Timetable implications of Avanti West Coast's 805/807 Hitachi AT300 sets

[The Planner]

Appreciate that but the Newcastle-Reading service (pre covid) ran via Coventry on Sundays, alongside the local service and the Manchester-Bournemouth service.
I was under the impression that it was timetabling constraints in the Coventry to New Street section that prevented it on weekdays.

It is down to the WMT services midweek that they can't run via Coventry, and the single line. They won't be going via Cov in Dec 22.

 

[TheBigD]

It is down to the WMT services midweek that they can't run via Coventry, and the single line. They won't be going via Cov in Dec 22.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, the timetable will not be a very even 3tph if two are non-stop Coventry to Euston and the other has 3 additional calls. Still, there's no way around that, and on balance it's probably a better service proposition than alternating stops.

It's mentioned elsewhere that it's half hourly clockface, then the other one as an extra. It does provide benefits in terms of intermediate journeys, e.g. Watford to Rugby without going via Northampton or changing at MKC.

 

[A S Leib]

Is there any indication yet of which peak-time extra stops (i.e. evening Liverpool - Watford services), if any, will be changed?

Hopefully the gap in southbound Birmingham services calling at Watford Junction between 16:50 and 18:30 will be fixed as well.

 

[cle]

Any scope for a Watford call on a Manchester service?

Leaving that grenade there, I think that as long as Crewe still has the fast Chester, Liverpool and Manchester -> London services, connections up to Scotland should be preserved. I do like the non-stop to Warrington, but the Glasgow call at Crewe during the pandy has been useful.

Curious about the second Liverpool stopping pattern too.

 

[Some guy]

Are the 800’s still in the system to serve Blackpool. If so that would mean a 7 car would have to run via Birmingham to Blackpool if the Glasgow services don’t return

 

[JonathanH]

Are the 800’s still in the system to serve Blackpool. If so that would mean a 7 car would have to run via Birmingham to Blackpool if the Glasgow services don’t return

They were never previously down to go beyond Weaver Junction towards Warrington. Pendolinos only.

 

[Pumbaa]

Hopefully the gap in southbound Birmingham services calling at Watford Junction between 16:50 and 18:30 will be fixed as well.

The latter is fixed by definition with the hourly stopper, as is the morning lack of services from Birmingham to MK.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2022 ==

It's going to be a very interesting timetable what every they come up with. Swapping the Stafford and Milton Keynes calls between the Chesters and North Wales is surely also going to require swapping the paths, or else the Chester will catch up with the Liverpool at Milton Keynes, unless the time difference between 805s and 390s is enough to cancel that out?

As @The Planner said, it’s a totally different beast. No such thing as just swapping paths. I think the only 2 paths that are the “same” as Dec 19 are the Down Glasgow and Down LM Crewe (at least as far as MK). Everything else, including everything on the Up (apart from the Glasgow) is a total rewrite.

 

[craigybagel]

As @The Planner said, it’s a totally different beast. No such thing as just swapping paths. I think the only 2 paths that are the “same” as Dec 19 are the Down Glasgow and Down LM Crewe (at least as far as MK). Everything else, including everything on the Up (apart from the Glasgow) is a total rewrite.

Interesting and good to know. I look forward to seeing the recast whenever it's made public.

 

[CW2]

All very interesting!
Hopefully @The Planner will be able to share his thoughts on the design philosophies behind the timetable structure in due course, e.g. which trains are paired / flighted together, which trains are deliberately on opposite sides of the hour, why particular stops are served by trains to specific destinations, etc. (There's the making of a good talk / slide show in all this).

 

[The Planner]

All very interesting!
Hopefully @The Planner will be able to share his thoughts on the design philosophies behind the timetable structure in due course, e.g. which trains are paired / flighted together, which trains are deliberately on opposite sides of the hour, why particular stops are served by trains to specific destinations, etc. (There's the making of a good talk / slide show in all this).

I haven't had a lot to do with it, though I have seen the outputs. Modelling has shown it performs better than pre COVID though even if it will rely on some good presentation at some locations.

