16:30 London Euston to Glasgow express - gone from May 2016

[Bletchleyite]

Ah yes. With 5-car trains operating long distance services (as described above) and morning peak departures leaving at 0800 with two or three passengers per coach in First Class.

You understand presumably that commuter flows are just a bit directional?

 

[Bald Rick]

In a perfect world I suppose one would want two Euston to Glasgow trains per hour, one running limited-stop (eg Euston-Preston-Carlisle-Glasgow) and another calling at something like Euston-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston-Lancaster-Oxenholme-Penrith-Carlisle-Glasgow.

There are two Euston to Glasgow (or sometimes Edinburgh) trains an hour. One of them goes via the West Mids.

Presumably the 1630 was selected as the fast train as this is the time of day that is busiest for high value travel between London and Glasgow. One presumes that Virgin know how many people fly the route.

Certainly on the few occasions I have used the 1630 it has been about half full, but with a decent level of business travel to Scotland.

 

[30907]

Presumably the 1630 was selected as the fast train as this is the time of day that is busiest for high value travel between London and Glasgow.

Quite so, but it also had to be part of a workable set of diagrams.

The southbound ones (which weren't as fast anyway) were sacrificed to permit the hourly
Glasgows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are two Euston to Glasgow (or sometimes Edinburgh) trains an hour. One of them goes via the West Mids.

...and as such is more intended for intermediate journeys. If I recall, the following faster service overtakes it.

Putting Lancaster/Oxenholme/Penrith passengers onto the slow service would be madness. Do you want to kill tourism by train?

Meanwhile, the time all the way to Glasgow isn't so important whether it's 4 hours or 4:30, because it's "slower than flying". That, and that only, is what really matters in terms of patronage.

 

[gsnedders]

...and as such is more intended for intermediate journeys. If I recall, the following faster service overtakes it.

Indeed, the following service typically arrives into Euston about twenty minutes earlier (having left Glasgow forty minutes later). Often the cheapest available Advanced tickets are to get the slow train out, then change onto the fast ex Manchester service at Crewe.

Meanwhile, the time all the way to Glasgow isn't so important whether it's 4 hours or 4:30, because it's "slower than flying". That, and that only, is what really matters in terms of patronage.

I don't know, the 16:30 is normally busier in First than the 17:30 from my occasionally experiences and fairly well loaded (unlike in Standard, where it's quieter, almost certainly from the lack of intermediate passengers). No idea if that's true in general—with common meeting times I'd rather expect the opposite.

 

[me123]

I've always thought 1630 is a strange time to have the fastest Glasgow train. I'd have thought a mid-morning departure from Euston would have been more useful, as well as avoiding clashing with commuter-type journeys from Euston to the intermediate stations.

I'm not at all surprised that it's at 16:30. 16:30 fits in well with the end of the working day for many people, particularly if you're heading 400 miles up the road! It's attractive for the target market - Scottish people working in London trying to get home quickly at the end of a busy working day. And it's timed very well for that. It also arrives in Glasgow with plenty of time for onwards connections to most of the Central Belt, which later services would struggle to achieve.

It's the lucrative business market that VT were after with this train. At 10:30 (a service which would undoubtedly have a higher proportion of leisure travellers), you probably wouldn't generate the same yield and you'd be speeding up a journey for many people who probably aren't going to be particularly concerned about stopping in the Lake District.

 

[najaB]

I don't know, the 16:30 is normally busier in First than the 17:30 from my occasionally experiences and fairly well loaded (unlike in Standard, where it's quieter, almost certainly from the lack of intermediate passengers). No idea if that's true in general—with common meeting times I'd rather expect the opposite.

If you're in London for a meeting and heading home to Glasgow (or further north) a 15:30 - 16:00 finish is typical. You'd probably want to be finishing about then to get to Heathrow or Gatwick for a 17:30 - 18:00 flight anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, the following service typically arrives into Euston about twenty minutes earlier (having left Glasgow forty minutes later). Often the cheapest available Advanced tickets are to get the slow train out, then change onto the fast ex Manchester service at Crewe.

