Idea to optimise the WCML (ignoring HS2)

[321362]

I was extremely bored on a long journey up to Glasgow recently and decided it would be fun to try to "fix" the WCML (even if it doesn't need fixing).

This mostly covers the southern section, as imo TPE et al are doing fine-ish with their services (whenever it's not a 397 it seems to be fine).

I'm sure there are many issues with this, so that's why I'm putting it up here! Please point out all the problems and things that don't work. However, don't just say "it doesn't work because it would never work", actually explain and offer solutions.

Thanks.

Fasts

2tph Euston, MKC, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport, Mcr Picc
1tph Euston, Watford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Mcr Picc
1tph Euston, Rugby, Lichfield TV, Crewe, Runcorn, Liv Lime St
1tph Euston, Nuneaton, Crewe, Runcorn, Liv Lime St
1tph Euston, Stafford, Crewe, Chester, Flint, Prestatyn, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno Jcn, Bangor, Holyhead
1tph Euston, Lichfield TV, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme LD, Penrith NL, Carlisle, Motherwell, Glasgow C
1tph Euston, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow C
1tph Euston, Watford, MKC, Coventry, Birmingham Intl, Birmingham NS, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme LD, Penrith NL, Carlisle, Lockerbie (?), Haymarket, Edinburgh Waverley
1tph Euston, Coventry, Bham Intl, Bham NS, Wolverhampton (?), could continue to Shrewsbury but undecided yet.
1tph Euston, MKC, Rugby, Coventry, Bham Intl, Bham NS

Slows

1tph Watford, Harrow, Wembley, Shepherds Bush and all stations to East Croydon
4tph Watford DC all stations
Existing Bakerloo Line frequency as far as Harrow
2tph Euston, Harrow, Bushey, Watford, Kings Langley, Apsley, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted, Tring
1tph Euston, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MKC, Wolverton, Northampton
1tph Euston, Watford, Bletchley, MKC, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry, Hampton in Arden, Birmingham Intl, Birmingham NS
2tph Euston, Watford, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MKC, Rugby, Coventry, Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell, Hampton-in-Arden, Birmingham Intl, Marston Green, Birmingham NS
1tph Euston, Harrow, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted, Tring, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MKC
1tph Euston, Watford, MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield TV, Rugeley TV, Stafford, Crewe
1tpd Euston, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield TV, Stafford, Crewe

 

[JonathanH]

it would be fun to try to "fix" the WCML (even if it doesn't need fixing)

Please point out all the problems and things that don't work. However, don't just say "it doesn't work because it would never work", actually explain and offer solutions.

That works both ways though for anyone trying to comment.

Is it possible that you could explain what you are trying to 'fix' and why the services are set out in the way you have them above, to help with understanding what comments should be made?

Stops south of Rugby in the fast services need to be flighted to make them work. The paths further north affect all sorts of other services, so there is not all that much that can be done with the timings. The movement of xx00, xx20, xx40 to xx53, xx13, xx33 for the Manchester services seems to have been to some extent about putting stops in further south while keeping them in roughly the same path further north.

Slowing down services to call at more stops doesn't necessarily make them better, particularly given Manchester to London is a prime route on the network. Does making more calls in the Trent Valley make connectivity better or journeys from the North West to London worse?

 

[Helvellyn]

I think it'd be good to know what you would propose for TPE - you have left Penrith with only an hourly service and nothing to Edinburgh/Birmingham which as the railhead for the North Lakes seems odd.

I'd consider the Euston-Birmingham-Edinburgh alternating Oxenholme/Penrith every other hour.

For your Euston-Glasgow I'd consider one being fast and the other semi-fast, that is the fast skips Oxenholme, Penrith and Motherwell; the semi-fast stops at all three.

 

[MatthewE707]

I imagine you would have trouble with the number of fast trains you have stopping at Watford and MKC (and Rugby in some cases). For example, in the current timetable, the 1710 from Euston goes non-stop to Coventry and arrives there after 54 minutes. The 1716 then stops at Watford, MKC and Rugby and arrives at Coventry after 69 minutes, introducing a 15 minute delay. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may work better spreading calls at those three stations over different services.

