Do WCML stations have a worse service under VTWC?

[The Planner]

I thought that was the plan? + Barlestone / Wedgewood too, which will be reopened at somepoint during the course of the franchise.

No it isnt. The plan is 2tph to Rugeley TV.

 

[pt_mad]

Speaking of the Chase Line, following the Rugeley electrification, wouldn't it make sense to run a local service from Crewe to Birmingham this way? Maybe Crewe-Alsager-Kidgsrove-Stoke-Stone-Rugeley TV-Rugeley Town-Hednesford-Cannock-Walsall-Birmingham NS.

Possibly. But what about the cross over at Rugeley Trent Valley to take the Chase line? Would probably end up being an obstruction to Northbound WCML services.

 

[dangie]

Speaking of the Chase Line, following the Rugeley electrification, wouldn't it make sense to run a local service from Crewe to Birmingham this way? Maybe Crewe-Alsager-Kidgsrove-Stoke-Stone-Rugeley TV-Rugeley Town-Hednesford-Cannock-Walsall-Birmingham NS.

I know very little about timetables and pathing, but at Rugeley Trent Valley the Crewe-Birmingham would probably come down the southbound 'slow' line then have to cross over two 'fasts' and a 'slow' to get onto the Chase Line. May be an issue.

Note: beat me to it.

 

[pt_mad]

No it isnt. The plan is 2tph to Rugeley TV.

Planner can you shed any light on how they might work these London - Birmingham - Stoke - Crewe and London - Birmingham - Liverpool services if only 4 cars is usual practice further north and West of Birmingham?

As surely they wouldn't want to run with only 4 cars all the way to Northampton going south just because of restrictions between Wolves and Stafford and around Stone.

 

[DenmarkRail]

No it isnt. The plan is 2tph to Rugeley TV.

Yes, but if they will be running the Crewe to London via BHM, while still including Rugeley Trent Valley [RGL], then would it not have to go via Chase?

 

[pt_mad]

Yes, but if they will be running the Crewe to London via BHM, while still including RTV, then would it not have to go via Chase?

Don't think so. The Crewe to London via Birmingham will go Crewe, Alsager, Kidsgrove, Stoke, Stone, Stafford, then off towards Penkridge and Wolverhampton.

Rugeley Trent Valley will remain in the calling pattern of the Crewe to London via Trent Valley semi fast service as now.

Two different services going forward.

 

[6Gman]

Planner can you shed any light on how they might work these London - Birmingham - Stoke - Crewe and London - Birmingham - Liverpool services if only 4 cars is usual practice further north and West of Birmingham?

As surely they wouldn't want to run with only 4 cars all the way to Northampton going south just because of restrictions between Wolves and Stafford and around Stone.

I was actually on an 8-car Birmingham - Liverpool a few days after Christmas. First I've ever seen - possibly linked to the engineering issues thinning out services.

The Guard made an announcement that passengers in the rear unit wishing to use certain stations should "use the tunnel" to reach the front unit. An unusual turn of phrase! Presumably SDO was in use?

 

[pt_mad]

I was actually on an 8-car Birmingham - Liverpool a few days after Christmas. First I've ever seen - possibly linked to the engineering issues thinning out services.

The Guard made an announcement that passengers in the rear unit wishing to use certain stations should "use the tunnel" to reach the front unit. An unusual turn of phrase! Presumably SDO was in use?

Oh right. So 8 cars are permitted then on the Birmingham to Liverpool section. Although that raises further questions if they run 8 car 350s all the way Liverpool to Euston via Birmingham in the morning. As when it eventually changed over to 5 car Aventuras, presumably it would be a come down a d maybe under capacity?

And still doesn't explain how the Crewe - Birmingham - London stopper could run with 8 cars south of Birmingham in the peak without coupling up at New St. Unless they could couple at Wolverhampton?

 

[thenorthern]

Rugeley North Junction has always been difficult, prior to 2008 when the trains ran from from Stafford to Birmingham New Street via Walsall the trains from Stafford had to cross 4 tracks to get into Platform 1 which is the bidirectional chase line platform at Rugeley Trent Valley.

 

[Phil from Mon]

I have never worked out what Wign and Warrington do to get so many services.

Warrington is also where you change southbound from Scotland and the NW for Chester and N Wales (always assuming the VT isn’t running a few minutes late).

 

[Bevan Price]

Why did no-one use it?

1. Willenhall station (closed by Marples/Beeching) was not reopened.
2. At Walsall, trains tended to use the inconvenient platform outside the main station.
3. Probably needed to be every 30 minutes to compete with buses.

 

[Bevan Price]

What infrastructure would be needed ro facilitate this move? I was going to answer my own question with 'HS2', but I suspect I'll get a clip round the earhole for that.

