4TPH Euston to Birmingham

[Big Chris]

Could ATW cut their service back to Wolverhamton?

 

[tbtc]

Could ATW cut their service back to Wolverhamton?

The Politicians running the show will want to terminate it at Shrewsbury...

 

[Eagle]

Could ATW cut their service back to Wolverhamton?

I'd imagine that a good proportion of the travellers with ATW are heading to Birmingham to change for somewhere further east or south.

Cutting it at Wolverhampton would balls up the connectivity for anyone travelling to/from mid Wales.

 

[Wath Yard]

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.

They can yes, but they still need to provide the specified minimum number of services per day as stated in the ITT and for Manchester that suggests a 3 tph service for much or all of the day.

 

[Geezertronic]

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.

You're forgetting the ATW service that runs from BHM to BHI and has to cross the tracks at BHI to reach platform 1 so that presumably takes another path?

 

[northwichcat]

They can yes, but they still need to provide the specified minimum number of services per day as stated in the ITT and for Manchester that suggests a 3 tph service for much or all of the day.

Network Rail's document seemed to imply they had more flexibility but on checking the train service requirements section of the invitation of the tender it allows the bidder to specify up to 10% lower than the ITT on condition that they run extra services on other days.

So, for instance, in the case of Manchester the bidder could specify less than 83 services Monday-Thursday, with more on Fridays and Saturdays.

It's interesting the specified requirement for Liverpool is just 27% of the Manchester requirement.

 

[markydh]

It's not interesting at all. The requirement is to run the same number of franchise-specified-services as Virgin currently run. There is flexibility to change when those services run but that is all. They haven't specified any extra services to any single location.

 

[northwichcat]

It's not interesting at all.

I'm sure the people of Liverpool will find it interesting. The common conception is that Manchester receives 3tph and Liverpool receives 1tph so Liverpool gets 1/3 of the service that Manchester receives, when in fact the requirement is for Liverpool to get just slightly over 1/4 of the service that Manchester receives.

 

[cle]

Doesn't Liverpool get a peak express and also 2tph in peaks, bringing it up a bit. I think their level of service is fine for the city.

It's not about population, but the economy and level and type of demand for travel to London.

 

[northwichcat]

Doesn't Liverpool get a peak express and also 2tph in peaks

Not really.

The morning departures for Euston are:
05:27 (first train - additional calls to standard pattern)
06:05 (additional calls to standard pattern)
07:00 (misses out Stafford)
07:48 (standard pattern)
08:48 (standard pattern)

Manchester, in comparison, gets 6 arrivals at Euston in 61 minutes between 08:52 and 09:52.

It's not about population, but the economy and level and type of demand for travel to London.

I agree but with Wilmslow getting it's hourly service reinstated and Hartford not and Crewe being a calling point on some Manchester services but no longer on Liverpool's, it means a lot of Cheshire business people drive to Wilmslow and Crewe and use services to or from Manchester. Some could more easily drive to Hartford and the ones that board at Crewe can obviously use any train but half of them are Manchester trains and the Voyagers from Chester have more limited catering facilities.

 

[Eagle]

Manchester, in comparison, gets 6 arrivals at Euston in 61 minutes between 08:52 and 09:52.

Although one of those is an extended Wolverhampton (for positioning reasons). Only scheduled VT passenger service through Stone, as well.

 

[cle]

Not really.

The morning departures for Euston are:
05:27 (first train - additional calls to standard pattern)
06:05 (additional calls to standard pattern)
07:00 (misses out Stafford)
07:48 (standard pattern)
08:48 (standard pattern)

Manchester, in comparison, gets 6 arrivals at Euston in 61 minutes between 08:52 and 09:52.



I agree but with Wilmslow getting it's hourly service reinstated and Hartford not and Crewe being a calling point on some Manchester services but no longer on Liverpool's, it means a lot of Cheshire business people drive to Wilmslow and Crewe and use services to or from Manchester. Some could more easily drive to Hartford and the ones that board at Crewe can obviously use any train but half of them are Manchester trains and the Voyagers from Chester have more limited catering facilities.

Not everywhere has to be a railhead, or have one within 5 miles.

Chester, Crewe, Warrington, Stockport and Wilmslow are all in Cheshire and havew frequent, fast trains to London. It's surely enough without adding in Hartford? Perhaps they could test a call or two at peaks - Congleton used to be similar but it's overkill.

And notably, Chester also serves The Wirral better than Liverpool does.

