Euston to Glasgow needs to go half-hourly

[NorthWalian]

It links with the ferry train tickets that can still be bought

Does Holyhead itself need the service? I had the impression that Bangor was the major destination. Though cutting it back to Bangor would probably generate a load of bad publicity and no useful operational benefits.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I was at Glasgow Central last year and the direct Euston train was cancelled. Shock horror. Then the Birmingham service was announced for a few minutes later. Everyone for the previous London train just got on that. Whether or not they were aware of how much slower it was, I don’t think people want to complicate things and would rather just get on the train and sit on it.

 

[Topological]

I could also not imagine Holyhead going without a direct service to London.

It turns a 4 hour into a 5.5 via Birmingham or a Chester - Crewe slog

Ditching Holyhead comes up fairly often on here, I suspect most proposing it haven't experienced the much passenger traffic it can attract and think it's a cinderella line extension that only exists for historical reasons. They couldn't be further from the truth.

Holyhead is run as a 5-car when most WCML paths are the equivalent of 7 or 8.5 (9 car pendolinos and 7 car 807s being similar in capacity)

That would suggest that of all the fast paths, Holyhead is the one that is most likely for cutting?

If the Holyhead were simply replaced by a shuttle then the difference is more likely to be 15 to 20 minutes, not 1.5 hours.

 

[amahy]

Ditching Holyhead comes up fairly often on here, I suspect most proposing it haven't experienced the much passenger traffic it can attract and think it's a cinderella line extension that only exists for historical reasons. They couldn't be further from the truth.

In my opinion, it would make more sense to ditch Blackpool than Holyhead - I've never seen more than a handful of people on them between Preston and Blackpool. Whereas I have seen good passenger numbers on certain Holyhead services.

That's the whole point of the via Birmingham service. It allows Avanti to segment the London-Glasgow market and fill those trains with fifty quid advance fares sold to travellers who would never pay full price and would go by coach instead, or not travel at all.

And by making the cheap route unattractive to business travellers, it doesn't compromise their abilty to extract the most revenues from the faster direct trains. Trains that are run with more empty seats to guarantee that walk-up customers paying maximum fares will get a seat.

This just seems like stupidity to me from a practical standpoint. The Scotland via Birmingham services should be there to provide a link between Scotland and the West Midlands, not as a cash cow for Avanti!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my opinion, it would make more sense to ditch Blackpool than Holyhead - I've never seen more than a handful of people on them between Preston and Blackpool. Whereas I have seen good passenger numbers on certain Holyhead services.

Most Blackpool services have historically just been to avoid a train blocking a platform at Preston. As the Glasgow services have been reinstated the Blackpool service has been reduced accordingly. There is a frequent service from Preston so I'd agree there isn't much point in directs unless operationally convenient.

This just seems like stupidity to me from a practical standpoint. The Scotland via Birmingham services should be there to provide a link between Scotland and the West Midlands, not as a cash cow for Avanti!

It's a bit of an oversimplification of why it exists. It is really two separate services - one of the two fast Euston-Birmingham services plus the former XC WCML Birmingham to Scotland service which used to be operated using a single 5 car Voyager and was always severely overcrowded due to the high demand to actually travel from Birmingham to Scotland and places in between, plus those connecting from the likes of Milton Keynes.

What Virgin did was a bit of a masterstroke in my view, creating capacity by merging the two services at the expense of a bit of layover and one Brum-Wolves fast per hour, thus using the units more efficiently and allowing most services to either be a Pendolino or double Voyager (now either Pendolino or a few 805/807 workings where truncated to Stafford or Crewe in the evening). This however created more capacity than was actually needed (like most XC services, demand was for roughly a 7 car train), so that capacity has typically been sold fairly cheaply as Advances. If the services are now overcrowded again, those Advance numbers probably need reviewing.

 

[NorthWalian]

Holyhead is run as a 5-car when most WCML paths are the equivalent of 7 or 8.5 (9 car pendolinos and 7 car 807s being similar in capacity)

That would suggest that of all the fast paths, Holyhead is the one that is most likely for cutting?

If the Holyhead were simply replaced by a shuttle then the difference is more likely to be 15 to 20 minutes, not 1.5 hours.

Then one is creating a ton of crowding at Crewe when there is no need. TfW’s present Holyhead - Crewe service is quite minimal too.

If the Avantis went to Chester and then northwards rather than just Crewe, then it would perhaps be slightly easier although still far from ideal.

 

[NCT]

If the London - Chester hourly service didn't wash its face then it wouldn't have been specified.

