Does Milton Keynes Central (MKC) need a direct Glasgow service?

[Bletchleyite]

Lack of MKC stops on Glasgow services is a concern.

It's really not. I do slightly rue the loss of the slow through service, but for the level of demand there actually is a change at Manchester or Crewe works fine. You can't have direct trains from everywhere to everywhere.

Removing Wigan, Oxenholme or Lancaster breaking the simple hourly pattern would be downright silly. The primary demand is to/from London, not MKC, much as MKC is a busy station. The clockface service of three fasts an hour (plus the WMT) we have is entirely appropriate, with other destinations reached by connections.

 

[CHobbs]

It's really not. I do slightly rue the loss of the slow through service, but for the level of demand there actually is a change at Manchester or Crewe works fine. You can't have direct trains from everywhere to everywhere.

Removing Wigan, Oxenholme or Lancaster breaking the simple hourly pattern would be downright silly. The primary demand is to/from London, not MKC, much as MKC is a busy station. The clockface service of three fasts an hour (plus the WMT) we have is entirely appropriate, with other destinations reached by connections.

You clearly weren’t trying to reach Motherwell yesterday early evening from MK?! - absolute shambles. Why argue? It’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion that MK should be included on more of the Euston-Glasgow services! Remember MK has a catchment of Luton, Bedford and Northampton for its rail services. It’s a destination hub.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Dec 2025 ==

It's really not. I do slightly rue the loss of the slow through service, but for the level of demand there actually is a change at Manchester or Crewe works fine. You can't have direct trains from everywhere to everywhere.

Removing Wigan, Oxenholme or Lancaster breaking the simple hourly pattern would be downright silly. The primary demand is to/from London, not MKC, much as MKC is a busy station. The clockface service of three fasts an hour (plus the WMT) we have is entirely appropriate, with other destinations reached by connections.

As a regular user of the route, Penrith is perfectly served by TPE and so is Oxenholme. Wigan is easily served by a quick change at Preston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You clearly weren’t trying to reach Motherwell yesterday early evening from MK?! - absolute shambles. Why argue?

Because the present clockface connectional timetable is well-designed and practical. Obviously disruption happens.

It’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion that MK should be included on more of the Euston-Glasgow services! Remember MK has a catchment of Luton, Bedford and Northampton for its rail services. It’s a destination hub.

It is, but a much smaller one than London.

As a regular user of the route, Penrith is perfectly served by TPE and so is Oxenholme. Wigan is easily served by a quick change at Preston.

So the much bigger tourist market from London doesn't deserve a direct connection to the Lakes? And Wigan doesn't deserve direct trains to London? I think this isn't a very good argument to be honest.

 

[CHobbs]

I said, ‘every other’ service. As I said, not many tend to get off at these stops, TPE serves these stations adequately . No, I don’t think Wigan really deserves through services with Warrington and Preston both adequate. Preston is only 10 minutes away . Also it’s part of Greater Manchester, plenty of alternatives. As I said, a few more MK stops would be useful and perfectly acceptable on this route.

A practical answer from someone who regularly travels is always better than a ‘rail enthusiast’ reply.

Next you will say Northampton has a perfectly adequate service!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A practical answer from someone who regularly travels is always better than a ‘rail enthusiast’ reply.

I wouldn't agree. If we operated direct services from everywhere to everywhere because a few people want them you would end up with a horrible mess of a timetable. The structure of the WCML timetable is well designed and enables connections to lots of places from MKC. I certainly prefer it to the mess that existed before that did have those direct trains but only a few times a day.

 

[biggerisbetter]

No, I don’t think Wigan really deserves through services with Warrington and Preston both adequate. Preston is only 10 minutes away . Also it’s part of Greater Manchester, plenty of alternatives.

Latest flows from MK to Glasgow just over 10,000 per year. From Wigan to London 125,482 per year and from Wigan to Glasgow over 17,000 per year. Wigan also acts as the location where a proportion of travellers from Southport, Bolton and St Helens (a further over 25,000 journeys to London Euston amongst a number of other smaller destinations along the 3/4 lines that connect into Wigan) change to catch services to London.

