WCML southern end future. What you would like to see

[Bletchleyite]

I wasn't advocating removing calls, only that they don't need quite so many non-stops, i.e. all should stop at Watford and some one of Hemel/Berko also.

Not a great idea as they'd end up overcrowded.

 

[The Planner]

Ahh I must have overlooked that flow. I guess you could have a fast Birmingham - Northampton service that only calls at BHI, COV and RUG however. Speaking of which…

How about 4tph between London and Birmingham via Northampton:

2tph Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MKC, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street

2tph Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry, Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell, Hampton in Arden, Birmingham International, Marston Green, Lea Hall, Birmingham New Street

The all shacks would have to be overtaken at International or they would stuff the Cov corridor up. Presumably they also stop at Stechford and Adderley Park as you havent noted them. Rugby Parkway and possibly an extra station at Cov will be open by the time a recast happens.

 

[BluePenguin]

I would like to see significantly lower fares, the services will become slower so we need compensating for this. I also would like to see a second Liverpool service. Especially I need the timings of the Birmingham services to be reduced as they are too slow.

 

[Bald Rick]

Hardly "world class" for Europe.........

It’s debatable about whether Watford is a part of Europe….

Especially I need the timings of the Birmingham services to be reduced as they are too slow.

HS2 does that nicely for you.

 

[The Planner]

I would like to see significantly lower fares, the services will become slower so we need compensating for this. I also would like to see a second Liverpool service. Especially I need the timings of the Birmingham services to be reduced as they are too slow.

The second Liverpool service is possible without HS2. Im not sure I get the desire for lower fares as trains have been slowed down and then saying Birmingham needs speeding up. We had this discussion a few weeks back, HS2 speeds them up.

 

[BluePenguin]

HS2 does that nicely for you.

Touché, it will do. Although will be more expensive than today

 

[The Planner]

Touché, it will do. Although will be more expensive than today

Next years tickets will be more expensive than today as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Touché, it will do. Although will be more expensive than today

reasonably sure that won’t be the case on a normalised basis.

 

[BluePenguin]

reasonably sure that won’t be the case on a normalised basis.

What do you mean a normalised basis? Without even thinking about inflation and price rises, journeys on HS2 will more a lot more expensive with the difference justified as recovering the cost of building the line. Freeing up capacity on the WCML is a good thing and faster journeys are even better don't get me wrong. But higher fares are not ideal for anyone

 

[Bartsimho]

Thinking about it there are probably some stations that every service should call at.
Milton Keynes as a major flow itself and EWR connections.
I would also say Rugby as a key growth area but also the convergence of 4 paths creating connectivity.
Crewe for connectivity as well.
So even a service to Glasgow would go: Euston-Milton Keynes-Rugby-Crewe-Preston-Carlisle-Glasgow

Northampton should be 3 or 4 tph to London, not 2 as at present.

There also should be a second Trent Valley service, ideally via Northampton, so maybe fast to Northampton, then all stations to Crewe.

Maybe a Northampton Fast service being Euston-Watford Junction-Leighton Buzzard-Milton Keynes-Northampton-Long Buckby-Rugby with it terminating in the Down Bays.

 

[Flinn Reed]

In addition to improving services to Milton Keynes, Birmingham etc, I think the more local stations out of Euston could do with a more frequent (turn up and go) service. Bushey and Harrow are both very well used, and while Harrow now has 4tph off-peak, this does mean slowing down services going further out of London. There could be more potential too having a regular fast service at Wembley Central. Building platforms on the semi-fast lines at Willesden Junction would be ideal too, but given the cost a good compromise could be to reopen the existing platforms at Queens Park instead.

Would also be worth looking at the Abbey Line. At a minimum adding a passing loop at Bricket Wood would allow a 2tph service. This ideally would allow a through service into Euston, though would be limited to 4-car trains. However I'm sure that would be preferable (for passengers at Bushey/Harrow/etc) to having 8-car trains if it means a better frequency. Or could even split trains at Watford Junction, with 4 cars either terminating or continuing to Hemel. I assume there would be demand for a more frequent service at Kings Langley and Apsley too?

