FNW's London attempt

[Philip]

Do people think FNW's London services from Rochdale and Manchester Airport could have taken off and become established in the long term, if the research and implementation had been better thought out? I can't remember the exact route, but I think these services went 'around the houses' and ended up taking a long time to reach London compared with the Virgin services. If faster rolling stock had been used and if FNW had sought a similar path to the present-day LNWR Crewe-London service, would it have been more of a success and lasted a long time?

How do people think a Northern Rochdale-London via Victoria would stand up in the present day, bearing in mind more people nowadays prefer cheaper rail fares than having luxurious train travel?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Manchester Victoria service (less so Rochdale itself) was apparently close to break-even even at the incredibly low fares offered, though the Airport services were "one man, dog and bicycle" operations and a total failure. The thing that killed it was being offered even poorer paths once the Virgin high frequency timetable was implemented. These paths couldn't have got better until the Trent Valley 4-tracking was completed some years later.

There's no scope for 90mph 2-car DMUs on the WCML - I actually see a resurgence of the Airport service as an extension of the LNR Crewe (8 car EMU) as more viable. But what's different that might make it work now when it didn't then? Journey planners and splitting sites that bring these services to peoples' attention when they select the cheaper option. Back then you had to know about these services and book them at a booking office that had also heard of them.

If the LNR service could be extended to Manchester Piccadilly (or Victoria, or Liverpool Lime St), then it'd make an absolute fortune. There's a huge student and young-people market in both cities for cheap London travel. It'd seriously dent the coach operations, too.

 

[Philip]

The Manchester Victoria service (less so Rochdale itself) was apparently close to break-even even at the incredibly low fares offered, though the Airport services were "one man, dog and bicycle" operations and a total failure. The thing that killed it was being offered even poorer paths once the Virgin high frequency timetable was implemented. These paths couldn't have got better until the Trent Valley 4-tracking was completed some years later.

There's no scope for 90mph 2-car DMUs on the WCML - I actually see a resurgence of the Airport service as an extension of the LNR Crewe (8 car EMU) as more viable. But what's different that might make it work now when it didn't then? Journey planners and splitting sites that bring these services to peoples' attention when they select the cheaper option. Back then you had to know about these services and book them at a booking office that had also heard of them.

If the LNR service could be extended to Manchester Piccadilly (or Victoria, or Liverpool Lime St), then it'd make an absolute fortune. There's a huge student and young-people market in both cities for cheap London travel. It'd seriously dent the coach operations, too.

Potentially the LNR service could run north from Crewe to Earlestown and then use the Chat Moss line to run into Victoria, obviously whilst keeping the same rolling stock. A new station could also be built at Ordsall to serve the Media City market. I'm sure a cheap London service would be quite attractive to many of the 'Salford-based Londoners', particularly as they wouldn’t have to use Metrolink or change at Salford Crescent to reach a London service as they do at present.

 

[Neptune]

FNW‘s original order for new trains included 180’s for the London services but this part of the order was dropped when it became obvious that the London services wouldn’t survive and the order was altered into the all 175 fleet.

 

[The Planner]

Potentially the LNR service could run north from Crewe to Earlestown and then use the Chat Moss line to run into Victoria, obviously whilst keeping the same rolling stock. A new station could also be built at Ordsall to serve the Media City market. I'm sure a cheap London service would be quite attractive to many of the 'Salford-based Londoners', particularly as they wouldn’t have to use Metrolink or change at Salford Crescent to reach a London service as they do at present.

No room for that north of Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No room for that north of Crewe.

A slight side question - why are so few paths available on that section of line? It appears to have a far more sparse service than many other double track lines on which all services call at all stations as they do here. A quick look at RTT for Warrington BQ shows plenty of 5+ minute gaps each hour.

 

[The Planner]

A slight side question - why are so few paths available on that section of line? It appears to have a far more sparse service than many other double track lines on which all services call at all stations as they do here. A quick look at RTT for Warrington BQ shows plenty of 5+ minute gaps each hour.

Winsford Weaver is your problem. Especially if the second Liverpool gets its rights. You need decent gaps for any Class 4s as well as serving Winsford and Hartford.

 

[Philip]

FNW‘s original order for new trains included 180’s for the London services but this part of the order was dropped when it became obvious that the London services wouldn’t survive and the order was altered into the all 175 fleet.

With more appropriate rolling stock than 158s and a reasonable route that doesn't add too much to journey time, would a Rochdale-Victoria-London service not be in a similar category to existing successful services today, such as Shrewsbury and Blackpool to London Euston; Bradford, Skipton, Halifax, Harrogate to King's Cross etc?

 

[Neptune]

With more appropriate rolling stock than 158s and a reasonable route that doesn't add too much to journey time, would a Rochdale-Victoria-London service not be in a similar category to existing successful services today, such as Shrewsbury and Blackpool to London Euston; Bradford, Skipton, Halifax, Harrogate to King's Cross etc?

