Integrated "One West Coast" business unit - what changes may take place?

[Sorcerer]

What is the actual journey time saving for a Pendolino on the Birmingham run over a Class 350, 730 or similar? A Class 730 is 110mph and, I think, has every axle motored. It certainly accelerates quite rapidly anyway!

Because of the stopping pattern it's hard to say how comparable a 350/730 is, but judging by some small samples in Realtime Trains it seems the 805/807s are about the same as a 390 (which only really covers a similar pattern as far as Birmingham when doing early morning Liverpool or Glasgow service). So arguably no time saving to be had, most likely because Pendolinos are more optimal for long periods on non-stop express running over the semi-fast pattern that Everos are better suited for. I think it's safe to say sub-125mph running isn't really a detriment on the Birmingham route.

For those who can't see the images, the first two are Pendolino diagrams (0616 to Liverpool via Birmingham and 0716 to Glasgow via Birmingham respectively), and the third one is an Evero diagram. All show a departure time of xx:16 and an arrival of xx:48 about an hour and a half later.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Fair enough, but now I do wonder if we could've swapped diagrams between the Crewe 350s/730s and the Avanti 805/807s on the Birmingham semi-fast so that the London-Crewe train could've been extended to Liverpool and included the stop at South Parkway while the Pendolino remained as the express Liverpool service. But this probably comes with it's own problems. At this stage I'm actually just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

The perennial issue which DfT/Virgin/Avanti/LM never solved was a regional service north of Crewe to at least Preston, possibly Carlisle.
Euston-Blackpool 390s were a partial fill-in for this, but that is now re-focussed on Birmingham-Glasgow.
If TPE (WCML services) were integrated with the West Coast operation, we might have a better spread of linked services, including over the Crewe-Preston gap.

 

[JamesT]

Because of the stopping pattern it's hard to say how comparable a 350/730 is, but judging by some small samples in Realtime Trains it seems the 805/807s are about the same as a 390 (which only really covers a similar pattern as far as Birmingham when doing early morning Liverpool or Glasgow service). So arguably no time saving to be had, most likely because Pendolinos are more optimal for long periods on non-stop express running over the semi-fast pattern that Everos are better suited for. I think it's safe to say sub-125mph running isn't really a detriment on the Birmingham route.

For those who can't see the images, the first two are Pendolino diagrams (0616 to Liverpool via Birmingham and 0716 to Glasgow via Birmingham respectively), and the third one is an Evero diagram. All show a departure time of xx:16 and an arrival of xx:48 about an hour and a half later.

View attachment 212359View attachment 212360View attachment 212361

I thought there were some changes to allow non-tilt stock to do more than 110mph on sections of the WCML when the 805/807 were introduced? So the timetables for those stock are not necessarily representative of what a 110mph-max train would do.

 

[Sorcerer]

I thought there were some changes to allow non-tilt stock to do more than 110mph on sections of the WCML when the 805/807 were introduced? So the timetables for those stock are not necessarily representative of what a 110mph-max train would do.

There was yes, but I still doubt the difference would be anything substantial. The acceleration rate for the 350 and 730 are roughly the same as the 805 (on electric mode) and the 807, and I'm sure at least the 730 could probably get cleared for MU speeds if need be.

 

[A S Leib]

possibly Carlisle.

Are St. Helens Central, Bolton, Manchester Oxford Road, Piccadilly through platforms and Airport long enough that they could take seven or even nine-car 397s, rather than introducing more services?

(Liverpool to Lancaster's struck me as a pair which feels like it should have direct services but, outside a few per day, doesn't, but a Liverpool to Carlisle service is either too long to really be called a stopping one, or a rather slow one.)

 

[Djgr]

Are St. Helens Central, Bolton, Manchester Oxford Road, Piccadilly through platforms and Airport long enough that they could take seven or even nine-car 397s, rather than introducing more services?

(Liverpool to Lancaster's struck me as a pair which feels like it should have direct services but, outside a few per day, doesn't, but a Liverpool to Carlisle service is either too long to really be called a stopping one, or a rather slow one.)

What Liverpool needs is a through West Coast service to Edinburgh to accompany its limited Glasgow one.

If I remember correctly, the Liverpool to Edinburgh combination has the greatest ticket sales for stations without a direct service. (It used to have one but Virgin with their Operation Princess tomfoolery killed it off)

 

[A S Leib]

What Liverpool needs is a through West Coast service to Edinburgh to accompany its limited Glasgow one.

If I remember correctly, the Liverpool to Edinburgh combination has the greatest ticket sales for stations without a direct service. (It used to have one but Virgin with their Operation Princess tomfoolery killed it off)

Excluding London, Liverpool to Edinburgh and vice-versa are 23rd and 24th. Excluding cases of same city, different terminal (e.g. Helensburgh to Glasgow Central), it's effectively eighth, after Gatwick to / from Southampton, Brentwood to / from Chelmsford, Reading to Henley, Basildon to / from Chafford Hundred, Liverpool South Parkway to / from Southport, Brighton to / from Horsham, and Bognor to Chichester.