Also, running London-Manchester services via Stafford instead of the direct line from Rugeley to Stone will increase journey times by about 7 minutes, when you have other trains from London - Stafford (although admittedly you could probably do with one more), and Stafford - Manchester is served by CrossCountry

 

[321362]

Is it possible that you could explain what you are trying to 'fix'

by fixing, I purely mean redoing all the services for my own entertainment. Maybe don't put me in charge of this any time soon, clearly!

you have left Penrith with only an hourly service and nothing to Edinburgh/Birmingham which as the railhead for the North Lakes seems odd.

I'd consider the Euston-Birmingham-Edinburgh alternating Oxenholme/Penrith every other hour.

For your Euston-Glasgow I'd consider one being fast and the other semi-fast, that is the fast skips Oxenholme, Penrith and Motherwell; the semi-fast stops at all three.

I doubt it needs to alternate Oxenholme/Penrith at all, it could stop at both like they all used to. It doesn't make a huge difference to slow down the all stations service to Edinburgh, which is more about connecting the places en route and less about the actual capital to capital traffic.

Euston to Glasgow that idea is a shout.

I imagine you would have trouble with the number of fast trains you have stopping at Watford and MKC (and Rugby in some cases). I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may work better spreading calls at those three stations over different services.

Also, running London-Manchester services via Stafford instead of the direct line from Rugeley to Stone will increase journey times by about 7 minutes, when you have other trains from London - Stafford (although admittedly you could probably do with one more), and Stafford - Manchester is served by CrossCountry

Fair point about WFJ/MKC. I think Watford has potential to be a very good M25 Parkway, which it already does to some extent, but MKC and Rugby can probably be dropped on some.

I completely forgot there was even a line from Rugeley to Stone bypassing Stafford, that's the only reason why!



I'll edit all these in to the original post. Any more suggestions/edits are welcomed.

 

[The Planner]

Too many Watford stops as already noted, you couldnt path 10tph fast with that many Watford stops. Any reason for getting rid of the fast LNWR services that go to Northampton and Crewe? Rugby has lost out too. First stop Polesworth is barking mad.

 

[321362]

I think it'd be good to know what you would propose for TPE

I'm not super familiar with TPE's operations as much as I am with the southern WCML, but I'll have a bash at it this evening.

Overall, would you all say that Euston to Shrewsbury is a good idea?

Does making more calls in the Trent Valley make connectivity better or journeys from the North West to London worse?

More frequent Trent Valley stops relieve some pressure on Bham New St, as the catchment area for Lichfield etc overlaps with the eastern suburbs of Brum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==

Too many Watford stops as already noted, you couldnt path 10tph fast with that many Watford stops. Any reason for getting rid of the fast LNWR services that go to Northampton and Crewe? Rugby has lost out too. First stop Polesworth is barking mad.

I think Northampton or Crewe, rather than both, but I'm happy to add in a Northampton stop on the Euston to Crewe.

First stop Polesworth was just me having a giggle. The one train a day can run as a Polesworth Express for that incredibly large passenger flow at 5am from London to Polesworth

I'll try to add in a few more LNWR stops at Rugby.

 

[Zomboid]

You seem to be missing the WLL service, not that it runs far up the WCML, but it does take a path at least as far as Watford.

 

[The Planner]

I'm not super familiar with TPE's operations as much as I am with the southern WCML, but I'll have a bash at it this evening.

Overall, would you all say that Euston to Shrewsbury is a good idea?

More frequent Trent Valley stops relieve some pressure on Bham New St, as the catchment area for Lichfield etc overlaps with the eastern suburbs of Brum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==


I think Northampton or Crewe, rather than both, but I'm happy to add in a Northampton stop on the Euston to Crewe.

No, keep the current 2 fast LNWR to Northampton. Adding it to Crewe service slows it down by 15 minutes or more.

First stop Polesworth was just me having a giggle. The one train a day can run as a Polesworth Express for that incredibly large passenger flow at 5am from London to Polesworth

I'll try to add in a few more LNWR stops at Rugby.

Rugby needs 2tph via a fast Avanti. One needs to be a Birmingham as now. Have you reduced Euston to Birmingham to 1tph that stops everywhere? Again, barking mad. Get rid of that second Chester service too, no need for it.

 

[321362]

You seem to be missing the WLL service, not that it runs far up the WCML, but it does take a path at least as far as Watford.

Good point. Same with the watford dc services.