I would think that the chances of fitting in such a service at the moment is nigh on impossible if you read the posts by @The Planner up thread.

Also Rochdale is unwired and even though this is in speculative threads we cannot just invent wires between Rochdale and Vic, so it would require bi-modes and they would probably have to run at marginal times of day.

I’m not even sure it would be as worthwhile now as it was when it did run. The service provision on the core routes is much higher and quicker than 20 years ago.

Rochdale as it stands has 6tph to/from Manchester so connectivity is good. Including a tram ride Vic to Pic and then the Piccadilly - Euston service I don’t think that the benefits of a through service for a few people from Rochdale would be worth it.

We don’t want to fall back into the realms of everywhere must be connected to everywhere with a direct service. I’m sure a direct service to Manchester Airport would be higher on the folks of Rochdale’s priorities than a few direct trains to London.

WCML capacity will only be relieved once HS2 is built but as that’s going to Manchester anyway I think it would weaken the case for a direct RCD - EUS service even further.

 

[The Planner]

With more appropriate rolling stock than 158s and a reasonable route that doesn't add too much to journey time, would a Rochdale-Victoria-London service not be in a similar category to existing successful services today, such as Shrewsbury and Blackpool to London Euston; Bradford, Skipton, Halifax, Harrogate to King's Cross etc?

Blackpool and Shrewsbury are token and operational convenience.

 

[adamedwards]

Does anyone have a working timetable excerpt they can share to show how full the WCML is from Crewe to Weaver Junction?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does anyone have a working timetable excerpt they can share to show how full the WCML is from Crewe to Weaver Junction?

Realtime Trains?

 

[Philip]

Just in terms of level of demand for London services/connections, do you think Rochdale is similar to places like Shrewsbury, Telford and Blackpool? It's curious that FNW/NWT decided on running a Rochdale-London in the first place - as the more obvious starting points were Victoria or especially Piccadilly as the latter would've meant they could use electric trains for the service. Or was Rochdale chosen as the origin just for operational convenience rather than for passenger demand?

 

[jfollows]

Does anyone have a working timetable excerpt they can share to show how full the WCML is from Crewe to Weaver Junction?

CE01.pdf 975 KB

 

[Neptune]

Just in terms of level of demand for London services/connections, do you think Rochdale is similar to places like Shrewsbury, Telford and Blackpool? It's curious that FNW/NWT decided on running a Rochdale-London in the first place - as the more obvious starting points were Victoria or especially Piccadilly as the latter would've meant they could use electric trains for the service. Or was Rochdale chosen as the origin just for operational convenience rather than for passenger demand?

It was probably operational convenience. Better to turnaround at RCD, which at the time had 2tph direct from Vic plus the Oldham loop services, than in the through roads at Victoria.

I suspect Piccadilly would be knocked back on the basis that VWC already operated that route so FNW chose Rochdale and Manchester Airport.

 

[Class 317]

Moderation of competition rules meant these trains could not serve Piccadilly.

Also Rochdale was served to ensure the new services passed the not primarily abstractive test against VWC revenue by tapping a small new market.

 

[The Planner]

Moderation of competition rules meant these trains could not serve Piccadilly.

Also Rochdale was served to ensure the new services passed the not primarily abstractive test against VWC revenue by tapping a small new market.

People need to understand the reasoning behind moderation of competition before we get the "big bad Virgin" stopped everyone posts.

 

[8H]

The Manchester Victoria service (less so Rochdale itself) was apparently close to break-even even at the incredibly low fares offered, though the Airport services were "one man, dog and bicycle" operations and a total failure. The thing that killed it was being offered even poorer paths once the Virgin high frequency timetable was implemented. These paths couldn't have got better until the Trent Valley 4-tracking was completed some years later.

There's no scope for 90mph 2-car DMUs on the WCML - I actually see a resurgence of the Airport service as an extension of the LNR Crewe (8 car EMU) as more viable. But what's different that might make it work now when it didn't then? Journey planners and splitting sites that bring these services to peoples' attention when they select the cheaper option. Back then you had to know about these services and book them at a booking office that had also heard of them.

If the LNR service could be extended to Manchester Piccadilly (or Victoria, or Liverpool Lime St), then it'd make an absolute fortune. There's a huge student and young-people market in both cities for cheap London travel. It'd seriously dent the coach operations, too.

Agree with a lot of this, can’t see any reason why the Greater Manchester to London & SE market cannot be better served and successful in the way that Birmingham/WM to London and SE works well for passengers offering different pricing and journey time variations that suit all segments.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree with a lot of this, can’t see any reason why the Greater Manchester to London & SE market cannot be better served and successful in the way that Birmingham/WM to London and SE works well for passengers offering different pricing and journey time variations that suit all segments.