 

[Helvellyn]

Given East Coast is going to be GBR | LNER I wonder if the LNWR could be the operating name (can't see Avanti staying long-term), so it'd be GBR | LNWR

Is this definitely happening, then? Would make sense to merge the TPE "Anglo-Scottish" services with it as well...

In time I could see this happening, moving the 397s to the West Coast Business Unit. If it did then the Edinburgh/Newcastle - Manchester/Liverpool services might move to GBR | LNER, leaving the Scarborough/Hull and TPE South routes to move to Northern (and maybe the Liverpool Nottingham part of EMR).

One potential passenger benefit would be Gold card being accepted on (what is currently) Avanti.

That would be a wider GBR call because I would imagine they would want to standardise it across all the operators. Nationwide Gold Card scheme would be ideal to maybe encourage Annual Season ticket purchases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given East Coast is going to be GBR | LNER I wonder if the LNWR could be the operating name (can't see Avanti staying long-term), so it'd be GBR | LNWR

I thought they'd already said it was going to be GBR | West Coast?

 

[pr1]

Would a local Crewe to Wigan or Preston service be any easier with LNR and Avanti merged, or no real difference as it would likely have been under Northern otherwise?

Is there paths into Wigan/Preston? P5 at Wigan is pretty stuffed as it is, and then you're looking at a stuffed P3 or P5 at Preston (the latter not so much though still...)

 

[py_megapixel]

If the Manchester-London services are altered could they take the opportunity to sort out the stoppers through Stockport?

Currently I get the impression they have been chucked into the timetable wherever they will fit around the all-important big London trains which apparently must run precisely every 20 minutes. This results in some suboptimal gaps between trains. (Despite Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme having 4tph there is a 25 min gap towards Manchester each hour. Despite Cheadle Hulme having 3tph there's a 36 min gap towards Manchester each hour).

Also a second tph to Macclesfield and ideally all the way to Stoke needs sorting; places like Bramhall, Poynton and Congleton only getting 1tph is poor.

 

[The Planner]

If the Manchester-London services are altered could they take the opportunity to sort out the stoppers through Stockport?

Currently I get the impression they have been chucked into the timetable wherever they will fit around the all-important big London trains which apparently must run precisely every 20 minutes. This results in some suboptimal gaps between trains. (Despite Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme having 4tph there is a 25 min gap towards Manchester each hour. Despite Cheadle Hulme having 3tph there's a 36 min gap towards Manchester each hour).

Also a second tph to Macclesfield and ideally all the way to Stoke needs sorting; places like Bramhall, Poynton and Congleton only getting 1tph is poor.

It depends on what the impacts are south of Colwich to Euston.

 

[Sorcerer]

So this was a service idea I actually had for this new One West Coast business unit and I wanted to specifically stress-test it here on the forums because I genuinely wanted to know about the viability. Since the Avanti and LNR services are coming into one business unit, what if the 2tph London-Liverpool service pattern was changed so that instead of the current pattern where we have two fast trains, we had one of them become a semi-fast by absorbing the existing LNR Crewe service?

• Right now the LNR Euston-Crewe leaves at xx:46 and runs via MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley and Stafford arriving at Crewe at xx:54 about 2h8m later.
• Meanwhile the xx:07 Avanti service to Liverpool runs via Tamworth, Lichfield and Runcorn taking about 2h16 with a Pendolino.
• Then the xx:43 Avanti service to Liverpool runs via MKC, Crewe, Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway taking about 2h22 with an Evero.

From Crewe to Liverpool on the latter service stopping at Runcorn and South Parkway takes about 38 minutes, which if added on to the Euston-Crewe service would turn it into a 2h46m journey, though if using an 807 it could potentially be faster by taking advantage of MU speeds. This would split the London-Liverpool intercity services into a fast and semi-fast pattern taking advantage of the Pendolino's suitability for long stretches of express running and the Evero's better suitability for frequent stopping and fitting at the South Parkway platforms.

I know politically this might come with it's own problems such as one Liverpool train getting slower and Milton Keynes losing a fast express train to Crewe unless you put that into another intercity service (such as Manchester via Crewe and Wilmslow), but I thought it was an interesting idea and wanted to stress-test it with people who genuinely know what they're talking about.

 

[blimmo]

just be Advances done in a similar way to Northern and TfW i.e. in near unlimited numbers right up to departure?

