Euston to Glasgow needs to go half-hourly

[Topological]

Reading through the comments, there are many good reasons for trains to Glasgow with more stops south of Preston. However, there is already the via Birmingham train and people avoid that because it is slow. My concern would be that an additional Glasgow with more stops would simply be another train to avoid.

Given Preston-Glasgow is already served well by limited stop services, be that the via Birmingham or the TPE, the focus is really south of Preston.

In the early days of Virgin there were still the non-stop London to Preston services which had relief services following them. Those became a standardised pattern, and the relief trains were then removed.

Bringing the LNWR to Preston makes sense, but if an additional train serving Wigan, Warrington and perhaps two more stations could be found then maybe some of the busier Glasgow trains could again be non-stop Preston to London. However, you do not want to inconvenience Wigan and Warrington too much.

Getting the crayons out more, I would achieve the London path by cutting North Wales back to Crewe. A second Chester-Crewe shuttle would be added to give 3tph between Chester and Crewe. In that case the Preston to London would call at Crewe (and the stops of the current North Wales to London from there)

Now there is wiring to Weaver Junction to consider (I believe)

 

[MatthewE707]

Supposedly the Manchester Airport is coming from the Stafford-Crewe-Stoke... running down to Birmingham too.

The Crewe going to Preston (or a Birmingham-Liverpool instead) would be interesting. A slog end to end though.

In addition to Preston, it feels like Warrington and Wigan need additional service - as well as some TV calls which have come in through the newer Liverpool and Manchester patterns.

I thought the Euston - Crewe service was planned to be extended to Manchester Victoria via Warrington

 

[The Planner]

Reading through the comments, there are many good reasons for trains to Glasgow with more stops south of Preston. However, there is already the via Birmingham train and people avoid that because it is slow. My concern would be that an additional Glasgow with more stops would simply be another train to avoid.

Given Preston-Glasgow is already served well by limited stop services, be that the via Birmingham or the TPE, the focus is really south of Preston.

In the early days of Virgin there were still the non-stop London to Preston services which had relief services following them. Those became a standardised pattern, and the relief trains were then removed.

Bringing the LNWR to Preston makes sense, but if an additional train serving Wigan, Warrington and perhaps two more stations could be found then maybe some of the busier Glasgow trains could again be non-stop Preston to London. However, you do not want to inconvenience Wigan and Warrington too much.

Getting the crayons out more, I would achieve the London path by cutting North Wales back to Crewe. A second Chester-Crewe shuttle would be added to give 3tph between Chester and Crewe. In that case the Preston to London would call at Crewe (and the stops of the current North Wales to London from there)

Now there is wiring to Weaver Junction to consider (I believe)

No way will politics allow the North Wales to be removed. Power is at its limits north of Crewe.

 

[Brubulus]

No way will politics allow the North Wales to be removed. Power is at its limits north of Crewe.

You could split trains at Crewe, instead of Chester and extend the Crewe portion to Preston/Lancaster/Blackpool. Make the Glasgow nonstop from Preston to London.

 

[The Planner]

You could split trains at Crewe, instead of Chester.

Still doesnt solve the power issue, considering the 805s are predominantly for Wales.

 

[Zomboid]

Reading through the comments, there are many good reasons for trains to Glasgow with more stops south of Preston. However, there is already the via Birmingham train and people avoid that because it is slow. My concern would be that an additional Glasgow with more stops would simply be another train to avoid.

There's a big difference between a slightly slower train (e.g. adding MK, Crewe and one other to the existing Glasgow calling pattern) and the tedious trundle via Birmingham with a long layover at New St.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2025 ==

Still doesnt solve the power issue, considering the 805s are predominantly for Wales.

It's not happening soon, but if they're 805s then there's no need to use the juice anyway...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Could they re-cast the timetable to avoid the need for the long pause at New Street on the via Birmingham services? as I recall, that dwell is a result of teh service being formed by matching two separate existing paths together?

 

[dk1]

Could they re-cast the timetable to avoid the need for the long pause at New Street on the via Birmingham services? as I recall, that dwell is a result of teh service being formed by matching two separate existing paths together?