Reinstate the tunnel from the Stoke line under WCML into Basford Hall yard, but realign at the exit to provide a northbound connection?

 

[thenorthern]

Why did no-one use it?

It was fairly well used I think 60,000 passengers per year were using it, the problem was it was very heavily subsidized by what was then Centro and the trains were needed elsewhere.

 

[Bevan Price]

Yes - some WCML services are better than they have ever been, but a few things are worse - or could be improved. It seems to me that "London" is considered the only target for passengers; agreed it is a big target, but it is not the only place that people wish to travel to or from.
Next, the DfT obsession with a fixed pattern - same stops, same destinations, same (usually) hourly frequency. That may be convenient for operators, but is not always the best option for passengers. The following are just suggestions - there are doubtless numerous alternatives.

1. Liverpool - Stafford does not really need 3 trains per hour (1VT, 2 LM). So, in alternative hours, a VT train could call at Nuneaton instead of Stafford. No extra stops, so no time penalty south of Nuneaton. To let Stafford retain one fast service per hour to London, a stop could be provided every 2 hours on, say, a Manchester - Euston service (possibly omitting a stop somewhere else in alternate hours ), etc., etc. (The main aim being to offer an alternative fast option to Nuneaton from the north, not to improve the Nuneaton/Euston service)

2. Warrington/Wigan to Crewe was reduced from 2 to 1 per hour. That would not be too bad if all the Euston-Birmingham-Scotland services were 11 coach 390s. Unfortunately, there are still too many services operated by overcrowded 5 coach 221s. There should be an aim to replace all Voyagers for journeys "fully under the wires".

3. With the LM Crewe - Euston services being diverted, Northampton lacks almost any northbound services direct via the Trent Valley line. Yes - you can (or will be able to) travel via Birmingham, but with numerous intermediate stops, the journey can be painfully slow. Or you can change at Rugby, and hope to find a seat in a well-loaded 350 on the Euston - Crewe semi-fasts. I would also suggest that something needs to be done to reduce some of the >10 minute stops at Northampton. If paths could be found, I would suggest a Euston - Northampton service should continue semi-fast calling at, say, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford, Crewe, Hartford, Warrington, Wigan & Preston (or even Blackpool).

(And I think some people are being optimistic to expect HS2 to be ready by 2026; maybe just about 2031 if we are "lucky"??)

 

[Mathew S]

Next, the DfT obsession with a fixed pattern - same stops, same destinations, same (usually) hourly frequency. That may be convenient for operators, but is not always the best option for passengers.

I don't quite agree with that. Having a standard, clock-face, hourly timetable makes it much easier to know you'll be able to get a train from A to B at X minutes past the hour. It reduces confusion and makes the railway simpler to use for the many people who have variable working hours or who make unpredicatable or only occasional journeys. For example, I know that trains from my local station are at xx:00 (or close to), that fast trains from Wigan-Manchester are xx:46 and xx:59, and that there are London (via B'ham) trains at xx:28 and London (fast) trains at xx:08 - all without having to look at a timetable.
As long as there are enough, long enough, trains on each route; and decent connections are provided to other destinations (eg. Stafford or Nuneaton) I think this method is - for many if not most - the better option.

 

[DenmarkRail]

1. Liverpool - Stafford does not really need 3 trains per hour (1VT, 2 LM). So, in alternative hours, a VT train could call at Nuneaton instead of Stafford. No extra stops, so no time penalty south of Nuneaton. To let Stafford retain one fast service per hour to London, a stop could be provided every 2 hours on, say, a Manchester - Euston service (possibly omitting a stop somewhere else in alternate hours ), etc., etc. (The main aim being to offer an alternative fast option to Nuneaton from the north, not to improve the Nuneaton/Euston service)

Absolutly not, I WILL NOT trade a VT service for a LNW service stopping everywhere... I want to get to London in 80 minuites, not 2 hours

 

[anti-pacer]

1. Willenhall station (closed by Marples/Beeching) was not reopened.
2. At Walsall, trains tended to use the inconvenient platform outside the main station.
3. Probably needed to be every 30 minutes to compete with buses.

So once the Chase Line has been electrified, how about a Rugeley TV-Wolverhampton service via Walsall?

Hednesford, Cannock, Landywood, and Bloxwich are all places within Wolverhampton's sphere of influence, not to mention it being a good station for connections.

 

[Mathew S]

Absolutly not, I WILL NOT trade a VT service for a LNW service stopping everywhere... I want to get to London in 80 minuites, not 2 hours

I'm not in favour personally of deviating from the clock-face timetable, but I think what @Bevan Price was saying was that extra (fast, VTWC) stops could be provided at Nuneaton by stopping the Liverpool services there in alternate hours instead of Stafford, with a Manchester service picking up the Stafford stop.

