Will Manchester ever get competition on the London routes?

[TheSmiths82]

I hope I have posted this in the right section, I haven't quite got the hang of it yet.

My travel plans have changed yet again due to the weather, so I will now need to get a train from London. Normally I use return service from London to Crewe (London Midland) then TFW from Crewe to Manchester, this works out very cheap if I was getting a return journey. However I am travelling around so only need a single from Euston. I don't think the LMR savings will work on this trip, as I will be saving £10 but the journey will take at least two hours longer with the faff of changing at Crewe. However I wish there was an LMR (or other) service from Manchester that competed with Avanti. Is the issue purely a lack of capacity on the WML? If so would an EML service via Sheffield be viable?

 

[RailWonderer]

Once HS2 starts up and the legacy WCML frequency is greatly reduced, I'm sure some OA operators will at least bid for paths on routes to Manchester if not Liverpool, Glasgow and Crewe as well. There will be capacity and potential to undercut the HS2 fares, provided the govt is still pro open access a decade from now and accepts a bid.

 

[Royston Vasey]

St Pancras - Sheffield - Manchester can be surprisingly competitive in terms of journey time compared to Euston and is a permitted route on the £72.70 any permitted off peak single.

I had a look at getting from London to Manchester late morning tomorrow, just for fun...

I can see an itinerary STP-SHF-MAN at 12:02 tomorrow for £53.60 (with three splits) taking only 3:03 with a seven minute change in Sheffield.

Additionally I can see a Hull Trains-TPE split for a total £43 travelling KGX-DON-MAN at 11:48, (splitting tickets at Grantham) taking 3:17 including one 14 minute change at Donny.

This compares to Avanti's 11:42 from EUS-MAN taking 3:02 for which the £72.70 off peak single is, as I type, the cheapest available ticket.

So the competition and the value and even the speed are all there, I think people just don't know it, don't automatically think of these alternatives or don't want to change, and usually won't be offered the itineraries unless searching specifically for them or using sites like Trainsplit, as it can be a little slower.


(There is also a super off peak single from London Terminals to Manchester Stations via Chesterfield which is valid at KGX and STP but it's slower (change at Grantham onto a 158) and its £96.40, so not really competition)

 

[JonathanH]

Once HS2 starts up and the legacy WCML frequency is greatly reduced, I'm sure some OA operators will at least bid for paths on routes to Manchester if not Liverpool, Glasgow and Crewe as well.

How will they prove they aren't primarily abstractive? There is no way that a service between London and Manchester, or London and Liverpool could pass the 'not primarily abstractive' test.

There will be capacity and potential to undercut the HS2 fares

Hmm. It would seem odd to build HS2 and then allow new operators to undercut the fares. HS2 will have beneficial economies of scale as well.

This compares to Avanti's 11:42 from EUS-MAN taking 3:02 for which the £72.70 off peak single is, as I type, the cheapest available ticket.

It isn't usually that slow. It is just that the Trent Valley is shut for engineering work this week.

 

[Royston Vasey]

It isn't usually that slow. It is just that the Trent Valley is shut for engineering work this week.

That's true, I did think the timing was odd. It's usually a little over 2 hours.

But let's say we travel next Wednesday instead at that time, 11:46.

The split at Crewe takes between 2:58 (LNWR and Avanti) costing £29.50 or 3:29 (LNWR and TFW) costing £24.30.

Or I can get the direct Avanti at 11:53 costing £32 taking 2:12

For completeness, via Sheffield at 11:33, the split is £34.40 taking 3:33.

I'd say that's a pretty broad choice of good value fares (albeit with splitting) and the option of doing it without changes for not much more.

I know this is an arbitrary off peak time and there will be variations in fares available on each route, but there are reasonable itineraries at reasonable prices on different routes.

 

[TheSmiths82]

I think the issue for me though is I don't like changing trains unless it is much cheaper, in my case (it might have gone up as I haven't booked it yet, must do it now!) it isn't the journey time I am bothered about so much but the hassle. So for me the competition needs to either be much cheaper, or a slower, cheaper direct train.

 

[philosopher]

How will they prove they aren't primarily abstractive? There is no way that a service between London and Manchester, or London and Liverpool could pass the 'not primarily abstractive' test.

With HS2, I think the whole primarily abstractive test would be counterproductive and would result in a railway that is underutilised. Given the huge increase in capacity HS2 delivers, the only way I can see it being used to it’s full potential is if there is competition to drive fares down to attract new passengers to the railway.

Spain and Italy in particular allow other operators to compete against the national operator on their high speed railways on key routes such as Madrid to Barcelona or Rome to Milan and from what I gather it has massively helped build market share for the railways in both these countries.

 

[Bartsimho]

How will they prove they aren't primarily abstractive? There is no way that a service between London and Manchester, or London and Liverpool could pass the 'not primarily abstractive' test.

I think the lack of speed and several stops not on HS2 might make it pass.

A Euston-Rugby-Birmingham New Street-Wolverhampton-Crewe-Manchester Piccadilly might pass the test as it would be much slower than HS2 but serves more areas.

