London Midland 2012 changes

[swt_passenger]

LM have a couple of new track access applications on ORR's site for the May 2012 period, following VWC Moderation of Competition removal...

Proposals are basically:

Evening services up the Trent Valley to fill the current gaps,
Divert one of the Birmingham - Liverpool services to Preston,
Extend the hourly Euston - Crewe to Liverpool vice above.

 

[Pumbaa]

Divert one of the Birmingham - Liverpool services to Preston,
Extend the hourly Euston - Crewe to Liverpool vice above.

These two were always going to happen. They tried to get it done for 2009, which is why Preston appears on the route maps in 350/1s. Paths weren't available without a major re-write of the Wolves stretch without ridiculously lengthening journey times. I don't know whats being changed to accomodate it though.

 

[tbtc]

Is there still one Preston service a day?

I have my misgivings about the end of the competition "moderation"; looks like it'll mean TOCs ignoring their core operation and going after "new" markets. Birmingham to Preston sounds a good idea (though there is obviously already an hourly Virgin service), but not at the cost of halfing the Birmingham - Liverpool service (which is surely a bigger market, and has no other operator running on it)

 

[PR1Berske]

Is there still one Preston service a day?

I have my misgivings about the end of the competition "moderation"; looks like it'll mean TOCs ignoring their core operation and going after "new" markets. Birmingham to Preston sounds a good idea (though there is obviously already an hourly Virgin service), but not at the cost of halfing the Birmingham - Liverpool service (which is surely a bigger market, and has no other operator running on it)

Isn't this how First North Western got into trouble? Chased the new markets and ignored the core?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What would the calling points be like on the Liverpool extensions and Preston diversions?

Preston I assume would just be Warrington BQ and Wigan NW, and Liverpool at Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway, but would there be any calls at Winsford, Hartford or Leyland?

 

[12CSVT]

It would appear that fare extraction is the motive here rather than public demand or best utilisation of paths and rolling stock.

 

[tbtc]

Isn't this how First North Western got into trouble? Chased the new markets and ignored the core?

Exactly!

Concentrate on taking people to London, and forget that your money really comes from "unglamorous" local journeys like Bolton to Wigan.

If you look at successful businesses, they are the ones who never took their eye off the ball

London Midland may be able to flog a few "cheap" London - Liverpool tickets, but I hope they don't forget their "bread and butter" operations too.

 

[87015]

London Midland may be able to flog a few "cheap" London - Liverpool tickets, but I hope they don't forget their "bread and butter" operations too.

LM have never been interested in their bread and butter, especially south of Northampton where they like to think there is no railway.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

LM have a couple of new track access applications on ORR's site for the May 2012 period, following VWC Moderation of Competition removal...

Proposals are basically:

Evening services up the Trent Valley to fill the current gaps,
Divert one of the Birmingham - Liverpool services to Preston,
Extend the hourly Euston - Crewe to Liverpool vice above.

Nothing new about the Birmingham Preston thing, Central Trains used to do it for one journey out of Birmingham in the early evening peak as a relief to the Virgin service

 

[Pumbaa]

It would appear that fare extraction is the motive here rather than public demand or best utilisation of paths and rolling stock.

It's only going to use 1 more unit if my extreme back of the envelope calculations are correct, and I would argue that having a second train per hour Crewe - Preston is a good thing. 1 an hour currently, and its packed.

If you look at successful businesses, they are the ones who never took their eye off the ball

London Midland may be able to flog a few "cheap" London - Liverpool tickets, but I hope they don't forget their "bread and butter" operations too.

I think this desire to change the pattern thus is fuelled by the fact that the Trent Valley service patronage is well over double expected. Go to Stafford, and when the xx59 arrives from Euston, it all spills out and goes onto P5 for the xx11 to Liverpool. Its rammed! The market here isn't slow London - Liverpool, although it does exist, its Rugby and north up the Trent Valley to Crewe and Liverpool. North of Stafford on the Crewe runs, its empty. Packs out at Stafford every time.

From the best of my memory, the proposal was for the Preston to run fast from Stafford, with the Liverpool run it displaced connecting there and running via Stoke.

I would hope that the new pattern emerges that a) the Euston - Crewe runs fast from Stafford to Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool Sth Parkway and Lime Street b) the Preston train runs fast also, c) Liverpool - Brum calls at Winsford and Hartford.

The ideal solution would be for a) a Euston - Crewe service splitting at Crewe, 4 to Liverpool, 4 to Preston. 2 trains per hour still run Brum - Liverpool, one calling at Winsford and Hartford, the other calling at Stone, Stoke, Alsager and Kidsgrove instead.

 

[swt_passenger]

What would the calling points be like on the Liverpool extensions and Preston diversions?

Preston I assume would just be Warrington BQ and Wigan NW, and Liverpool at Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway, but would there be any calls at Winsford, Hartford or Leyland?

