Can GBR bring XC back up to INTERCITY standard?

[Zomboid]

On another matter, what do people think about the Virgin style of "clockface between nodes, but alternating destinations" versus the current pattern?

The Virgin style involved clockface services between nodes (say Reading and Birmingham) but then services might swap onto other routes. For example from Southampton I remember a 4-hourly pattern Manchester/Newcastle/Glasgow/Newcastle, but you had a regular hourly service as far as Birmingham.

This seemed a good compromise between simple clockface timings and offering a range of through journeys to different destinations, and I have to admit I quite liked it. Certainly from an enthusiast POV it was much more interesting and it did also mean that through services to more far-flung destinations were offered throughout the day, albeit at lower frequency.

I seem to remember Deutsche Bahn operated something a bit like this in 2009-14 (no idea about now, I mention those years as I visited regularly in this period), there might be an hourly service between two "nodes" (large city Hbf stations) but the ultimate destinations varied depending on the hour.

I think it depends on the frequency in the clockface. The current setup with a largely hourly repeating pattern is pretty decent, with Reading - Birmingham half hourly (well, before the plague anyway) and hourly continuations to Manchester and York.

I wonder if it'd be more or less successful if they simplified to half hourly Reading - Manchester (with hourly continuations to Bournemouth) and half hourly Bristol - Newcastle with extensions either end.

 

[A S Leib]

I wonder if it'd be more or less successful if they simplified to half hourly Reading - Manchester (with hourly continuations to Bournemouth) and half hourly Bristol - Newcastle with extensions either end.

Capacity via Coventry in the short term and desire for Doncaster to keep Birmingham services (/ for faster York – Sheffield and south options) would prevent that from being perfectly twice-hourly clockface.

 

[nw1]

Capacity via Coventry in the short term and desire for Doncaster to keep Birmingham services (/ for faster York – Sheffield and south options) would prevent that from being perfectly twice-hourly clockface.

Also you'd probably want to keep a link between Reading and the north-eastern arm (recognising that the Reading-Newcastle services seem to have lots of gaps at the moment, including, oddly, the 1700-1800 hour from Reading when you'd think 2tph to Birmingham would be most needed!)

 

[cle]

desire for Doncaster to keep Birmingham services

I really can't imagine this is a consideration.

I do think that eventually 2tph to Leeds and 1tph direct to ECML, would be desirable. But more for journey times to York / NE.

 

[NCT]

Financially the WC kitchen operation is completely unviable.

Do you know this for a fact, or is this a conjecture?

I wouldn't say alternating between 4 nodes is necessarily going to work very well. It results in the classic "infrequent direct services from everywhere to everywhere" thing which just isn't very practical.

I do quite like the approach you see in Switzerland with 2 nodes, though - the long distance service alternates between the two on a half hourly basis (so hourly to each) and runs fast, while in the other half hour on each a local stopping service operates from the common point. But I think two is the most that is sensible. Barrow and Windermere are probably a better example of this sort of thing than XC though as the split part is generally quite short, and indeed a service on that sort of model did operate in the 2000s, roughly every 2 hours to each destination semifast with a local stopping shuttle in between.

Yeah, the Swiss limit is about as far as 'clever timetabling' as you'd want to go.

DB's ICE network is essentially an electrified version of our Cross Country network. Yes in the core of the country it's clockface on every major route segment, but they try to be too clever with alternate routings in alternate hours and all sorts of extremity extensions. It just doesn't perform.

 

[43055]

They run a second one at peak times on weekdays - 14:45 Reading - Newcastle (leaves Birmingham New Street at 16:30) runs via Leeds. But not one the other way for some reason.

The service the other way was around 1505 from Newcastle which hasn't returned yet.

 

[Falcon1200]

es, because the incredibly shortsighted decision to single the track in many key areas including large stretches between Birmingham and Manchester.

Apologies, I should have been clearer; I meant single track in each direction.

Which then raises the question what 'large stretches between Birmingham and Manchester' have been reduced from 4 tracks to 2?

 

[HSTEd]

Which then raises the question what 'large stretches between Birmingham and Manchester' have been reduced from 4 tracks to 2?

Probably because there's not lots of glacial unfitted freight running around any more.

 

[The Planner]

Probably because there's not lots of glacial unfitted freight running around any more.

Still can't think off the top of my head what was 4 tracks on the route and isn't now.

 

[William3000]

I don't think they count as core CrossCountry routes either, but is anywhere between Birmingham New Street and Cambridge or Gloucester and Newport single-track?

Birmingham to Cambridge is a major cross country route between the second city and the fastest growing city in the UK and a busier station than Newcastle, York, Bristol Temple Meads, Southampton Central, etc.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I don't think they count as core CrossCountry routes either, but is anywhere between Birmingham New Street and Cambridge or Gloucester and Newport single-track?