 

[Shimbleshanks]

A bit more freight capacity probably wouldn't go amiss if intermodal traffic starts to grow again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose you could go to a pattern like:

4 Euston-Tring all stations
4 Euston-MKC WFJ, Tring then all stations (maybe half miss Cheddington, though I'd personally vote to put a large housing development next to it instead) running just in front
2 Euston-WFJ, LBZ, BLY, MKC, WOL, NMP then semifast to Brum
2 Euston-MKC, NMP then semifast to Brum

The present situation with the Tring stoppers being overlaid semifasts instead so they can just be pulled for a 2 track timetable is clever enough, but post HS2 probably not necessary.

 

[JonathanH]

What do you mean a normalised basis? Without even thinking about inflation and price rises, journeys on HS2 will more a lot more expensive with the difference justified as recovering the cost of building the line. Freeing up capacity on the WCML is a good thing and faster journeys are even better don't get me wrong. But higher fares are not ideal for anyone

Hasn't it been pointed out many times that a) HS2 will have a lot of capacity, b) the existing non stop services are being moved across, c) the operational costs of HS2 will be lower, d) there is a need for it not to be a 'white elephant and e) the same operator will run services on HS2 and the residual fast WCML, such that fares should be expected to be around the same level charged by Avanti in real terms.

If anything, the fares for through journeys on the residual WCML services should be pushed up to encourage people to use HS2 instead and free up capacity for intermediate journeys.

 

[BluePenguin]

Hasn't it been pointed out many times that a) HS2 will have a lot of capacity, b) the existing non stop services are being moved across, c) the operational costs of HS2 will be lower, d) there is a need for it not to be a 'white elephant and e) the same operator will run services on HS2 and the residual fast WCML, such that fares should be expected to be around the same level charged by Avanti in real terms.

If anything, the fares for through journeys on the residual WCML services should be pushed up to encourage people to use HS2 instead and free up capacity for intermediate journeys.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The slower option should always be cheaper. Otherwise, everybody (well, most) will use that instead of HS2.

Same as what happened on our Charing Cross services when they were slow down by 25 minutes after HS1 opened.

Time is money and people want to spend less money and have more time at their destination via a faster journey. Opposite of what the railway would like.

 

[Energy]

That makes no sense whatsoever. The slower option should always be cheaper.

Yes, the slower option is LNWR not Avanti.

Otherwise, everybody (well, most) will use that instead of HS2.

It's a mix if maximising yield but making sure people take the intended train.

Ideally passengers for Birmingham should take the much longer, higher capacity HS2 trains while the remaining WCML Avanti services are for people travelling from Coventry and Rugby to Birmingham/London. The journey times down HS2 and the WCML won't be that far apart, so if HS2 is much more expensive you'll get London to Birmingham passengers taking regular WCML services, wasting capacity.

 

[cle]

I suppose you could go to a pattern like:

4 Euston-Tring all stations
4 Euston-MKC WFJ, Tring then all stations (maybe half miss Cheddington, though I'd personally vote to put a large housing development next to it instead) running just in front
2 Euston-WFJ, LBZ, BLY, MKC, WOL, NMP then semifast to Brum
2 Euston-MKC, NMP then semifast to Brum

The present situation with the Tring stoppers being overlaid semifasts instead so they can just be pulled for a 2 track timetable is clever enough, but post HS2 probably not necessary.

This isn't great for Hemel and Berko - both around the LB usage level, and more than double Tring. In reality, Tring is a turnback, not an interchange. People don't need to change there today northbound, so that would be a massive downgrade.

Maybe a Northampton Fast service being Euston-Watford Junction-Leighton Buzzard-Milton Keynes-Northampton-Long Buckby-Rugby with it terminating in the Down Bays.

I wouldn't call that fast! But it's not a bad semi-fast pattern. I don't think Northampton needs 4tph going to Birmingham slow. 2tph could run via Weedon and serve Rugby/Coventry faster (via Avanti type service) - or one could form a slower TV service.

