DfT consult on new LM franchise

[Class 170101]

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.

Extend 2K01 to Northampton after waiting at Milton Keynes to connect.

and then divert 1U47 via Weedon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Extend 2K01 to Northampton after waiting at Milton Keynes to connect.

and then divert 1U47 via Weedon.

I'm not clear why LM's core market should have to change trains just to accommodate a slightly faster journey for a non-core market that is not even required by the franchise specification.

(Serving the Trent Valley is required, but running through to Euston is a pseudo-Open Access operation)

 

[Class 170101]

I thought two extra Trent Valley services had become a requirement for the Direct Award?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought two extra Trent Valley services had become a requirement for the Direct Award?

Possibly they have been added then?

 

[All Line Rover]

Extend 2K01 to Northampton after waiting at Milton Keynes to connect.

and then divert 1U47 via Weedon.

That's madness. You do realise that the 18:21 is almost empty by Milton Keynes? The 18:49's main purpose is to serve Northampton and Milton Keynes; it is not to serve the Trent Valley stations. Extend the 18:21 to NMP and it will arrive in NMP around 1 minute earlier than the 18:49 currently arrives (and with only a handful of passengers on board).

I only support additional London Midland Trent Valley services if, for example, LM is able to acquire additional 350/4s (e.g. from TPE).

 

[Class 170101]

That's madness. You do realise that the 18:21 is almost empty by Milton Keynes? The 18:49's main purpose is to serve Northampton and Milton Keynes; it is not to serve the Trent Valley stations. Extend the 18:21 to NMP and it will arrive in NMP around 1 minute earlier than the 18:49 currently arrives (and with only a handful of passengers on board).

I imagine the 18:21 would be. Hence waiting at Milton Keynes to connect off the 18:49. Assuming my earleir comments that the 18:49 can be pathed around Weedon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I imagine the 18:21 would be. Hence waiting at Milton Keynes to connect off the 18:49. Assuming my earleir comments that the 18:49 can be pathed around Weedon.

And all this to save the far smaller number of longer-distance passengers what, 10 minutes, to go with their heavily discounted fares?

I really cannot see any justification for doing this.

 

[sd0733]

1U47 leaves 350 behind at Northampton and so unless it ran as a 4-car throughout then theres no chance that one will go via Weedon as otherwise Kidsgrove etc lose another train.

 

[Class 170101]

1U47 leaves 350 behind at Northampton and so unless it ran as a 4-car throughout then theres no chance that one will go via Weedon as otherwise Kidsgrove etc lose another train.

Split at Stafford as the 16:46 used to do?

If connections are acceptable then divert a Birmingham to Liverpool via Kidsgrove and run the eight car train to Crewe or Liverpool (again split Crewe).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why are you so strongly minded with messing up other services just to get 10-20 minutes knocked off one particular journey?

 

[Class 170101]

Ok then, how do you see the extra Trent Valley services that the Direct Award refers to?

 

[All Line Rover]

Does the specification require them to run to Euston or can they terminate at Rugby / Northampton?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What precisely does it specify?

 

[The Ham]

Does the specification require them to run to Euston or can they terminate at Rugby / Northampton?

...or even are there any trains which could be extended to serve the TV, even if the total journey time were slower than the existing services (but faster than waiting for the next fast service)?