Syston Junction was reduced to a single lead under BR’s Leicester rationalisation and resignalling scheme and remains so (unlike Wigston which was re-doubled quite a while ago).

 

[A S Leib]

Birmingham to Cambridge is a major cross country route between the second city and the fastest growing city in the UK and a busier station than Newcastle, York, Bristol Temple Meads, Southampton Central, etc.

It's also a route with an hourly 170 and 15,000 through passengers per year, assuming none go via London, against two Voyagers and 200,000 passengers from Manchester to Birmingham, 80,000 from Sheffield or 60,000 from Bristol.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It's also a route with an hourly 170 and 15,000 through passengers per year, assuming none go via London, against two Voyagers and 200,000 passengers from Manchester to Birmingham, 80,000 from Sheffield or 60,000 from Bristol.

I wonder how much suppressed demand there is in relation to the Cambridge route?

 

[JonathanH]

I wonder how much suppressed demand there is in relation to the Cambridge route?

The journey time may be suppressing it, not just the rolling stock or fares.

 

[mjc]

Which then raises the question what 'large stretches between Birmingham and Manchester' have been reduced from 4 tracks to 2?

Still can't think off the top of my head what was 4 tracks on the route and isn't now.

Much of the line from Birmingham to Manchester is one track in each direction, how much used to be more I don’t know but, for example, through Stoke look at the old Etruria station compared to the area now, and the removal of the central’s track through Stoke station.

 

[AndrewE]

Still can't think off the top of my head what was 4 tracks on the route and isn't now.

There were definitely more tracks north [-west] of the New St tunnels, but I don't know if they were just the "reception sidings" for Monument Lane carriage shed or slows for the Harborne branch... https://maps.nls.uk/view/101597699 seems to show it as twin double track under Lee Bridge, for example.

 

[The Planner]

Much of the line from Birmingham to Manchester is one track in each direction, how much used to be more I don’t know but, for example, through Stoke look at the old Etruria station compared to the area now, and the removal of the central’s track through Stoke station.

Etruria was to get the line speed up, the centre track at Stoke served no purpose as everything stops there and nothing needs to overtake.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2025 ==

There were definitely more tracks north [-west] of the New St tunnels, but I don't know if they were just the "reception sidings" for Monument Lane carriage shed or slows for the Harborne branch... https://maps.nls.uk/view/101597699 seems to show it as twin double track under Lee Bridge, for example.

They would be of little to no use now. Monument Lane through siding is a convenient bolt hole and thats it.

 

[Falcon1200]

Probably because there's not lots of glacial unfitted freight running around any more.

That does not answer the question!

how much used to be more I don’t know

But earlier you said;

Yes, because the incredibly shortsighted decision to single the track in many key areas including large stretches between Birmingham and Manchester.

I am, still, not aware of any sections, of any worthwhile length (ie to allow separation of faster and slower traffic) which has been reduced from 4 tracks to 2.

 

[mjc]

I am, still, not aware of any sections, of any worthwhile length (ie to allow separation of faster and slower traffic) which has been reduced from 4 tracks to 2.

I’ve provided two examples of where track has been removed, and @AndrewE another. A key capacity restriction is inability for ‘fast’ trains to overtake slow, and the middle line at Stoke, for example, would have allowed freight and non-stop services to have passed through without impacting on the timetable.

I may have been wrong, and there may have been few/no other four track areas.

 

[AndrewE]

I’ve provided two examples of where track has been removed, and @AndrewE another. A key capacity restriction is inability for ‘fast’ trains to overtake slow, and the middle line at Stoke, for example, would have allowed freight and non-stop services to have passed through without impacting on the timetable.

I may have been wrong, and there may have been few/no other four track areas.

ah, but my bit of track near Brum was too short to be of much use, and I accept that nowadays there is so little freight that it's hardly worth maintaining facilities for it. Definitely there are no non-stop passenger trains through Stoke! However it would seem to be a good idea to have a middle road as at Rhyl (preferably bi-di) even if it was just to help fit in things like the track-recording train.

 

[mjc]

ah, but my bit of track near Brum was too short to be of much use, and I accept that nowadays there is so little freight that it's hardly worth maintaining facilities for it. Definitely there are no non-stop passenger trains through Stoke! However it would seem to be a good idea to have a middle road as at Rhyl (preferably bi-di) even if it was just to help fit in things like the track-recording train.

Ah fair enough on ‘your’ stretch of track. On the rest though it’s perhaps chicken and egg, why is there little freight on that route? Why are there no non-stop services? At least part of the answer is because they can’t fit in the timetable.

 

[William3000]

The journey time may be suppressing it, not just the rolling stock or fares.

