Have the 26 run fast but that then causes problems for the 18 as it'll cause problems for it so path it at 09 using up the peak Leicester path. Have the 30 as a semifast and same with the 49. I know it creates a 40/20 frequency but it's the only way that 5tph could be accommodated. You'll have fasts at 03 (Tamworth only) and 26 (Burton only) with semifasts at 30 and 49 with a slow at 09
That still does not solve finding slots at Kingsbury for trains in and out of Birch Coppice and for trains you inevitably have to hide via Whitacre though to get up to Burton. Burton would have a very lop sided service as well by the looks of it.
That provision is overkill from Birmingham to Derby, but 5 tph will need to be accommodated as far as Water Orton. IMO, all that is needed on the Birmingham-Derby line is:
I accept that the timetable would need to be rejigged - existing paths may not be appropriate. The XC train could terminate in one of the northern bay platforms that are accessible from the ex-GN route, providing a 30 minute turn-around time is considered adequate. Local Leeds-Bradford services via Shipley could be withdrawn to free up platform capacity if required. If using the through platforms or there is a need for a longer overlay, the train could go to Neville Hill Depot. There are plenty of other trains from Leeds to York for good connections there, plus 1 tph from Leeds to Newcastle. It is better to route the 1 tph fast train from Birmingham to NE England via Doncaster or Pontefract to save 20-25 minutes journey time for what is already a lengthy journey. There would still be 1 tph from Birmingham to Leeds and 2 tph from Birmingham to the West Riding.
So you’re looking at a complete re-write of the timetable which as it includes Cross Country probably involves the whole network. I’m wondering where this capacity is in the bays too. Are we knocking local services out?
So might as well continue through to Edinburgh as you’re destroying east Leeds capacity with the associated hourly cross over moves more than simply running a through train ever would.
Ah yes, the fabled pain people suffer from a slightly extended journey time via West Yorkshire to connect over 1 million people with a direct train to Scotland. The only people I ever hear complain about this slightly extended journey time via Leeds is people on this forum. The general public who use Cross Country simply catch a train that suits their arrival time and couldn’t give a toss about a slightly extended journey via Leeds. It’s time people got real instead of making up problems that simply don’t exist to all except a few enthusiasts.
I would add that the general public also look at what suits their departure time too. I don't believe that the general public are looking at the fact that if they change from their XC train at Leeds that they would be able to get a faster service to York, than staying on the XC service. All the general public care about is getting from A to B with ease, not in the time that it takes them.
Which is a far better solution than the previous response which effectively translated as ‘stuff Leeds and West Yorkshire’. Not sure if it would be do-able turning a voyager at York, especially when 8 or 9 cars each hour but far more do-able than turning at Leeds, slashing capacity and most likely requiring a cut in some local services, re-writing entire timetables across the country and getting rid of the direct service to/from Scotland.
So Nottingham gets 1tph that is slower than today? unless you are assuming HS2, then that flies in the face of the proposals to try and speed that flow up. Not going to happen.
Which is pretty much what the service was/is.
Burton would get 4tph, with a somewhat lopsided service as the 03 would not call but everything else would call at Burton. Regarding freight, there's space to cram a couple trains between the semifasts as the freights are only a couple mins slower and they don't have to run through New Street station.
If there are 5 spare and a few are being tested by Stadler, if they get returned, that means that Stansted-Birmingham can be run by 755s. The easiest way to deliver cost savings is to increase fleet utilisation. Using 170s may reduce training costs, but if EMR can get 170s from XC, they will need to be used on whatever Norwich-Liverpool becomes. The amount of unelectrified route is also higher on Norwich-Nottingham/Derby than Stansted-Birmingham. Regarding maintenance, if a lot of lighter maintenance and refuelling can be done at Cambridge, that eliminates that problem and there's another 755 each hour running out of Stansted, so while you are losing flexibility at the Birmingham end, you're gaining it at the Cambridge/Stansted end. Getting them off the mainline will be key however to allowing them to reach full utilisation.
New St is irrelevant in this. The issue is that anything that is going in and out of Birch Coppice is doing so at a slow pace over Kingsbury Branch Junction at 10mph. A Kingsbury oil train needs around a 20 minute gap and an Intermodal needs a good 12 minutes.
There's a gap between the semifasts so an oil train could just about fit. If you stop the later service at Wilnecote, you effectively get a 21 minute gap, which gives enough breathing space to run it effectively.
In an ideal world (which we're probably the furthest away from at this point) the Class 379 fleet could actually work for this [albeit with the service retained by XC in case WMT aren't in a position to take on more units] in 8-car formation (14 diagrams with 2 spare units; not sure how many diagrams are needed for this service specifically) running on batteries between Coventry and Didcot, if getting all units fitted with batteries and then leasing them (which we know is expensive) remains cheaper than ordering new bi-mode units.
However, there is still the issue of Sheffield and Derby (both very sizeable cities) losing their direct train to Scotland, although it may not be a major issue if it's significantly cheaper for them to reach the ECML and then get an LNER service from whatever interchange is easier for them to reach.
Its not impossible but you'd need a good 100 miles on battery including some reserve and Reading to Basingstoke.
That depends, it could be possible to extend the 'fast' service via Doncaster to Edinburgh instead.
Sorry but this wouldn't work at all.
I think that is fine. Crewe will eventually have HS2 to Edinburgh. The others are edge and easy changes at Preston/wherever.
Not just that though as it's also the TPE. However the frequency would be poor (and 5 carriages may not be enough) without an increase if Avanti were to stop.
Fair enough but TPE is only 0.5tph (same as Avanti) and half the length so overall capacity would be a third.
Extend to Southampton?
Im all for it as it simplifies crew aswell. Avanti won't need an Edinburgh base, nor will TPE need a Glasgow base. Plus TPE already operate ECML services out of Edinburgh.
Oh yeah sorry should’ve mentioned, would extend the TPE to EDB. Wakefield are the losers in the situation but I’d rather give Dby/Shf a faster service.
Sure if the demand is there but is not the type of thing that I’d stress over getting done
WMR have just taken delivery of new stock (196s) for BHM-HFD though, and there's nowhere obvious to redeploy them.