 

[Topological]

Then one is creating a ton of crowding at Crewe when there is no need. TfW’s present Holyhead - Crewe service is quite minimal too.

If the Avantis went to Chester and then northwards rather than just Crewe, then it would perhaps be slightly easier although still far from ideal.

You wouldnt just remove the Holyhead, you would replace it with a shuttle in its current path.

A diversion of London - Glasgow via Chester is an interesting proposition, but not wired.

 

[Peter0124]

What Virgin did was a bit of a masterstroke in my view, creating capacity by merging the two services at the expense of a bit of layover and one Brum-Wolves fast per hour, thus using the units more efficiently and allowing most services to either be a Pendolino or double Voyager (now either Pendolino or a few 805/807 workings where truncated to Stafford or Crewe in the evening). This however created more capacity than was actually needed (like most XC services, demand was for roughly a 7 car train), so that capacity has typically been sold fairly cheaply as Advances. If the services are now overcrowded again, those Advance numbers probably need reviewing.

I absolutely agree that joining the two services together works out well!

The service does have a flaw though in that if the train is severely delayed north of Stafford it will be sent via the Trent Valley, even if the penultimate stop was meant to be Coventry.

 

[Zomboid]

A diversion of London - Glasgow via Chester is an interesting proposition, but not wired

In approximate numbers, it's 20 minutes between Crewe and Warrington on the WCML.

It's 20 minutes Crewe to Chester, and about 30 minutes Chester to Warrington on a TfW with two stops, so with 10 minutes to do the split (if there's a Holyhead portion) and change ends at Chester it'd be about an hour Crewe to Warrington via Chester. So 40 minutes longer.

Warrington to Euston is about 3h via Birmingham and 1h50 via Trent Valley, so going via Chester would be about half the penalty for longer journeys than via Birmingham is.

Obviously there's the issue of there being no wires, probably no WCML paths and not enough bimodes to do such a thing, but it's an intriguing idea.

 

[NorthWalian]

You wouldnt just remove the Holyhead, you would replace it with a shuttle in its current path.

A diversion of London - Glasgow via Chester is an interesting proposition, but not wired.

Would TFW want to operate such a service though when they have a Birmingham and Cardiff service that runs through Chester?

If Avanti did it they’d be gaining nothing unless they wanted to make Crewe into some sort of rail operations hub

 

[Topological]

In approximate numbers, it's 20 minutes between Crewe and Warrington on the WCML.

It's 20 minutes Crewe to Chester, and about 30 minutes Chester to Warrington on a TfW with two stops, so with 10 minutes to do the split (if there's a Holyhead portion) and change ends at Chester it'd be about an hour Crewe to Warrington via Chester. So 40 minutes longer.

Warrington to Euston is about 3h via Birmingham and 1h50 via Trent Valley, so going via Chester would be about half the penalty for longer journeys than via Birmingham is.

Obviously there's the issue of there being no wires, probably no WCML paths and not enough bimodes to do such a thing, but it's an intriguing idea.

To be fair, I wasn't going to have a Holyhead portion. That was going to be run as a shuttle. The wires prevent a Pendolino being used for this so it is a non-starter, no matter how much Chester might like a Glasgow train.

Now, IF there was an appetite some 5 car 805s could presumably be traded with GWR for some 9 car 80x so that the service could be run.

Get a few more 197s ordered for the shuttle, or make the replacement of the whole Marches service part of the next TfW bid instead of just the Mk4s replacement and then use those 197s for the additional shuttle. Interworking with the Cardiff-Holyhead and Manchester-North Wales would give a lot more flexibility than sending 805s to Holyhead.

All not going to happen though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==

Would TFW want to operate such a service though when they have a Birmingham and Cardiff service that runs through Chester?

If Avanti did it they’d be gaining nothing unless they wanted to make Crewe into some sort of rail operations hub

You would assume TfW would operate it if asked. It would use 197s and they are based at Chester. As noted you would be able to interwork with the current 197 operated services that run via Wrexham. TfW also have the Crewe shuttle and do have route knowledge.

Really it would just mean they did not need to share Holyhead to Crewe revenue with Avanti.

 

[BrianW]

You wouldnt just remove the Holyhead, you would replace it with a shuttle in its current path.

A diversion of London - Glasgow via Chester is an interesting proposition, but not wired.

The politics cannot be avoided. Scotland and Wales have devolved powers. The UK government has members representing constuencies in those nations, and in Crewe, Chester and Blackpool.
HS2 is defined as an 'England and Wales' project.
Elections in Scotland and Wales are always due soon ...