I'd be a bit annoyed by this, I like being able to commit to travelling and getting the contractual benefits without having to commit to a specific train.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

So this was a service idea I actually had for this new One West Coast business unit and I wanted to specifically stress-test it here on the forums because I genuinely wanted to know about the viability. Since the Avanti and LNR services are coming into one business unit, what if the 2tph London-Liverpool service pattern was changed so that instead of the current pattern where we have two fast trains, we had one of them become a semi-fast by absorbing the existing LNR Crewe service?

• Right now the LNR Euston-Crewe leaves at xx:46 and runs via MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley and Stafford arriving at Crewe at xx:54 about 2h8m later.
• Meanwhile the xx:07 Avanti service to Liverpool runs via Tamworth, Lichfield and Runcorn taking about 2h16 with a Pendolino.
• Then the xx:43 Avanti service to Liverpool runs via MKC, Crewe, Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway taking about 2h22 with an Evero.

From Crewe to Liverpool on the latter service stopping at Runcorn and South Parkway takes about 38 minutes, which if added on to the Euston-Crewe service would turn it into a 2h46m journey, though if using an 807 it could potentially be faster by taking advantage of MU speeds. This would split the London-Liverpool intercity services into a fast and semi-fast pattern taking advantage of the Pendolino's suitability for long stretches of express running and the Evero's better suitability for frequent stopping and fitting at the South Parkway platforms.

I know politically this might come with it's own problems such as one Liverpool train getting slower and Milton Keynes losing a fast express train to Crewe unless you put that into another intercity service (such as Manchester via Crewe and Wilmslow), but I thought it was an interesting idea and wanted to stress-test it with people who genuinely know what they're talking about.

Running an 807 on the Trent Valley stopper would be a problem due to capacity
The service can struggle with 10 cars (2x 730/2), which I experienced firsthand on several Summer Saturdays (it even got busy at the back!)
I don't think an 807 would fit everyone, especially with the added Liverpool traffic.

 

[RT4038]

Running an 807 on the Trent Valley stopper would be a problem due to capacity
The service can struggle with 10 cars (2x 730/2), which I experienced firsthand on several Summer Saturdays (it even got busy at the back!)
I don't think an 807 would fit everyone, especially with the added Liverpool traffic.

I don't think anyone travelling from the Trent Valley line station or Rugby to London would want the existing service to be crowded out by passengers travelling from Liverpool to London (who would far rather be on a fast train).

 

[Djgr]

So this was a service idea I actually had for this new One West Coast business unit and I wanted to specifically stress-test it here on the forums because I genuinely wanted to know about the viability. Since the Avanti and LNR services are coming into one business unit, what if the 2tph London-Liverpool service pattern was changed so that instead of the current pattern where we have two fast trains, we had one of them become a semi-fast by absorbing the existing LNR Crewe service?

• Right now the LNR Euston-Crewe leaves at xx:46 and runs via MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley and Stafford arriving at Crewe at xx:54 about 2h8m later.
• Meanwhile the xx:07 Avanti service to Liverpool runs via Tamworth, Lichfield and Runcorn taking about 2h16 with a Pendolino.
• Then the xx:43 Avanti service to Liverpool runs via MKC, Crewe, Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway taking about 2h22 with an Evero.

From Crewe to Liverpool on the latter service stopping at Runcorn and South Parkway takes about 38 minutes, which if added on to the Euston-Crewe service would turn it into a 2h46m journey, though if using an 807 it could potentially be faster by taking advantage of MU speeds. This would split the London-Liverpool intercity services into a fast and semi-fast pattern taking advantage of the Pendolino's suitability for long stretches of express running and the Evero's better suitability for frequent stopping and fitting at the South Parkway platforms.

I know politically this might come with it's own problems such as one Liverpool train getting slower and Milton Keynes losing a fast express train to Crewe unless you put that into another intercity service (such as Manchester via Crewe and Wilmslow), but I thought it was an interesting idea and wanted to stress-test it with people who genuinely know what they're talking about.

Liverpool has campaigned for around 30 years for a second fast train per hour. Hands off

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool has campaigned for around 30 years for a second fast train per hour. Hands off

This is the main issue. If it had been done in the first place it'd probably be OK - Liverpool would get its second train with super cheap fares. But politically you couldn't really revert to it.

Wouldn't work with 807s though, you'd definitely need 240m if making it a through Liverpool service, even if in addition to two faster ones.

 

[Sorcerer]

Okay so it sounds like the idea wasn't exactly bad in principle, the rolling stock just wasn't suitable for the overcrowding and the politics of Liverpool losing a fast service would be very unpopular. I do suppose maybe this semi-fast idea could work as a third service, if not in the near future then maybe as an alternative service to the fast HS2 trains. There is a market for offering cheaper but longer journeys, and while the more time-sensitive passengers could use the intercity services, budget-conscious ones could pay less in exchange for an extra half-hour (2h46 semi-fast vs 2h16 fast).