 

[northwichcat]

Not everywhere has to be a railhead, or have one within 5 miles.

Chester, Crewe, Warrington, Stockport and Wilmslow are all in Cheshire and have frequent, fast trains to London. It's surely enough without adding in Hartford?

And out of the places you've listed only Crewe is really a good railhead and that's 30 miles from where a lot of the business people in Cheshire live. I hear more people asking for Crewe-London tickets at Knutsford station than I hear asking for tickets from some of the stations with a direct service from Knutsford.

Hartford has excellent fast roads links to Mere, Knutsford, Cuddington and Weaverham and once the A566(M) is built there will be excellent road links to Hale and Altrincham. Incidentally if the rail links between Northwich, Knutsford and Manchester were better it would mean less people driving to Altrincham from Cheshire to catch the Metrolink to Manchester and there would be less need for the A556(M).

And you can't really claim both Warrington and Stockport are in Cheshire. If you're using the traditional boundaries then Warrington is in Lancs, while if you're using the current boundaries then Stockport is in Greater Manchester.

 

[cle]

Fine, but they both serve a similar market - South/West of Manchester, i.e. the Cheshire market. I wasn't thinking county boundaries - but South of Manchester.

Plenty of people I know from Alty, Hale, Cheadle etc... use Stockport as it has many more trains than Wilmslow.
West of Alty including Lymm, Stockton Heath, Warrington is actually better and the trains are faster.
All people I know from Knutsford use Wilmslow.

 

[Gareth]

It's interesting the specified requirement for Liverpool is just 27% of the Manchester requirement.

What is this 'requirement' and how is it measured?

As for the Wirral, Chester might be more convenient for the southern part of the penninsula but it's a convenient Liverpool-degenerite argument to state all of the Wirral uses Chester as their main intercity station.

 

[Zoe]

The bidder is allowed to apply to change the current services and calling pattern.

They are yes but they still have to keep the the minimum service requirement.

 

[Eagle]

What is this 'requirement' and how is it measured?

Number of trains per day, as specified by the ITT.

 

[Gareth]

So what is required is determined by the existing number of trains rather than the other way round?

 

[northwichcat]

They are yes but they still have to keep the the minimum service requirement.

They are allowed to run up to 10% less than the daily minimum requirement subject to the weekly minimum service requirement being met, as already mentioned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what is required is determined by the existing number of trains rather than the other way round?

The new operator will be able to decide which services get 11 car Pendolinos and how the additional Pendolinos are utilised.

There are no requirement for the bid to include any of the Network Rail proposals, such as a direct Blackpool train, but potential operators can choose to include such a service in their bid. Also there is no requirement for the direct Wrexham service to continue.

 

[Eagle]

There are no requirement for the bid to include any of the Network Rail proposals, such as a direct Blackpool train, but potential operators can choose to include such a service in their bid. Also there is no requirement for the direct Wrexham service to continue.

Actually, am I right in saying that the number of calls at Nuneaton is a bit higher in the ITT than it is at the moment?

EDIT: No wait, I was imagining it; the ITT specifies 12 trains per day and that's the same as currently (forgot Nuneaton already got more than Tamworth and Lichfield).

 

[Zoe]

They are allowed to run up to 10% less than the daily minimum requirement subject to the weekly minimum service requirement being met, as already mentioned.

Is that 10% not already taken into account in the minimum number of daily calls compared to the current timetable?

 

[northwichcat]

Is that 10% not already taken into account in the minimum number of daily calls compared to the current timetable?

I've just counted the Manchester services and got 96 in total excluding the Thursday and Friday extras. ITT states 83 while 96 - (10% of 96) = 86.4, so it doesn't seem to be 10% less unless the requirement is for 92 services and Virgin run an additional 4 Mon-Weds, with more additionals Thurs-Fri.

 

[Zoe]

Take Rugby for example, minimum number of calls per weekday is 45, Saturday is 34 and Sunday 37. The minimum number of calls per week is 329.

45 multiplied by 5 is 225 plus 34 is 259 plus 37 is 296. 10% of 329 is 32.9. This rounds to 33. 296 plus 33 is 329.

From that it would seem that the number of daily calls is the minimum that they must keep to and that they will have to make additional calls to meet the minimum number of calls each week although the bidders can decide exactly where these additional calls will be made.