Full proposed timetables for Weekday, Sat and Sun are in the 'business cases' linked here: Winsford gets basically hourly calls in the remaining Liverpool service (with some peak flow direction extras); and Hartford gets calls in the Preston as well.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1258

They also explain in some detail about the rationale for the service, which seems to be all about improving shorter distance connections than encroaching on other's territory.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's only going to use 1 more unit if my extreme back of the envelope calculations are correct, and I would argue that having a second train per hour Crewe - Preston is a good thing. 1 an hour currently, and its packed.

One extra train seems correct according to the business case I've just linked to, as are connections at Crewe into the second Liverpool train.

 

[Pumbaa]

I've fully looked through the documents now, and working on timings currently existing at Crewe, I think it'll get turned down.

Subject to a timing re-working, I think they would get the path if they ran the Crewe service fast from Stafford. To cross all four running lines at the south of Crewe at that time is a headache. Of course, that would then require one of the Brum services diverted via Stoke, with the same problem as above!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A trip via Styal line to Stafford is 41 mins on the current TT, versus 18 for running fast down the mainline. If the connections were good enough at Stafford, a lot of people would still change there to avooid the extra faff.

And the Sunday service is finally being brought up to scratch! I looked online for supporting evidence, but can't find it, would the Liverpool/Preston also run half-hourly? The LM operation on these corridors on Sunday is currently atrocious.

 

[tbtc]

I think this desire to change the pattern thus is fuelled by the fact that the Trent Valley service patronage is well over double expected

Is there capacity for a second Euston - Northampton service to be extended up the Trent Valley to Crewe? Presumably there won't be the units spare at the moment (though if LM are getting more 350s to replace the 321s, or getting the Northern 323s, then there ought to be)

 

[Pumbaa]

Is there capacity for a second Euston - Northampton service to be extended up the Trent Valley to Crewe? Presumably there won't be the units spare at the moment (though if LM are getting more 350s to replace the 321s, or getting the Northern 323s, then there ought to be)

Yes - there's space at the opposite side of the hour written in. Although it runs into trouble at Norton Bridge with a conflicting XC move and a VT running Up as well from Crewe at the same time. You could run it fast instead of via Stoke though. It may have to omit the Atherstone stop though for that to work with enough headway either side.

The current TV services require 8 units, with a further 8 on the Brum - Liverpool, although one of those is usually a /2. You could get away with making it half-hourly but it would mean Northampton runs have to go to /2 solely, and the Trings would need constant 321 attention throughout the day. Added to that, if you ran the second train fast, you could drop a unit from it. Currently running via Stoke means the return to London departs at xx33, with the inbound working crossing it in the station throat and (scheduled arrival xx38) but nearly always early at xx35. It's lunacy, and a waste of a unit for an hour!

 

[tbtc]

Yes - there's space at the opposite side of the hour written in. Although it runs into trouble at Norton Bridge with a conflicting XC move and a VT running Up as well from Crewe at the same time. You could run it fast instead of via Stoke though. It may have to omit the Atherstone stop though for that to work with enough headway either side.

The current TV services require 8 units, with a further 8 on the Brum - Liverpool, although one of those is usually a /2. You could get away with making it half-hourly but it would mean Northampton runs have to go to /2 solely, and the Trings would need constant 321 attention throughout the day. Added to that, if you ran the second train fast, you could drop a unit from it. Currently running via Stoke means the return to London departs at xx33, with the inbound working crossing it in the station throat and (scheduled arrival xx38) but nearly always early at xx35. It's lunacy, and a waste of a unit for an hour!

Cheers.

One an hour via Stoke is sufficient (unless you are talking about replacing the EMT service and losing a link from Crewe to the East Midlands), so if the second train ran "fast" north of Stafford that'd be fine.

Shame the Crewe - Chester line isn't wired, as the half hourly Trent Valley EMUs could extend to Chester and provide some great links (whilst using the Virgin Voyagers elsewhere on the network)

If only Northern had got more 333s to replace their 321s to send them to LM in the short term to allow more 350s to run north of Northampton...

 

[Pumbaa]

Subject to a timing re-working, I think they would get the path if they ran the Crewe service fast from Stafford. To cross all four running lines at the south of Crewe at that time is a headache. Of course, that would then require one of the Brum services diverted via Stoke, with the same problem as above!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A trip via Styal line to Stafford is 41 mins on the current TT, versus 18 for running fast down the mainline. If the connections were good enough at Stafford, a lot of people would still change there to avooid the extra faff.

Edit to this - I've looked through the proposed timings. The xx30ish from Brum goes to Preston, the Euston train still runs via Stoke and sits outside Crewe for a few minutes before continuing on to Liverpool. It eradicates the waiting time at Stafford both ways, with it being padded at Crewe instead.

All in all, I think the increased connections promised for Merseyside - Cheshire and Trent Valley - Cheshire are good, but its an increase of over 20 mins in the Up direction compared to today changing at Stafford. I'm sure people would however welcome the benefit of not having to change trains.

 

[Dreadnought]

A trip via Styal line to Stafford is 41 mins on the current TT, versus 18 for running fast down the mainline. If the connections were good enough at Stafford, a lot of people would still change there to avooid the extra faff.

