4TPH Euston to Birmingham

[xtradj]

If this is true for the future does anyone who use this service belive the demand is there?

Not forgetting you also have Chiltern London to Bham services too, along with LM services to Bham from Euston

Are there plans for 2TPH to Liverpool?

 

[SWT_USER]

There are already 6 TPH Euston to Birmingham aren't there?

 

[xtradj]

There are already 6 TPH Euston to Birmingham aren't there?

appologies i should have said 4 virgin trains per hour

 

[Wath Yard]

Anything beyond the current service frequency on the WCML is at the discretion of the winner of the franchise. They will not be announced until the summer and are barred under the terms of the bidding process from revealing their bid, therefore any reports regarding future services is just speculation.

There have been various reports of 4 tph to Birmingham and Manchester and 2 tph to Liverpool and Preston and additionally extending the services that currently terminate at Lancaster to Glasgow. Some or none of these may happen, but certainly all of them won't.

 

[northwichcat]

It's an idea that's been put forward by Network Rail but it's up to the franchise bidders to decide what they will and won't include.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

extending the services that currently terminate at Lancaster to Glasgow.

That's very likely to happen though.

 

[tbtc]

There have been various reports of 4 tph to Birmingham and Manchester

One advantage of four trains per hour would be that it'd hopefully be easier for other TOCs to slot their services around them - many routes (in the UK) run on an hourly/ half hourly/ fifteen minute basis, but a twenty minute service on Virgin services can make it hard to accomodate other services (e.g. the 20/40 split of Virgin timings through Stoke means that Cross Country have to turn their "half hourly" Voyager service into something equally lopsided.

 

[swt_passenger]

Are there plans for 2TPH to Liverpool?

No. Why would there be?

 

[MK Tom]

Obviously it's all just speculation at the moment but where would a fourth Birmingham service stop? One of Watford/MK/Rugby or somewhere/nowhere else?

 

[HSTEd]

I thought the southern WCML was full.

Where will the paths come from?

Unless the 4th Manchester train was to be an extension of the third Birmingham train each hour. (Two already going to Scotland, one being the interworked Birmingham-Scotland train).

 

[Eagle]

No. Why would there be?

Merseyside politicians jealous of Manchester, perhaps...

 

[87015]

Hows that going to work on the Cov corridor then? They've already destroyed the local/semi-fast service patterns enough to force 3tph through...

 

[Eagle]

Hows that going to work on the Cov corridor then? They've already destroyed the local/semi-fast service patterns enough to force 3tph through...

As far as I'm aware there are only eight paths an hour possible west of Coventry, of which seven are currently in use. XC have their hearts set on the eighth (but it would require redoubling through Kenilworth, and/or booting the freight onto the Dorridge route).

 

[Geezertronic]

From what I have read, there are suggestions of 4tph EUS-BHM (excluding LM) during the peaks, not during the whole day. Maybe increasing the rest of the 390 fleet from 9 cars to 11 would alleviate the requirement for this?

 

[SS4]

They could but I don't think Birmingham needs any more trains to London. Lengthening the existing ones would surely be a better idea. The stopper from BHI/COV to BHM is already erratic due to the fast trains being late

 

[The Planner]

It is the local New St International that screws things, after International there is more white space.

 

[Simon11]

I can't see Virgin wanting any more than 3tph to Manchester/ Birmingham. In fact I wonder if the new franchise holder would be able to have 2tph for off peaks to save on costs.

I'd have a good punt that Liverpool will have 2tph, with possible additional services to Blackpool/Glasgow or even Leeds/Bradford Area.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It is the local New St International that screws things, after International there is more white space.

Is there anyway that another tph for Adderley Park, Stecthford, Lea Hall and Marston Green could be incorporated into other services, thus culling the need for the local?

 

[northwichcat]

In fact I wonder if the new franchise holder would be able to have 2tph for off peaks to save on costs.

The franchise spec allows them to state, for instance, they want to axe one of the Manchester services in favour of a 2nd Liverpool or a 4th Birmingham.