In an ideal world the southern WLL services wouldn't need to exist, as the LO wll services would be good enough. They alternatively could run into an upgraded Willesden Junction which also had some LNR stops.

No, keep the current 2 fast LNWR to Northampton. Adding it to Crewe service slows it down by 15 minutes or more.

Rugby needs 2tph via a fast Avanti. One needs to be a Birmingham as now. Have you reduced Euston to Birmingham to 1tph that stops everywhere? Again, barking mad. Get rid of that second Chester service too, no need for it.

Good point about slowing down the Crewe.

With the existing idea, Rugby has 2tph Avanti which both run express to Euston. LNR can link Rugby to MKC and Northampton.

Birmingham, I agree, no idea how that slipped my mind! Possibly I was unconsciously factoring in HS2, contradicting the literal thread title

The second Chester is also probably unnecessary.

 

[MatthewE707]

Since I've been making my own timetable for the WCML today, I might try to turn your plan into a timetable to see if it works if I have time tomorrow.

 

[321362]

Since I've been making my own timetable for the WCML today, I'll try to turn your plan into a timetable to see if it works when I have time tomorrow.

Amazing, thanks!!


Side note: I've scrapped all the Tamworth stops on Avanti. Just don't need it when you've got Nuneaton and Lichfield.
Maybe keep 1tpd just to avoid the media headlines like TRAIN OPERATOR TOTALLY CUTS SERVICE TO MIDLANDS TOWN

 

[Brubulus]

There appear to be 2 major problems north of Handsacre
You have 1 too many trains an hour through Colwich, it would be unable to cope.
Secondly, you'd have to enforce performance standards for freight north of Lancaster to fit 2tph to Glasgow.

 

[321362]

There appear to be 2 major problems north of Handsacre
You have 1 too many trains an hour through Colwich, it would be unable to cope.
Secondly, you'd have to enforce performance standards for freight north of Lancaster to fit 2tph to Glasgow.

Is there any way to upgrade Colwich with minimal effort/cost to allow it to handle the increased flow?

And only time will tell if 93s are going to be a big enough upgrade on 66s to work with the new capacity.

 

[Dr Day]

What you are trying to optimise?

Passenger Revenue? Revenue over operating costs? Bums on seats? Trains per hour? Seats per hour? Freight tonnage? Passenger km? CO2 reduction versus today? Delay minutes?

Different ‘stakeholders’ will have very different opinions on what the problem is that needs fixing.

 

[A S Leib]

Side note: I've scrapped all the Tamworth stops on Avanti. Just don't need it when you've got Nuneaton and Lichfield.
Maybe keep 1tpd just to avoid the media headlines like TRAIN OPERATOR TOTALLY CUTS SERVICE TO MIDLANDS TOWN

I know that that was effectively the status quo from the Virgin High Frequency timetable(?) up until Covid, but I wouldn't say having Nuneaton and Lichfield calls would compensate for skipping Tamworth. The second Trent Valley stopper which you've put in should though.

More frequent Trent Valley stops relieve some pressure on Bham New St, as the catchment area for Lichfield etc overlaps with the eastern suburbs of Brum.

That's also a case for serving Tamworth, given that e.g. Milton Keynes to Nottingham, Sheffield etc. passengers can change there instead of at New Street. Neither of them have particularly pleasant platforms at which to wait, but it still spreads the load.

 

[cle]

I do think that a Manchester call for Watford is more valuable than a Birmingham one. It does currently have slow Birmingham services too. But both are ideal.

There is some serious MKC erasure there.

Tamworth is about as busy as Lichfield, I think a shade more. But unsure re WCML numbers specifically.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Stafford seems to be cut to 1 an hour fast from Euston?

 

[London Trains]

Secondly, you'd have to enforce performance standards for freight north of Lancaster to fit 2tph to Glasgow.

Would this still be the case if the upcoming Lumo service didn't exist?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Secondly, you'd have to enforce performance standards for freight north of Lancaster to fit 2tph to Glasgow.

Good. It's about time it was enforced.

 

[Brubulus]

Would this still be the case if the upcoming Lumo service didn't exist?

Yes, the only reason it got past the ORR is that is was a set of non clock face, non electric paths that fit in with the freight schedule just about, though at the cost of being a further hit to resilience on the south WCML. There is no capacity for any additional clock face services, though if it were removed you could likely fit 1tph, at the cost of destroying any pretence of reliability. WSMR could have fit, but the reliability risk was too large for the ORR.