 

[Bald Rick]

What do you mean a normalised basis?

in line with average fare increases between now and then.

The slower option should always be cheaper.

compare the price of an air fare from Luton to Barcelona with the rail fare…

 

[A0]

I suppose you could go to a pattern like:

4 Euston-Tring all stations
4 Euston-MKC WFJ, Tring then all stations (maybe half miss Cheddington, though I'd personally vote to put a large housing development next to it instead) running just in front
2 Euston-WFJ, LBZ, BLY, MKC, WOL, NMP then semifast to Brum
2 Euston-MKC, NMP then semifast to Brum

The present situation with the Tring stoppers being overlaid semifasts instead so they can just be pulled for a 2 track timetable is clever enough, but post HS2 probably not necessary.

What do you mean by "semi fast" to Brum ? My view is Northampton *used* to have a semi fast Birmingham service when it only called at Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham International - but some might say the current pattern of stopping which covers the stops between Coventry and International is semi fast.

I wouldn't call that fast! But it's not a bad semi-fast pattern. I don't think Northampton needs 4tph going to Birmingham slow. 2tph could run via Weedon and serve Rugby/Coventry faster (via Avanti type service) - or one could form a slower TV service.

I don't think 4tph Northampton - Birmingham is needed - but Northampton should have more than 2tph to London - so my view would be 3tph with one northbound heading up the TV to Stoke & Crewe. It would mean Birmingham departures would have a 20/40 minute split rather than 30/30 from Northampton, but I don't think that's a huge issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Semi fast means "not all stations". The present service is that, it calls all stations only one side of International. With 4tph you could do more skip stopping.

 

[Bartsimho]

How about the 2 existing LNR slow services augmented with these:
Euston-Watford Junction-Leighton Buzzard-Milton Keynes-Northampton-Long Buckby-Rugby
Euston-Milton Keynes-Northampton-Long Buckby-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham International-Birmingham New Street
both 1tph

 

[cle]

I don't think 4tph Northampton - Birmingham is needed - but Northampton should have more than 2tph to London - so my view would be 3tph with one northbound heading up the TV to Stoke & Crewe. It would mean Birmingham departures would have a 20/40 minute split rather than 30/30 from Northampton, but I don't think that's a huge issue.

Oh yes I think Northampton should comfortably have 4tph minimum to London (and MK) - 2 can terminate.

I think there would be four standard patterns:

Euston - all stations to Watford/Tring (4tph)
Euston - Watford - Hemel - all stations to Bletchley/MKC/Northampton (2tph, Cheddington 1tph?)
Euston - Watford - LB - Bletchley - MKC - Northampton/Brum (2tph via Northampton and semi-fast to Birmingham)
Euston - Watford - MKC - wherever (actual fasts - inc 2tph Northampton shuttle, 2tph Rugby/TV, 2tph Coventry/Brum x2 - Wolves/onward option)

The Northampton fast shuttles could arguably skip Watford I suppose, would depend on what value it had as a future interchange hub and jobs.

 

[Bartsimho]

Oh yes I think Northampton should comfortably have 4tph minimum to London (and MK) - 2 can terminate.

I think there would be four standard patterns:

Euston - all stations to Watford/Tring (4tph)
Euston - Watford - Hemel - all stations to Bletchley/MKC/Northampton (2tph, Cheddington 1tph?)
Euston - Watford - LB - Bletchley - MKC - Northampton/Brum (2tph via Northampton and semi-fast to Birmingham)
Euston - Watford - MKC - wherever (actual fasts - inc 2tph Northampton shuttle, 2tph Rugby/TV, 2tph Coventry/Brum x2 - Wolves/onward option)

The Northampton fast shuttles could arguably skip Watford I suppose, would depend on what value it had as a future interchange hub and jobs.

I think the fasts would be better terminating at Rugby as it has a Bay facing Northampton, has better connections for further north than Birmingham and Long Buckby is a main railhead as Northampton has no parking so services need to go past Northampton to reach it.

