Euston to Glasgow needs to go half-hourly

[Mgameing123]

Opersting in diesel makes them even more difficult to path…




the latter, until someone spends some money on power upgrades, some additional capacity and/or electric freight haulage.

I can see the Glasgow via Birmingham service diverted over HS2

 

[The Planner]

I can see the Glasgow via Birmingham service diverted over HS2

Doubt it.

 

[Zomboid]

Haven't they descoped the track on the north side of the triangle? AIUI they're building the bridges but not laying track on them. So Curzon will only have London services.

 

[cle]

Haven't they descoped the track on the north side of the triangle? AIUI they're building the bridges but not laying track on them. So Curzon will only have London services.

ugh, what a stupid country... that would be a real shame, and a joke. Even if not national, I could see that being useful for regional services out of Birmingham, if the HS ones didn't eventuate. For example, send a Liverpool tph that way, or extend the Manchester-Stoke.

XC services to Manchester begin elsewhrre so more complex to split them, vs B'ham starters. Of course the best consolation prize would be getting to the Derby line somehow (also from WCML)

 

[Zomboid]

ugh, what a stupid country... that would be a real shame, and a joke. Even if not national, I could see that being useful for regional services out of Birmingham, if the HS ones didn't eventuate. For example, send a Liverpool tph that way, or extend the Manchester-Stoke.

XC services to Manchester begin elsewhrre so more complex to split them, vs B'ham starters. Of course the best consolation prize would be getting to the Derby line somehow (also from WCML)

I could be wrong about that. There would be benefits to sending some of the trains that go north from Birmingham via the Trent Valley, but that would probably just create a bottleneck somewhere else. Though the only trains I can think of that would use it would be the Birmingham to Scotland services, which is all of 1 per hour.

 

[The Planner]

The track will be put in when Hansdacre is built. Not initially putting the track in isn't descoping.

 

[cle]

I could be wrong about that. There would be benefits to sending some of the trains that go north from Birmingham via the Trent Valley, but that would probably just create a bottleneck somewhere else. Though the only trains I can think of that would use it would be the Birmingham to Scotland services, which is all of 1 per hour.

Issue is that they themselves come from Euston. But you're right, anything out of Curzon onto the WCML will at Colwich, count towards the various capacity limits. One would hope that with a four track railway, you could get more through but it would need at least a dive-under on the up side. Norton Bridge is ok now at least. Even a Birmingham-Tamworth-Lichfield-Stafford-Crewe shuttle might be of use, and provide another corridor into B'ham. Or direct them to Liverpool, or North Wales. The Wolverhampton route sees a very eclectic mix of services, and is slower as a result of it.

 

[Zomboid]

The current Birmingham to Scotland trains are from Euston, but there's not a huge number of people who stay on them across New St. Of course there's nothing to stop them doing much the same as today and reversing at Curzon. Might be drifting off topic a little now, though.

 

[voyagerdude220]

Thats asking for trouble! Overcrowded XC trains plus the use of Platform 14. You might aswell keep the direct BHM-GLC if you are keeping 1tp2h BHM-EDB.

Agreed with your platform 14 concerns.

It's a shame there isn't a realistic chance of XC alternatively extending (even it was only a small number a day) their network as far North West as Preston, avoiding Manchester, to reconnect Preston with the XC network and also increase the frequency of trains Preston-Warrington-Crewe etc.

 

[The Planner]

Issue is that they themselves come from Euston. But you're right, anything out of Curzon onto the WCML will at Colwich, count towards the various capacity limits. One would hope that with a four track railway, you could get more through but it would need at least a dive-under on the up side. Norton Bridge is ok now at least. Even a Birmingham-Tamworth-Lichfield-Stafford-Crewe shuttle might be of use, and provide another corridor into B'ham. Or direct them to Liverpool, or North Wales. The Wolverhampton route sees a very eclectic mix of services, and is slower as a result of it.

How is that going to work at Tamworth? Wolves is slow due to many issues, the timetable is only a minor part of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Back to whether something could be removed to allow this to happen, I don't see why dropping Birmingham-Euston back to 2tph would be a problem. The slow isn't busy at most times of day aside from a couple of peak services*, it would give Milton Keynes better connectivity with its direct Scotland back which it has now lost, and Chiltern and WMT are more popular anyway due to their more reasonable prices (and even if GBR drop dedicated walk up fares this effect is likely to continue by way of Advances).