The assumption is an additional hourly path out of Euston can be found, but that doesn't mean a service can be run to anywhere on the WCML using that path without affecting other services. If it does affect other services then other operators will be able to put forward their case, which is why LM's proposed Birmingham-Preston application was rejected initially, they don't want to find no path is available for a Blackpool to London service and LM objecting to losing the path for their new service.

 

[Wath Yard]

The franchise spec allows them to state, for instance, they want to axe one of the Manchester services in favour of a 2nd Liverpool or a 4th Birmingham.

Are you sure about that? The minimum number of weekday calls at Piccadilly is 85. That would require a 2 tph service to run 24 hours a day.

The chances of a Birmingham or Manchester service being replaced by a Blackpool or Liverpool service is virtually none. Why would any company that wants to make a profit even think of doing that?

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Rather annoying if Birmingham gets 4tph while Liverpool - the only service I regularly use myself - stays stuck on 1tph.

 

[dk1]

It seems almost impossible to introduce an even interval 15-minute frequency on the WM route without destroying the current VHF pattern. Would it be better to run a Wolverhampton service fast to New St directly in front of a service calling MKC, Rugby, Coventry & International like happens in the am up peak?

 

[The Planner]

Cov corridor would basically be re-written to make it work, and south of Rugby would need a good stir with a spoon too.

 

[David Goddard]

I remember there being something about four tracking part of the COV-BHM route a while back, but can not remember which part. I know it wasnt going to be much of it though.
Based on the current arrangement, I had a bit of a play on Excel (nothing more technical) and reckon that if you could get away with a headway of three or four minutes then the following should be possible:

4tph VT calling International Only
2tph XC calling International Only
2tph LM calling International Only
2tph LM calling all stations. Probably looped at International
plus a couple of freight paths should still fit in this too.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

That wouldn't sit well with the three / four local stations currently enjoying 3tph . I doubt this is doable, but is there somewhere else that the Holyhead / Cambrian Coast ATW service could go in lieu of Birmingham International? This would free up a path every hour wouldn't it? As I recall it only got extended a couple of years ago, I assume because of primarily lack of free platforms at New St and the airport connection.

 

[dvboy]

Walsall?

 

[gnolife]

Or have the ATW replace the International stopper (IE call it at all stops between New St and Intl and scrap the existing stopper)

 

[David Goddard]

is there somewhere else that the Holyhead / Cambrian Coast ATW service could go in lieu of Birmingham International? This would free up a path every hour wouldn't it? As I recall it only got extended a couple of years ago, I assume because of primarily lack of free platforms at New St and the airport connection.

Derby could be useful, linking the East Midlands with mid Wales again

 

[Eagle]

Derby could be useful, linking the East Midlands with mid Wales again

Well they'd need more units to do that, it's much further away... we're looking for a place near New Street where you can turn the trains around so it doesn't waste a platform at New Street itself.

 

[The Planner]

I remember there being something about four tracking part of the COV-BHM route a while back, but can not remember which part. I know it wasnt going to be much of it though.

Stechford to Beechwood Tunnel

Based on the current arrangement, I had a bit of a play on Excel (nothing more technical) and reckon that if you could get away with a headway of three or four minutes then the following should be possible:

Already is 3 minutes Cov to International, 4 from International to Proof House.

4tph VT calling International Only
2tph XC calling International Only
2tph LM calling International Only
2tph LM calling all stations. Probably looped at International
plus a couple of freight paths should still fit in this too.

12 tph of mixed stopping and speed, impressive....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Walsall?

Yes, if you could hide it there. You have basically got 44 minutes to get it out, turned round and back.

 

[northwichcat]

Are you sure about that? The minimum number of weekday calls at Piccadilly is 85. That would require a 2 tph service to run 24 hours a day.

The bidder is allowed to apply to change the current services and calling pattern. It's the first time they've been given that freedom so we don't know how academic it actually is. However, any change would need to be approved by the ORR as there might be objection to the changes from other operators and stakeholders.