Considering your point about journey time, Nuneaton-London and back already has a sub-1 hour service each way morning and evening, with the majority of the services being approx 1h15. If you were referring to Stafford, the majority of journeys are ~1h30, but there are roughly hourly ~1h20 fasts journeys from what I can see. Not sure what your problem is with that, if I'm honest.

As for the fact that you "will not" accept what you perceive as a worse service, I think you rather have to accept what the TOCs offer you. As I've posted on here many times before, the rail system is a compromise and it's never going to be able to meet the needs of all passengers all of the time. If you feel so strongly, and think you can genuinely make a case for extra stops at Nuneaton/Stafford, then I'd suggest making your views known to the TOCs themselves rather than getting shouty on here, which isn't really likely to achieve a great deal other than cause an argument.

 

[DenmarkRail]

I'm not in favour personally of deviating from the clock-face timetable, but I think what @Bevan Price was saying was that extra (fast, VTWC) stops could be provided at Nuneaton by stopping the Liverpool services there in alternate hours instead of Stafford, with a Manchester service picking up the Stafford stop.

Considering your point about journey time, Nuneaton-London and back already has a sub-1 hour service each way morning and evening, with the majority of the services being approx 1h15. If you were referring to Stafford, the majority of journeys are ~1h30, but there are roughly hourly ~1h20 fasts journeys from what I can see. Not sure what your problem is with that, if I'm honest.

As for the fact that you "will not" accept what you perceive as a worse service, I think you rather have to accept what the TOCs offer you. As I've posted on here many times before, the rail system is a compromise and it's never going to be able to meet the needs of all passengers all of the time. If you feel so strongly, and think you can genuinely make a case for extra stops at Nuneaton/Stafford, then I'd suggest making your views known to the TOCs themselves rather than getting shouty on here, which isn't really likely to achieve a great deal other than cause an argument.

The LM services are hourly, and stop at stupid stops... Take virtually 2 hours on a weekday, and sometimes 2.5 hours at a weekend. That is too long for my usage. The VTWC service takes an 1.3 hours, and stops no where. That is a good service. If the LM became the majority, and the VT the minority services, then I'd have to say, I would rather get a CrossCountry to Reading, and get Crossrail to London. Not because of time, but because I don't want to get a train that is stopping every 10 minuites, without a real catering service, and real first class.

If they changed the stopping pattern, to be more like STA-NUN-EUS, then it would be better, but anymore than 1 stop would be tragic. London Midland / LNW just can't appeal to people who use the service regularly... Stafford people don't want to go to Leighton Buzzard or Long Buckby.

I've made this issue clear in the thread before... I'd rather retain VT services, with no intermediate stops, than gaining LM services... Only one off travelers use it, it is just too slow for it to be sustainable.

 

[Mathew S]

The LM services are hourly, and stop at stupid stops... Take virtually 2 hours on a weekday, and sometimes 2.5 hours at a weekend. That is too long for my usage. The VTWC service takes an 1.3 hours, and stops no where. That is a good service. If the LM became the majority, and the VT the minority services, then I'd have to say, I would rather get a CrossCountry to Reading, and get Crossrail to London. Not because of time, but because I don't want to get a train that is stopping every 10 minuites, without a real catering service, and real first class.

If they changed the stopping pattern, to be more like STA-NUN-EUS, then it would be better, but anymore than 1 stop would be tragic. London Midland / LNW just can't appeal to people who use the service regularly... Stafford people don't want to go to Leighton Buzzard or Long Buckby.

I've made this issue clear in the thread before... I'd rather retain VT services, with no intermediate stops, than gaining LM services... Only one off travelers use it, it is just too slow for it to be sustainable.

1.3 hours is (just under) 80 mins, so is exactly what you asked for is it not? I'm aware that Nuneaton only receives these fast VTWC services in the peaks and evenings, however a cursory glance at NRE for tomorrow shows that there are sub-70 minute WMR/LNR services from Nuneaton to London hourly throughout the day calling only at Milton Keynes and Rugby. I think that's a very good service, personally. Is your gripe with the speed/frequency of service, or is it in reality that you prefer travelling with VTWC than WMR/LNR?

 

[B&I]

Reinstate the tunnel from the Stoke line under WCML into Basford Hall yard, but realign at the exit to provide a northbound connection?

Interesting. Where did that tunnel leave the Stoke line?

 

[ag51ruk]

If the LM became the majority, and the VT the minority services, then I'd have to say, I would rather get a CrossCountry to Reading, and get Crossrail to London. Not because of time, but because I don't want to get a train that is stopping every 10 minuites, without a real catering service, and real first class.