Cutting the direct Wigan to London services to serve the MK to Glasgow market would be a big net negative in my view.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Remember MK has a catchment of Luton, Bedford and Northampton for its rail services. It’s a destination hub.

Plus Oxford very soon.

Latest flows from MK to Glasgow just over 10,000 per year

The current service is terrible so you’d be more likely to drive. Its 5-5h30 by train typically and 6 hours by car. EDIT: Also it’s 20000 to glasgow, 12k to central, 8k to Queen Street.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Dec 2025 ==

Cutting the direct Wigan to London services to serve the MK to Glasgow market would be a big net negative in my view.

Maybe you just make London-Glasgow 5 minutes slower?

 

[Sorcerer]

Based on my own experience and what I've heard elsewhere, the Glasgow fasts can get quite busy, especially between London and Preston, so adding in passengers on the commuter belt up to Milton Keynes would strain capacity even further. Maybe if it was 2tph like the ECML with the fast serving Preston, Lancaster and Carlisle only while the semi-fast served Milton Keynes, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenhome, Penrith and Carlisle.

Otherwise I feel like if the demand was there then Virgin/Avanti would've tried to lobby for it at some point throughout the franchise. But what I can say with confidence is that removing Wigan wouldn't be such a good idea because not only would it lose a direct service to London but it'd also limit connections for passengers travelling from Liverpool to Scotland like I've done a few times. Wigan was always a natural transfer station on that journey.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Based on my own experience and what I've heard elsewhere, the Glasgow fasts can get quite busy, especially between London and Preston, so adding in passengers on the commuter belt up to Milton Keynes would strain capacity even further. Maybe if it was 2tph like the ECML with the fast serving Preston, Lancaster and Carlisle only while the semi-fast served Milton Keynes, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenhome, Penrith and Carlisle.

Otherwise I feel like if the demand was there then Virgin/Avanti would've tried to lobby for it at some point throughout the franchise. But what I can say with confidence is that removing Wigan wouldn't be such a good idea because not only would it lose a direct service to London but it'd also limit connections for passengers travelling from Liverpool to Scotland like I've done a few times. Wigan was always a natural transfer station on that journey.

Stafford and Crewe are covered by the Birmingham service to be fair.

 

[The Planner]

Maybe you just make London-Glasgow 5 minutes slower?

Breaks the timetable if you add a MK stop.

 

[Sorcerer]

Stafford and Crewe are covered by the Birmingham service to be fair.

True, and that also reminds me that Milton Keynes Central was also served by them as well at one point. When first introduced the London-West Midlands-Scotland service was an extension of the third Birmingham calling at MKC, Coventry and Birmingham International to replace the hourly Wolverhampton. Now though it seems Coventry is the first calling point, though Milton Keynes does retain the Birmingham semi-fast along with a Manchester and Liverpool service. So far from adding it to the Glasgow ones, they've actually lost the only regular one they had by the looks of it.

 

[biggerisbetter]

EDIT: Also it’s 20000 to glasgow, 12k to central, 8k to Queen Street.

Is this in both directions as I just used the one-way flows? If so, you need to double the other numbers I quoted (I included the Queen Street figures in the MK to Glasgow flow).

I do think Milton Keynes should receive more intercity calls post HS2 opening. Indeed, I would stop everything there that passes through.

 

[MatthewHutton]

True, and that also reminds me that Milton Keynes Central was also served by them as well at one point

It was, but that adds an hour onto trip times over going direct on the Trent valley lines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Dec 2025 ==

Is this in both directions as I just used the one-way flows

Yeah both ways.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Dec 2025 ==

Breaks the timetable if you add a MK stop.

You’d have to at a minimum move the Manchester MK train to immediately after the Glasgow one or move the xx:23 Birmingham West midlands trains service earlier as well and deal with the consequences of that. So not totally straightforward!

 

[The Planner]

True, and that also reminds me that Milton Keynes Central was also served by them as well at one point. When first introduced the London-West Midlands-Scotland service was an extension of the third Birmingham calling at MKC, Coventry and Birmingham International to replace the hourly Wolverhampton. Now though it seems Coventry is the first calling point, though Milton Keynes does retain the Birmingham semi-fast along with a Manchester and Liverpool service. So far from adding it to the Glasgow ones, they've actually lost the only regular one they had by the looks of it.

