester Airport, but the sticking point was dwell time at the airport... even though a 160m 8-car train does fit, the issue I hear was 'all four other platforms' (?) are being used by trains on a lay over, and Network Rail had said the train would have to be split before proceeding north of Crewe, making it impractical - that should never be an excuse to prevent the introduction of a new, likely to be well used route.

With Avanti's current 1-train an hour (33% of ordinary service) out of Manchester Piccadilly to London, this could have been very useful.

On what basis do you think extending to Manchester Airport will be well used ?

The reality is of the 'Trent Valley' stations - so from Rugby to Crewe and you can include the Stoke loop in that, only Rugby and Stoke have direct airport services currently (to Birmingham). Does that make them inherently better used ? I'm far from convinced it does. Most of them are 1 change away from getting to an airport - that's hardly a major hardship. Most places across the country are least one change away from getting to an airport as well (Thameslink being the notable exception serving not one, but two airports).

 

[Ianno87]

The uncoupling shenanigan would justify this.
Suggestions that all four (160m) platforms at Manchester Airport are in use almost all of the time, or lack of paths through Wilmslow & Styal doesn't.

Given current Castlefield issues, filling up what spare capacity there may be for resilience at Manchester Airport doesn't seem very clever, especially with a train that also travels 180 miles and has a split and join involved too.

(Also, it's not just the platforms, but conflicts in the station throat and at Heald Green West Jn too)

 

[The Planner]

The uncoupling shenanigan would justify this.
Suggestions that all four (160m) platforms at Manchester Airport are in use almost all of the time, or lack of paths through Wilmslow & Styal doesn't.

The franchise is 3 years old.
Network Rail were asked to consider paths 12 months in, and one can assume plans were reasonably well advanced given discussions about platform space.
Just five months ago, the DfT contract (ERMA) was signed which quite clearly mentions Manchester / Manchester Airport - although I am under no illusion this will happen anytime soon.

The franchise may be, the idea isnt.

 

[507020]

Let's put the crayons away. The number of people making such journeys is relatively small and certainly won't cover the costs of making such changes.

As with freight, let's get the railways focused on what they can offer within their current capabilities and doing it well - that's where the real benefit is, not trying to cover random or marginal flows "just to stop people using cars" or whatever slogan we're looking for today.

As evidenced by Castlefield, what the railway can currently offer with current infrastructure inherently isn’t good enough. It seems pertinent to me to assess which closed lines are of the most strategic importance to Great British Railways. The logic in my proposal is, of all destinations, Manchester Airport can only be reached either via Castlefield or via Wilmslow and Styal. There definitely needs to be more services accessing the airport from the south, perhaps one from Trent Valley stations, but Airport services cannot physically be taken off Castlefield. That is a given.

Some of what can be taken off Castlefield could be routed through Victoria if there was capacity there. Capacity at Victoria could be freed up by reopening a line from Bolton to Rochdale via Bury so anyone from west of Bolton would be able to travel to east of Rochdale or vice versa without passing through the centre of Manchester. A Wigan/Southport/Kirkby/Skelmersdale/Liverpool - Bury/Rochdale/Burnley/Blackburn/Bradford/Leeds/York flow does not need to travel through Manchester Victoria and neither does freight.

Both Blackpool and Morecambe can be reached from Leeds an hour faster than Southport and slightly faster than Wigan, so this line would improve journey times for east-west flows avoiding Manchester and free up passenger and freight capacity through Manchester Victoria, which could in turn be used to free up capacity through Castlefield. It seems like a good idea to me. It could also carry heritage East Lancashire services from Rochdale to Rawtenstall.