* Which we could look at to see if the peaks for Birmingham are the same as the peaks for Glasgow. If as I suspect they aren't (the peaks for long distance aren't the traditional Monday-Friday commuting peaks - quite the opposite indeed - more like Friday evening and Sunday afternoon) then issues could be reduced by not running the additional Glasgow in the traditional commuting peaks into/out of London and putting the third Birmingham in the paths at those times instead, except Friday evening when commuting is now very low.

 

[Zomboid]

The slow isn't busy at most times of day aside from a couple of peak services*

It never will be from London (at least for Birmingham passengers), leaving 4 minutes behind a first stop Coventry service, but there is a value to giving Watford, MK and Rugby regular services to Birmingham and each other.

I keep coming to the view that the existing service is probably about as good as can reasonably be expected, at least at the southern end. Extending the LNWR Crewe service to Liverpool via Warrington/ Preston/ Manchester would be a positive move if space existed, and I think portion operation of the Chester service with a set for Preston/ Blackpool would help spread the load on the Glasgow fast trains, and by serving Blackpool that way the existing services could be diverted to Scotland.

I think at some point the nettle is going to need to be grasped and electric freight haulage mandated for much of the day over Shap and Beattock to make that part of the network work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It never will be from London (at least for Birmingham passengers), leaving 4 minutes behind a first stop Coventry service, but there is a value to giving Watford, MK and Rugby regular services to Birmingham and each other.

The faster WMT services are probably adequate to connect the three to each other, to be fair, it's only when they turn right to go via Northampton that their slower journey time starts to be significant. I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be one that stops at Watford/MKC/Rugby, it's more that you could easily get away with having two and putting those stops in one or both of those (as pathing requires) as was the case for a few years after COVID without capacity problems.

I think at some point the nettle is going to need to be grasped and electric freight haulage mandated for much of the day over Shap and Beattock to make that part of the network work.

This certainly needs doing. There should be a requirement that any train operating on the ECML, WCML, GWML etc should be able to maintain linespeed or its own locomotive/stock's maximum speed (whichever is lower, obviously) throughout its journey aside from where signalling or other safety matters would not permit that. The waste of paths on the north WCML that exists just because freight operators can't be bothered to haul their trains with sufficient power because it might cost them money is nothing short of a disgrace. It is, in effect, subsidising private pockets at the expense of the passenger service.

 

[The Planner]

I assume people will want a second fast Scotland at a suitable gap from the first at xx.30. The via West Mids is xx.40 which is fast. The next Birmingham at xx.10 is the fast with the slow at xx.14, so presumably the xx.10 is the candidate if Birmingham is the loser is this. It would work as far as Colwich as the xx.13 Manchester via Stoke is behind it. It would likely need the retiming of the Chester as it would catch it at Stafford. Gets a bit problematic around Euxton but it might work. Not looked the other way.

 

[Sorcerer]

Assuming that the fast Birmingham could be replaced by a second hourly fast to Scotland, should it also alternate between Glasgow and Edinburgh? If it were to be a second hourly Glasgow only then you would potentially be dealing with three trains per hour in and out of Glasgow Central. Platforms 1 and 2 are usually dedicated to the Anglo-Scottish InterCity services, but otherwise I think the only other option would be Platform 9.

If you were to alternate this hypothetical second fast between Glasgow and Edinburgh it could take turns with the via Birmingham service, or perhaps alternatively it just could become London to Edinburgh direct. I wouldn't bank on that idea though since apparently Virgin were unable to justify even one daily service direct to Euston and withdrew it.

 

[Peter0124]

Assuming that the fast Birmingham could be replaced by a second hourly fast to Scotland, should it also alternate between Glasgow and Edinburgh? If it were to be a second hourly Glasgow only then you would potentially be dealing with three trains per hour in and out of Glasgow Central. Platforms 1 and 2 are usually dedicated to the Anglo-Scottish InterCity services, but otherwise I think the only other option would be Platform 9.

If you were to alternate this hypothetical second fast between Glasgow and Edinburgh it could take turns with the via Birmingham service, or perhaps alternatively it just could become London to Edinburgh direct. I wouldn't bank on that idea though since apparently Virgin were unable to justify even one daily service direct to Euston and withdrew it.

The problem with Euston - Edinburgh direct is Kings Cross is only 10 minutes walk away and I can see there being 3tph LNER in the future. Whereas Glasgow doesn't really have an alternative train-wise.