It wasn't an extension, it was two service groups joined together at New St.

 

[Falcon1200]

Travelling regularly as I do between Glasgow and Oxford I have a choice of via London (with a bus or tube transfer) or Birmingham (2 hourly AWC service and busy Voyagers). Once Milton Keynes finally has an Oxford service this will very much be an attractive alternative, whether enough to recast the timetable is another matter....

 

[Farigiraf]

Currently the only regular Avanti services north of Manchester are the Glasgow Central 'fasts' and the Glasgow/Edinburgh via Birmingham service. The latter is much slower for anyone wanting to travel north of Crewe - from MKC you're better off taking LNWR to Crewe via the Trent Valley and changing there.

MKC is busy enough to justify long-distance services to Preston, Wigan, Lancaster etc. - even more post-EWR. So while the only regular Avanti service to these stations is the Euston - Glasgow Central, it justifies a stop, even if only at peak times.

If Avanti decide to introduce a second hourly service on the WCML which doesn't take the slow route via the West Midlands, such as an additional Euston - Preston service, it would make sense to have it call at more intermediate stations to improve connectivity to the north, including MKC, Tamworth and Crewe.

Of course the answer is right in front of us: post-HS2, there'll be plenty of capacity for most trains taking the 'classic' WCML route to stop at Milton Keynes, this'll just depend on how ambitious a post-HS2 WCML timetable will be, and how much of HS2 is completed in the end. SNCF do still run 'Classique' intercity services as a low-cost alternative to high-speed rail. Something similar on the WCML would solve the connectivity issue to cities bypassed by HS2 and make long-distance travel by train remain affordable (as I'm certain HS2 will be more of a premium option, without offers like the Superfare).

 

[CHobbs]

Latest flows from MK to Glasgow just over 10,000 per year. From Wigan to London 125,482 per year and from Wigan to Glasgow over 17,000 per year. Wigan also acts as the location where a proportion of travellers from Southport, Bolton and St Helens (a further over 25,000 journeys to London Euston amongst a number of other smaller destinations along the 3/4 lines that connect into Wigan) change to catch services to London.

Cutting the direct Wigan to London services to serve the MK to Glasgow market would be a big net negative in my view.

Currently the only regular Avanti services north of Manchester are the Glasgow Central 'fasts' and the Glasgow/Edinburgh via Birmingham service. The latter is much slower for anyone wanting to travel north of Crewe - from MKC you're better off taking LNWR to Crewe via the Trent Valley and changing there.

MKC is busy enough to justify long-distance services to Preston, Wigan, Lancaster etc. - even more post-EWR. So while the only regular Avanti service to these stations is the Euston - Glasgow Central, it justifies a stop, even if only at peak times.

If Avanti decide to introduce a second hourly service on the WCML which doesn't take the slow route via the West Midlands, such as an additional Euston - Preston service, it would make sense to have it call at more intermediate stations to improve connectivity to the north, including MKC, Tamworth and Crewe.

Of course the answer is right in front of us: post-HS2, there'll be plenty of capacity for most trains taking the 'classic' WCML route to stop at Milton Keynes, this'll just depend on how ambitious a post-HS2 WCML timetable will be, and how much of HS2 is completed in the end. SNCF do still run 'Classique' intercity services as a low-cost alternative to high-speed rail. Something similar on the WCML would solve the connectivity issue to cities bypassed by HS2 and make long-distance travel by train remain affordable (as I'm certain HS2 will be more of a premium option, without offers like the Superfare).

I did the former on Sunday and the service was horrific. Took LNWR service to Crewe (delayed) missed connection at Crewe… 40 min wait at Crewe. The LNWR service was 4 carriages and full and standing for the entire journey. Then no service to Glasgow as the 18:09 was the last. I live near Motherwell (from MK originally) and have been doing this journey for 13 years regularly - I’m NOT a rail enthusiast, I’m a rail user. The service has declined so much over the years.
Anyway, caught the (delayed 19:09) to Edinburgh and changed at Carlisle. Arrived at 23:05.
There used to be a much better service. The 16:40 ex Glasgow Central is a lifesaver and well used for MKC passengers. More services like that would be great. That was what the original post was about.