 

[Topological]

The politics cannot be avoided. Scotland and Wales have devolved powers. The UK government has members representing constuencies in those nations, and in Crewe, Chester and Blackpool.
HS2 is defined as an 'England and Wales' project.
Elections in Scotland and Wales are always due soon ...

Once HS2 comes online there are paths for the Holyhead again.

We really should plan based on what is optimal rather than what works politically. However, that is well off-topic.

On the other hand, could Euston to Aberystwyth make a comeback

 

[Nottingham59]

Once HS2 comes online there are paths for the Holyhead again.

Not without HS2 phase 2a, or 400m platforms at Crewe to allow splitting and joining.

With HS2 phase 1 only to Handsacre, Colwich will become an even worse bottleneck than it is now.

 

[Topological]

Not without HS2 phase 2a, or 400m platforms at Crewe to allow splitting and joining.

With HS2 phase 1 only to Handsacre, Colwich will become an even worse bottleneck than it is now.

Fair point, would have to be via Birmingham (Bescott) to avoid the Birmingham to Wolverhampton congestion and still make it to the WCML south.

 

[stevieinselby]

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?

The trains to the north via Birmingham only stop at New Street for 11 or 12 minutes. Given that they will have a large changeover of passengers at that point, you would need at least 5 minutes, so there isn't much you can shave off.

Those trains take over 1h15 from Rugby to Stafford – compare that with about 0h30 for trains running on the Trent Valley line, even cutting 5 minutes off the dwell time at New Street you're looking at a journey that's getting on 40 minutes slower than the main route, which is not going to be attractive to passengers unless it comes with a very good price. That's a very different prospect from adding a couple of stops that will cost you less than 10 minutes.

 

[amahy]

Most Blackpool services have historically just been to avoid a train blocking a platform at Preston. As the Glasgow services have been reinstated the Blackpool service has been reduced accordingly. There is a frequent service from Preston so I'd agree there isn't much point in directs unless operationally convenient.

In my opinion, it would make more sense to send the existing Euston to Blackpool trains to Lancaster platform 5 instead. Travelling northbound from Preston, it's often busy until Lancaster, where a large number of people get off. Also, the service between Lancaster and Preston is much more erratic than the service between Blackpool and Preston.

It's a bit of an oversimplification of why it exists. It is really two separate services - one of the two fast Euston-Birmingham services plus the former XC WCML Birmingham to Scotland service which used to be operated using a single 5 car Voyager and was always severely overcrowded due to the high demand to actually travel from Birmingham to Scotland and places in between, plus those connecting from the likes of Milton Keynes.

What Virgin did was a bit of a masterstroke in my view, creating capacity by merging the two services at the expense of a bit of layover and one Brum-Wolves fast per hour, thus using the units more efficiently and allowing most services to either be a Pendolino or double Voyager (now either Pendolino or a few 805/807 workings where truncated to Stafford or Crewe in the evening). This however created more capacity than was actually needed (like most XC services, demand was for roughly a 7 car train), so that capacity has typically been sold fairly cheaply as Advances. If the services are now overcrowded again, those Advance numbers probably need reviewing.

Capacity would probably be enough if all via Birmingham services were 11 car pendolinos, but most services on this route are 9 cars in my experience. There's a very high chance that demand has changed since Virgin merged the two services, seen as that was more than 15 years ago!

 

[Nottingham59]

Fair point, would have to be via Birmingham (Bescott) to avoid the Birmingham to Wolverhampton congestion and still make it to the WCML south.

Sure, you could send passenger trains via Bescott to avoid Colwich.

I've always wondered if it would be better to send southbound freights from Crewe through Wallsall and Water Orton to rejoin the WCML via the flyover at Nuneaton. That would release at least two extra passenger paths through Colwich. And much southbound WCML freight is empty returning intermodals to the ports, so the economic cost of taking a bit longer would be less than it would be for full containers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my opinion, it would make more sense to send the existing Euston to Blackpool trains to Lancaster platform 5 instead. Travelling northbound from Preston, it's often busy until Lancaster, where a large number of people get off. Also, the service between Lancaster and Preston is much more erratic than the service between Blackpool and Preston.

Trouble is Lancaster P5 is used* and Lancaster only has one platform you can normally terminate in from the south. Whereas Blackpool North has loads of platforms (far more than it really needs for the service it has). I'd say that outside of disruption there's plenty of direct service to Lancaster in any case.