Yes Edinburgh demand is likely 1.5x or possibly even double what Glasgow is but even if additional services to Glasgow were provided on Friday-Monday only (as its predominantly a leisure travel/visiting family market IIRC)

 

[Sorcerer]

The problem with Euston - Edinburgh direct is Kings Cross is only 10 minutes walk away and I can see there being 3tph LNER in the future. Whereas Glasgow doesn't really have an alternative train-wise.

On a purely preferential basis I think that if I were living in London and I could get a direct Edinburgh train from both stations, I think that I'd probably go for Avanti every time. Not to say LNER is a bad operator, but if my experience on an 802 with TransPennine Express for three hours is anything to go by then I really wouldn't fancy a four-hour trip on an 800/801.

By contrast I have travelled on the London-Glasgow fast on a 390 back in the Virgin days, and though the seats have changed since I would still gladly do it again. Assuming pricing wasn't an obstacle I would expect many would agree with me, though I do still accept that it's really all about demand and feasibility. If anything a London-Edinburgh WCML fast would probably serve the intermediates more than it would the end points.

 

[AndrewE]

The problem with Euston - Edinburgh direct is Kings Cross is only 10 minutes walk away and I can see there being 3tph LNER in the future. Whereas Glasgow doesn't really have an alternative train-wise.

Yes Edinburgh demand is likely 1.5x or possibly even double what Glasgow is but even if additional services to Glasgow were provided on Friday-Monday only (as its predominantly a leisure travel/visiting family market IIRC)

but this isn't just about [more] provision for Euston... It's about the N end of the line being under-served (and especially N from Crewe, in my mind.)

I very much like the idea of swapping one of the Brum Pendolinos for an extra Trent valley Scottish train if it won't hurt Brum, plus the Milton Keynes to the NW improvement, especially if both peaks of demand out of London can still be accomodated. Serving Glasgow and Edinburgh alternately might work well too. I just hope this isn't completely dependant on HS2 as swapping a Brum terminator over to the TV for Scotland could be done now - we "just" need the rolling stock and power supply for it!

 

[Nottingham59]

I very much like the idea of swapping one of the Brum Pendolinos for an extra Trent valley Scottish train if it won't hurt Brum, plus the Milton Keynes to the NW improvement, especially if both peaks of demand out of London can still be accomodated. Serving Glasgow and Edinburgh alternately might work well too. I just hope this isn't completely dependant on HS2 as swapping a Brum terminator over to the TV for Scotland could be done now - we "just" need the rolling stock and power supply for it!

Unfortunately, I don't think there is capacity through Colwich. The big benefit of going via Birmingham is that it avoids Colwich, at the cost of longer journey times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately, I don't think there is capacity through Colwich. The big benefit of going via Birmingham is that it avoids Colwich, at the cost of longer journey times.

The big benefit of going via Birmingham is that it provides a Euston-Birmingham service and a Birmingham-North West-Scotland one - these were separate services for years. Sticking them together was a pretty clever idea, though, in that it added through journey opportunities and increased capacity (by taking out an overlapping section and some layover time) without really causing any problems at all. It wasn't sent that way to avoid Colwich!

Don't forget that slower services from A to B are not usually about journeys from A to B, but rather about intermediate trips.

 

[Zomboid]

If Colwich is the bottleneck (I realise this is an oversimplification) and the New St to Wolves corridor is, then what's the penalty for going via the Grand Junction? And how much could that be alleviated with some sensible upgrades (eg faster s&c where possible, any alignments which could support higher speeds)?

You come out on the slows at Stafford, but this hypothetical train doesn't have to go to Scotland, just possibly make space for one which does...

 

[AndrewE]

Unfortunately, I don't think there is capacity through Colwich. The big benefit of going via Birmingham is that it avoids Colwich, at the cost of longer journey times.

The big benefit of going via Birmingham is that it provides a Euston-Birmingham service and a Birmingham-North West-Scotland one - these were separate services for years. Sticking them together was a pretty clever idea, though, in that it added through journey opportunities and increased capacity (by taking out an overlapping section and some layover time) without really causing any problems at all. It wasn't sent that way to avoid Colwich!

So we keep the existing class 9, but add in one of the trains that currently goes to Brum, and avoid Colwich (if needed) by going Rugby Coventry - Bescot -Stafford. What would be the time penalty for that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So we keep the existing class 9, but add in one of the trains that currently goes to Brum, and avoid Colwich (if needed) by going Rugby Coventry - Bescot -Stafford. What would be the time penalty for that?

Based on vague memory of Manchester-London diversions somewhere between half an hour and an hour doing a very slow trundle via the industrial landscape of Brum. It doesn't really save anything compared to going via New St, just avoids clogging that up.

