West Coast franchise timetable - what would you do?

[Waverley125]

Overall aim should, IMO to be to provide a frequency of

to/From London:

3tph-Birmingham, Milton Keynes & Manchester
2tph-Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Bham Int, Stoke
1tph-Glasgow, Chester, Wrexham, Holyhead

to/From Birmingham:

2tph-Manchester
2tph-Liverpool
1tph-Glasgow
1tph-Holyhead
1tph-Edinburgh

to/From Manchester:

1tph-Glasgow
1tph-Edinburgh

so something like

ex-London:

1tph Glasgow: Milton Keynes, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Motherwell

1tph Manchester: Milton Keynes, Stafford, Stoke, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport

1tph Manchester: Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport.

1tph Manchester: Stoke, Stockport

1tph Wrexham: Birmingham NS, Wolverhampton, Telford, Shrewsbury

1tph Wolverhampton: Milton Keynes, Coventry, Bham Int, Bham NS

1tph Wolverhampton: Coventry, Bham Int, Bham NS

1tp2h Holyhead: Crewe, Chester, Rhyl, Llandudno Junction, Bangor, Holyhead

1tph Liverpool: Milton Keynes, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn

1tph Liverpool: Crewe, Runcorn

1tp2h Glasgow: Preston, Carlisle

Ex-Bham:

1tph Manchester: Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport

1tph Manchester: Wolverhampton, Stoke, Stockport

1tph Liverpool: Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn

1tph Edinburgh/Glasgow: Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington BQ, Wigan, Preston, Oxenholme, Carlisle, Lockerbie

Ex-Manchester:

1tph Glasgow/Edinburgh: Bolton, Preston, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie

1tph Glasgow/Edinburgh: Preston, Carlisle

 

[Mr Spock]

Lichfield I can understand but what makes Stafford and Nuneaton more important than Tamworth?

The reason you gave for Tamworth was that passengers from the South West could change there rather than Birmingham to get to Scotland yet they already have a direct service to Scotland, Stafford and Nuneaton do not.

As you seem to want to miss out Rugby then Nuneaton would make a good change point for passengers from Northampton, Rugby, Coventry and Leicester - far better to give these people access to these trains than to stop at Tamworth so some people from the West Country have the chance to change from one Scotland train onto another one.

Also if the train stopped at Nuneaton it could do so on the fast line whereas at Tamworth the train would have to cross to the slow line and back again taking up extra time.

As for Stafford the case might not be as strong but it would enable passengers from Tamworth, Lichfield and (even) Rugeley to make a connection.

In my opinion no Virgin train should stop along the trent valley (except for the one or two peak ones) becuase of the disruption this will cause to the local stopping service and freight trains by crossing from fast to slow and back again

 

[Zoe]

The reason you gave for Tamworth was that passengers from the South West could change there rather than Birmingham to get to Scotland yet they already have a direct service to Scotland

But I doubt anyone would travel to Scotland via XC as it takes too long. A change at Tamworth would not only avoid having to change at Birmingham New Street but also allow faster journeys to Scotland. Failed Unit also makes a very good point about Nottingham. Tamworth, Nuneaton adn Stafford should all have direct intercity services to London. I'm not convinced about Lichfield though.

 

[Dreadnought]

But I doubt anyone would travel to Scotland via XC as it takes too long. A change at Tamworth would not only avoid having to change at Birmingham New Street but also allow faster journeys to Scotland. Tamworth, Nuneaton and Stafford should all have direct intercity services to London. I'm not convinced about Lichfield though.

Change at Birmingham and you get on a train at the start of its journey. Change at Tamworth and it is less likely you will be able to get a seat as I thought many Scottish services were already well loaded after leaving Euston.

I know which I would prefer especially if pendos start to become more prevalent on New Street - Scottish turns.

 

[Zoe]

I know which I would prefer especially if pendos start to become more prevalent on New Street - Scottish turns.

I know of people that hate Birmingham New Street and would prefer to not have to change there. The train that calls at Tamworth would be a second Glasgow service, the first would only call at Milton Keynes, Preston and maybe Carlisle.

