Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Please don't forget that the WCML is definitely not just "London to (some) other places as fast as possible" - or "from the provinces up to town" ditto.
It serves lots of important towns and cities all along its route and one of our biggest problems is the current poor inter- and intra-regional connectivity.
The Euston-Glasgow trains not calling anywhere south of Warrington already deprives the Midlands of access to one hourly fast service, with a direct service from Brum to Glasgow only alternate hours, ditto Wales and the E and W midlands by changing at Crewe.
Doubling the EUS - GLA service might provide enough capacity for N Midlands passengers to be allowed on these trains, but in reality doubling up Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow capacity/frequencies would probably benefit more people.
In an ideal world I would like to see:
- hourly "fast" to Glasgow calling at Crewe, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme or Penrith, Carlisle
- hourly to the NW calling MK, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston then onto either Blackpool, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow or Edinburgh
- a 2-hourly service from Liverpool to Scotland
- later evening services from Manchester to Glasgow/Edinburgh
- full restoration of the hourly Birmingham to Glasgow/Edinburgh (there are still one or two missing even after the Dec timetable)
- hourly "fast" to Glasgow calling at Crewe, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme or Penrith, Carlisle
- hourly to the NW calling MK, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston then onto either Blackpool, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow or Edinburgh
A way of looking at it for HS2 could be that the former would be 400m long and not call at Lancaster, Oxenholme or Penrith, but the latter would be 200m long and call at all three terminating at Carlisle. There are 400m platforms at Euston, Crewe, Preston and Carlisle but not at the others. This is a bit like the new ECML structure.
Unless you price people onto these slower services (which you wouldn't as it's shorter) they tend to be quieter so the shorter train would be fine, and you get a nice increase in capacity to Scotland out of it too.
In an ideal world I would like to see:
- hourly "fast" to Glasgow calling at Crewe, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme or Penrith, Carlisle
- hourly to the NW calling MK, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston then onto either Blackpool, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow or Edinburgh
- a 2-hourly service from Liverpool to Scotland
- later evening services from Manchester to Glasgow/Edinburgh
- full restoration of the hourly Birmingham to Glasgow/Edinburgh (there are still one or two missing even after the Dec timetable)
That I believe is why it doesn't presently have a Crewe call (at least in part), but you can always not offer any Advances to Crewe on it and the removal of Warrington, Wigan, Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith would keep space available.
That I believe is why it doesn't presently have a Crewe call (at least in part), but you can always not offer any Advances to Crewe on it and the removal of Warrington, Wigan, Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith would keep space available.
I am just not sure that Crewe needs so many Avanti.
Crewe gets the Birmingham, and the connections offered by the slower Avanti into the Manchester/Liverpool to Scotland and/or the fast Avanti (assuming the second Avanti does not go to Scotland, in which case that would be a second hourly train from Crewe).
For those on flexible tickets, a non-stop to London as provided by the "fast" would be too attractive. There is also the issue that people get on the "wrong" train with advances, or have delayed connections that mean they feel "entitled" to that fast train.
I just feel like the reason it does not have a Crewe call at the moment is a good one.
I also don't like to see the faster options taken away from Wigan and Warrington so much. I think the fast London helps these areas and provides a wider benefit than another Crewe would.
That might be a risk (given that the Crewe calls were deliberately taken out of the fast Glasgow trains because of the overcrowding.) However with the other services nowadays (the Chesters, the second Liverpool - if it calls - 1 Manchester and now this second far north train) it would probably be OK. I think the LNR services have taken quite a bit of the Avanti traffic too, I don't think they were running when the hourly Glasgows were overwhelmed.
It is intensely frustrating that the fast London to Glasgow usually gives connections at Oxenholme (access to the Lake District) but the class 9 via Brum (the only train going N of Weaver Jct for people joining the WCML at Crewe) almost invariably misses. I would welcome anything that would improve this situation...
Because it is and always has been a major interchange with trains to/from all manner of destinations. Calls there improve connectivity massively. It's not about *going to* Crewe, there's very little there worth visiting.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It is intensely frustrating that the fast London to Glasgow usually gives connections at Oxenholme (access to the Lake District) but the class 9 via Brum (the only train going N of Weaver Jct for people joining the WCML at Crewe) almost invariably misses. I would welcome anything that would improve this situation...