I suspect the journey time massively suppresses it. It takes 2hrs 38mins and goes as far north as Melton Mowbray. East West Rail with a north to east facing curve at Bletchley could enable a more direct route between Cambridge and Birmingham via Camborne, Bedford, Milton Keynes, Coventry, and Birmingham International - could maybe do it in 1hr 50mins instead.

 

[ac6000cw]

even if it was just to help fit in things like the track-recording train

Track recording/inspection trains normally have to run on the exact tracks each working specifies, in order to record/inspect it - so having an alternative route is of little use for those.

And on the other side of the coin, a while back a double-track flyover was added at Norton Bridge to take the line to/from Stone over the WCML fast lines and creating a grade-separated junction with the WCML slow lines, on the same side of the 4-track layout as the lines to Birmingham split/join at Stafford. This was a major capacity enhancement on the Birmingham - Manchester route.

why is there little freight on that route?

Maybe because there's no need for it to run that way (rather than e.g. via Stafford and the 'independent' lines at Crewe, which avoid the station, to get to/from the Manchester area)?

Why are there no non-stop services?

Ticket revenue to/from Stoke maybe?

The chances are that if certain trains didn't stop there they might have to have 'pathing allowances' elsewhere to fit in with other trains, so wouldn't necessarily be any faster end-to-end.

 

[A S Leib]

Ticket revenue to/from Stoke maybe?

The chances are that if certain trains didn't stop there they might have to have 'pathing allowances' elsewhere to fit in with other trains, so wouldn't necessarily be any faster end-to-end.

All of the HS2 Manchester services would be / would have been nonstop through Crewe, although they wouldn't also have had to have been the fast Stoke to Birmingham (currently only, with the LNR one cut back to Stafford) and Wolverhampton and partially Stafford to Manchester service.

 

[Dr Hoo]

With the end of the coal and steel industries around Stoke (not to mention other odds and ends such as aggregate-type traffic from the Leek area) there is very little freight need. There are still freight loops north of Stoke station anyway.

 

[The Planner]

I’ve provided two examples of where track has been removed, and @AndrewE another. A key capacity restriction is inability for ‘fast’ trains to overtake slow, and the middle line at Stoke, for example, would have allowed freight and non-stop services to have passed through without impacting on the timetable.

I may have been wrong, and there may have been few/no other four track areas.

There are a handful of freight trains through Stoke. Nothing runs fast through Stoke, it all stops as I said previously, so there is no constraint to solve

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==

Ah fair enough on ‘your’ stretch of track. On the rest though it’s perhaps chicken and egg, why is there little freight on that route? Why are there no non-stop services? At least part of the answer is because they can’t fit in the timetable.

No, Stoke is significant enough to have all trains stopping. What trains would you run non-stop?

 

[Zomboid]

Stoke is the biggest place between Colwich and Cheadle Hulme, so anything that doesn't need to call can probably run up the WCML via Crewe.

 

[Falcon1200]

I’ve provided two examples of where track has been removed

You provided two tiny examples, neither of which would make the slightest difference to capacity on the route. There are not going to be, and probably never have been, fast trains using the centre roads at Stoke to overtake (non-stop) other services.

 

[mjc]

Trying to enforce an artificial split of long distance and not long distance trains is unworkable though.

The network is simply far too heavily utilised for that.

There are a handful of freight trains through Stoke. Nothing runs fast through Stoke, it all stops as I said previously, so there is no constraint to solve

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==


No, Stoke is significant enough to have all trains stopping. What trains would you run non-stop?

Not quite everything stops, although I think it’s just one Avanti service Man-Eus in the morning which passes through now.

I don’t know what could/should pass through, my comment was in response to a comment that there’s not enough capacity to separate long distance and local traffic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==

And on the other side of the coin, a while back a double-track flyover was added at Norton Bridge to take the line to/from Stone over the WCML fast lines and creating a grade-separated junction with the WCML slow lines, on the same side of the 4-track layout as the lines to Birmingham split/join at Stafford. This was a major capacity enhancement on the Birmingham - Manchester route.

I’d be interested to hear what additional services were added as a result of the improved capacity. I recall when the works were being done it was also heralded as enabling faster journies, but do t remember any actually getting faster…

 

[Krokodil]

A key capacity restriction is inability for ‘fast’ trains to overtake slow, and the middle line at Stoke, for example, would have allowed freight and non-stop services to have passed through without impacting on the timetable.

What non-stop services? What freight goes through fast enough that it could overtake a passenger train?

However it would seem to be a good idea to have a middle road as at Rhyl

The middle road at Rhyl (and those at Bangor) are basically useless on 364 days of the year. All trains stop there so the only time that they are ever used for regulation purposes is if a late-running train is run fast. You'd be better off stripping them out and providing higher speed approaches to the platforms. Passenger loops are needed in places where not everything stops.