 

[Mr Spock]

Overall aim should, IMO to be to provide a frequency of

to/From London:

3tph-Birmingham, Milton Keynes & Manchester
2tph-Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Bham Int, Stoke
1tph-Glasgow, Chester, Wrexham, Holyhead

to/From Birmingham:

2tph-Manchester
2tph-Liverpool
1tph-Glasgow
1tph-Holyhead
1tph-Edinburgh

to/From Manchester:

1tph-Glasgow
1tph-Edinburgh

so something like

ex-London:

1tph Glasgow: Milton Keynes, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Motherwell

1tph Manchester: Milton Keynes, Stafford, Stoke, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport

1tph Manchester: Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport.

1tph Manchester: Stoke, Stockport

1tph Wrexham: Birmingham NS, Wolverhampton, Telford, Shrewsbury

1tph Wolverhampton: Milton Keynes, Coventry, Bham Int, Bham NS

1tph Wolverhampton: Coventry, Bham Int, Bham NS

1tp2h Holyhead: Crewe, Chester, Rhyl, Llandudno Junction, Bangor, Holyhead

1tph Liverpool: Milton Keynes, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn

1tph Liverpool: Crewe, Runcorn

1tp2h Glasgow: Preston, Carlisle

Ex-Bham:

1tph Manchester: Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport

1tph Manchester: Wolverhampton, Stoke, Stockport

1tph Liverpool: Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn

1tph Edinburgh/Glasgow: Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington BQ, Wigan, Preston, Oxenholme, Carlisle, Lockerbie

Ex-Manchester:

1tph Glasgow/Edinburgh: Bolton, Preston, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie

1tph Glasgow/Edinburgh: Preston, Carlisle

To start with you say MK should have 3 services and promptly put in 4 and your stopping patterns list from Birmingham seems to only have one Liverpool train and no Holyhead ones despite that being part of the frequency plan. As for running a service non stop to New St from London this seems pretty pointless as it will only have to queue to get along the Cov-BHM corridor.

As for the rest of it I am at a loss to understand why other places such as Watford, Rugby and Nuneaton should not have some sort of direct train going north.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know of people that hate Birmingham New Street and would prefer to not have to change there. The train that calls at Tamworth would be a second Glasgow service, the first would only call at Milton Keynes, Preston and maybe Carlisle.

If you are running a superfast service to Glasgow why should it stop at MK which is only 30+ minutes from London, defeats the whole object.

As for changing at amworth how many people do you honestly think would do that, I am pretty sure not enough to justify pulling an express train off the fast line to pick them up.

The whole point of the TV 4 tracking and the current timetable was so that the express trains could pass the slower trains so I cannot see it changing.

Anyway when the BHM Gateway project is completed I am sure people will find that changing there is not such a bad thing.

 

[Zoe]

If you are running a superfast service to Glasgow why should it stop at MK which is only 30+ minutes from London, defeats the whole object.

As for changing at amworth how many people do you honestly think would do that, I am pretty sure not enough to justify pulling an express train off the fast line to pick them up.

In the future Milton Keynes may well simply be too important not to call at, express trains to the West of England all call at Reading even though it is only 30 minutes from London. As for Tamworth this would depend on how will it it promoted. If people were told to change at Tamworth for Glasgow then I'm sure people would change there. I would have thought they could at least have put in points north of Tamworth so anything stopping there could get back onto the fast line and not have to run all the way to Lichfield on the slow line.

 

[Mr Spock]

Failed Unit also makes a very good point about Nottingham. Tamworth, Nuneaton adn Stafford should all have direct intercity services to London. I'm not convinced about Lichfield though.

What good point does Failed Unit make because all he has said is that he knows some people who travel to/from London that way which is still bizarre.

Stafford already has a dirct service to London, Nuneaton might possibly have a claim but as for Tamworth I still think that pulling an express train from fast line to slow line and back again will take to long and cause to much disruption.

The thing about not stopping down the TV is that there is an hourly LM service with good connections at Rugby for fast trains to London.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the future Milton Keynes may well simply be too important not to call at, express trains to the West of England all call at Reading even though it is only 30 minutes from London. .

