Could Pendos be used on LM services?

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to recall that LM do actually want to do something very similar to what you suggest. I don't recall what the progress on it has been.

 

[TheWalrus]

It also doesn’t block a platform at Crewe for nearly 40 minutes as it doesn’t return to London but runs ECS to the C.S.

What happens at 20:30 isn’t an indication of what could happen at 16:00.

Personally, as far as the Crewe services are concerned, I’d like to see them run direct from Crewe – Stafford. That would speed up the journey significantly more than replacing the units with 125 mph stock.

Divert the xx:49 departure from Crewe – Birmingham via Stoke, calling at all stations, and retime the Euston service from Crewe so it picks up its existing path from Stafford.

That way you would still have 2 tph direct from Crewe – Birmingham, the Crewe – Euston is speeded up, the Crewe – Stoke line would have better spacing between its services (a 2 tph service where one follows immediately behind the other is just bizarre), and any passengers between Alsager & Stone would still have a convenient connection onto the Euston service at Stafford.

Makes sense. Is there a tilting 125 EMU in development anywhere? I know Bombardier are building a version of their Aventra for crossrail but I don't think the 125mph version tilted, but could it be made to tilt?

 

[Aictos]

It also doesn’t block a platform at Crewe for nearly 40 minutes as it doesn’t return to London but runs ECS to the C.S.

What happens at 20:30 isn’t an indication of what could happen at 16:00.

Personally, as far as the Crewe services are concerned, I’d like to see them run direct from Crewe – Stafford. That would speed up the journey significantly more than replacing the units with 125 mph stock.

Divert the xx:49 departure from Crewe – Birmingham via Stoke, calling at all stations, and retime the Euston service from Crewe so it picks up its existing path from Stafford.

That way you would still have 2 tph direct from Crewe – Birmingham, the Crewe – Euston is speeded up, the Crewe – Stoke line would have better spacing between its services (a 2 tph service where one follows immediately behind the other is just bizarre), and any passengers between Alsager & Stone would still have a convenient connection onto the Euston service at Stafford.

That makes sense, wonder why LM don't do it though or when they will be able to do it?

 

[DarloRich]

That makes sense, wonder why LM don't do it though or when they will be able to do it?

are they allowed to do it?

 

[Tetchytyke]

That makes sense, wonder why LM don't do it though or when they will be able to do it?

It doesn't make sense for Liverpool-Birmingham passengers, who would see their journey options cut as a result, down to effectively an hourly service because of the time penalty of going via Stoke.

There isn't a technical reason why they couldn't use UDS at Alsager and Stone, though I think there is an issue with an 8-car blocking a level crossing. I also don't think a blocked platform at Crewe would be a huge issue, they could fit a 3-car Northern and an 8-car 350 quite comfortably in platform 1 (assuming the signalling allows it).

 

[Aictos]

It doesn't make sense for Liverpool-Birmingham passengers, who would see their journey options cut as a result, down to effectively an hourly service because of the time penalty of going via Stoke.

There isn't a technical reason why they couldn't use UDS at Alsager and Stone, though I think there is an issue with an 8-car blocking a level crossing. I also don't think a blocked platform at Crewe would be a huge issue, they could fit a 3-car Northern and an 8-car 350 quite comfortably in platform 1 (assuming the signalling allows it).

See this post here:

It also doesn’t block a platform at Crewe for nearly 40 minutes as it doesn’t return to London but runs ECS to the C.S.

What happens at 20:30 isn’t an indication of what could happen at 16:00.

Personally, as far as the Crewe services are concerned, I’d like to see them run direct from Crewe – Stafford. That would speed up the journey significantly more than replacing the units with 125 mph stock.

Divert the xx:49 departure from Crewe – Birmingham via Stoke, calling at all stations, and retime the Euston service from Crewe so it picks up its existing path from Stafford.

That way you would still have 2 tph direct from Crewe – Birmingham, the Crewe – Euston is speeded up, the Crewe – Stoke line would have better spacing between its services (a 2 tph service where one follows immediately behind the other is just bizarre), and any passengers between Alsager & Stone would still have a convenient connection onto the Euston service at Stafford.

Besides Northern at one point were fabled sometime in future to be running a service via Stoke which would have speeded up the LM Crewe service by running Stafford to Crewe directly.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It doesn't make sense for Liverpool-Birmingham passengers, who would see their journey options cut as a result, down to effectively an hourly service because of the time penalty of going via Stoke.

It would be a very minor inconvenience to Liverpool passengers. The Virgin service to Birmingham departs about 10 mins after the xx:49 so it would just be a same platform change of trains at Crewe.

 

[TheWalrus]

See this post here:



Besides Northern at one point were fabled sometime in future to be running a service via Stoke which would have speeded up the LM Crewe service by running Stafford to Crewe directly.

That's what I thought.

 

[The Planner]

Mentioned it on a HS2 thread I think but I am still putting money on Trent Valleys going 8 car, direct to Crewe, Walsall - Wolves becomes Walsall - Crewe via Stoke. Liverpool - Birminghams stay as is.

 

[Crossover]

There are apparently now a few 8-car Crewe services, they don't use the bay, and I assume use UDS at the short platforms.