It’s also a good performance buffer although understand it can be annoying.

 

[Zomboid]

Probably if that were the aim of the recast, but likely at the expense of punctuality. Ideally there would be something to (at least) Preston via the Trent valley which calls somewhere south of Warrington. Ideally for me that would include MK...

 

[The Planner]

Could they re-cast the timetable to avoid the need for the long pause at New Street on the via Birmingham services? as I recall, that dwell is a result of teh service being formed by matching two separate existing paths together?

That is quite the recast for a single service group.

 

[NorthWalian]

Reading through the comments, there are many good reasons for trains to Glasgow with more stops south of Preston. However, there is already the via Birmingham train and people avoid that because it is slow. My concern would be that an additional Glasgow with more stops would simply be another train to avoid.

Given Preston-Glasgow is already served well by limited stop services, be that the via Birmingham or the TPE, the focus is really south of Preston.

In the early days of Virgin there were still the non-stop London to Preston services which had relief services following them. Those became a standardised pattern, and the relief trains were then removed.

Bringing the LNWR to Preston makes sense, but if an additional train serving Wigan, Warrington and perhaps two more stations could be found then maybe some of the busier Glasgow trains could again be non-stop Preston to London. However, you do not want to inconvenience Wigan and Warrington too much.

Getting the crayons out more, I would achieve the London path by cutting North Wales back to Crewe. A second Chester-Crewe shuttle would be added to give 3tph between Chester and Crewe. In that case the Preston to London would call at Crewe (and the stops of the current North Wales to London from there)

Now there is wiring to Weaver Junction to consider (I believe)

There would be protests where I am.

The Chester - Crewe shuttle struggles to fill up as is and of course, that doesn’t run to the coast (especially with plans to run them to Wrexham).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Totally this. They wanted all Voyagers lengthened to six vehicles but those pesky meddlers shot that down too!!

That's a good thing really though, as if all Voyagers were lengthened to six carriages, that'd have been the longest formation you could run with them. They wouldn't have been able to run 12 car services.

No way will politics allow the North Wales to be removed. Power is at its limits north of Crewe.

It's such a waste of an hourly path though, frankly, compared to what it could be used for.

 

[Zomboid]

The Chester trains I've used have been pretty well filled, though portion working them with a Preston/ Blackpool/ Lancaster semi fast would seem a good way to serve that middle section of the WCML. Wouldn't work for every hour as sometimes more than 5 cars are needed for Chester/ Holyhead, but perhaps that's not really an issue.

Finding rolling stock and paths for Crewe to Preston is more likely to be a problem. And having enough electricity in the area.

 

[dk1]

The Chester trains I've used have been pretty well filled, though portion working them with a Preston/ Blackpool/ Lancaster semi fast would seem a good way to serve that middle section of the WCML. Wouldn't work for every hour as sometimes more than 5 cars are needed for Chester/ Holyhead, but perhaps that's not really an issue.

Finding rolling stock and paths for Crewe to Preston is more likely to be a problem. And having enough electricity in the area.

Pathing is always going to be an issue but electricity less so as they would simply operate in diesel mode. Biggest challenge would be performance of up services relying on punctual arrival of both portions. I could see many occasions where just the Chester portion would continue to Euston with that from Preston/beyond terminating then shunted clear awaiting its return path some 5 hours later.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm currently sitting on a fairly busy southbound service (17:10 off Carlisle to Birmingham International) it's a 9 car set tonight, and the standard is busy, whilst the standard premium carriage is basically empty.
In my opinion as someone who regularly does Warrington-Euston and back, I think more capacity is needed as far as Preston (based on many conversations I have had with other travellers). I would probably choose to solve it with a more regular service to Blackpool or potentially Lancaster, though. I also think the Lumo Euston->Rochdale could help on the Warrington-Euston section.

The irony there was that it was the SRA (led by Richard Bowker) who refused the extra rolling stock wanted by Virgin (Richard Bowker being originally from Virgin).