 

[Hadders]

Northampton has no parking

Northampton has a large car park!

 

[PTR 444]

The all shacks would have to be overtaken at International or they would stuff the Cov corridor up. Presumably they also stop at Stechford and Adderley Park as you havent noted them. Rugby Parkway and possibly an extra station at Cov will be open by the time a recast happens.

I was thinking they could run semi-fast between International and New Street, with trains alternating between calling at Marston Green and Lea Hall.

Basically the Coventry Corridor would look like this:

2tph XC Birmingham NS - South Coast
2tph Birmingham NS - London fast (International, Coventry, MKC, Watford Jcn only)
2tph Birmingham NS - London via Northampton. Alternating trains call at Marston Green and Lea Hall. Subsequently calls at all stations east of International to Northampton, then Wolverton and MKC only.
2tph Birmingham NS - London via Northampton. Calls at International, Coventry, all stations to Leighton Buzzard then Hemel and Watford.
2tph Birmingham NS - International (all stations stopper)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Northampton has a large car park!

And has done for a long time - Long Buckby has virtually nothing.

Northampton has always been sensitive about it;s trains (whether they actually use them or not - and they got worried a long time ago about PUG2 and so on) - so even in Silverlink days we gave them 2 fast off peak trains and a semi-fast , plus what we thought was a fair peak service to both Euston and the West Midlands.

 

[Hadders]

And has done for a long time - Long Buckby has virtually nothing.

Large car park at Long Buckby these days as well.

 

[The Planner]

I was thinking they could run semi-fast between International and New Street, with trains alternating between calling at Marston Green and Lea Hall.

Basically the Coventry Corridor would look like this:

2tph XC Birmingham NS - South Coast
2tph Birmingham NS - London fast (International, Coventry, MKC, Watford Jcn only)
2tph Birmingham NS - London via Northampton. Alternating trains call at Marston Green and Lea Hall. Subsequently calls at all stations east of International to Northampton, then Wolverton and MKC only.
2tph Birmingham NS - London via Northampton. Calls at International, Coventry, all stations to Leighton Buzzard then Hemel and Watford.
2tph Birmingham NS - International (all stations stopper)

Are you keeping the TfW? That would be 11tph between International and New St. I dont think that would fit. You have 9tph now with effectively 7 fast (3 Avanti, 2 WMT, 1 XC and 1 TfW). You replace an Avanti with a XC and you are adding in another two fast. If it works you just end up with a flight of fasts.

 

[PTR 444]

Are you keeping the TfW? That would be 11tph between International and New St. I dont think that would fit. You have 9tph now with effectively 7 fast (3 Avanti, 2 WMT, 1 XC and 1 TfW). You replace an Avanti with a XC and you are adding in another two fast. If it works you just end up with a flight of fasts.

Ahh that’s probably a retrograde step then. Does Northampton need 4tph to Birmingham? If not, curtail 2tph of the Via Northampton services at Rugby and put the Rugby stop back in the Euston - New Street fasts. The other Northampton service could even be split there if Long Buckby still gets a direct train to London with the Rugby terminator. This then gives you:

2tph New Street - Euston (fast)
2tph New Street - Euston (semi fast via Northampton) OR 2tph New Street - Northampton
2tph New Street - Reading/Bournemouth
2tph New Street - International (all stations)
1tph Wales - International

The other question is, how many of the above should run beyond New Street in the Wolverhampton direction?

 

[william.martin]

Are you keeping the TfW? That would be 11tph between International and New St. I dont think that would fit. You have 9tph now with effectively 7 fast (3 Avanti, 2 WMT, 1 XC and 1 TfW). You replace an Avanti with a XC and you are adding in another two fast. If it works you just end up with a flight of fasts.

The TFW services could probably terminate at New Street or even Wolverhampton P6, I know from experience that they can be quite empty from Birmingham International to New street and is probably due to the LNR service 4 minutes Infront.