I think they UDS at Rugeley at least. UDS - possibly the dumbest idea for selective doors yet....

 

[Aictos]

Mentioned it on a HS2 thread I think but I am still putting money on Trent Valleys going 8 car, direct to Crewe, Walsall - Wolves becomes Walsall - Crewe via Stoke. Liverpool - Birminghams stay as is.

How much time is saved by the LM Crewe services going direct between Stafford and Crewe vs going via Stoke?

Would the time saving result in more efficient use of the LM Class 350/1s and 350/3s by diagramming them better ie getting more mileage out of them?

I do agree that the Trent Valley will go to 8 car operation although with one or two in the peaks being 12 cars using SDO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they UDS at Rugeley at least. UDS - possibly the dumbest idea for selective doors yet....

Why? It does mean fewer doors are opened than perhaps could be, but it is simple and it does the job.

 

[The Planner]

How much time is saved by the LM Crewe services going direct between Stafford and Crewe vs going via Stoke?

Would the time saving result in more efficient use of the LM Class 350/1s and 350/3s by diagramming them better ie getting more mileage out of them?

I do agree that the Trent Valley will go to 8 car operation although with one or two in the peaks being 12 cars using SDO.

It isn't about the time saving, it is about the capacity. Would be very surprised if they ever tried 12 cars as it isn't that bad yet!. You would have to lose Atherstone for a start as the platforms there can't do 8 as it is.

 

[nuneatonmark]

It isn't about the time saving, it is about the capacity. Would be very surprised if they ever tried 12 cars as it isn't that bad yet!. You would have to lose Atherstone for a start as the platforms there can't do 8 as it is.

There is no doubt that extra capacity is needed along the Trent Valley and also that the long way around via Stoke needs changing. I think that the most recent RUS proposed that the TV trains go fast from Stafford to Crewe and the Stoke loop stops would be covered either by extending the Man to Stoke stoppers or extending a stopping service from the Brum end. 8 coach trains on the LM stoppers would be good but alternatives could be a second train per hour, maybe splitting off 4 at Northampton from a Brum train or if GNWR actually get going, that would provide extra capacity for the principle TV stations - LTV, Tamworth and Nuneaton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

alternatives could be a second train per hour, maybe splitting off 4 at Northampton from a Brum train or if GNWR actually get going, that would provide extra capacity for the principle TV stations - LTV, Tamworth and Nuneaton.

I'm not convinced 2tph would solve the problem - I expect increased frequency would increase the popularity of the service, and it'd end up like the MK-Clapham Jn service - you either need increased capacity on the hourly service (which has finally been provided) or you'll need the same increase plus a frequency increase. IOW they would fill 2tph 8-car or 1tph 8-car.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It would be a very minor inconvenience to Liverpool passengers.

But for whose benefit?

The London Midland service is not designed for Crewe to London passengers, it only goes that far to provide a local service at Alsager and Stone. Passengers travelling from Crewe to London have 3tph express to London on Virgin.

On the other hand, the London Midland service from Liverpool is designed for long-distance use.

 

[nuneatonmark]

But for whose benefit?

The London Midland service is not designed for Crewe to London passengers, it only goes that far to provide a local service at Alsager and Stone. Passengers travelling from Crewe to London have 3tph express to London on Virgin.

On the other hand, the London Midland service from Liverpool is designed for long-distance use.

There always seems to be plenty of passengers to or from stations north of Stafford on the LM Crewe trains, particularly at weekends. for people with a bit of time, they are like the megabus of the train world, takes longer but much cheaper. Whether it should be or not, IT IS a long distance service even if you just count the Trent Valley stations.

 

[Aictos]

It isn't about the time saving, it is about the capacity. Would be very surprised if they ever tried 12 cars as it isn't that bad yet!. You would have to lose Atherstone for a start as the platforms there can't do 8 as it is.

Seeing as I'm not familiar with operational requirements in the area, I'm very glad you're able to correct me.

If and when the LM Crewe services go direct via Stafford, are there any aspirations to make it half hourly 4 cars or just a hourly 8 car?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If and when the LM Crewe services go direct via Stafford, are there any aspirations to make it half hourly 4 cars or just a hourly 8 car?

I think there is a long-term aspiration to increase to half hourly, but in my view if they go half hourly 4-car would be an utter disaster. A more frequent service will increase usage substantially, requiring 8-car half hourly.

 

[Tetchytyke]

for people with a bit of time, they are like the megabus of the train world, takes longer but much cheaper.

But that's not a good enough reason to slow down the Liverpool trains, given that passengers from Liverpool don't have an alternative direct choice to London Midland.

Now, as The Planner suggests, you can speed up the Crewe-London trains without slowing down the Liverpool ones, you might have a good plan on your hands.

 

[TheWalrus]

Would there be any point in sending the Crewe services direct Stafford-Crewe? As already stated Crewe passengers will get the faster services available if they are travelling to Stafford or beyond.

 

[Crossover]

Why? It does mean fewer doors are opened than perhaps could be, but it is simple and it does the job.

Simple and does the job, maybe. Is it as effective as it could be, no. That said, it isn't quite as bonkers as SWT land (I know they are having another system retrofitted) where an 8 car is fine, but a 12 car is a 4 door release only at some stations (due to the way UDS operates)