 

[cle]

The abstraction thing doesn’t make sense with a willingness for competition. It cannot be predicated on unserved markets alone.

Birmingham will have four direct route/options after HS2. Why shouldn’t Manchester also? And there are different routes, and can also differentiate on price, service, experience, loyalty/CRM - much like an airline.

It would likely increase total journeys - eg a Watford call (or Luton!) displacing car journeys now there isn’t a regular north (of) London railhead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Birmingham will have four direct route/options after HS2. Why shouldn’t Manchester also? And there are different routes, and can also differentiate on price, service, experience, loyalty/CRM - much like an airline.

There are several routes between Glasgow and Edinburgh but they don't compete. They serve different markets.

Post HS2 the WCML IC service will probably "become" Chiltern, LNR will remain LNR and Chiltern will go back to serving its core commuter market with a much slower through Birmingham service more comparable to LNR.

The competitor for Manchester is primarily the car, why do people keep forgetting that, TOCs included? But there is a cheap option by changing to LNR at Crewe, and it isn't even much slower these days. Lots of people do it. It could I suppose be extended to Manchester, but personally I'd send it to Liverpool to make it a second train per hour without Avanti needing to do it.

 

[cle]

There are several routes between Glasgow and Edinburgh but they don't compete. They serve different markets.

Post HS2 the WCML IC service will probably "become" Chiltern, LNR will remain LNR and Chiltern will go back to serving its core commuter market with a much slower through Birmingham service more comparable to LNR.

The competitor for Manchester is primarily the car, why do people keep forgetting that, TOCs included? But there is a cheap option by changing to LNR at Crewe, and it isn't even much slower these days. Lots of people do it. It could I suppose be extended to Manchester, but personally I'd send it to Liverpool to make it a second train per hour without Avanti needing to do it.

Liverpool or Manchester - doesn't matter (other than the MML/Rio angle) - the principle will apply but yeah either/both could run there eventually. Manchester-Birmingham should eventually look like Birmingham-Liverpool does today, once it's a HS2 route also.

Manchester does have two core routings (Stoke and Crewe) - and in future those might be differentiators or more open too. Liverpool is a single one. I'm not including the potential for via B'ham, or going Stafford-Stoke, or Stoke-Crewe, all of which are technically possible, Northampton too, or Styal - but in real normal practice, Manchester has two already. And they may not stay the same in future.

After HS2, people will still have the choice of LNR or Chiltern (or whatever Avanti is then) - and then HS2. That is four rail 'brands' who can in theory differentiate in many factors beyond journey time and price.

Glasgow to Edinburgh being a 40-70min journey isn't quite the same situation. Same with Reading or Portsmouth to London, or Southend - the latter especially could be more competitive.

 

[Chester1]

With HS2, I think the whole primarily abstractive test would be counterproductive and would result in a railway that is underutilised. Given the huge increase in capacity HS2 delivers, the only way I can see it being used to it’s full potential is if there is competition to drive fares down to attract new passengers to the railway.

Spain and Italy in particular allow other operators to compete against the national operator on their high speed railways on key routes such as Madrid to Barcelona or Rome to Milan and from what I gather it has massively helped build market share for the railways in both these countries.

There will be significant demand for the freed up paths for commuter services into Manchester and London. The abstraction test means 30% of traffic has to be new. Its a reasonable level to meet. No government is going to sanction a purely abstractive service competing against an effectively nationalised service. Thats what any Manchester service would be. Alliance did look at Huddersfield to London via Stockport at one point.

Blackpool - London passed test because of the low Avanti frequency on the route. The timing of the planned May 2020 launch was truely awful with hindsight. First might be interested in a second Lumo route. I am not sure if there are enough paths between Glasgow and Preston though.

 

[AJDesiro]

I think the lack of speed and several stops not on HS2 might make it pass.

A Euston-Rugby-Birmingham New Street-Wolverhampton-Crewe-Manchester Piccadilly might pass the test as it would be much slower than HS2 but serves more areas.

The only issue I can see with running through new st would be chronic overcrowding - LNR did this in around 2019 but for Euston-Birmingham-Liverpool/Rugeley/Crewe, and, as a local to the route, I noticed the service was massively more popular from day one, almost always full and standing, not helped by the reliability issues posed.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I really hope it does. I think railway competition between routes (not in the crazy way privatisation did it), is actually a good thing. I can choose which London terminus is easier for me to get to, choose whether I want a faster and more expensive journey or settle for a slower one and save money, or indeed choose between two operators based on levels of comfort. If Avanti loses money because of a St. Pancras - Leicester - Derby - Manchester Victoria service being offered, then I would have thought slashing prices and increasing promotional packages to incentivise demand, would be what would happen next. I wanted to go to Bristol recently and would have settled for the SWR service to save money, but remembered it had been axed. It would have generated a lot of custom I'm sure, if it was more frequent, with its useful stop in Clapham Junction to pick up South London passengers.

 

[JonathanH]

I wanted to go to Bristol recently and would have settled for the SWR service to save money, but remembered it had been axed.