Several NR RUS's proposed increases in the Glasgow service, but TPE also take paths north of Preston, and freight constraints mean that the 3tph are flighted close together (that's Avanti hourly to Glasgow and TPE/Avanti both alternating hourly to Glasgow and Edinburgh).
Yet another issue is that the TOCs want more trains to Edinburgh rather than Glasgow, and NR has said that means diverting existing Glasgows to Edinburgh, not additional trains.
Then there's the HS2 paradox - will there be extra trains or will they just replace existing ones?

 

[Bald Rick]

Pathing is always going to be an issue but electricity less so as they would simply operate in diesel mode

Opersting in diesel makes them even more difficult to path…

Then there's the HS2 paradox - will there be extra trains or will they just replace existing ones?

the latter, until someone spends some money on power upgrades, some additional capacity and/or electric freight haulage.

 

[dk1]

Opersting in diesel makes them even more difficult to path…

is that really such an issue north of Crewe?

 

[Topological]

No way will politics allow the North Wales to be removed. Power is at its limits north of Crewe.

Politics is a good reason to not change anything it seems. However, since this is speculative we could consider the removal of the North Wales. There is a parallel universe in which politics dictates that North Wales is electrified (albeit a never going to happen one)

I did note the wires issue because that has been causing issues with the extra Liverpool to my outside understanding.

There's a big difference between a slightly slower train (e.g. adding MK, Crewe and one other to the existing Glasgow calling pattern) and the tedious trundle via Birmingham with a long layover at New St.

A slight difference, yes, but depends on whether the extra stops require slower running while another train overtakes. Could soon add up.

There would be protests where I am.

The Chester - Crewe shuttle struggles to fill up as is and of course, that doesn’t run to the coast (especially with plans to run them to Wrexham).

The additional Chester shuttle was to be compensation for the loss of the direct. In theory would be better connections with Crewe-London as a result and that might make the loss of the direct train easier to swallow.

Although Lumo did manage it, it is hard to see from the outside how any new path to Euston would be created.

 

[BlueLeanie]

And of course these things are unknown yet but there is probably little chance of faster Trent Valley Glasgow services calling at Milton Keynes so there will always be that time penalty.

Although lots of people take environmental issues seriously, so many don’t and cost is key regardless of the damage done to the environment.

There are one or two pretty fast services in the timetable from Glasgow to MK. On a Sunday the 14:34 takes 4h08m, and the 16:38 takes 4h05m. It's a bit of a shame that there aren't similar Northbound services. A daily service around 18:00, arriving into Glasgow Central at the back of ten would, I suspect, be a very popular connection from E-W.

But it's all down to paths and timetabling.

That's a good thing really though, as if all Voyagers were lengthened to six carriages, that'd have been the longest formation you could run with them. They wouldn't have been able to run 12 car services.

If the Class 220 had been extended to six cars, then that would probably have been a jump from 174 to 294 Standard class seats.
If the five car Class 221 had been extended to six cars then that would probably have been a jump from to 280 Standard class seats.

Although I suspect it would have been slightly more as operational experience would potentially have allowed a "standard" lavatory to be fitted in the additional ordered carriages.

Then of course if these were ordered as a "standard" carriage, then there was potential to mix and match the formations. Retail some five car sets, but then have some Eight car sets.

 

[Bald Rick]

is that really such an issue north of Crewe?

Certainly is!

 

[dk1]

Certainly is!

Thank you. I can’t personally see any future portion working to any extent. Unless the current fleet is increased anyway and that is as equally unlikely.

 

[NorthWalian]

Politics is a good reason to not change anything it seems. However, since this is speculative we could consider the removal of the North Wales. There is a parallel universe in which politics dictates that North Wales is electrified (albeit a never going to happen one)

I did note the wires issue because that has been causing issues with the extra Liverpool to my outside understanding.



A slight difference, yes, but depends on whether the extra stops require slower running while another train overtakes. Could soon add up.


The additional Chester shuttle was to be compensation for the loss of the direct. In theory would be better connections with Crewe-London as a result and that might make the loss of the direct train easier to swallow.

Although Lumo did manage it, it is hard to see from the outside how any new path to Euston would be created.

Problem is a lot of people use those avantis to get to the coast stops.