I didn't mention this in the original idea, but in case anyone was interested, in the hours where power supply constraints prevents one of them running, I would've actually cut back on the semi-fast and terminated it short at Crewe and had it be diagrammed as a 350/730 instead. Cutting the fast service short at Crewe would've meant either awkward maneuvering of a 390 (which I'm not sure would fit the regular terminus platforms), or alternatively you might've just had to not run the service at all which would leave an entire path unused and also lose Liverpool and the Trent Valley an hourly express service to London.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Okay so it sounds like the idea wasn't exactly bad in principle, the rolling stock just wasn't suitable for the overcrowding and the politics of Liverpool losing a fast service would be very unpopular. I do suppose maybe this semi-fast idea could work as a third service, if not in the near future then maybe as an alternative service to the fast HS2 trains. There is a market for offering cheaper but longer journeys, and while the more time-sensitive passengers could use the intercity services, budget-conscious ones could pay less in exchange for an extra half-hour (2h46 semi-fast vs 2h16 fast).

I didn't mention this in the original idea, but in case anyone was interested, in the hours where power supply constraints prevents one of them running, I would've actually cut back on the semi-fast and terminated it short at Crewe and had it be diagrammed as a 350/730 instead. Cutting the fast service short at Crewe would've meant either awkward maneuvering of a 390 (which I'm not sure would fit the regular terminus platforms), or alternatively you might've just had to not run the service at all which would leave an entire path unused and also lose Liverpool and the Trent Valley an hourly express service to London.

As the service is formed of 10-car 730s it has to use a through platform to turnaround in at Crewe anyway, for the most part that is platform 11.

 

[Sorcerer]

As the service is formed of 10-car 730s it has to use a through platform to turnaround in at Crewe anyway, for the most part that is platform 11.

It's been a while and I was actually under the impression that Crewe had specific terminus platforms for the London trains, but I must admit when checking the timetable today I didn't look at the platforms. I mostly focused on journey times (including the fact that apparently they no longer run via Stoke as well as Stafford).

 

[Bletchleyite]

As the service is formed of 10-car 730s it has to use a through platform to turnaround in at Crewe anyway, for the most part that is platform 11.

Surprised they don't use 12. Nicely out of the way and not desirable to use for other things as a result, but fine for a budget service.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Surprised they don't use 12. Nicely out of the way and not desirable to use for other things as a result, but fine for a budget service.

Generally the ex-West Midlands Avanti uses 12 while the LNWR is turning around in 11.
I think it works well, since I usually see bigger crowds for the LNWR than the Avanti gets.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The Euston-Brum semifast via Weedon could be 730 worked maybe?

No one wants that, let’s face it.

 

[The Planner]

Surprised they don't use 12. Nicely out of the way and not desirable to use for other things as a result, but fine for a budget service.

Its not in 12 for that very reason, its an awful platform.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its not in 12 for that very reason, its an awful platform.

Is it? It's modern, it's got toilets. It is a bit of a pain being slightly out of the way, but it's in a far better state of repair than any of the rest of it.

 

[station_road]

Is it? It's modern, it's got toilets. It is a bit of a pain being slightly out of the way, but it's in a far better state of repair than any of the rest of it.

It has canopies but no waiting room for when it's cold, no catering facilities and isn't linked to the subway for the car park exit.

 

[cle]

If both were 11 car you could drop a direct TPH to Manchester, and extend 1tph of the Birmingham fasts (first stop Cov, add MKC call) to Manchester via Stafford and Stoke.

The direct Manchesters would run fast to Crewe, Wilmslow... and call MKC/Stoke... respectively.

Adds real XC capacity, long and wired. Saves a Euston path (second Lancs/Scotland?)

XC can reduce a Manchester service (ie Bristol now runs to Leeds via the path of the weird new Sheffield shuttle fast) - and there would be another path for a via Macclesfield commuter service. Or terminate the Bristol at Crewe or Preston.

 

[The Planner]

If both were 11 car you could drop a direct TPH to Manchester, and extend 1tph of the Birmingham fasts (first stop Cov, add MKC call) to Manchester via Stafford and Stoke.

The direct Manchesters would run fast to Crewe, Wilmslow... and call MKC/Stoke... respectively.

Adds real XC capacity, long and wired. Saves a Euston path (second Lancs/Scotland?)

XC can reduce a Manchester service (ie Bristol now runs to Leeds via the path of the weird new Sheffield shuttle fast) - and there would be another path for a via Macclesfield commuter service. Or terminate the Bristol at Crewe or Preston.

Don't see how that can work. The fast Birmingham has a Manchester via Stoke right behind it. You then lose the path on the Coventry corridor as well as the slot to Manchester at New St. Euston to Manchester as a flow isnt going to get diluted like that, not a chance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having been subject to it today one thing I'd like to see is a tidying of the utter mess that is the north WCML timetable. There should at least be a 2 hour pattern.