West Coast Franchise

[tbtc]

And having 9-car or 10-car voyagers would be handy or something along those lines for GWML

I may have said this a dozen times before, but I think it bears repeating - if Voyagers were built with nine coaches from day one then they'd be brilliant trains and nobody would complain about minor things like the windows lining up with seats (in the way that nobody complains about that on 170s etc)

 

[MCR247]

People will complain about everything once someone goes wrong, not just with stock...

Two journeys, and the only difference is the train was 45 minutes late on the second:

Journey 1:
'How was your journey?'
'Oh it was great, train arrived 2 minutes early, was nice and clean, and the staff were nice. It was really comfy!'

Journey 2:
'How was your journey?'
'Oh it was horrible. The train was late, it smelled, the people opposite smelled, staff were rude, it was full of litter, it was full of drunks, it was really busy, train looked like it was 50 years old, seats were hard and ripped'
'It was the same train as last time'
'...oh, well things must have gone down hill rapidly in the last week...!'

 

[Nym]

Hmmm, seems a lot can be solved by building more voyager coaches and lengthening them to 9 coaches with additional panto/transformer coaches and generator coaches.

And no, it doesn't matter if the're the same engine (Cummins QSK19F) or not, the way the Oynx control system works means that power is supplied to a busbar on an 'as demaned' basis, hence it can be intergrated with either transformers or generators, hence the term, generator.

Would need what,
2 * 44 = 88 panto/transformer coaches 221
2 * 40 + 3 * 4 = 92 generator coaches 221

170 new carrages, all Class 221 trains to be Electro Diesel and 9 Carrages long. Could make them upto 10 or 11 carrages long...

220s to be 8 car?
2 * 34 = 68 panto/transfomer coaches
2 * 34 = 68 generator coaches

136 new carrages, all class 220 to become 8 coaches. or another 34 generator coaches to make them all 9 carrages.

Too much maths to 1am to work out what the MML would need. But all the above stock would be ideal for VWC Branches and XC Services...

PS: If you phone derby and say you want 170 carrages building, they'll find the plans!

You recon everyone would stop complaining when we see 9 carrage trains turning up?

 

[MCR247]

Anyway, for the West Coast franchise, this would be my proposal:


xx.03 Manchester Piccadilly
Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Stockport
xx.07 Liverpool Lime Street
Milton Keynes Central, Nuneaton, Crewe, Runcorn
xx.10 Chester
Watford Junction, Tamworth, Crewe
xx.13 Northampton
xx.20 Manchester Piccadilly
Milton Keynes Central, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport
xx.23 Wolverhampton
Watford Junction, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Sandwell & Dudley
xx.30 Glasgow Central
Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme/Penrith, Carlisle
xx.33 Liverpool Lime Street
Stafford, Runcorn
xx.40 Manchester Piccadilly
Milton Keynes Central, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport
xx.43 Birmingham New Street
Milton Keynes Central, Coventry, Birmingham Internation
xx.46 Crewe
xx.57 Lancaster
Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston

This includes XC taking back BHM-GLC/EDB, and 1 of the 2tph XC Brum - Piccadilly transferring to VT. If they had enough 390s, there is still an xx.00 path for a non-stop to Stoke.

I have roughly checked it and I *think* they should all be out of each others way. My only problem is the 07 and 10, so I think the easiest solution would be

xx.07 Chester
MKC, TAM, CRE
xx.10 Liverpool
Watford, NUN,CRE,RUN

or swap the fast and the slow(er)

 

[Invincibles]

Two Milton Keynes stops on the Manchester trains at xx20 and xx40 seems a little excessive, especially with the xx43 to Birmingham also serving MK.

If there is going to be more MK trains they should be pick up only going north so that less people use them as a replacement for LM and take seats from people who want to go further north. That has always been my problem with stops near London.

I think you would have to keep the xx00 Manchester as otherwise you have really downgraded the service between London and Manchester which is one of Virgins headline grabbers.

 

[Failed Unit]

I may have said this a dozen times before, but I think it bears repeating - if Voyagers were built with nine coaches from day one then they'd be brilliant trains and nobody would complain about minor things like the windows lining up with seats (in the way that nobody complains about that on 170s etc)

Or the 222s which are supposed to be the UKs most comfortable IC stock. Never had the pleasure so can't comment.

 

[The Planner]

Two Milton Keynes stops on the Manchester trains at xx20 and xx40 seems a little excessive, especially with the xx43 to Birmingham also serving MK.

If there is going to be more MK trains they should be pick up only going north so that less people use them as a replacement for LM and take seats from people who want to go further north. That has always been my problem with stops near London.

If anything you need more MK stops in the Brum trains, a lot of people will be commuting to MK come 2012.....LM dont get used by the people there currently unless they live up the Trent Valley, they are too slow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

xx.10 Chester
Watford Junction, Tamworth, Crewe
xx.13 Northampton

xx.43 Birmingham New Street
Milton Keynes Central, Coventry, Birmingham Internation
xx.46 Crewe

What lines are the lime ones on ?? if it is the fasts they will catch the preceeding ones up.