And therein lies effective yield management - if there's space, encourage some passengers to move over by making it cheaper

I don't know, the 16:30 is normally busier in First than the 17:30 from my occasionally experiences and fairly well loaded (unlike in Standard, where it's quieter, almost certainly from the lack of intermediate passengers). No idea if that's true in general—with common meeting times I'd rather expect the opposite.

I doubt that is because it's a bit faster, rather it's probably because it means people get home in time for (a late) dinner.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's the lucrative business market that VT were after with this train. At 10:30 (a service which would undoubtedly have a higher proportion of leisure travellers), you probably wouldn't generate the same yield and you'd be speeding up a journey for many people who probably aren't going to be particularly concerned about stopping in the Lake District.

Or people who are perhaps more likely to be *going to* the Lake District.

 

[me123]

^Of course! I was thinking solely about the demands of the end to end travellers being less concerned about journey time in the morning than their counterparts are in the evening, but I certainly haven't forgotten that people travel to and from the intermediate stations as well.

 

[Tetchytyke]

...and as such is more intended for intermediate journeys. If I recall, the following faster service overtakes it.

That wouldn't be a problem with genuine flighting, i.e. the West Mids train comes up behind/in front of the Trent Valley train and does the intermediate stops that the TV train misses out. The TV train could then go fast Preston-Carlisle, with the TV train doing the stops. That sort of used to happen but the capacity problems with the single 221s put an end to it.

Whether true flighting is possible on the WCML now with the hourly TV trains I don't know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That wouldn't be a problem with genuine flighting, i.e. the West Mids train comes up behind/in front of the Trent Valley train and does the intermediate stops that the TV train misses out. The TV train could then go fast Preston-Carlisle, with the TV train doing the stops. That sort of used to happen but the capacity problems with the single 221s put an end to it.

Ah, so a bit like the LM service on the south WCML, which as it is robust and reliable is heavily used by commuters from smaller stations further north? The best example, and one used by well over 50 people, is taking the 1816 to LBZ then switching to a slower service for Bletchley.

But for it to work those connections have to be robust. In the days before the Euston-Brum being joined with the Brum-Scotland, so MKC passengers sort-of used the service in that way (take 1840 MKC-Crewe, then change for Scotland) it was stressful, and southbound the Sunday evening connection was something ludicrous like 58 minutes.

FWIW, the LM Euston-Crewe service used to work like that at Stafford, sort-of - the connections to/from the Liverpools for a faster journey to Crewe were excellent and same-platform. Post Project 110, they no longer work. Though that isn't the primary purpose of that service, so it is understandable.

So overall, I wouldn't be *strongly* opposed to that approach provided the local service has capacity, and provided connections are (a) reasonably short, ideally "perfect"[1], and (b) guaranteed to any reasonable extent (i.e. held in the event of disruption). I find it hard to believe that the UK system would have the will to achieve that, and as such I find it hard to support it.

There is also the catering downside - I actually quite like putting a 30ish minute connection into a very long journey so I have time to obtain catering given the reduction in provision on board. I would of course prefer to be able to take a restaurant car meal and stay on board, but such is progress

[1] The two trains come in either side of the same island for interchange, and remain there for long enough for this to be relaxed and not stressful, and the trains are held for a reasonable amount of time if the connection would not be achieved.

 

[The Prisoner]

Another thing you've missed is that to do an extra stop elsewhere (such as the second one out of Penrith and Oxenholme, or Motherwell) VT sometimes bave to skip Lancaster. E.g. 1030 and 1330 from Euston

To the people who responded to my post about skip-stop Carlisle - Preston I wasn't advocating more stops....just an even spread and/or sensible pattern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To the people who responded to my post about skip-stop Carlisle - Preston I wasn't advocating more stops....just an even spread and/or sensible pattern.

