DfT consult on new LM franchise

[Morgsie]

If the diversion happens then Kidsgrove, Alsager and Stone lose their direct link to London.

 

[The Ham]

If the diversion happens then Kidsgrove, Alsager and Stone lose their direct link to London.

Given that they have a sum total of less than 300,000 passengers a year it would hardly be the biggest place to lose its direct connection to London.

It of course depends on what service it gets in return, if it is a straight swap then people are going to be upset, if however it gets a better service people may let it slide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It of course depends on what service it gets in return, if it is a straight swap then people are going to be upset, if however it gets a better service people may let it slide.

It's unlikely to be a better service - and swapping it for the Liverpools can only ever be a short-term thing, as those too are rapidly getting too busy for 4-car working. And unlike the Crewe-Euston stopper, which is only busy because of a nonsensical fares policy, these are the primary services between Liverpool and Birmingham.

Meanwhile, if it goes back to being a 153 every two hours, the stations might as well be re-closed.

 

[the sniper]

If the diversion happens then Kidsgrove, Alsager and Stone lose their direct link to London.

I'd have thought Stone to/from Birmingham was a bigger flow than that to/from London. In the case of Kidsgrove and Alsager, how many choose the slower LM direct service over changing to VT at Stoke or Crewe?

 

[The Ham]

It's unlikely to be a better service - and swapping it for the Liverpools can only ever be a short-term thing, as those too are rapidly getting too busy for 4-car working. And unlike the Crewe-Euston stopper, which is only busy because of a nonsensical fares policy, these are the primary services between Liverpool and Birmingham.

Meanwhile, if it goes back to being a 153 every two hours, the stations might as well be re-closed.

However, the Birmingham Liverpool service could be run with a pair of 3 coach units (6 coach train). If this were pairs of 323's (23m coach length) it would mean fairly small platform lengthening (circa 10m) and maybe not at all six platforms. This could be more viable than a new build of 5 coach 110mph units (which could be the an alternative to maintain the London service).

On the issue of tickets, I do agree that there are too many advanced tickets on the London Crewe services and that LM probably would get more money even if they put their adavanced ticket prices up by 50% (£7 from Euston to Nuneaton could become £11 and most people who buy that ticket would still do so).

 

[The Planner]

You would be running it at 90mph if you did that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the issue of tickets, I do agree that there are too many advanced tickets on the London Crewe services and that LM probably would get more money even if they put their adavanced ticket prices up by 50% (£7 from Euston to Nuneaton could become £11 and most people who buy that ticket would still do so).

It's much wider than that - it's a combination of VT being often far too expensive, particularly in the peaks, and LM being far too cheap. Both of those mean people are artificially attracted onto LM when they might otherwise use VT. Yes, it will attract some who wouldn't have travelled at all, but I expect most would have.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, the Birmingham Liverpool service could be run with a pair of 3 coach units (6 coach train). If this were pairs of 323's (23m coach length) it would mean fairly small platform lengthening (circa 10m) and maybe not at all six platforms. This could be more viable than a new build of 5 coach 110mph units (which could be the an alternative to maintain the London service).

Yes, 6-car would probably be adequate for the Liverpool service. 5 wouldn't solve the London service problem.

 

[The Ham]

You would be running it at 90mph if you did that.

Two questions spring to mind; would that make much additional difference for the Birmingham Liverpool services if you are diverting them that way anyway?

Also, if it were to be a problem due to only running at 90 mph could a 100mph 3 coach train be either procured from elsewhere (existing stock) or would such a new build be better than a 5 coach new build (either 100mph for this service or 110mph for for the London Crewe service)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's much wider than that - it's a combination of VT being often far too expensive, particularly in the peaks, and LM being far too cheap. Both of those mean people are artificially attracted onto LM when they might otherwise use VT. Yes, it will attract some who wouldn't have travelled at all, but I expect most would have.