 

[CW2]

I haven't had a lot to do with it, though I have seen the outputs. Modelling has shown it performs better than pre COVID though even if it will rely on some good presentation at some locations.

OK, Thanks. All info gratefully received ...

 

[Bevan Price]

Effectively yes - in that the only sections of the WCML passed for greater than 110mph have TASS differentials, so no TASS, no going over 110mph (other than the aforementioned Stafford - Wolverhampton section which has a 125 MU/EPS differential).

I'm not sure if I'd call it a phobia - more likely it seems that until recently there hasn't really been a need for it.

Is it the signalling that prevents speeds above 110 mph on some of the straighter sections of WCML (e.g. Crewe - Weaver Jn, much of Preston - Lancaster, etc.)

 

[Esker-pades]

And I see yours to be fair - I was thinking that the busy period was potentially so long that you'd have as much time 3tph as 2tph, if not even more, so the question would become which timetable is actually Takt? But yes, I guess it wouldn't actually be all that different from the West Midlands.

My biggest fear though would be the implications of losing 1tph out of Euston if Manchester dropped to 2tph. Given the implications of that would have Milton Keynes most at risk I'm surprised you'd be supportive of it?

It's going to be a very interesting timetable what every they come up with. Swapping the Stafford and Milton Keynes calls between the Chesters and North Wales is surely also going to require swapping the paths, or else the Chester will catch up with the Liverpool at Milton Keynes, unless the time difference between 805s and 390s is enough to cancel that out?

No, the Manchester's remain an even 3tph in the CTP (The Planner mentioned before). Different times, slightly different stopping patterns, but basically the same (2tph via Stoke, 1tph via Wilmslow).

Any scope for a Watford call on a Manchester service?

Leaving that grenade there, I think that as long as Crewe still has the fast Chester, Liverpool and Manchester -> London services, connections up to Scotland should be preserved. I do like the non-stop to Warrington, but the Glasgow call at Crewe during the pandy has been useful.

Curious about the second Liverpool stopping pattern too.

Hehe - you're welcome to do a second timetable restructure to accommodate that. Not in this plan (except early morning/night trains).

The Avanti timetable consultation page (here) mentions:

• Hourly calls at Liverpool South Parkway
• Enhanced service levels at Trent Valley stations including Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield Trent Valley
• Improved connectivity between stations across the routes through changes to calling patterns
• Additional calls at Rugby and Stafford

You can make some pretty good educated guesses from that. There'll be 3 or 4 stops between London and Liverpool, one of which is South Parkway.

Are the 800’s still in the system to serve Blackpool. If so that would mean a 7 car would have to run via Birmingham to Blackpool if the Glasgow services don’t return

The plan is for the London - Birmingham - Scotland trains to go back to alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Blackpool will go back to a few direct services per day (IE: via Trent Valley not Birmingham). @JonathanH is right that services north of Weaver onto Preston etc. are all planned tilting.

 

[craigybagel]

Is it the signalling that prevents speeds above 110 mph on some of the straighter sections of WCML (e.g. Crewe - Weaver Jn, much of Preston - Lancaster, etc.)

Presumably the signalling is fine given TASS fitted trains can run at 125mph on those sections?

I must admit though, Preston - Lancaster is one I've always wondered about; compared to the southern end of the WCML, it doesn't seem to me like it would be hard to make it 125mph for all, and thus let TPE make the most of it. But I'm not an engineer, I'm sure there are good reasons for it I don't know about.

No, the Manchester's remain an even 3tph in the CTP (The Planner mentioned before). Different times, slightly different stopping patterns, but basically the same (2tph via Stoke, 1tph via Wilmslow).

Thanks, that's a relief.

@JonathanH is right that services north of Weaver onto Preston etc. are all planned tilting.

Assuming the Euston - Birmingham "stopper" is going to need at least 4 if not 5 807s, and the plan is to use them on the extra Liverpool's as well, and there's only 10 of them all together, presumably there's no longer the scope to send them North of Weaver junction? According to the original press releases at the time they were supposed to be running to Blackpool as well, but obviously that plan has changed.