 

[The Planner]

but this isn't just about [more] provision for Euston... It's about the N end of the line being under-served (and especially N from Crewe, in my mind.)

I very much like the idea of swapping one of the Brum Pendolinos for an extra Trent valley Scottish train if it won't hurt Brum, plus the Milton Keynes to the NW improvement, especially if both peaks of demand out of London can still be accomodated. Serving Glasgow and Edinburgh alternately might work well too. I just hope this isn't completely dependant on HS2 as swapping a Brum terminator over to the TV for Scotland could be done now - we "just" need the rolling stock and power supply for it!

It crumbles if you add a MK stop in.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is capacity through Colwich. The big benefit of going via Birmingham is that it avoids Colwich, at the cost of longer journey times.

Northbound it works, not looked the other way.

If Colwich is the bottleneck (I realise this is an oversimplification) and the New St to Wolves corridor is, then what's the penalty for going via the Grand Junction? And how much could that be alleviated with some sensible upgrades (eg faster s&c where possible, any alignments which could support higher speeds)?

You come out on the slows at Stafford, but this hypothetical train doesn't have to go to Scotland, just possibly make space for one which does...

Cov corridor is your problem there, Stechford and Aston especially so, and the power issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It crumbles if you add a MK stop in.

I don't think we were talking about putting an MK stop in, but rather that because the Birmingham-Scotland would go back to being linked to the Euston-Birmingham semifast as it was before the two fasts started running MK would get its (slow) direct connectivity to Scotland back.

 

[RT4038]

This certainly needs doing. There should be a requirement that any train operating on the ECML, WCML, GWML etc should be able to maintain linespeed or its own locomotive/stock's maximum speed (whichever is lower, obviously) throughout its journey aside from where signalling or other safety matters would not permit that. The waste of paths on the north WCML that exists just because freight operators can't be bothered to haul their trains with sufficient power because it might cost them money is nothing short of a disgrace. It is, in effect, subsidising private pockets at the expense of the passenger service.

No it is not. 'Can't be bothered' - It is about keeping freight on the railway, rather than upping prices which will move freight traffic onto the motorway because it is cheaper (and ultimately keeping consumer prices down).

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it is not. 'Can't be bothered' - It is about keeping freight on the railway, rather than upping prices which will move freight traffic onto the motorway because it is cheaper (and ultimately keeping consumer prices down).

If it would be of more benefit to have a passenger service take that path, then let it move onto the motorway. A car per passenger of an 11 car Pendolino is certainly more of an issue than maybe ten to fifteen lorries. But realistically they would probably just cough up and keep it on rail anyway.

The WCML is an expensive asset - it's not a good use of it to be trundling underpowered freight over Shap at 20mph when you can fill a Pendolino with passengers. And if you can't, then this service isn't needed anyway!

 

[SeanM1997]

Could an option be at certain hours to run 2x Class 805s paired - one goes to Chester, one goes to Preston, with a split in Crewe. That would give more connectivity between Crewe & Warrington, and would not need more paths in/around Euston. This may not be required every hour but could run on the opposite hour to the Holyhead services. Would require more trains to be ordered though

 

[RT4038]

If it would be of more benefit to have a passenger service take that path, then let it move onto the motorway. A car per passenger of an 11 car Pendolino is certainly more of an issue than maybe ten to fifteen lorries. But realistically they would probably just cough up and keep it on rail anyway.

The WCML is an expensive asset - it's not a good use of it to be trundling underpowered freight over Shap at 20mph when you can fill a Pendolino with passengers. And if you can't, then this service isn't needed anyway!

Assuming an extra 11 car Pendolino takes that many cars of the road (I doubt it) rather than (a) generating a load of journeys that are not currently undertaken (b) spreading the load between it and other trains so it is mostly unused capacity being provided. Perhaps lengthen the existing trains over this section first?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming an extra 11 car Pendolino takes that many cars of the road (I doubt it) rather than (a) generating a load of journeys that are not currently undertaken (b) spreading the load between it and other trains so it is mostly unused capacity being provided. Perhaps lengthen the existing trains over this section first?

If the additional service wouldn't allow significantly more passengers to be carried, i.e. that it would just mean two half-full Pendolinos rather than one full one, then the upgrade is a bad idea. However these services are often very busy. Though significantly busier to the North West than Scotland, so maybe we should actually just be looking at adding an hourly Preston/Blackpool/Lancaster instead which would avoid the Shap issue?