You realise that a typical train from Stafford to Reading stops 7 times on the way? And if you think Crossrail trains (when they are running to Reading) will offer first class and catering...

 

[B&I]

1. Liverpool - Stafford does not really need 3 trains per hour (1VT, 2 LM). So, in alternative hours, a VT train could call at Nuneaton instead of Stafford. No extra stops, so no time penalty south of Nuneaton. To let Stafford retain one fast service per hour to London, a stop could be provided every 2 hours on, say, a Manchester - Euston service (possibly omitting a stop somewhere else in alternate hours ), etc., etc. (The main aim being to offer an alternative fast option to Nuneaton from the north, not to improve the Nuneaton/Euston service)

Or 2 Liverpool-Euston services per hour, perhaps one calling Runcorn and Stafford, the other calling Crewe and Nuneaton. I suppose somebody will remind me in a moment that this is impossible because no-one ever ordered enough tilting trains to serve other cities properly after 3 per hour were sent to Birmingham and another 3 per hour to Manchester.

 

[DenmarkRail]

To the person who asked if I have an issue with LNW?

Yes. When there is a service with 0 stops, which offers a good first class, and proper catering, along with real working wifi, and members of onboard staff, plug sockets, I'd rather not get the train that stops at 7 stops on weekdays, with no real catering, rarely plug sockets, rarely a second member of staff, sometimes 3x2 seating, rubbish wifi...

I am starting to thank the lord, you people are not the real route planners.

 

[Hadders]

Blimey.

Good job you don't travel from, say, places like Huntingdon, Kings Lynn, Dover or Brighton to London.

 

[Mathew S]

Yes. When there is a service with 0 stops, which offers a good first class, and proper catering, along with real working wifi, and members of onboard staff, plug sockets, I'd rather not get the train that stops at 7 stops on weekdays, with no real catering, rarely plug sockets, rarely a second member of staff, sometimes 3x2 seating, rubbish wifi...

That's a choice you're free to make, and why WMR/LNR fares can often be significantly cheaper than VTWC; it's how competition works, ultimately. I'm still not clear what the problem is, though? For a journey of ~1h10mins - which btw has two intermediate stops, not seven, don't know where you've got that from - I'm not sure that such things as a full catering service are really necessary. Nice to have, yes, but not a necessity for most people. As for WiFi etc. I don't doubt that WMR/LNR will bring in free WiFi on all their trains, as seems to be the norm with new franchises and, unless they're introduced it without telling anyone, all their trains have a second member of staff.

You're free to choose not to use WMR/LNR of course, that is also how competition works, but your complaints carry a little less weight when the service you're asking for exists, yet you choose not to use it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the things that make a good rail service is offering direct services

Does it?

Personally, I think a better rail service overall is made up by having a consistent timetable and service, and quality connections to enable "non standard" journeys to be made just as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are, in fact, the only practical way of travelling Wigan-Warrington by public transport, a route where I really think there should be a local Northern service, but afaik never has been.

First North Western proposed to operate one (Crewe-Carlisle) using Class 309s, but as they were Mk1 underframe type stock and had slamdoors they were not allowed to start it, and at the time suitable other EMUs weren't available.

There are of course suitable EMUs available now, but I guess it wouldn't be a money spinner so isn't being revisited.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was never suggesting that STA should get an hourly service to Scotland, just a little extra than hourly VTWC/LNWR Liverpool / EUS

It gets the XCs as well.

 

[DenmarkRail]

That's a choice you're free to make, and why WMR/LNR fares can often be significantly cheaper than VTWC; it's how competition works, ultimately. I'm still not clear what the problem is, though? For a journey of ~1h10mins - which btw has two intermediate stops, not seven, don't know where you've got that from - I'm not sure that such things as a full catering service are really necessary. Nice to have, yes, but not a necessity for most people. As for WiFi etc. I don't doubt that WMR/LNR will bring in free WiFi on all their trains, as seems to be the norm with new franchises and, unless they're introduced it without telling anyone, all their trains have a second member of staff.

You're free to choose not to use WMR/LNR of course, that is also how competition works, but your complaints carry a little less weight when the service you're asking for exists, yet you choose not to use it.

Al

A) The service I was asking for originally was STA to Glasgow Central [GLC]
B)There are not 2 stops, there are: Rugely, Litchfield, Tamworth, Atherstone, Nuneaton, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Watford, London
C) Weekends are worse: Rugely, Litchfield, Tamworth, Atherstone, Nuneaton, Rugby, Leighton Buzzard, Northampton, Long Buckby, Milton Keynes, Watford, London