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

Travelling regularly as I do between Glasgow and Oxford I have a choice of via London (with a bus or tube transfer) or Birmingham (2 hourly AWC service and busy Voyagers). Once Milton Keynes finally has an Oxford service this will very much be an attractive alternative, whether enough to recast the timetable is another matter....

Agreed mate!

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

Plus Oxford very soon.

The current service is terrible so you’d be more likely to drive. Its 5-5h30 by train typically and 6 hours by car. EDIT: Also it’s 20000 to glasgow, 12k to central, 8k to Queen Street.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Dec 2025 ==


Maybe you just make London-Glasgow 5 minutes slower?

I do normally drive through the evening on a longer stay - I have elderly parents so just on a weekend I train or fly if I’m by myself. With my wife, I get the train.

 

[Kite159]

Nope, the only thing those fast Glasgow need is a call at Crewe, pick up only heading towards Glasgow, set down only heading towards London.

Considering Crewe has a lot more interchange opportunities than Warrington Bank Quay.

 

[A S Leib]

Considering Crewe has a lot more interchange opportunities than Warrington Bank Quay.

I agree, but London's the larger flow than Preston / Scotland for both and Crewe has more alternatives, so it makes more sense to call at Warrington as long as it's the choice between one and the other.

 

[Topological]

Having spent years in Manchester, stopping in Milton Keynes was an annoyance and I liked it when VHF meant a lot of trains did not. Only if on an advance first would a Milton Keynes stop be useful as they had to do a service south of MK.

However, now in Swansea all trains stop at Reading, which is essentially the same issue. It is close enough to London to say "that is commuter train land", but has plenty of justifications for stops on all the long-distance trains.

It may actually be better (especially post HS2) for everything to stop at Milton Keynes. Once HS2 opens I would be adding platforms 7 and 8 so north and south are both islands (5 and 6 becoming south) and then there would be a multitude of new opportunities*.

I appreciate there is no money tree, but as others have noted, there is huge railhead potential.

* A side benefit is you can have longer EWR trains terminate at MK because there are more full length platforms under this proposal.

 

[cle]

Reading is a far larger rail market and destination than MKC - and many more connections.

MKC isn't much of a junction or hub in that regard, except for the town/city itself. The service it gets today is fine, although it does seem overall that an additional service towards Lancs/Cumbria/Scotland via TV would be helpful in many regards.

At MKC - I do agree that everything after HS2 should call there, possibly also Watford Junction too with the exception of a few peak fasts to help Leighton Buzzard and Northampton out... it becomes much more of a semi-fast, high frequency railway between London and Rugby/Cov/Handsacre...

and more via Weaver should call at Bletchley also. Certainly one fast to Birmingham, especially once Bedford and Cambridge join EWR! But possibly others too.

 

[A S Leib]

possibly also Watford Junction too with the exception of a few peak fasts to help Leighton Buzzard and Northampton out.

I'd guess that Chester / Holyhead services staying on classic lines would skip Watford, and, assuming intercity services from Euston to New Street go down from 3 to 2 tph, Coventry would presumably want to make sure one of their services is a fast one as well (although 2tph fast to Birmingham was a county council target at one point, as well as hourly to Manchester and Liverpool).

 

[Sorcerer]

I can see Milton Keynes becoming a hub stop for every train post-HS2, but Watford not so much unless you were going for a national metro style arrangement where you had express and local stops on the route. As far as Chester trains are concerned I'd have a fast stopping pattern calling only at Crewe, Stafford, Rugby and Milton Keynes. Maybe Nuneaton was well since that's also something of an interchange hub. For Glasgow specifically though any MKC passengers would probably need to head to Euston or Crewe unless a classic line Anglo-Scottish InterCity service is retained. But post-HS2 services are a whole other discussion entirely.

 

[Farigiraf]

(although 2tph fast to Birmingham was a county council target at one point, as well as hourly to Manchester and Liverpool).