All trains stop at Reading because it is just as easy to stop them there as it is to let them go straight through because of the amount of trains using it and there are far more people using it than MK. It is also quite a large junction and passengers from slow trains and the branches change there. MK is just another stop on the WCML whjch trains can pass through at speed.

Perhaps after Reading is remodelled some trains will cease to call there.

It does not matter where the points are at Tamworth it is the physical thing of slowing down, crossing over, stopping, moving off, crossing over and getting up to speed again which probably takes twice as long as just slowing down, stopping and moving off again.

 

[Arriva 175]

So, are we saying a Glasgow to Euston service no longer needs or warrants a stop at Crewe?

Nearly all current Scottish bound London services are first stop Warrington. Crewe is served by Manchester and North Wales services from London and Birmingham services call en route to Scotland.

Network Rail wants most London to Scotland services to be first stop Preston in latest West Coast RUS.

 

[Zoe]

It should be noted that the new franchise has a minimum service requirment for the route of 100 calls per day at Milton Keynes on the route from Euston. So it seems there will be more calls than currently. This will be very useful for Network Rail that will have the new Central headquarters there.

 

[cle]

It should be noted that the new franchise has a minimum service requirment for the route of 100 calls per day at Milton Keynes on the route from Euston. So it seems there will be more calls than currently. This will be very useful for Network Rail that will have the new Central headquarters there.

Can you please provide more info on this or a link? I'd heard there would be minimums but have not seen details.

I imagine MK could easily be added to the Liverpool services. Or another Manchester (via Wilmslow?) if the fourth goes ahead. I'd rather Watford get a Manchester train.

 

[Zoe]

Can you please provide more info on this or a link? I'd heard there would be minimums but have not seen details.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...ranchise/draft-tender-invite-attachment-a.pdf

 

[Mr Spock]

It should be noted that the new franchise has a minimum service requirment for the route of 100 calls per day at Milton Keynes on the route from Euston. So it seems there will be more calls than currently. This will be very useful for Network Rail that will have the new Central headquarters there.

Of course it all depends on how you read that statement so if you look again you will see that it includes calls to/from London, so having just checked the current timetable I see that there are already 113 trains (or thereabouts) that already stop at MK each day.

Having looked at that document the daily figures do not seem to add up to the weekly ones so no it does not seem to be very good.

 

[Zoe]

Of course it all depends on how you read that statement as it probably includes both ways, so having just checked the current timetable I see that there are 113 trains (or thereabouts) that already stop at MK each day.

If that's the case then for Birmingham to Scotland there is only a requirment to stop a service at Morthwell in one direciton.

 

[cle]

Has the minimum Sat last train for Chester at 17:05! Without starting the newsreader thread again, why so early? Is it a Voyager capacity thing?

I'm a little surprised to see Stafford mandated for three times as many VT London calls as Tamworth, especially considering it has XC northwards to Crewe etc...

And Watford seems low still.

 

[Zoe]

Has the minimum Sat last train for Chester at 17:05! Without starting the newsreader thread again, why so early? Is it a Voyager capacity thing?

Remember this is just a minimum requirment and not a strictly specified timetable so it's possible that a later service could run but there won't be a requirement for it.

 

[Mr Spock]

If that's the case then for Birmingham to Scotland there is only a requirment to stop a service at Morthwell in one direciton.

Which is precisely what it gets currently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has the minimum Sat last train for Chester at 17:05! Without starting the newsreader thread again, why so early? Is it a Voyager capacity thing?

I'm a little surprised to see Stafford mandated for three times as many VT London calls as Tamworth, especially considering it has XC northwards to Crewe etc...

And Watford seems low still.

Last train to Chester on a Saturday is 18.05 it is a train for Bangor that is 17.05.

Tamworth only gets a VT train in the peaks whereas Stafford gets an hourly service + extras in peaks. XC services go to Stoke so assume you mean LM to Crewe, mind you always seems starnge that the Stafford hourly train is a Liverpool when there are already 2 LM trains per hour to/from Liverpool as well.

Watford like most other stations appears to be based on what happens at the moment.

 

[Whistler40145]

I agree that Glasgow to London should be the fastest service, only stopping @ major stations, so it should be 1st stop Carlisle, Preston & London only.