* What uses it can be a bit random, sometimes the Bentham Line service uses it, sometimes the Morecambe uses it and some of the Windermere to Manchester Airport services have a bit of a layover there, but unlike Blackpool you can't just leave a Pendolino there for half an hour without getting rather in the way.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Originally the Pendolinos were 8-car length and the first 34 units delivered were this length.
The the decision was made to extend them to 9-car with the 35th to 53rd units delivered as 9-car before the original 34 units were then lengthened.
Subsequently, 31 units were extended to 11-car. 4 additional 11-car units were delivered (one of which was to replace the unit written off at Grayrigg)
So there are currently 56 units, 35 of them 11-car with 21 9-car.
I seem to remember that the addition of the 9th car was simple because it was unpowered but you then had to go from 9 to 11, the simple addition of a 10th cae on its own wasn't possible.

Also remember the 390 fleet expansion procurement (106 vehicles in total) was wholly conducted by DfT (having rejected several proposals from Virgin, Angel and Alstom).
This was during the "anyone but Virgin" ICWC franchise phase.

 

[yorksrob]

The service was about once every 2 hours after electrification in 1974, albeit with extra trains for intermediate stops between Preston and Carlisle.
It’s great to see it hourly now, plus extra services via Birmingham also which effectively make it two per hour from Stafford north.
I used these because they call at Crewe.
But my experience has always been that they empty north of Preston. Except Sundays from Edinburgh, so I tend to use them down on Friday and back up on Monday.

I've been using them on Fridays between Lancaster and Carlisle and they're generally pretty busy in my experience. Don't know about other weekdays

 

[cle]

n my opinion, it would make more sense to send the existing Euston to Blackpool trains to Lancaster platform 5 instead. Travelling northbound from Preston, it's often busy until Lancaster, where a large number of people get off. Also, the service between Lancaster and Preston is much more erratic than the service between Blackpool and Preston.

If the platforming could be figured out, this is a far better bet IMO.

Lancaster is more of a hub / railhead (lines in various directions) - Blackpool is the end of line literally and figuratively. No connections. No hope. And many in the broader area use Preston for a better service.

Lancaster also has a popular university. And it’s under 15 mins to Preston, so utilization might be better.

 

[NCT]

Yeah, I can see the attraction of Lancaster over Blackpool. Slightly difficult that all the political capital and commercial promotion was on Blackpool.

 

[Topological]

Yeah, I can see the attraction of Lancaster over Blackpool. Slightly difficult that all the political capital and commercial promotion was on Blackpool.

Lancaster used to be used. See the 2005 timetable linked earlier. See credits in my earlier post.

Link again: London to Scotland 2006

 

[NCT]

Lancaster used to be used. See the 2005 timetable linked earlier. See credits in my earlier post.

Link again: London to Scotland 2006

I'm talking about all the PR hoo-hah over Blackpool that are still fresh in people's memory. Most people won't remember back to 2006.

 

[amahy]

Trouble is Lancaster P5 is used* and Lancaster only has one platform you can normally terminate in from the south. Whereas Blackpool North has loads of platforms (far more than it really needs for the service it has). I'd say that outside of disruption there's plenty of direct service to Lancaster in any case.

* What uses it can be a bit random, sometimes the Bentham Line service uses it, sometimes the Morecambe uses it and some of the Windermere to Manchester Airport services have a bit of a layover there, but unlike Blackpool you can't just leave a Pendolino there for half an hour without getting rather in the way.

There's no reason why Morecambe/Bentham Line/Cumbrian Coast need to use Platform 5. Lancaster has 2 bay platforms (one of which supports platform sharing), and 3 bi directional through platforms, which should be more than enough for an extra service from the south terminating there a few times a day. As for the Windermere services, could they be timetabled to have a layover at Oxenholme instead of Lancaster?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for the Windermere services, could they be timetabled to have a layover at Oxenholme instead of Lancaster?

The problem with this is that if they do they block the next train from getting on the branch. It's quite a tight operation there because of the single branch platform.

 

[cle]

Yeah, I can see the attraction of Lancaster over Blackpool. Slightly difficult that all the political capital and commercial promotion was on Blackpool.

It’s fine. Writ large, nobody would notice much. On this board we do tend to manifest our niche interests as a priority to Gen pop!

Blackpool could still have a token peak service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Blackpool could still have a token peak service.

It only has a token peak service now. Most of the former Glasgow services are back to going to Glasgow, and I seem to recall that two more go back there from December.