I know I for one when I travel to Nuneaton benefit (well my employer does) from cheaper travel even though I would have to travel anyway, it is not uncommon to be able to get very cheap rail travel if booked just a day before hand. I know I'm not the only one as when I am going there it is for a meeting which can often involve 5 others heading up from London. Which although isn't many or very often shows that there people who a benefiting from cheaper rail travel who would be travelling anyway.

 

[pt_mad]

Another option would be to change fares - remove the LM Only fares and reduce the main WCML fares a bit (or add more Advances). I'm certain 4-car would be plenty for these services were it not for people being artificially attracted onto them by the incredibly low fares who would otherwise use VT, e.g. using Advances.

But the consultation is for a franchise from 2017 for 7 plus years. How can a 4 car Trent Valley service once an hour be sufficient for that time period?
I get that people from Stoke and Stafford could well be attracted onto LM services for London due to price, but surely that's competition and what LM are aiming for? It can't really be the case that people through the Trent are artificially attracted onto LM instead of Virgin, as the LM hourly service is the only off peak London service that exists through most of the Trent Valley. Lichfield passengers are not being attracted away from Virgin, as they don't call there after 9am.

The only way of solving it that way is insisting Virgin do call at these stations with a similarly priced off peak ticket to take some of the excess off the LM service. But Virgin's model is based on longer distance city to city travel.

 

[The Ham]

But the consultation is for a franchise from 2017 for 7 plus years. How can a 4 car Trent Valley service once an hour be sufficient for that time period?
I get that people from Stoke and Stafford could well be attracted onto LM services for London due to price, but surely that's competition and what LM are aiming for? It can't really be the case that people through the Trent are artificially attracted onto LM instead of Virgin, as the LM hourly service is the only off peak London service that exists through most of the Trent Valley. Lichfield passengers are not being attracted away from Virgin, as they don't call there after 9am.

The only way of solving it that way is insisting Virgin do call at these stations with a similarly priced off peak ticket to take some of the excess off the LM service. But Virgin's model is based on longer distance city to city travel.

Assuming that a class 350 is full, (230 seats) and allowing for 7 years of growth of 5%, that would mean that you would need to provide 324 seats.

As a comparison a class 444 has 334 seats, as such it would be possible without too much work to the three critical stations to be providing comparable capacity at the end of the franchise as there is now just by changing the trains. There may even be scope to improve capacity a little more if the new trains didn't have the micro buffet of the 444's

Then if the new TOC were to suppress some of the existing demand by increasing advanced ticket prices and you would probably be good until HS2 opens to Crewe in 2027 (by my maths 30 from the existing trains). Although a 6 coach comparable train would give you a bit more breathing space, although would require more work at the three stations and would be fairly under used early in the franchise leading to the temptation to not alter advanced fares.

The other way to increase capacity would be to reduce the size of first class from 35 seats. As even assuming First Class is full (which would be unlikely) the new trains would need 31 first class seats. As such it would be possible to move the decide to remove one or even two (3 or 6 seats) rows from first class and use the space for standard class, this would gain at least 2 seats.

 

[sd0733]

Assuming that a class 350 is full, (230 seats) and allowing for 7 years of growth of 5%, that would mean that you would need to provide 324 seats.

A lot of trains aren't just full though they are full and standing so already have more than that on. Passenger growth recently has been huge especially in the peaks With railcards especially after virgin changed the restrictions.
As others have said the fares are too cheap, passengers seem to like them but it cannot be sustainable, I have asked several times why so many, or any at all, advances are sold on busy trains such as the 15:46 ex Euston which as the last daytime super off peak train is often full and standing to Lichfield.and have never had an answer.
Over Xmas the crowding was so bad that senior managers were sent to see them I even worked one full and standing from Crewe with crush loading and leaving behind by Rugeley.
Nothing will happen prior to the new franchise now but hopefully then the stopping pattern, frequency and overall capacity will be sorted.

 

[The Planner]

Two questions spring to mind; would that make much additional difference for the Birmingham Liverpool services if you are diverting them that way anyway?

Arguably yes, Wolves Stafford and Crewe Weaver could cause you problems, specifically the latter.