From MKC I usually travel via Manchester if headed there, ideally on one of the through services but I seem to recall the connections off the TPE being better than off the slow Avanti.
erm, there are aspirations and outline plans for 400m platforms at Crewe Preston and Carlisle, but as I understand it there is no funding planned for any of them. In my opinion, these should be a higher priority than HS2 phase 2a.
That might be a risk (given that the Crewe calls were deliberately taken out of the fast Glasgow trains because of the overcrowding.) However with the other services nowadays (the Chesters, the second Liverpool - if it calls - 1 Manchester and now this second far north train) it would probably be OK. I think the LNR services have taken quite a bit of the Avanti traffic too, I don't think they were running when the hourly Glasgows were overwhelmed.
It is intensely frustrating that the fast London to Glasgow usually gives connections at Oxenholme (access to the Lake District) but the class 9 via Brum (the only train going N of Weaver Jct for people joining the WCML at Crewe) almost invariably misses. I would welcome anything that would improve this situation...
Liverpool and Manchester just feel like better services for London to Crewe than the fast. With the Chester as well that is 3tph to London with Avanti plus the LNR.
Whether both Liverpools should call at Crewe is another question. Given that Liverpool is going from 1 to 2 tph that would look like the most capacity. However, I dont know how popular the second Liverpool is proving.
Connections on 1tph branchlines are always going to be tricky. Connecting into the fast London service has some sense to it, but then you dont connect with the Birmingham to Scotland. With a single track branch like Windermere it is not clear to see the solution.
Connections on 1tph branchlines are always going to be tricky. Connecting into the fast London service has some sense to it, but then you dont connect with the Birmingham to Scotland. With a single track branch like Windermere it is not clear to see the solution.
More through services to Preston and Manchester strike me as the best answer, though it would be difficult to do that without an extra platform at Oxenholme.
Because it is and always has been a major interchange with trains to/from all manner of destinations. Calls there improve connectivity massively. It's not about *going to* Crewe, there's very little there worth visiting.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
From MKC I usually travel via Manchester if headed there, ideally on one of the through services but I seem to recall the connections off the TPE being better than off the slow Avanti.
Though Crewe is not poorly served. Many of the connections also have their own London services.
Take any stop that does not have a London service and the same pattern appears:
Nantwich to Glasgow (for example) can be done with the Birmingham to Scotland. It is about 40 minutes at Crewe if coming off the fast Marches train though.
Nantwich to London can be done with the existing London provision.
I do believe that the current service provides value to Warrington and Wigan that would be sad to lose in favour of Crewe a 4tph Avanti service (notwithstanding that it would be the fastest of the 4 that was being added).
This is an excessively London-centric view. Most places justifying it have a one-change or direct service to London. It's connecting places that aren't London to other places that aren't London where more Crewe stops will help.
More through services to Preston and Manchester strike me as the best answer, though it would be difficult to do that without an extra platform at Oxenholme.
Obviously that was how it was done, but that was before we had the hourly TPE Scotland to Manchester.
IF an hourly Northern from Windermere worked (possibly splitting/joining with Barrow) then that would also be a good thing for connections AND for the Lake District.
If I recall rightly there was still an hourly Manchester Airport-Cumbria, it just alternated 2 hourly between the two rather than mostly going to Barrow.
IF an hourly Northern from Windermere worked (possibly splitting/joining with Barrow) then that would also be a good thing for connections AND for the Lake District.
That would be the ideal (hourly double bi-mode to/from both Barrow and Windermere), but the lack of platforms at Lancaster would probably make it hard.
This is an excessively London-centric view. Most places justifying it have a one-change or direct service to London. It's connecting places that aren't London to other places that aren't London where more Crewe stops will help.
I think the fast Marches as an inward is the worst in terms of connecting with the northbound Birmingham to Scotland.