Terminating at Crewe makes that station more crowded and turns a direct itinerary into a two-stop one.

It would only work if one could somehow have a TFW Crewe - Holyhead service and then link that up to a service to London.

 

[Topological]

Problem is a lot of people use those avantis to get to the coast stops.

Terminating at Crewe makes that station more crowded and turns a direct itinerary into a two-stop one.

It would only work if one could somehow have a TFW Crewe - Holyhead service and then link that up to a service to London.

Could certainly get TfW running the slots that were previously Avanti.

Maybe something to consider in the replacement of the Mk4s, which continue to fail regularly on the Marches. Only 1 out yesterday and 0 out today suggests that there is a need to get a move on with that replacement.

On another thread I mused whether TfW would actually have use for 185s when they are finished with TPE. Turning the Marches and anything West from Cardiff over to 185s would allow the 197s to focus nearer to Chester on services like the suggested Crewe-Holyhead.

My thought was that although you add a connection at Crewe, there are multiple Crewe to London should there be a connection issue.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Never mind skipping Wigan and Warrington, I remember ages ago, about 2012, my mother and I took a Virgin Pendolino from Oxenholme that skipped Lancaster. It was Oxenholme, Preston, London Euston, and IIRC it was as booked as well.

 

[Topological]

Link: 2006 Timetable for London to Glasgow

Provided by user @janb on this thread: Old thread about Virgin Timetables

In that timetable, there are two southbound trains which only call at Carlisle and Preston, but still only one northbound. By that time it was a 10:15 from Euston. I remembered it being 10:30. I took it when it was still a Mk3 set.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Link: 2006 Timetable for London to Glasgow

Provided by user @janb on this thread: Old thread about Virgin Timetables

In that timetable, there are two southbound trains which only call at Carlisle and Preston, but still only one northbound. By that time it was a 10:15 from Euston. I remembered it being 10:30. I took it when it was still a Mk3 set.

The gap between 1247 and 1500 from Glasgow is crazy!

 

[NorthWalian]

Could certainly get TfW running the slots that were previously Avanti.

Maybe something to consider in the replacement of the Mk4s, which continue to fail regularly on the Marches. Only 1 out yesterday and 0 out today suggests that there is a need to get a move on with that replacement.

On another thread I mused whether TfW would actually have use for 185s when they are finished with TPE. Turning the Marches and anything West from Cardiff over to 185s would allow the 197s to focus nearer to Chester on services like the suggested Crewe-Holyhead.

My thought was that although you add a connection at Crewe, there are multiple Crewe to London should there be a connection issue.

The problem is getting from Crewe up to Wales when TFW only really serve Chester.

Also having no direct London service to north wales from Avanti would be pretty poor unless you allowed either WSMR or even TfW to run some sort of service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The gap between 1247 and 1500 from Glasgow is crazy!

In the pre 1998 timetable there was nothing north from Preston on a Sunday until about 1500 bar DalesRail (which was operated as a sort of charter and so didn't accept mainline tickets at the time).

 

[Sorcerer]

Never mind skipping Wigan and Warrington, I remember ages ago, about 2012, my mother and I took a Virgin Pendolino from Oxenholme that skipped Lancaster. It was Oxenholme, Preston, London Euston, and IIRC it was as booked as well.

I don't remember which timetable ended this practice, but I remember in 2017 travelling on the 13:30 London Euston to Glasgow Central which was booked to skip Lancaster. I think this was a rollover from days when the preceding 12:30 and following 14:30 departures would terminate short even though the Glasgow services had became fully hourly by that point.

I am actually now lead to wonder why the original Pendolino order didn't include the extra few trains needed to make the service hourly from the beginning, especially when the loss of 390033 at Grayrigg was a big enough setback to warrant the Pretendolino set as a stop gap. Was it really not a priority to have a full hourly service up the entire length of the West Coast Main Line back then?

 

[Brubulus]

How full are the Glasgow/Edinburgh via Birmingham trains actually after Wolverhampton. Both times I have used those services they haven't been particularly full. Maybe I just picked the wrong ones but are they actually that full.