 

[sd0733]

Sending a Birmingham Liverpool via Stoke is a very poor compromise anyway. Going via Stoke takes approx 20 mins longer than via Madeley and so you would end up with the trains following each other at one end or the other.
I'm not sure if there would be a spare path through Colwich but to me the best way of serving these stops would be extending the Rugeley terminators to Crewe via Stoke post electrification. Not only would it serve stone etc but would relink Cannock, Walsall etc with Stafford which has a reasonable amount of passengers now even with poor connection. Seems better than putting 5tph Wolves to Stafford.

 

[The Planner]

Very difficult to thread that from Rugeley at Colwich and v.v

 

[pt_mad]

A lot of trains aren't just full though they are full and standing so already have more than that on. Passenger growth recently has been huge especially in the peaks With railcards especially after virgin changed the restrictions.
As others have said the fares are too cheap, passengers seem to like them but it cannot be sustainable, I have asked several times why so many, or any at all, advances are sold on busy trains such as the 15:46 ex Euston which as the last daytime super off peak train is often full and standing to Lichfield.and have never had an answer.
Over Xmas the crowding was so bad that senior managers were sent to see them I even worked one full and standing from Crewe with crush loading and leaving behind by Rugeley.
Nothing will happen prior to the new franchise now but hopefully then the stopping pattern, frequency and overall capacity will be sorted.

All great points made. If some of the 350 workings are rammed to the rafters, essentially adding another coach will not provide enough capacity for the 9 years from now.

It has to be big changes, not just something that will do. Again look at what Arriva Northern and the new TPE will be providing. Major changes going above and beyond. If there is an operator proposing to run all Trent Valley services as 8 car, while running a local service around the Stoke On Trent loop every hour, this would surely be preferable to an operator saying 'we will use a 5 car train for the current pattern and that's your lot till at least 2025'.

It could be the DFT are looking for far more impressive proposals, such as 2 x 8 car services per hour.
After all, this would only bring the Trent Valley towns up to the level of service that Grantham and Newark (similar sized towns) already have and have had for years on the East Coast Mainline.

And great idea above ^^ about extending the Rugeley Service north to Crewe via Stoke. Chase line will be electrified. Suppose it would be a question of available paths.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Does anyone think that there could be much chance the Birmingham-Leicester route coming under the new franchise. Given that Water Orton, Coleshill Parkway and Nuneaton are all operated my London midland anyway.

Thanks,
Ross

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know I for one when I travel to Nuneaton benefit (well my employer does) from cheaper travel even though I would have to travel anyway, it is not uncommon to be able to get very cheap rail travel if booked just a day before hand. I know I'm not the only one as when I am going there it is for a meeting which can often involve 5 others heading up from London. Which although isn't many or very often shows that there people who a benefiting from cheaper rail travel who would be travelling anyway.

Oh, I love a cheapo LM walk up as much as the next man. But it's totally skewed economics. Something with limited supply should be more expensive, not cheaper. (Well, in this case my argument would be for a withdrawal of the LM Only walk-ups and advances, bringing pricing into line with VT).

TOCs should not be permitted to cram trains full of standing passengers on bargain bucket fares where those passengers have the option of using other, quieter services, at the expense of the travel comfort of those who have no choice but to use those services, i.e. the inhabitants of the Trent Valley stations.

Heavy penalties for PIXC would go some way to making them solve this problem. How about "you get no fare income whatsoever from any passenger carried in excess of the specified capacity of the unit"? Or even penalties *in excess* of the fare paid?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the consultation is for a franchise from 2017 for 7 plus years. How can a 4 car Trent Valley service once an hour be sufficient for that time period?

You might want to go to 2 an hour at 4-car, which I believe LM are scheming. But I'm not convinced they would need to be any longer than that if their only users were those who had no choice but to use them, i.e. Trent Valley passengers.

I get that people from Stoke and Stafford could well be attracted onto LM services for London due to price, but surely that's competition and what LM are aiming for?