When the 13:09 to Edinburgh leaves the previous arrivals were:
12:49 from Liverpool
12:50 from Chester (Avanti so could also be Holyhead)
12:54 from London (Stopper)
12:58 from Newark
13:00 from Birmingham (irrelevant since the 13:09 is also from Birmingham)
13:00 from Glasgow (irrelevant since the 13:09 goes on to call at the stations that served)
13:08 from Manchester Piccadilly (TfW so only served Stockport and Wilmslow, better routed via Manchester)
Then after departure
13:12 from Shrewsbury (this is the worst connection by far)
13:18 from Chester (need to take the 12:50)
13:18 from Liverpool
13:21 from Liverpool
13:24 from London Euston (to Liverpool, Avanti)
13:25 from Stafford
13:28 from Cardiff
13:29 from Manchester (Avanti)
13:39 from Manchester Northern
So the worst connection is from the Shrewsbury stopper and then the local from Liverpool (so Acton Bridge et al). For the bigger stations on those routes there are alternatives.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If I recall rightly there was still an hourly Manchester Airport-Cumbria, it just alternated 2 hourly between the two rather than mostly going to Barrow.
That would be the ideal (hourly double bi-mode to/from both Barrow and Windermere), but the lack of platforms at Lancaster would probably make it hard.
I think that is right. I stopped travelling Manchester to Preston regularly in 2010. In those days there was a semi-fast to Blackpool, a slow to Blackpool and the TPE. The TPE switched to Scotland hourly and that meant that the semi-fast became a Blackpool + splitting train. Previously TPE had some 185s that split at Preston with half to the lakes and half to Scotland. I think it did then go to that semi-fast being to the Lake District when the Castlefield corridor was recast.
I do wonder whether you could split at Lancaster IF it was off the flight pattern of the other services. That is use the Northbound platform between the TPE leaving and the next Birmingham to Scotland arriving to start a new flight. A similar situation appears for Southbound as well.
So the worst connection is from the Shrewsbury stopper and then the local from Liverpool (so Acton Bridge et al). For the bigger stations on those routes there are alternatives.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Maybe the proposed LNWR Euston-Manchester via Warrington should call at Winsford, Hartford and Acton Bridge aswell.
Allowing a direct connection from those stations north to Warrington without the long double back at Crewe? Or run the LNWR to Preston and allow direct Preston and Wigan journeys from those intermediates.
Did you have a pairing in mind.
I think the fast Marches as an inward is the worst in terms of connecting with the northbound Birmingham to Scotland.
When the 13:09 to Edinburgh leaves the previous arrivals were:
12:49 from Liverpool
13:00 from Birmingham (irrelevant since the 13:09 is also from Birmingham)/13:00 from Glasgow (irrelevant since the 13:09 goes on to call at the stations that served)
13:08 from Manchester Piccadilly (TfW so only served Stockport and Wilmslow, better routed via Manchester)
13:12 from Shrewsbury (this is the worst connection by far)
13:18 from Chester (need to take the 12:50)
13:18 from Liverpool
13:21 from Liverpool
13:24 from London Euston (to Liverpool, Avanti)
13:25 from Stafford
13:28 from Cardiff
13:29 from Manchester (Avanti)
13:39 from Manchester Northern
So the worst connection is from the Shrewsbury stopper and then the local from Liverpool (so Acton Bridge et al). For the bigger stations on those routes there are alternatives.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
From Chester you go N via Warrington, from Lpool go via Wigan (or TPE) - both WCML stations have 2 trains an hour. From Wilmslow or Manchester go via the City and get more TPE options. Crewe sticks out like a sore thumb in having 2 important incoming services with no other options and just the 1 possible connection north.
Maybe the proposed LNWR Euston-Manchester via Warrington should call at Winsford, Hartford and Acton Bridge aswell.
Allowing a direct connection from those stations north to Warrington without the long double back at Crewe? Or run the LNWR to Preston and allow direct Preston and Wigan journeys from those intermediates.
not bad - if you are coming from Runcorn - it doesn't call anywhere else!
you would go to Warrington from Chester
OK
a bit, actually much too tight - especially off that line - but it is a really important connection
From Chester you go N via Warrington, from Lpool go via Wigan (or TPE) - both WCML stations have 2 trains an hour. From Wilmslow or Manchester go via the City and get more TPE options. Crewe sticks out like a sore thumb in having 2 important incoming services with no other options and just the 1 possible connection north.
As I was saying, you very quickly get to the point where everywhere else would go via somewhere else and actually there is not a need to stop the fast at Crewe.
I assume the 2 important incomings are the TfW from the Marches and the EMR from Nottingham/Stoke. Of course, from that train you could make it at Crewe (it is valid) or go via Stoke and Manchester. The only train that is problematic is the stopper from Shrewsbury, but is that really a huge market being missed?