That was me. I advocate a timetable recast such that all trains north of Warrington BQ (and including it) call at all InterCity stations, and that Crewe is possibly also added, though this is a bit less critical.

My second preference would be proper flighting with guaranteed connections, but the railway is not fond of such things for some reason.

 

[najaB]

That was me. I advocate a timetable recast such that all trains north of Warrington BQ (and including it) call at all InterCity stations, and that Crewe is possibly also added, though this is a bit less critical.

Pure curiosity - what's an 'InterCity station'?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pure curiosity - what's an 'InterCity station'?

The stations presently served by InterCity-class trains or that would have been served by InterCity in BR days (basically VT on that route). That, in the case of Crewe to Carlisle, is every station except Euxton Balshaw Lane and Leyland.

 

[Starmill]

That was me. I advocate a timetable recast such that all trains north of Warrington BQ (and including it) call at all InterCity stations, and that Crewe is possibly also added, though this is a bit less critical.

My second preference would be proper flighting with guaranteed connections, but the railway is not fond of such things for some reason.

The TransPennine service adequately provides for this need between Wigan and Scotland though. I would agree that none of these services should skip Penrith or Oxenholme bit few enough of them do. I'm not convinced of the gains to be made from slowing the London Fast services down when the effort is to incrementally do the opposite. What you say is true from the point of view that it's efficient. But that gain is relatively marginal against the losses from atill longer journey times. Slightly quicker journey times are often less noticed. More stops leading to slightly longer ones are more noticeable.

 

[tbtc]

Earlier on in the day, having trains commonly call at *both* Oxenholme and Penrith would start to eat into the turnround time at Glasgow too much.

The standard southbound Euston departure from Glasgow is at xx.40 (off memory, every hour until 1840?). Adding an extra stop to call both Penrith and Oxenholme every hour would make this something like xx.35.

Northbound, arrivals vary between xx.59 and xx.07ish (depending upon patching into Glasgow). Again, adding an extra stop into these will shift some of these to have turnround times in the 25-30 minutes range, if working back an xx.35 departure is desired. Do-able, but performance-risky every hour, especially with the volume of passengers with large luggage to be exchanged at Glasgow between arrival and departure.

Therefore, every northbound departure from Euston up to and including the 1330 is limited in its calling pattern by the need to work an xx.40 departure back from Glasgow.

Oh, and 'just' changing the departure time from Glasgow is no mean feat when weaving around the Argyle Line timetable at Rutherglen/Newton/Motherwell/Carluke. It's no coincidence that log-distance departures from Glasgow Central are typically at xx.00, xx.30 or xx.40 (I.e. Multiples of 10 minutes) - it's to fit in with the 10 minute interval Argyle Line service at Rutherglen (itself dictated by random stuff like the single line to Milngavie!)

That's a brilliant post which sums up the complications involved here (much more complicated in reality than some of the Crayonista stuff that gets posted).

The idea of the single track section at Milngavie dictating the timing (and stopping pattern) of services to London is one I'd not considered before - an element of tail wagging the dog - but makes sense now you mention it.

Another thing you've missed is that to do an extra stop elsewhere (such as the second one out of Penrith and Oxenholme, or Motherwell) VT sometimes bave to skip Lancaster. E.g. 1030 and 1330 from Euston

True.

That was me. I advocate a timetable recast such that all trains north of Warrington BQ (and including it) call at all InterCity stations, and that Crewe is possibly also added, though this is a bit less critical

The stations presently served by InterCity-class trains or that would have been served by InterCity in BR days (basically VT on that route). That, in the case of Crewe to Carlisle, is every station except Euxton Balshaw Lane and Leyland.

So every train from London/ Birmingham/ Manchester (and Liverpool in a couple of years) should stop at Oxenholme, Penrith and Lockerbie?