It seems a lot of passengers travel from London to Crewe/Stoke and onwards using a split to save money. But not one of those passengers should really be on those trains; they should be on the VTs that have loads of capacity for them. The skewed fares system causes them to make that choice, and thus causes the overcrowding.

As for competition, you know my view on that. It's a skewed market, and one with significant regulation. On-rail competition is to me a nonsense - compete with the car to attract people onto the rail offering as a whole. But even so, it makes no overall sense to attract people onto already busy services using cheap fares. It makes sense for *LM* to do it as they make money from overcrowded trains, but I contend that unless they have genuine freedom to adapt the service to deal with the custom (they don't) the competition is a fallacy.

The only way of solving it that way is insisting Virgin do call at these stations with a similarly priced off peak ticket to take some of the excess off the LM service. But Virgin's model is based on longer distance city to city travel.

I think removing the LM Only walk-up fares (and increasing LM's Advance fares/reducing quotas in line with equivalent VT services or at least such that no Advance is sold on a train that would normally have a standing passenger) would solve it in a stroke.

 

[pt_mad]

Could it not be that Virgin are just too expensive and are pricing people out from Crewe and Stoke and they should lower their fares to take the strain off the lm services?
I know a popular view is that TOCs shouldn't continue to sell the 6 quid etc tickets on a full and standing train, but unless they are forced not to, a full and standing train probably makes good business sense to them - at the cost of passenger comfort.

I suppose they could be forced to remove these cheap cheap fares from Crewe, Stoke and Stafford, thus freeing up capacity for the Trent Valley. As in theory a train could be three quarters full after leaving Stafford with London Travellers many on bargain ten quid or cheap walk up off peaks. There is then no capacity through the Trent Valley, even for customers with anytime tickets paying 90 quid plus.
However, the DFT could have insisted they remove these fares for the direct award which was granted in December, but did they?


Not sure if 2 x 4 car trains is the best way to go? You need double the guards and drivers as currently, when you can achieve the same capacity with the same train crewe as now just by doubling the sets. Remove the calls around Stone Kidsgrove Alsager and you can run direct Stafford to Crewe, vastly improving journey times for connections at Crewe.
Two 4 car trains also means wastiing another valuable path out of Euston with another 4 car unit. This cannot make sense. If paths are that valuable, trains should be doubled to 8 car sets.

Even 2 x 4 car trains per hour or 1 x 8 car train per hour only takes the likes of Nuneaton back to what it had prior to 2008 when it used to have a full length mk3 liverpool to Euston every hour with plenty of capacity.

Proposals for 10 years later and we are questioning whether we can even justify 8 cars calling there? Of course we can!

 

[Ianno87]

Does anyone think that there could be much chance the Birmingham-Leicester route coming under the new franchise. Given that Water Orton, Coleshill Parkway and Nuneaton are all operated my London midland anyway.

Thanks,
Ross

I'd say fairly unlikely. The crews (some based at Leicester, I believe) and diagrams are shared between this and the Stansted-Birmingham route. For instance a train arriving at New St from Stansted normally works back to Leicester and vice-versa.

If these could be resolved, I would agree it would make some amount of geographic sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could it not be that Virgin are just too expensive and are pricing people out from Crewe and Stoke and they should lower their fares to take the strain off the lm services?

I agree VT peak fares are too high. VT off peak fares are generally a bit lower than other lines, which is because of the abolition of the SuperSaver and reduction in the Savers done in the early days. But they would stand a small decrease to bring them closer into line were LM Only fares to be abolished.

I know a popular view is that TOCs shouldn't continue to sell the 6 quid etc tickets on a full and standing train, but unless they are forced not to, a full and standing train probably makes good business sense to them - at the cost of passenger comfort.

I suspect it does, but only because the system is broken as it allows them to do that and profit from it.

Proposals for 10 years later and we are questioning whether we can even justify 8 cars calling there? Of course we can!