The LNWR stopping between Crewe and Warrington idea is a very good one. Someone really needs to get the wiring sorted to allow more trains.
I think however I'd send the LNR to Preston, not Manchester. If they send it to Manchester it will be permanently overcrowded or the prices will have to go up, neither of those are desirable.
I think however I'd send the LNR to Preston, not Manchester. If they send it to Manchester it will be permanently overcrowded or the prices will have to go up, neither of those are desirable.
When you have already got Crewe and Preston edit - both with ample platforms and bays- (Crewe being currently under-served) why on earth would you develop Warrington - ony having 2, maybe 3 routes connecting in - and which doesn't even have the single station where it would all happen?
When you have already got Crewe and Preston edit - both with ample platforms and bays- (Crewe being currently under-served) why on earth would you develop Warrington - ony having 2, maybe 3 routes connecting in - and which doesn't even have the single station where it would all happen?
In the past Virgin called at Hartford. It always seemed odd, but it does connect a reasonable population.
I think the slow train extending, rather than stops in Avantis, is better, but someone thought connecting more than just Warrington and Wigan was worthwhile.
Warrington and Wigan are far more important calls than Lancaster or Carlisle.
It's funny that we thrive to get to 'fast to Preston' - whhen actually fast to Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Glasgow or similar could be an option, and skip a lot of the Cumbria calls which are not as busy. Carlisle I think is so slow to pass, but the others could possibly be on a Euston-Carlisle service which runs a little slower, or skips the Lancs (they get the Brum for those connections)
2 x fast - Warrington/Wigan/Preston/Scotland AND MKC or TV call / Crewe / Preston / Lancaster etc / Scotland
There will remain two trains an hour fast line via Weedon to the West Mids, principally to serve Coventry and also the intermediate flows Watford / MK / Rugby to West Mids.
Warrington and Wigan are far more important calls than Lancaster or Carlisle.
It's funny that we thrive to get to 'fast to Preston' - whhen actually fast to Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Glasgow or similar could be an option, and skip a lot of the Cumbria calls which are not as busy. Carlisle I think is so slow to pass, but the others could possibly be on a Euston-Carlisle service which runs a little slower, or skips the Lancs (they get the Brum for those connections)
2 x fast - Warrington/Wigan/Preston/Scotland AND MKC or TV call / Crewe / Preston / Lancaster etc / Scotland
What will the third one (per today) go to? The 2tph to Glasgow and Edinburgh split plan, still?
I disagree with Carlisle, it is indeed 20mph through there so calling shouldn't add too much time anyway. A railhead for the northern Cumbrian coast, Tyne Valley, Dumfriesshire and Lockerbie.
Lancaster is also a busy stop, if anything it's Penrith or Oxenholme that can be skipped and transferred to a stopping service.
Warrington and Wigan are far more important calls than Lancaster or Carlisle.
It's funny that we thrive to get to 'fast to Preston' - whhen actually fast to Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Glasgow or similar could be an option, and skip a lot of the Cumbria calls which are not as busy. Carlisle I think is so slow to pass, but the others could possibly be on a Euston-Carlisle service which runs a little slower, or skips the Lancs (they get the Brum for those connections)
There's market for more services south of Preston. There's room for more trains per hour and more choice for which ones stop at Crewe/Warrington/Wigan, so the Anglo-Scottish is the natural service to be the fastest of the lot. The market thins north of Preston, so whatever runs between Preston and Scotland are the only services that can stop in Cumbria. Oxenholme and Penrith is already only selectively served. Lancaster and Carlisle are 'takt' nodes with low through speeds so it makes no sense not to stop.
It's mostly 4-track south of Preston, so easier to path super-fasts without impacting on freight (notice I say easier not easy). It's only two-tracks north of Preston, so the fastest passenger services need to be slow enough to not run into the back of the previous freight.
When I was driving up until 13 years ago, Lancaster was 75 in one direction and 90 in the other on the through lines....however - as mentioned in the previous post - the station is very busy with students and academics from Lancaster University and tourists changing to and from the South Lakes.
I could see an argument that to make the Euston - Glasgow service as fast as possible, skipping Oxenholme and Penrith on the fast train would make sense, and serving both with the TPE and London via Birmingham services would still offer decent connectivity. Ideally the Windermere service could also usually continue to at least Lancaster to connect into the fast trains, but maybe that could be foregone if Oxenholme has the other two calling regularly.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