Don't forget the XC Bournemouth-Manchester, meaning even with only 1tph fast from London, the first two goals are achieved. LNR tried a direct Liverpool service in 2019 and it was one of the least successful timetables of recent history!
I'm betting that a few Avanti services not via HS2 will remain, such as London-Scotland via the West Midlands, so Coventry won't be entirely cut off. Though the city should also have Birmingham Interchange in close proximity (definitely a frequent bus service and park&ride facilities, potentially trams) which will improve its situation a bit.

 

[cle]

I can see Milton Keynes becoming a hub stop for every train post-HS2, but Watford not so much unless you were going for a national metro style arrangement where you had express and local stops on the route. As far as Chester trains are concerned I'd have a fast stopping pattern calling only at Crewe, Stafford, Rugby and Milton Keynes. Maybe Nuneaton was well since that's also something of an interchange hub. For Glasgow specifically though any MKC passengers would probably need to head to Euston or Crewe unless a classic line Anglo-Scottish InterCity service is retained. But post-HS2 services are a whole other discussion entirely.

Watford is busier than MKC, but I digress - much of that traffic is to Euston, but possibly on both fronts.

In any case, yes, I'd suggest that after HS2, everything calls at Watford, Milton Keynes and maybe even Rugby - which is seeing a lot of homebuilding too. The former two have of course a lot of population growth and development, as well as inbound commuting/jobs.

Coventry? Yes a fast would be nice but gotta break some eggs and the WCML is for the many ... people can always go to Interchange for an extremely fast option via HS2 (and I suspect there will be plenty of capacity to incentivize that!)

 

[A S Leib]

Don't forget the XC Bournemouth-Manchester, meaning even with only 1tph fast from London, the first two goals are achieved. LNR tried a direct Liverpool service in 2019 and it was one of the least successful timetables of recent history!

I could have been clearer; I meant 2tph Birmingham and hourly to Manchester and Liverpool from Watford, not Coventry.

 

[Farigiraf]

I could have been clearer; I meant 2tph Birmingham and hourly to Manchester and Liverpool from Watford, not Coventry.

In that case, it's still certainly achievable. At least two extra Birmingham services are likely to call at the station post-HS2, and I'd be surprised if a slow train to Manchester wasn't kept.
I can only see a London - Watford - Liverpool direct materialising if an OAO picks up the route, which, assuming that open access still exists in the mid/late-2030s, would have a decent chance of being approved. Then there's the West London Line, allowing for services south to Gatwick and Brighton, but I think TfL would rather keep it as a self-contained line rather having it reverted back to the long-distance route it was in BR days.

 

[JonathanH]

I can only see a London - Watford - Liverpool direct materialising if an OAO picks up the route, which, assuming that open access still exists in the mid/late-2030s, would have a decent chance of being approved.

Why would it (or indeed any other WCML open access) have a decent chance of being approved? There is no extra infrastructure and spare capacity being built north of Lichfield that it could use.

 

[Farigiraf]

Why would it have a decent chance of being approved? There is no extra infrastructure and spare capacity being built north of Lichfield that it could use.

I'm thinking it would take the West Midlands loop to get out of the way of HS2 services, so the only section where you'd be adding extra services on top of what there already is would be between Stafford and Liverpool. On this section, I'd be surprised if a few extra trains each day can't be accommodated considering HS2 won't have massive frequency increases. If there still isn't capacity, then Watford county council won't achieve one of their aims, but they'll always have a relatively simple one-change journey via Crewe.

 

[The Planner]

I'm thinking it would take the West Midlands loop to get out of the way of HS2 services, so the only section where you'd be adding extra services on top of what there already is would be between Stafford and Liverpool. On this section, I'd be surprised if a few extra trains each day can't be accommodated considering HS2 won't have massive frequency increases. If there still isn't capacity, then Watford county council won't achieve one of their aims, but they'll always have a relatively simple one-change journey via Crewe.

If any fast services are taken off the Coventry corridor (and I can only see it being one myself), then that timetable would get re-written to a half hourly pattern. You would also be hard pushed to find a case for an OAO when you would put the second XC along there or allow stoppers all the way from New St to Coventry where they are currently split.