Presume you mean via Stoke as the Styal line is the alternative route from Wilmslow to Piccadilly avoiding Stockport!

 

[Pumbaa]

Presume you mean via Stoke as the Styal line is the alternative route from Wilmslow to Piccadilly avoiding Stockport!

 

[TheBigD]

Looking at the proposed timetables (http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-london-midland-wcml-business-case.pdf) it seems that the Preston service will be Mondays to Saturdays only. Seems strange as Sunday afternoon/evening services on other lines tend to be pretty busy.

 

[lm321412]

Interesting proposels, although the Preston service is very irrelevant offpeak and would much prefer the additional Liverpool services...

Would there be any case for additional use of the 321s by the extension of certain services etc?

 

[bnsf734]

Interesting proposels, although the Preston service is very irrelevant offpeak and would much prefer the additional Liverpool services...

Would there be any case for additional use of the 321s by the extension of certain services etc?

Reading in the document mentioned in the previous post there is a proposed timetable which shows several trains timed for 321's running to Birmingham

So your answer is probably YES

Also noted that the last northbound Saturday train from Euston via the Trent Valley lines still leaves at 18:46 From experience this train is always busy with day trip traffic and I would have thought that a later train could be justified.

Calvin

 

[Pumbaa]

Reading in the document mentioned in the previous post there is a proposed timetable which shows several trains timed for 321's running to Birmingham

So your answer is probably YES

No - that is the timing.

Routes indicated 321 are slower than 350; they both work to a basic formula of set acceleration rate, top speed and set deceleration rate. 321 times are slower than 350 times. It basically means that the Brum turns will have more slack in the timetable as things go wrong more easily.

The Trent Valley service operates over a longer distance, but the Rugby - New Street corridor is so packed they have to allow extra times in case things don't go according to plan.

321/4s will never get past Rugby as they're not cleared anymore, which seeing as there are so few Rugby terminators mean they'll be restricted to Northampton, MK and Tring runs from Euston.

 

[A0]

I'd expect the 321s to be put on MK / Northampton runs. They're slower than the 350s which puts them at a disadvantage on the stop-start Tring runs. And there's no way they'll get put on the TV services, so it looks like Northampton's travellers will see some more 321 use if extra trains are needed - can't say I'd be too happy, never liked them to travel on and much prefer the 350s.

Surprised LM haven't put in for access for a Manchester - Birmingham service running Wolves, Stafford, Stone, Stoke, Kidsgrove, Congleton, Macc, Stockport, Piccadilly, using electrics.

 

[TheBigD]

...Surprised LM haven't put in for access for a Manchester - Birmingham service running Wolves, Stafford, Stone, Stoke, Kidsgrove, Congleton, Macc, Stockport, Piccadilly, using electrics.

It was one of the options for the VHF WCML 2008 timetable.

The plan was for one XC to go via Crewe with a Birmingham-Manchester journey time of just 80 minutes, with a LM 350 Birmingham-Stoke-Manchester.

It did not prove possible to path either service without significant detriment to others, hence the current offering.

 

[jd]

All this assumes LM still hold the franchise in 2010. That's far from a given right now...

 

[tbtc]

All this assumes LM still hold the franchise in 2010. That's far from a given right now...

2012?

In respect of my previous comment about not wanting wasteful competition on the WCML, I'd rather have an established TOC running competitive services to Preston than a GC "Open Access" deal

 

[jd]

2012?

2012, aye. Or maybe even 2010, stranger things have happened.

Or maybe the DfT will take it off them a couple of stations at a time. DDG and SOL are going over to Chiltern tonight.

 

[The Engineer]

The proposed timetables show that the Preston trains will stop at Hartford, giving a new service north from Hartford to Preston and then connections north. This will be the first time for many years Hartford (for Northwich area) has had a service north down the WCML and it is a new, untapped market... Good move!! (PS I was brought up in Northwich so appreciate how good this move will be...)

......and - of course - there will be Hartford to Stoke and Trent Valley stations through trains!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The proposed timetables show that the Preston trains will stop at Hartford, giving a new service north from Hartford to Preston and then connections north. This will be the first time for many years Hartford (for Northwich area)

Hartford was only removed from the IC at the time Operation Princess fell flat on its face, before that it had good (IC) services to both Preston and Liverpool, as well as London, Birmingham, and was a near-compulsory stop on all XC Liverpool trains, so really the link has only been missing for seven or so years.

I do hope it tempts people from Mid-Cheshire (Greenbank is close to it IIRC) onto trains, hopefully the 350s will be more tempting than pre-packed Virgin services, however I do doubt it will ever regain proper InterCity services again (not classing the proposed GC London trains in that), and last year the platforms were shortened by about 2/3 coach lengths at the Crewe end, meaning only Voyagers could call in Virgin's current non-SDO state (before, Hartford could have easily took a Pendolino - the platforms were 12-13 coaches long each).

Looks good!

 

[First class]

I'd say it will be a pretty guaranteed given that Penalty Fares will now apply when travelling from Preston with LM.