This timetable (or the current timetable + WSMR or Lumo Rochdale but not both) could work but it would require cancellations at the slightest hint of disruption, which isn't really the end of the world but would require a new approach to planning.

 

[London Trains]

Deleted

 

[Bald Rick]

Stafford?

Also:

Too many trains New St to Wolves
Too many trains north of Preston
Lots of journeys slowed down
Euston fast to Polesworth… on the Slows?
etc

 

[The Planner]

Good. It's about time it was enforced.

Don't see how you can do it under the current regime. If the FOC is a cause of a delay they take the minutes.

 

[Class15]

In an ideal world the southern WLL services wouldn't need to exist, as the LO wll services would be good enough. They alternatively could run into an upgraded Willesden Junction which also had some LNR stops.

The Southern WLL services, contrary to popular belief on this forum, are well used and making everyone change at Willesden wouldn’t go down well at all.

Plus, don’t forget that Willesden High Level has 8tph off peak and over 10tph peak as it has both the Richmond and Clapham North/West London line branches. Plus limited freight traffic largely off the Great Western. If going into the turnback siding, the southern train needs to sit in the platform for at least 5 minutes to be emptied. There isn’t the capacity for that.

 

[Zomboid]

Don't see how you can do it under the current regime. If the FOC is a cause of a delay they take the minutes.

There'd have to be a rule to say that anything that hasn't got a certain hp or TE/kg ratio sits in a loop until a suitably slow path over the hills is available, most likely over night.

I'm sure it could be done if there were a will to create and enforce such a rule.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

The Southern WLL services, contrary to popular belief on this forum, are well used and making everyone change at Willesden wouldn’t go down well at all.

Plus, don’t forget that Willesden High Level has 8tph off peak and over 10tph peak as it has both the Richmond and Clapham North/West London line branches. Plus limited freight traffic largely off the Great Western. If going into the turnback siding, the southern train needs to sit in the platform for at least 5 minutes to be emptied. There isn’t the capacity for that.

Ideally there would be capacity for more WLL services. It's a shame the track doesn't seem to work for them running on the DC lines, there's probably capacity between the 4tph to Euston.

 

[NCT]

Even as a speculative thread, it'd be nice to have a problem statement clearly set out and an explanation of how and why this solution responds to the problems identified, rather than 'here's a solution, what about it?'

 

[30907]

Stafford?

Also:

Too many trains New St to Wolves
Too many trains north of Preston
Lots of journeys slowed down
Euston fast to Polesworth… on the Slows?
etc

And does N Wales justify an hourly London (plus a Liverpool, a Manchester and one a Cardiff/Brum)?

 

[Zomboid]

And does N Wales justify an hourly London (plus a Liverpool, a Manchester and one a Cardiff/Brum)?

I would interpret that as they all go to Chester, but not all carry on beyond.

The crayonist in me wonders if sending the Chester terminators to the bay platforms at Hooton for a better interchange with Merseyrail would achieve anything worthwhile. Though that would need another unit and clearly it wouldn't...

 

[cle]

There'd have to be a rule to say that anything that hasn't got a certain hp or TE/kg ratio sits in a loop until a suitably slow path over the hills is available, most likely over night.

I'm sure it could be done if there were a will to create and enforce such a rule.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==


Ideally there would be capacity for more WLL services. It's a shame the track doesn't seem to work for them running on the DC lines, there's probably capacity between the 4tph to Euston.

I've often thought that a push to isolate the DC tracks more at and around the Euston approaches might enable a 5-6 tph service, which in turn might allow the Bakerloo to end at Stonebridge Park (Wembley Central would really be ideal, ironically - as the last busy station). Would be far more efficient.

Even as a speculative thread, it'd be nice to have a problem statement clearly set out and an explanation of how and why this solution responds to the problems identified, rather than 'here's a solution, what about it?'

Well, yes but this isn't work - it's just a bit of fun and chat for enthusiasts. Not to be taken so seriously.

And does N Wales justify an hourly London (plus a Liverpool, a Manchester and one a Cardiff/Brum)?

I think probably not - and if Liverpool had an hourly added to Bangor or Llandudno, much of the local and regional demand would be covered. But many places have an hourly London service that don't need it - at the extremities of the network, often London services add frequency.