There are still cheaper fares to go via Salisbury and Warminster to Bristol, just as there are to go via Chesterfield to Manchester.

I can choose which London terminus is easier for me to get to, choose whether I want a faster and more expensive journey or settle for a slower one and save money, or indeed choose between two operators based on levels of comfort.

St Pancras and Euston are essentially in the same place.

If Avanti loses money because of a St. Pancras - Leicester - Derby - Manchester Victoria service being offered, then I would have thought slashing prices and increasing promotional packages to incentivise demand, would be what would happen next.

I think that is doubtful, as firstly it would still have a product that offered a direct service, and secondly it isn't clear why a service via Derby would be cheaper.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

There are still cheaper fares to go via Salisbury and Warminster to Bristol, just as there are to go via Chesterfield to Manchester.

But I would have to change, rather than use the direct service in a Sprinter, with COMFORTABLE seats. Of course there will be a rather angry engine growling under my seat...

St Pancras and Euston are essentially in the same place.

True, but Waterloo to South West/Exeter is better for me. I'm sure a hypothetical Paddington to Birmingham service would be better for West Londoners.

I think that is doubtful, as firstly it would still have a product that offered a direct service, and secondly it isn't clear why a service via Derby would be cheaper.

Surely it would have to be, if it is longer.

 

[JonathanH]

Surely it would have to be, if it is longer.

Why? Is it cheaper to provide the service if it is longer? I'd say it most likely isn't. Indeed, it is questionable whether it would make money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why? Is it cheaper to provide the service if it is longer? I'd say it most likely isn't. Indeed, it is questionable whether it would make money.

Slower services mean more units/crews and so cost more to run than faster ones. The only reason why slower services like LNR are cheaper is that they are using up capacity on regional services that would run anyway purely to serve the local stations not served by faster services.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Slower services mean more units/crews and so cost more to run than faster ones. The only reason why slower services like LNR are cheaper is that they are using up capacity on regional services that would run anyway purely to serve the local stations not served by faster services.

So to make the economics work you could combine the LNR London to Crewe and Crewe to Manchester service?

 

[JonathanH]

Slower services mean more units/crews and so cost more to run than faster ones. The only reason why slower services like LNR are cheaper is that they are using up capacity on regional services that would run anyway purely to serve the local stations not served by faster services.

Yes, that was my point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So to make the economics work you could combine the LNR London to Crewe and Crewe to Manchester service?

Extending the existing LNR Crewe service to Manchester might provide an economic slower service, yes, though I think sending it to Liverpool to form the second service from there would be more sensible, then Avanti need not run a second service. You could I suppose run 5.730 to each though that may not be adequate capacity. Consideration could even be given to making it 2tph, one to each, which would bring more business from the TV local stations and may fund itself, though paths would probably be a concern pre HS2.

WMT were proposing to extend it to Manchester Airport for easier connections, but COVID got in the way if I recall.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Extending the existing LNR Crewe service to Manchester might provide an economic slower service, yes, though I think sending it to Liverpool to form the second service from there would be more sensible, then Avanti need not run a second service. You could I suppose run 5.730 to each though that may not be adequate capacity. Consideration could even be given to making it 2tph, one to each, which would bring more business from the TV local stations and may fund itself, though paths would probably be a concern pre HS2.

WMT were proposing to extend it to Manchester Airport for easier connections, but COVID got in the way if I recall.

The Manchester Airport branch should be extended westwards to the WCML, for direct Liverpool/Birmingham connections. Leaving it on a branch, like Heathrow, was another sign of typical, fragmented British planning

 

[The Planner]

The Manchester Airport branch should be extended westwards to the WCML, for direct Liverpool/Birmingham connections. Leaving it on a branch, like Heathrow, was another sign of typical, fragmented British planning

Birmingham would be best served via the routes available now, it doesnt need a new link to the WCML. The argument would be if its beneficial to get to the Chat Moss/CLC and avoid Manchester entirely, Im not convinced it would be.

 

[Royston Vasey]

secondly it isn't clear why a service via Derby would be cheaper.

Surely it would have to be, if it is longer.

Don't say that to the charge per mile brigade on here (this being the main flaw in their argument)

 

[317 forever]

Maybe an hourly Cross Country train between Birmingham and Manchester could be replaced by an extension of an hourly LNWR London Euston - Birmingham New Street service?

It could incidentally enable the reprieve of some 350s due to come out of service.

Admittedly it would sever some current Cross Country links.

 

[The Planner]

Maybe an hourly Cross Country train between Birmingham and Manchester could be replaced by an extension of an hourly LNWR London Euston - Birmingham New Street service?

It could incidentally enable the reprieve of some 350s due to come out of service.

Admittedly it would sever some current Cross Country links.

Services running through New St failed miserably last time LNWR tried it. Im not sure anyone would try it again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Services running through New St failed miserably last time LNWR tried it. Im not sure anyone would try it again.

I strongly hope not. It destroyed the service to the point of uselessness.

The service to extend, if it ever happens, is the Crewe.