 

[Esker-pades]

Assuming the Euston - Birmingham "stopper" is going to need at least 4 if not 5 807s, and the plan is to use them on the extra Liverpool's as well, and there's only 10 of them all together, presumably there's no longer the scope to send them North of Weaver junction? According to the original press releases at the time they were supposed to be running to Blackpool as well, but obviously that plan has changed.

At least some of the Euston - Birmingham semi-fast will need to be the bi-modes (805); that'll be the service that gets extended to Shrewsbury a few times per day.

 

[TheBigD]

Assuming the Euston - Birmingham "stopper" is going to need at least 4 if not 5 807s, and the plan is to use them on the extra Liverpool's as well, and there's only 10 of them all together, presumably there's no longer the scope to send them North of Weaver junction? According to the original press releases at the time they were supposed to be running to Blackpool as well, but obviously that plan has changed.

Won't a couple of the Birmingham stoppers need be 805s for the 2tpd service to Shrewsbury?

13 x 805s on order, 8 needed for the (precovid) North Wales services, a couple for the Shrewsburys, leaves 1 spare for something else, assuming 11 from 13 is the diagrammed availability.

 

[A0]

The Avanti timetable consultation page (here) mentions:

You can make some pretty good educated guesses from that. There'll be 3 or 4 stops between London and Liverpool, one of which is South Parkway.

The Liverpool's currently have 3 stops - Stafford, Crewe and Runcorn - surely they're not going to stop at both South Parkway and Runcorn ?

If the Stafford stop is replaced with MK, then is it a fair guess that there will also be a TV stop on the Liverpool's ?

 

[Some guy]

Glasgow and Edinburgh staff would also need training on these new units for when they divert via Kilmarnock every year otherwise it’s buses to Glasgow from Carlisle

 

[JonathanH]

Glasgow and Edinburgh staff would also need training on these new units for when they divert via Kilmarnock every year otherwise it’s buses to Glasgow from Carlisle

It will be buses from Glasgow to Carlisle. There aren't enough 805s to use them via Kilmarnock without cutting North Wales services - certainly not all the way from Glasgow to London.

 

[cle]

The Liverpool's currently have 3 stops - Stafford, Crewe and Runcorn - surely they're not going to stop at both South Parkway and Runcorn ?

If the Stafford stop is replaced with MK, then is it a fair guess that there will also be a TV stop on the Liverpool's ?

This refers to the second Liverpool service which was mooted (with the South Parkway call - possible with the shorter 80x)

My q was on the remaining stopping pattern south of LSP. It could gladly skip Crewe and maybe Stafford - which both certainly have plenty to Liverpool and to London. Maybe a historical return to Nuneaton. And Watford or MKC if possible.

 

[Whistler40145]

Presumably the Wrexham and Holyhead services will would be operated by a pair of trains, splitting at Crewe or Chester?

Will the Blackpool services operate as one or two units and is Selective Door Opening available so that services are able to call at Poulton-le-Fylde and Kirkham & Wesham?

 

[irish_rail]

This refers to the second Liverpool service which was mooted (with the South Parkway call - possible with the shorter 80x)

My q was on the remaining stopping pattern south of LSP. It could gladly skip Crewe and maybe Stafford - which both certainly have plenty to Liverpool and to London. Maybe a historical return to Nuneaton. And Watford or MKC if possible.

No, cutting Crewe out of the Liverpools wouldn't be a sensible thing to do.

 

[A0]

There aren't any more important places on the WCML south of the West Midlands conurbation until you reach London, certainly, and MK will increase in size and become ever more important, not to mention its railheading role. Likely to double in size again over the next 20 years, which will increase its importance even further. Rugby is a small to medium town, and Watford effectively de-facto part of London now, and these three are the only IC stops.

That said, this will all be revisited again once HS2 comes along.

But there is clearly a move away from stopping everything at MK and starting to reintroduce stops further up the TV.