 

[MCR247]

Where abouts would it catch up? Which one?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Two Milton Keynes stops on the Manchester trains at xx20 and xx40 seems a little excessive, especially with the xx43 to Birmingham also serving MK.

If there is going to be more MK trains they should be pick up only going north so that less people use them as a replacement for LM and take seats from people who want to go further north. That has always been my problem with stops near London.

I think you would have to keep the xx00 Manchester as otherwise you have really downgraded the service between London and Manchester which is one of Virgins headline grabbers.

All I have done to the Manchester's calling pattern is remove the fast which is non-stop to Stoke, and then transfer the Macclesfield stop over to the xx20

 

[Zoe]

One potential issue with ordering new Voyagers I was thinking about was that as far as I know you can't just go to Bombardier and ask them to build more. A contract to build new trains would have to be put out to tender throughout the EU and should a company other than Bombardier win then they wouldn't be Voyagers.

 

[MCR247]

So what happened to the pendolinos?

 

[WatcherZero]

Stock replacement and lengthening. Not really a new competitive stock order.

 

[MCR247]

Isn't that effectively what new voyagers would be?

 

[Invincibles]

Where abouts would it catch up? Which one?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


All I have done to the Manchester's calling pattern is remove the fast which is non-stop to Stoke, and then transfer the Macclesfield stop over to the xx20

Provided the xx00 runs to Manchester.

I am still not completely convinced that you need two MK stops on Manchester trains.

Are the lime greens not LMs?

 

[MCR247]

Yes they are

Two MK stops are on Manchester trains now, so I have kept them, as I presume they must be there for a reason especially since VHF headed towards missing out smalls stops where possible..

 

[The Planner]

The xx.10 with a stop at the Junction would cost 3½ minutes, possibly 4. The 350 even at a ton will catch up. The xx.43 would probably just be far enough infront with a MK stop. Still think you need more MK stops in the EBWs though.

 

[Pumbaa]

Yes they are

Two MK stops are on Manchester trains now..

Not off-peak they aren't!

Ex-EUS:

xx00; SOT - MAC - SPT - MAN
xx20; MKC - SOT - SPT - MAN
xx40; CRE - WML - SPT - MAN

Ex-MAN:

xx15; SPT - SOT - MKC - EUS
xx35; SPT - MAC - SOT - EUS
xx55; SPT - WML - CRE - EUS

 

[Invincibles]

I assume the 13 stops at Watford Junction but that stops have been left off to keep it simple.

What about the timetable between Birmingham and Manchester.

As I can see it the xx03 will arrive in Birmingham at xx25 ish

Currently there are trains from BHM to Manchester at xx01 (ex Bournemouth) and xx31 (ex Bristol)

So presumably the xx03 continues in the path of the xx31 and will arrive in Manchester at xx59 meaning a full journey time of just under 3 hours for anyone who wanted to do it.

That means that the xx31 is now sitting in Birmingham and we need a train to Scotland.

The current VWC train is at xx20.

Might it make more sense to send the xx23 to Manchester, such that it is the xx01 from Birmingham (the dwell time at Birmingham is not really an issue, it can be factored in at Birmingham International as well if necessary) and then let the xx31 continue as is.

The xx01 from the South West would then go out later at xx20 to Scotland (again creating a longer dwell time at Birmingham, but opening up more opportunities for padding further south I suppose)

I think this is the problem with swapping Scotland to AXC it is hard to see how you can schedule the trains through Birmingham easily.

 

[MCR247]

XC would go back to the timetable before XC and VT were split

Manchester had 1tph Birmingham - Manchester and 1 more to Reading

 

[Invincibles]

XC would go back to the timetable before XC and VT were split

Manchester had 1tph Birmingham - Manchester and 1 more to Reading

Does that not then lead to a need to recast the timetable in other parts of the network? If you are going to move XC around to make the xx20 from New Street to Scotland work.

I can see the sense in increasing capacity on Birmingham to Manchester, but it just seems to need long stopovers in Birmingham, or a new XC timetable, and/or a rescheduling of the xx20 from New Street.

If you run the xx31 to Scotland 3 minutes behind the Manchester (xx25 into New Street from Euston) then it will be at worst 15 minutes behind its current path at Stafford. With the xx30 being where it currently is that should clear Stafford at its normal time and not cause conflict. Similarly I expect the xx33 Liverpool will have cleared Stafford as well. The Scotland train will then provide a connection to Crewe from Stafford, which would be useful I imagine.

From Stafford north there will be potential problems through Crewe, but maybe not too bad, then through Wigan and Preston.

Actually having the Birmingham - Scotland later would be better as it would be further behind the London - Glasgow, currently they can be 7 minutes apart at Preston.

However, it then goes into the path of the TPE to Scotland, which means problems with that. Whether that can be addressed as part of the electrification around Manchester and recasting of that timetable I do not know.