Should all Glasgow-bound services also stopping at Carstairs? (I know that BR stopped many/ most Cross Country services there, but would you allow the Edinburgh-bound services to run the faster route round the chord instead of reversing there?)

So that's three or four services an hour from Oxenholme to Penrith?

In which case why not stop them at every Euston service at Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth and Stafford too? They are much bigger stations after all.

Similarly, should all ECML services from Edinburgh stop at (all of) Dunbar, Berwick, Alnmouth and Morpeth?

I could see the case for more services stopping at Motherwell, and I think that something needs to stop at Oxenholme to connect with the "shorts" on the Windermere branch, but... maybe not quite so many stops required as you think?

the time all the way to Glasgow isn't so important whether it's 4 hours or 4:30, because it's "slower than flying". That, and that only, is what really matters in terms of patronage.

You don't think that a reduction of half an hour is sufficient to affect passenger numbers?

In which case we've wasted a lot of time/ money upgrading the 110mph WCML to the tilting 125mph one that it is today.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So every train from London/ Birmingham/ Manchester (and Liverpool in a couple of years) should stop at Oxenholme, Penrith and Lockerbie?

Similarly, should all ECML services from Edinburgh stop at (all of) Dunbar, Berwick, Alnmouth and Morpeth?

I think that something needs to stop at Oxenholme to connect with the "shorts" on the Windermere branch, but... maybe not quite so many stops required as you think?

The problem is that the current arrangement is very haphazard, and there's no pattern to the calling points at various stations. There are some very big gaps in service at all of Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster, all of which are important railheads.

You talk of Penrith as though it's a piddly little shed in the middle of nowhere, but it's a town of 15,000 (3,000 more than Berwick, which has historically received a very good service on the ECML) even before considering people who travel from Keswick or Workington to board trains there. And northbound out of Euston there isn't a stop (either direct or connecting) between the 1430 and 1657 Trent Valley departures.

There either needs to be every train stopping at those three places, or there needs to be better use of flighting on the northern WCML to allow people from there to connect to the fast trains at Carlisle or Preston.

ECML trains don't stop at all the stations you list, but all of those stations have an hourly train service during the day.

As for TPE taking up the stops, I'd say that was the worst option, given the TPE trains are already overcrowded. If anything, cutting stops on the TPEs would help more.

 

[43074]

That was me. I advocate a timetable recast such that all trains north of Warrington BQ (and including it) call at all InterCity stations, and that Crewe is possibly also added, though this is a bit less critical.

Who would this change be intended to benefit? Would it be a) to allow more people to make intermediate journeys such as Penrith to Oxenholme, Wigan to Preston etc or to b) provide more InterCity services between say, Penrith and Euston, Oxenholme and Birmingham etc.? In my view the current set up caters for both needs as well as it needs to - yes there could be room for improvements, such as having TPE call at all 'InterCity' stations as you call them - but at the end of the day any timetable will always be a compromise.

I'd also dispute your claims regarding the importance of the London to Glasgow journey time, the Anglo-Scottish rail and air markets are incredibly competitive so why would Virgin want to lose their competitive appeal?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The TransPennine service adequately provides for this need between Wigan and Scotland though.

If it was 8 car at all times it might. It doesn't now, as it is, as it's too short and doesn't have the capacity for that.

But again, the ticketing system breaks it - there are few if any Advances across VT and TPE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who would this change be intended to benefit? Would it be a) to allow more people to make intermediate journeys such as Penrith to Oxenholme, Wigan to Preston etc or to b) provide more InterCity services between say, Penrith and Euston, Oxenholme and Birmingham etc.?

Both, and also to provide the benefits of a simplified, consistent timetable.

I'd also dispute your claims regarding the importance of the London to Glasgow journey time, the Anglo-Scottish rail and air markets are incredibly competitive so why would Virgin want to lose their competitive appeal?