If it can be done by extending platforms, I sort of agree. If it can't and would require the Liverpools to be permanently stuck to 4-car, I really don't agree. Those are already busy and unlike the Crewes are mostly not carrying people who could be using other services which already have the requisite unused capacity.

 

[pt_mad]

It won't necessarily mean the Liverpools calling around Stoke. Could be that a new local hourly service is introduced with something like 323s operating between Crewe - Stafford in both directions. Or extend the electric Northern service from Crewe down as far as Stone and Stafford. Or extend the chase line service from Rugeley up to Crewe via Stoke.

Agreed running one of the Liverpools around the Stoke loop is probably not the best or most long term solution.

 

[the sniper]

Does anyone think that there could be much chance the Birmingham-Leicester route coming under the new franchise. Given that Water Orton, Coleshill Parkway and Nuneaton are all operated my London midland anyway.

Not for this next franchise, no. Maybe in the future though if enough Voyagers can be freed up (by some new stock) to cover the Stansteds and Cardiffs, it'd make some sense to bring the Nottingham and Leicester stoppers back into the Birmingham centred local franchise. They're a poor fit with Cross Country, imo, particularly the Leicester stoppers. IIRC the unit diagrams are interwoven between the shorter and longer distance 170 work though, so the stoppers going to Cross Country was essentially a compromise, as the alternative compromise would be LM looking rather a lot like the Central Trains they were desperate to tear apart.

Plus, there's four hours of Cross City with Minilad's name on it if he gets TUPEd over...

 

[Class 170101]

Two trains per hour formed of four cars each are more appealing to the public in terms of frequency than one eight car per hour.

However as I have mentioned above you will struggle to gain a path out of Euston at 110mph. So maybe 5 car trains at 125mph will be the way to go, especially if they can be lengthened carriage by carriage in future.

As for Stone, Kidsgrove and Alsager if some of these involve closing level crossings to enable the stations to be lengthened I would have thought NR would be all for it.

Also 125mph stock might allow Polesworth at al to be re-built and served by trains once again if those stations would be viable.

 

[sd0733]

Not sure if 2 x 4 car trains is the best way to go? You need double the guards and drivers as currently, when you can achieve the same capacity with the same train crewe as now just by doubling the sets. Remove the calls around Stone Kidsgrove Alsager and you can run direct Stafford to Crewe, vastly improving journey times for connections at Crewe.
Two 4 car trains also means wastiing another valuable path out of Euston with another 4 car unit. This cannot make sense. If paths are that valuable, trains should be doubled to 8 car sets.

QUOTE]

They already run 2x 4car sets on a Saturday morning due to the overcrowding rather than 1x 8-car. Theres 1U20 leaving Crewe at 07:00 followed by 1U82 at 07:18. Both are 4 car and run via Stoke although the 7:18 doesn't call at Kidsrove, Alsager or Stone.

 

[The Ham]

They already run 2x 4car sets on a Saturday morning due to the overcrowding rather than 1x 8-car. Theres 1U20 leaving Crewe at 07:00 followed by 1U82 at 07:18. Both are 4 car and run via Stoke although the 7:18 doesn't call at Kidsrove, Alsager or Stone.

It's a difficult one, as for some 1x8 to cope with capacity would mean a better return for the TOC. Whilst for others 2x4 would mean a better service for passengers, meaning that more people may be attracted to it potentially resulting in a potential better return for the TOC.

With the case given, I would assume that early morning on a Saturday there's little else on the network to get in the way. Also, unless it skipped the three smaller stations, it is unable to run as an eight coach train. Therefore it would appear to be reasonable, but probably not practical to run all services like it.

 

[pt_mad]

Yes there is currently that one hour per week on a Saturday when 2 x 4 car units work two services from the Trent Valley to Euston. But that is under the current franchise, where the operator is obligated to call one of them at Stone etc. We are talking about new franchise possibilities, where if Stone Kidsgrove etc was split off to a local service, it is probably unlikely an operator would run 2 x 4 car services per hour before doubling the existing sets and getting as much capacity out of the existing fast paths and train crews. That is just basic efficiency going forward. Are they going to grant another 110mph path to a 4 car unit or give it to VT who can run an 11car and insist the west mids operator lengthern their current sets before being given new valuable paths.


