Could it not be that a 4 car class 350 would hold more passengers than a 5 car class 444 anyway? What with the bigger first class and less room for standing.
5-car (5x23m) Class 444: 299 Standard, 35 1st
4-car (4x20m) Class 350/1: 210 Standard, 19 1st
So no, not even nearly, unless you're talking about a crush load, which is the whole problem being discussed here and is not desirable.
Judging by that, you could have a 6 car class 350 unit for 5 metres extra length (coach lengths only)
Thing is, if they continue to serve the smaller stations, its not really intercity like that. Someone travelling Stone to Stoke for some shopping doesn't require intercity style. They would be better with an accessible train.
I'd imagine that's one option (as it is increasingly a poor fit with LM) and another might be that a replacement local service from Crewe to Stoke would be operated by EMT as an extension of the Derby service, though that would leave an issue with Stone. I suppose XC could be coerced into stopping there instead.
How about Northern extending their Manchester - Crewe service to Stoke and then extend further to Stafford or extend the Manchester - Stoke service there. All covered by EMUs. Stone covered as well.
Do they have the big accessible space for multiple wheelchair users/bikes/pushchairs etc? The one with the fold down seats?
If I want to go to Liverpool from MK I change at Crewe.
When you get to Crewe on the VT do you wait there for 54 mins for the VT to Liv service? Or do you then get a LM to Liv?
Having to use different TOCs for each leg of the journey usually means that you can't get cheap single-TOC tickets.
Northern extending Manchester-Crewe to Stoke was looked at before but it was decided 2tph between Crewe and Manchester Airport is needed more than an additional service between Crewe and Stoke, so the option of extending the EMT Crewe service to Manchester Airport is supposed to be re-examined at the next recast.
It was proposed Manchester-Stoke stoppers would be transferred to LM and extended to Birmingham via Stone, alongside some XC services being diverted via Crewe and LM's Crewe to London being re-routed away from Stone, but apart from the latter point it's all gone quiet.
The most Network Rail West Coast RUS is where the above ideas are contained.
I normally use walk-ups, very rarely Advances. And there is no permanent VT Only walk-up fare for that journey, nor can there be as VT set the fare.
.
Well both LM and VT offer permanent walk up TOC-only tickets from MKc to London. One of them must set the fare.
As I understand it the reason this has happened is that at privatisation VT/ICWC set the fare, allowing then Silverlink to set their own operator specific fare, as at the time VT operated the majority of services. However, as the timetable has developed VT removed many of their stops and made others u/s (some of which has been reversed) and so the fare setting moved over to Silverlink and then LM.
As such, the LM Only fares exist by precedent. They are, as I understand it, allowed to keep them as they precede the change of fare setter, but not introduce any new ones.
Euston - Crewe service; has anyone suggested that those trains which run as 8 cars from Euston leave one set behind at Stafford so as to be able to serve Stone etc.?
Don't LM 350s have selective door opening? TPE ones certainly do (and used at Oxenholme).
Originally Posted by geoffk View Post
Don't LM 350s have selective door opening? TPE ones certainly do (and used at Oxenholme).
I think I meant to write Oxford Road. As regards the bay at Crewe, what happens with an eight-car unit now? Presumably it goes into a through platform.
The 06:52 uses platform 5. It appears to arrive in from the south around 10 minutes before departure.
Are there plans still afoot to upgrade the Northampton Loop Line to 90/100mph running? Surely this would solve some of the capacity issue?
You might and I probably would, but there are a significant number of people who much prefer a direct service. If course there are people at other stations (such as Nuneaton amongst others) for whom a direct service on LM would likely be quicker. Likewise for the more minor stations north of Crewe going direct to London may be comparable to changing at Crewe in terms of journey times.
If course like the Penzance to Scotland XC services it could well be that it is better to run a long distance service rather than 2 shorter route services. Not for end to end journey but rather because there are a lot of people that use it for short to medium distance travel.
What about Watford a Junction then? Virgin threw away their 20 busiest flow when they stopped Manchester trains stopping at Watford. I think WFJ was in their top 50. More rail customers live within 15 miles of Watford Junction than live in the city of Milton Keynes.
LM should be concerned that 70% of their customers and 80% of the income is commuting into Euston and that's the market they need to concentrate on.
Are there plans still afoot to upgrade the Northampton Loop Line to 90/100mph running? Surely this would solve some of the capacity issue?
Do you have evidence for this, including that those customers have been lost rather than making a connectional journey via Euston, MKC, Brum or wherever?
I never saw loads of people getting on or off VTs at Watford, except for when the Southern services were Watford to Clapham only and the 0700ish VT from MKC connected into the main one for getting places sarf ov da Rivva before 0900.
MKC, of course, is (a) not only used by people who live in the Unitary Authority of Milton Keynes, and (b) only has 3tph VT for most of the day (one Brum-Scotland, one Manc, one Chester/North Wales) anyway.
Agreed, LM should not do anything with the 350s that would be to the significant detriment of that primary role. An additional 1846 would mean taking 4 coaches off another peak service, which would not be acceptable. If the Trent Valley service could pay at higher fares, perhaps an additional unit (a 319 maybe?) could be leased to allow it, though.