They don't *have* a competitive appeal based on journey time, at least not to the extent of a +/- 5 to 10 minutes variation which would be caused by inserting a stop or two. To have a competitive appeal based on journey time, they need to be faster than air, and they won't be anywhere near until HS2 Phase 2.

The competitive appeal is primarily comfort, lack of hassle, not excessive journey time, flexibility (with a walk up ticket), and an ability to work during the journey. And price, if you book well in advance.

 

[najaB]

They don't *have* a competitive appeal based on journey time, at least not to the extent of a +/- 5 to 10 minutes variation which would be caused by inserting a stop or two.

That's assuming that it only adds that little to the journey time - the impact could be significantly more when paths into/out of Euston are concerned. And I think you're underestimating the extent to which London/Scotland rail competes with air. By the time you factor in travel to/from airport, security, etc. there isn't that much in it at four to four and half hours. Make that four and a half to five and a lot more people will choose air.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's assuming that it only adds that little to the journey time - the impact could be significantly more when paths into/out of Euston are concerned. And I think you're underestimating the extent to which London/Scotland rail competes with air. By the time you factor in travel to/from airport, security, etc. there isn't that much in it at four to four and half hours. Make that four and a half to five and a lot more people will choose air.

You forget, as many do, that there is also travel time to the station. Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are relatively close to the cities concerned. Most people do not live in the city centre of either city (though most likely their destination is more central).

 

[najaB]

You forget, as many do, that there is also travel time to the station. Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are relatively close to the cities concerned. Most people do not live in the city centre of either city (though most likely their destination is more central).

I'm not. Most people will start their journey at a local station which is close to their homes, and more convenient to get to than the airport.

So unless they are flying to London City airport it's actually easier for them at both ends - a short drive/taxi to the train station from the house, and arrival directly into Central London, as compared to a long drive/taxi to/from the airport at either end.

 

[dk1]

Travelling from Glasgow to Euston last month I was impressed to see that there seemed to be more passengers joining at Oxenholme than did at Carlisle. Very healthy load waiting on the opposite platform to head North too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not. Most people will start their journey at a local station which is close to their homes, and more convenient to get to than the airport.

So unless they are flying to London City airport it's actually easier for them at both ends - a short drive/taxi to the train station from the house, and arrival directly into Central London, as compared to a long drive/taxi to/from the airport at either end.

But you cannot then exclude the time on the local train to the point where they change onto the London train, unless they happen to live near Euston or Milton Keynes Central.

If I lived in Luton, the airport would be more accessible by car/taxi than MKC.

If I lived in much of West London, Heathrow would be more accessible by car/taxi than Euston or Kings Cross.

If I lived in much of south Manchester, Manchester Airport....you're getting the idea now I think

 

[najaB]

But you cannot then exclude the time on the local train to the point where they change onto the London train, unless they happen to live near Euston or Milton Keynes Central.

I'm considering the market that the 16:30 was targeting - Scots going to HQ or clients in Central London for meetings. Since that is what we were talking about, the Scotland-London market.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm considering the market that the 16:30 was targeting - Scots going to HQ or clients in Central London for meetings. Since that is what we were talking about, the Scotland-London market.

In which case you can't disregard the local train journey to Glasgow Central.

 

[najaB]

In which case you can't disregard the local train journey to Glasgow Central.

Which I didn't - as I said "a short taxi ride to their local station..." and then the local train to Central which is likely to be of comparable length as the trip to Glasgow International.

 

[sdrennan]

I for one will be disappointed if the 16:30 limited stop changes. I prefer the train and always plan for this as my return journey to get me home at a reasonable time. 20mins saved does make a difference

 

[dk1]

I for one will be disappointed if the 16:30 limited stop changes. I prefer the train and always plan for this as my return journey to get me home at a reasonable time. 20mins saved does make a difference

Me too! Thank goodness for good old BR & no staff restrictions for us poor safeguarded souls