The vast majority of MK's travel is towards London - that's where the focus will be and I suspect the northbound destinations will be spread across other stations which have been "neglected". The problem for places like Rugby or Nuneaton are they've seen extended journey times to head north (and they are more likely to see traffic north than MK) as they've lost the stops onto faster trains. That imbalance is about to get redressed and MK might not get all the gains for a change. I believe the term is "levelling up" ?

 

[nw1]

All rather foreseeable. Lots of talk but it remains to be seen where 125mph non-tilt speeds materialise. Still, nothing like selling a slower journey time as an improvement!


The lack of direct fast services between those stations has long been one of the issues with the VHF timetable, so it's good to see that addressed.

However, the timetable will not be a very even 3tph if two are non-stop Coventry to Euston and the other has 3 additional calls. Still, there's no way around that, and on balance it's probably a better service proposition than alternating stops.

The DfT is, ominously, yet to commit to transferring the released Super Voyagers across to XC.

One could argue that changing the WCML pattern from a 3tph to a 2tph pattern would actually be better as it would impose less constraints on the local service, meaning you could have more even-interval local services on the line rather than the rather hodge-podge timetable which has existed since the introduction of 3tph.

One could argue, is 2tph 'good enough' at off-peak times from London to Birmingham and Manchester if it leads to timetable simplification and simpler, more even interval local routes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One could argue that changing the WCML pattern from a 3tph to a 2tph pattern would actually be better as it would impose less constraints on the local service, meaning you could have more even-interval local services on the line rather than the rather hodge-podge timetable which has existed since the introduction of 3tph.

One could argue, is 2tph 'good enough' at off-peak times from London to Birmingham and Manchester if it leads to timetable simplification and simpler, more even interval local routes?

It would certainly help Manchester's appalling local services, but that seems to be keeping 3. Definitely good for Brum's.

 

[A0]

It would certainly help Manchester's appalling local services, but that seems to be keeping 3.

Not sure it would - the Avanti WC services go into Manchester either via Stoke or via Crewe. If you went to 2tph then you'd inevitably end up with the two Manchester's going via Stoke (per the pre 2008 timetable) - so that creates a path between Crewe & Manchester which already has a 30 minute service to Wilmslow & Manchester plus the TFW services.

Between Stoke and Stockport / Manchester, you'd still have to accommodate 2tph Avanti, XC and Northern (as at present). So no room for increasing the number of services along the East Cheshire line, not least because when it gets to Kidsgrove you then have to consider the LNW Crewe - Birmingham service and EMR Crewe - Derby service. And south of Cheadle Hulme, none of the places served are that big (Macclesfield excepted and that gets Avanti and XC calls).

 

[The Planner]

The Liverpool's currently have 3 stops - Stafford, Crewe and Runcorn - surely they're not going to stop at both South Parkway and Runcorn ?

If the Stafford stop is replaced with MK, then is it a fair guess that there will also be a TV stop on the Liverpool's ?

But there is clearly a move away from stopping everything at MK and starting to reintroduce stops further up the TV.

The vast majority of MK's travel is towards London - that's where the focus will be and I suspect the northbound destinations will be spread across other stations which have been "neglected". The problem for places like Rugby or Nuneaton are they've seen extended journey times to head north (and they are more likely to see traffic north than MK) as they've lost the stops onto faster trains. That imbalance is about to get redressed and MK might not get all the gains for a change. I believe the term is "levelling up" ?

The second Liverpool, if its rights are granted, has TV stops. Your last paragraph sums up things, but I am not sure levelling up is the reason behind it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The second Liverpool, if its rights are granted, has TV stops. Your last paragraph sums up things, but I am not sure levelling up is the reason behind it.

I suspect it's actually having seen the success of the Trent Valley LNR service and wanting some pie themselves.

 

[A0]

The second Liverpool, if its rights are granted, has TV stops. Your last paragraph sums up things, but I am not sure levelling up is the reason behind it.

So reading between the lines would the Liverpool's be something like:

1 - MKC, Crewe, Runcorn
2 - TV (Nuneaton or Tamworth at a guess), Crewe, Liverpool South Parkway

Assuming Liverpool 2 gets the go-ahead ?