Plenty to think about there, but I think there is a lot of encouragement.

 

[jaigee]

Why do the off-peak VT Euston to Liverpool services have their first stop at Stafford? Hardly a soul alights or boards there.

Anyone going to Runcorn/Liverpool has caught the preceding LM service, and anybody for Manchester or Crewe has caught a direct VT sevice from Euston. The only passengers presumably would be going to Stafford only.

Why not stop at Nuneaton where there are frequent connections to the East Midlands, stations on the Trent Valley (as an alternative to sitting for nearly two hours on the LM service) and Birmingham lines.

A similar situation exists on the service in the other direction. Liverpool has a direct service to Birmingham, so presumably it's only reason is for the connections to the Trent Valley stations, which could still be made from Nuneaton.

There is probably a rational reason for this (pathing?) but it does appear illogical.

P.S. I must admit that I have an interest in this as I live in Nuneaton.

 

[martinsh]

Why do the off-peak VT Euston to Liverpool services have their first stop at Stafford? Hardly a soul alights or boards there.

Anyone going to Runcorn/Liverpool has caught the preceding LM service, and anybody for Manchester or Crewe has caught a direct VT sevice from Euston. The only passengers presumably would be going to Stafford only.

Why not stop at Nuneaton where there are frequent connections to the East Midlands, stations on the Trent Valley (as an alternative to sitting for nearly two hours on the LM service) and Birmingham lines.

A similar situation exists on the service in the other direction. Liverpool has a direct service to Birmingham, so presumably it's only reason is for the connections to the Trent Valley stations, which could still be made from Nuneaton.

There is probably a rational reason for this (pathing?) but it does appear illogical.

P.S. I must admit that I have an interest in this as I live in Nuneaton.

And you obviously don't live in Stafford ! The train is the only VT one per hour to / from London. I see you argument though. May be better to stop the Euston - Glasgow trains at Stafford as Stafford currently has no direct service at all to Scotland.

 

[Zoe]

And you obviously don't live in Stafford ! The train is the only VT one per hour to / from London. I see you argument though. May be better to stop the Euston - Glasgow trains at Stafford as Stafford currently has no direct service at all to Scotland.

Is there demand for a direct service to Glasgow from Stafford?

 

[Invincibles]

I am always surprised that the Birmingham to Scotland does not call at Stafford, maybe that one would be better as it is presumably going through a lot slower than the London train which will not stop until Warrington/Preston.

 

[Zoe]

I am always surprised that the Birmingham to Scotland does not call at Stafford

It does however call at Crewe where connections from Stafford are available.

 

[Geezertronic]

I was reading in last weeks issue of Railway Herald that Centro would like the next incumbant of the WCML franchise to make four-tracking of the line between Birmingham and Coventry a key part of any bids for the forthcoming 14 year franchise. This would be required in addition to HS2

 

[TomJ93]

they'd struggle for room, most of the two tracks can't be widened.

 

[Zoe]

I was reading in last weeks issue of Railway Herald that Centro would like the next incumbant of the WCML franchise to make four-tracking of the line between Birmingham and Coventry a key part of any bids for the forthcoming 14 year franchise. This would be required in addition to HS2

You'd still have two track section between Rugby and Coventry though.

 

[dk1]

And you obviously don't live in Stafford ! The train is the only VT one per hour to / from London. I see you argument though. May be better to stop the Euston - Glasgow trains at Stafford as Stafford currently has no direct service at all to Scotland.

Euston-Glasgow needs to be faster not slower. Things will have to wait to see if Preston/Lancaster/Blackpool gains the extra hourly Euston path which could then relieve the Euston-Glasgow service of Warrington/Wigan & possibly Lancaster too.

 

[martinsh]

Is there demand for a direct service to Glasgow from Stafford?

Well there does need to be a Stafford - London service, so would possibly good idea for the train that stops there to be one that goes to destinations not otherwise served from Stafford. Since Liverpool and Manchester are served, then that leaves either Glasgow or North Wales services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am always surprised that the Birmingham to Scotland does not call at Stafford, maybe that one would be better as it is presumably going through a lot slower than the London train which will not stop until Warrington/Preston.

Well the Glasgow one will have just come off the Queensville curve, so won't be fully up to line speed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Euston-Glasgow needs to be faster not slower.

Well my proposal (not posted yet, I'm at work for f**ks sake !) would see every service make 1 additional stop. Probably best to cut out all the stops at gateposts north of Preston !!

 

[The Planner]

they'd struggle for room, most of the two tracks can't be widened.

The original plans were always Stechford to Beechwood tunnel anyway, any more than that and the costs ramp up as you'll need another viaduct at Stechford plus re-modelling and another bore at Beechwood.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You'd still have two track section between Rugby and Coventry though.

Which is fine, not as though there are any stations and it's 125mph MU rated anyway. You have only got 5 an hour down there with a few standard freight paths, it can cope.