Also if there were two return 4 car workings every hour, some of them would still be full as the ones at the most attractive times would be fullest. Ie 1546 off euston. Its unlikely passengers would wait until say 1615 at euston for the next 4 car working. Once they finish work or whatever, people want to travel back.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also if there were two return 4 car workings every hour, some of them would still be full as the ones at the most attractive times would be fullest. Ie 1546 off euston. Its unlikely passengers would wait until say 1615 at euston for the next 4 car working. Once they finish work or whatever, people want to travel back.

But who finishes work consistently at 3pm? I'd agree with you if this was actually a peak time service, but it's not. Finishing times vary.

Is that another train (like many shoulder-peak VTs) that are overcrowded because "peak" now means "fleece the business traveller" and not "busy"? In which case encourage people onto the 1615 (or whatever) with some judicious use of Advances or something.

And make MKC "u"/"s" on them - there is no room on 4-car TV services for MKC commuters. There is more room on the 11-car VTs. But that won't be stopped until the petty spat between LM and VT at MKC is packed in. Have one fare at the current TOC-only rate and be done with it - it will be split fairly based on usage via ORCATS.

 

[northwichcat]

Also if there were two return 4 car workings every hour, some of them would still be full as the ones at the most attractive times would be fullest. Ie 1546 off euston. Its unlikely passengers would wait until say 1615 at euston for the next 4 car working. Once they finish work or whatever, people want to travel back.

The problem with the 15:46 to Crewe is it's the first northbound departure to Stafford and Crewe after the Virgin Trains evening peak restrictions apply. I once caught that train to Stafford and then travelled on a Birmingham-Liverpool service from Stafford to Hartford and noticed at Stafford there seemed to be a lot of passengers who were at Euston transferring between the Euston to Crewe and the Birmingham to Liverpool service. The conductor on the Euston-Crewe even did an announcement prior to Stafford advising anyone for Hartford, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway or Liverpool to change there. I decided to save £1 when making that journey by travelling First Class (FC Advance was £19 compared to £20 for a standard class Advance.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with the 15:46 to Crewe is it's the first northbound departure to Stafford and Crewe after the Virgin Trains evening peak restrictions apply. I once caught that train to Stafford and then travelled on a Birmingham-Liverpool service from Stafford to Hartford and noticed at Stafford there seemed to be a lot of passengers who were at Euston transferring between the Euston to Crewe and the Birmingham to Liverpool service. The conductor on the Euston-Crewe even did an announcement prior to Stafford advising anyone for Hartford, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway or Liverpool to change there. I decided to save £1 when making that journey by travelling First Class (FC Advance was £19 compared to £20 for a standard class Advance.)

So, another problem caused entirely by ludicrous fares policy.

Let's say we come up with a hypothetical scenario, then - we remove all operator-specific fares on the WCML and leave only interavailable walk-ups and Advances, and let's say Advances are sold only on trains where there are not typically standing passengers, as should be the case, with the general aim being the ideal that every seat on every train is fully occupied but there are no standing passengers other than MKC <-> EUS where they probably can't be avoided at commuter times. Let's also assume (and I know it is not necessarily a valid assumption, but we need a model to start from here, and tweaking fares will affect this) that anyone who currently buys a LM Only walk-up will switch to another fare and not be lost to rail.

Would these 4-car services *still* be overcrowded then?

If not, why are we persisting with such an incompetent, disconnected overall fares policy on the WCML, then proposing solving that by the costly extension of trains rather than by fixing that fares policy?

 

[pt_mad]

Many more people than you think finish work early enough to get the 1546 towards the Trent from Euston. Hence it is regularly full and standing. A lot of London workers set their own hours etc, hence there are generally less commuters on the VT services on Friday mornings.

Also people are joining these busy services from milton keynes and rugby to go north.