 

[Waverley125]

with the intention to stop intercity services at Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard & Berkhamsted after HS2 is built, and the intention to loop some WCML trains via Northampton, I don't think 4tph London-Birmingham is all that mad.

If you assume the current all-stops service runs to Rugby via Northampton and terminates in the eastern bays on a half-hourly basis, you then transfer the 'express' LM service, i.e. calling at:

Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Berkhamsted, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry & Birmingham International

as a VT service to go with other service patterns e.g.

Watford, MK, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International

and

MK, Northampton, Coventry

and

Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International

to give you 4tph.

When you then factor in HS2 services (London-Bham non stop) and Chiltern services (assume a fast of High Wycombe, Bicester North, Banbury, Warwick & Leamington Spa and a slow with that plus Beaconsfield, Princes Risborough, Haddenham & Thame Parkway, Kings Sutton, Warwick Parkway & Solihull)

then you're probably looking at at least 8 if not 10tph between London & Birmingham across the different routes.

 

[Eagle]

then you're probably looking at at least 8 if not 10tph between London & Birmingham across the different routes.

There's already at least 8tph between London and Birmingham...

 

[ivanhoe]

I'd like to see some flexibility on fares where perhaps a supplement may be payable for faster trains. This could perhaps see the 4th train extended to say Lime Street and then proceed to London via Wolves, Brum etc. This would then allow London Midland to use one of the Liverpool trains to extend to Preston. Two trains an hour from Liverpool which would take over 3 hours and actually provide more direct trains from say Liverpool to Birmingham Int and Coventry. It would need the faster train to be on a 2 hour 8 minutes run to say justify an extra supplement.

Being an exiled scouser, I'm not interested in petty feuds with Manchester concerning number of trains per hour but I am interested in joining more centres together without changing. Probably committing heresy by suggesting supplements but we need some new ideas

 

[MK Tom]

with the intention to stop intercity services at Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard & Berkhamsted after HS2 is built, and the intention to loop some WCML trains via Northampton, I don't think 4tph London-Birmingham is all that mad.

The post-HS2 WCML timetable for the fast services is the same as the current insofar as the only calls south of Rugby are MKC and Watford. Serving Northampton would basically make the Weedon lines redundant - I think Hemel deserves an hourly service and maybe that's where a fourth Birmingham VT service should stop, but there are no plans for any VT/successor services to serve Hemel or LB. The thing to remember is that Milton Keynes, Watford and Rugby still need fast limited stop services. Stopping at HH/LB/Northampton makes them no better than a fast local service.

 

[northwichcat]

Would it be a sensible idea for the bidders to look at using Pendolinos on the Chat Moss line from 2014? You could have Liverpool or Manchester to London via Warrington Bank Quay, which could also relieve overcrowding on the Liverpool-Warrington Central-Manchester line.

 

[HH]

Nothing to stop bidders putting in more radical proposals, however anything outside the specification would have to be an incremental option, and that means that they don't get "marked" on it.

 

[Stats]

The post-HS2 WCML timetable for the fast services is the same as the current insofar as the only calls south of Rugby are MKC and Watford. Serving Northampton would basically make the Weedon lines redundant - I think Hemel deserves an hourly service and maybe that's where a fourth Birmingham VT service should stop, but there are no plans for any VT/successor services to serve Hemel or LB.

Wow. You can see 14 years into the future? There is no post HS2 timetable so you can't say what the plans are.

The thing to remember is that Milton Keynes, Watford and Rugby still need fast limited stop services. Stopping at HH/LB/Northampton makes them no better than a fast local service.

In actual fact Network Rail's study in to potential fast line service patterns post HS2 does include the proposal to stop the Birmingham NS services at Leighton Buzzard, Hemel and Berkhamsted in the peaks and that two of these stations would be served exclusively by fast line services; and they'd stop at Northampton at all times. Milton Keynes and Rugby would still get their fast services as all WCML services will stop there.

When you then factor in HS2 services (London-Bham non stop) and Chiltern services (assume a fast of High Wycombe, Bicester North, Banbury, Warwick & Leamington Spa and a slow with that plus Beaconsfield, Princes Risborough, Haddenham & Thame Parkway, Kings Sutton, Warwick Parkway & Solihull)

then you're probably looking at at least 8 if not 10tph between London & Birmingham across the different routes.

Network Rail's recent post HS2 study had 6 tph on the WCML to Birmingham NS, then there is the 3tph on the indicative HS2 service specification so you're already up to 9 before you add in Chiltern.