 

[LE Greys]

I agree that Glasgow to London should be the fastest service, only stopping @ major stations, so it should be 1st stop Carlisle, Preston & London only.

Only if supported by a semi-fast, which I would like to see, but will probably be impossible to timetable.

What are the figures for travel from Warrington, Wigan, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockerbie, Carstairs and Motherwell to London anyway? Surely Tamworth, Lichfield and Nuneaton get similar numbers of passengers going to London.

 

[markydh]

As usual, people seem to forget that not everyone wants to go to London! I'm also a little peturbed that Waverley's proposals see no trains stop at Lancaster at all!!! The London - Scotland services effectively serve 2 purposes. 1 is to provide links to the capital from Glasgow and the North West, the other is to provide local links within the North West. Removing calls from London - Glasgow services in the North West would be a bad idea, not least because the lost links can't be replaced due to the fact there is little or no room to shoehorn 'local' services between Lancaster and Carlisle. There was very strong opposition to the DfT's submissions to the ORR earlier this year for this very reason.

 

[LE Greys]

As usual, people seem to forget that not everyone wants to go to London! I'm also a little peturbed that Waverley's proposals see no trains stop at Lancaster at all!!! The London - Scotland services effectively serve 2 purposes. 1 is to provide links to the capital from Glasgow and the North West, the other is to provide local links within the North West. Removing calls from London - Glasgow services in the North West would be a bad idea, not least because the lost links can't be replaced due to the fact there is little or no room to shoehorn 'local' services between Lancaster and Carlisle. There was very strong opposition to the DfT's submissions to the ORR earlier this year for this very reason.

That's why I'm interested in the figures. Can the intermediate stations be handled by a local service? The Brum-Glasgow Voyager? The pattern I want to see north of Crewe is 1 express and 1 semi-fast per hour from London, a Brum-Glasgow, a TPX and an Edinburgh-Carlisle-Glasgow triangular service to serve Lockerbie and Carstairs. TPX might be able to do that, but not the triangular part of it. That's probably impossible, so is there any other way to do it? Can a Liverpool-Carlisle EMU handle the stations that the express misses? Can anything cover Carnforth as well?

 

[tbtc]

A few general comments:

I think that its better to talk about general frequencies than get into an argument about whether the stop on the Nuneaton service is a Liverpool service or a Manchester one.

The line north of Lancaster should cope okay with three services an hour - two to Glasgow/ one to Edinburgh.

Whilst the Trent Valley stations have some merit, I'm not sure which the biggest priority to stop at should be, or what the biggest connections there would be. It might be simpler to double the LM service from Rugby to Stafford (and run everything else non-stop during the off-peak)?

The demand for Tamworth as an interchange would be less if we had stock to permit proper two/three coach services from Nottingham/Derby to Crewe/ WCML stations.

Same goes for Nuneaton not being as important *if* Leicester had a service to Lancashire via the Hope Valley.

Ideally you could have Crewe as a hub with "turn up and go" frequencies to Liverpool/ Manchester/ Birmingham/ Stoke etc

 

[markydh]

The line north of Lancaster should cope okay with three services an hour - two to Glasgow/ one to Edinburgh.

The problem comes when you try to factor in Freight services as well. Network Rail's WCML RUS suggests there is little or no scope for extra services between Lancaster and Carlisle which is one of the reasons why they suggest running longer trains as a solution to crowding.

 

[tbtc]

The problem comes when you try to factor in Freight services as well. Network Rail's WCML RUS suggests there is little or no scope for extra services between Lancaster and Carlisle which is one of the reasons why they suggest running longer trains as a solution to crowding.

Good point.

Lancaster - Carstairs/Glasgow is much like the line from Newcastle to Drem/Edinburgh, where there's no space for a dedicated "stopper", so long distance trains end up stopping at "non-intercity" stations like Dunbar/Alnmouth/Lockerbie/Oxenholme.

I guess the easiest trains to "extend" are the three coach 185s which should be replaced by four coach EMUs, with the capacity to run eight coach services (e.g. Liverpool/Manchester portions joining at Preston, splitting at Carstairs for Edinburgh/Glasgow)