I think it's worth saying that a slower, lower priced option like the LNR service is market differentiation rather than competition. That grows the market and so is positive (and is why some European railways "compete with themselves" in this manner). There are limited paths, but I think 1tph of 12-car LNR service (or 10.730) would be a good use of one hourly path from Manchester south continuing as the current Crewe service, though the pathing would need to be worked out as it doesn't fit either of the current Northern stoppers which would otherwise be a drop-in replacement.

 

[507020]

I think it's worth saying that a slower, lower priced option like the LNR service is market differentiation rather than competition. That grows the market and so is positive (and is why some European railways "compete with themselves" in this manner). There are limited paths, but I think 1tph of 12-car LNR service (or 10.730) would be a good use of one hourly path from Manchester south continuing as the current Crewe service, though the pathing would need to be worked out as it doesn't fit either of the current Northern stoppers which would otherwise be a drop-in replacement.

Just swap an LNR service with half of the Liverpools and send an XC service to Liverpool in those hours

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just swap an LNR service with half of the Liverpools and send an XC service to Liverpool in those hours

Half of which Liverpools? There is no LNR Liverpool-London via Brum service any more, and nor should there be because it was disastrous for punctuality - the only way this should ever be done is a short extension of the Crewe Trent Valley service to either Liverpool or Manchester (or maybe half to each).

 

[507020]

Half of which Liverpools? There is no LNR Liverpool-London via Brum service any more, and nor should there be because it was disastrous for punctuality - the only way this should ever be done is a short extension of the Crewe Trent Valley service to either Liverpool or Manchester (or maybe half to each).

Well perhaps it should alternate between an LNR Liverpool/Manchester - Trent Valley - Euston and an XC service to Birmingham/Reading/Bournemouth

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well perhaps it should alternate between an LNR Liverpool/Manchester - Trent Valley - Euston and an XC service to Birmingham/Reading/Bournemouth

It wouldn't be a terrible idea to do this alternating with the reinstatement of the Bristol XC from Manchester, which is surely an untapped demand.

 

[507020]

It wouldn't be a terrible idea to do this alternating with the reinstatement of the Bristol XC from Manchester, which is surely an untapped demand.

Does that go on the Camp Hill line?

 

[setdown]

Using the LNR Crewe - Euston service a couple of times last week, I was shocked how busy they were. And that was with 8 carriages! These were just mid-week, midday services as well, hardly peak leisure time. Much busier than pre-pandemic, I guess word about the cheaper services has spread. My point being though, I don't know how you'd also add passengers boarding at Manchester, without serious overcrowding issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Using the LNR Crewe - Euston service a couple of times last week, I was shocked how busy they were. And that was with 8 carriages! These were just mid-week, midday services as well, hardly peak leisure time. Much busier than pre-pandemic, I guess word about the cheaper services has spread. My point being though, I don't know how you'd also add passengers boarding at Manchester, without serious overcrowding issues.

A fairly obvious answer to that is "add another 4 coaches" (or run them as double 730s once those arrive).

 

[A0]

A fairly obvious answer to that is "add another 4 coaches" (or run them as double 730s once those arrive).

Two words - platform lengths.

Not all of the stations will be capable of taking 12 cars - Atherstone springs to mind as does Rugeley TV and possibly the bays at Crewe these currently terminate in?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2022 ==

Using the LNR Crewe - Euston service a couple of times last week, I was shocked how busy they were. And that was with 8 carriages! These were just mid-week, midday services as well, hardly peak leisure time. Much busier than pre-pandemic, I guess word about the cheaper services has spread. My point being though, I don't know how you'd also add passengers boarding at Manchester, without serious overcrowding issues.

But did you use it for the full length of the service or just a part of it? If you got on at Euston and off at MK for example, those services *are* busy because they're quick and there have been fewer Avanti services running which also reduces capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two words - platform lengths.

Not all of the stations will be capable of taking 12 cars - Atherstone springs to mind as does Rugeley TV and possibly the bays at Crewe these currently terminate in?

Three letters - UDS (Unit Deselect is a form of selected door operation fitted to the 350s). And I suspect the 730s will have full ASDO as everything does now.

The length of the bay would no longer be of relevance if they operated through to Manchester.

 

[setdown]

Two words - platform lengths.

Not all of the stations will be capable of taking 12 cars - Atherstone springs to mind as does Rugeley TV and possibly the bays at Crewe these currently terminate in?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2022 ==



But did you use it for the full length of the service or just a part of it? If you got on at Euston and off at MK for example, those services *are* busy because they're quick and there have been fewer Avanti services running which also reduces capacity.

Used the full length route from Crewe to Euston (and back) two days in a row. Normally the rear carriages would be dead but they were very well used from Stafford onwards. I remember "back in the day" 4 carriages being more than enough. I'm really glad that the cheaper services are getting traction, even if it causes less comfortable journeys for myself!