Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Indeed. Will Chiltern for example be the sole budget option, or will the differential be maintained? If so how will things be branded to differentiate, or will it just be Advances done in a similar way to Northern and TfW i.e. in near unlimited numbers right up to departure?
I'm not really sure how that would happen - eg I'm not sure how the service would be restructured to be 'more integrated'. LNR go via Northampton on Birmingham services. Avanti go via Weedon. LNR serve the stations in the West Midlands that Avanti go straight through. What are you thinking?
Indeed. Will Chiltern for example be the sole budget option, or will the differential be maintained? If so how will things be branded to differentiate, or will it just be Advances done in a similar way to Northern and TfW i.e. in near unlimited numbers right up to departure?
I wonder if it could provide a new link structure. As it stands despite having some early morning departures out of Euston, London Northwestern do not have a depot based there, the nearest one being Bletchley. For example, Euston under One West Coast could eventually have starter links signing 350/730s and running short diagrams to Tring, Milton Keynes and Northampton while more senior link drivers cover long distance diagrams like London to Crewe as well as the current Avanti services ran by 390s and 805/807s. It would provide greater flexibility of spare drivers because no route or traction knowledge is lost.
(As a short disclaimer I must be clear that I'm not an expert on how link structures currently work).
I'm not really sure how that would happen - eg I'm not sure how the service would be restructured to be 'more integrated'. LNR go via Northampton on Birmingham services. Avanti go via Weedon. LNR serve the stations in the West Midlands that Avanti go straight through. What are you thinking?
That would mean a rather limited number of trains with first class (or which could really be called intercity) calling at Watford Junction, at least until HS2 or other timetable recasts could lead to another all-day intercity service. (I know it's not an issue likely to affect tonnes of passengers as first class travel's even more disproportionately weighted towards London than standard; Watford Junction to Euston's already standard class only, and Milton Keynes and Rugby have others as well.)
Presumably East West Rail services will go to the WM business unit along with Chiltern.
Where does that leave the Marston Vale line, the only diesel-worked line in the ex-LNWR basket?
I still predict, if not initially, it will be more that the duplicate Chiltern Bletchley depot will go away as quickly as it was created and EWR will, for now, be operated alongside the Marston Vale by WMT and will have guards, with the newly recruited whatever-they're-called either becoming Chiltern or WMT line guards as appropriate.
Presumably also, the class 350/730 fleets will need to be split.
The planned Birmingham-Manchester Airport service will be awkwardly set between the WM and WC operations (not to mention Northern).
I doubt we are going to end up with a Merseyrail style split for either Bee or West Midlands here - there's just too much overlap with other stuff, and removing it to the level of Merseyrail would reduce service quality given how people actually use it. More likely it will be GBR operated but with the West Midlands specifying fares, service levels, livery etc - but West Midlands liveried units will still turn up at Euston just as Merseytravel Pacers always hung around anywhere on the North West network.
This is how it works more or less everywhere, including the Germanic countries - services are just in the "Verbund" as far as the boundary and not after, you don't lop them at the boundary.
Dec 26 is already in Realtime Trains - are they talking about further tweaks? Maybe taking out some of the extra stops Avanti put in to the original VHF timetable?
A pattern like Birmingham with two fasts and a slow might be worth looking at. Most of the network runs on 2tph patterns, the "every 20 minutes" thing makes a mess of it.
A pattern like Birmingham with two fasts and a slow might be worth looking at. Most of the network runs on 2tph patterns, the "every 20 minutes" thing makes a mess of it
Wouldn't be a terrible idea. Indeed that could be integrated in some way with the Trent Valley local service? Just extending that to Manchester would cause overcrowding unless you whacked fares up, but something more integrated might work, allowing 2tph at the larger Trent stations and speeding Manchester-London itself up by having 2 trains an hour that only stop at Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke then fast to Euston, which if they were all 11 car would probably have reasonable capacity, plus the odd peak extra?
Question is whether those people would drive elsewhere for a faster service and be OK with that? They almost certainly arrive at Wilmslow station by premium SUV, not on foot or by bus/bike.
Question is whether those people would drive elsewhere for a faster service and be OK with that? They almost certainly arrive at Wilmslow station by premium SUV, not on foot or by bus/bike.
They would more than likely revert back to driving to Warrington and overload the Anglo-Scottish services which in part was why the service at Wilmslow has been built up.
They would more than likely revert back to driving to Warrington and overload the Anglo-Scottish services which in part was why the service at Wilmslow has been built up.
Would a local Crewe to Wigan or Preston service be any easier with LNR and Avanti merged, or no real difference as it would likely have been under Northern otherwise?
They would more than likely revert back to driving to Warrington and overload the Anglo-Scottish services which in part was why the service at Wilmslow has been built up.
If both of the fasts served Macclesfield that would be more attractive - 2tph, quieter, cheaper (the Scottish services tend to be priced up as they're busy) and 20 minutes by car rather than 35?
If both of the fasts served Macclesfield that would be more attractive - 2tph, quieter, cheaper (the Scottish services tend to be priced up as they're busy) and 20 minutes by car rather than 35?
Of course with most of this traffic in the peaks (and so no "pesky" off peak walk up fares to worry about) there is the option to price people around a bit.
The trouble with that with the WCML is that it was a totally different railway back then - 110mph max, old rolling stock and hourly to most destinations with the odd peak extra (I think Brum was 2tph). And Milton Keynes wasn't the big traffic draw it is now.
The trouble with that with the WCML is that it was a totally different railway back then - 110mph max, old rolling stock and hourly to most destinations with the odd peak extra (I think Brum was 2tph). And Milton Keynes wasn't the big traffic draw it is now.
Perhaps somewhere like Manchester or Liverpool for example? In the case of the latter you could even time it so both the Birmingham-Liverpool and London-Crewe services could arrive at Crewe at roughly the same time and connect the two trains up, and conversely splitting them on the return journey. You wouldn't even need new route knowledge for drivers since I believe Crewe LNR depot covers all these routes.
Perhaps somewhere like Manchester or Liverpool for example? In the case of the latter you could even time it so both the Birmingham-Liverpool and London-Crewe services could arrive at Crewe at roughly the same time and connect the two trains up, and conversely splitting them on the return journey. You wouldn't even need new route knowledge for drivers since I believe Crewe LNR depot covers all these routes.
Portion working would be less than ideal on two grounds - one, that it would prevent 240m trains on London-Crewe and 160m ones on Liverpool-Brum, and two, that it would cross pollinate delays.
I did once think sending the Crewe to Liverpool would be a sensible way to do a second Liverpool at low cost, but a second IC Liverpool was delivered and it would be very political to take it away now particularly if the Manchester service is to be improved. You could add it as a third though.
Portion working would be less than ideal on two grounds - one, that it would prevent 240m trains on London-Crewe and 160m ones on Liverpool-Brum, and two, that it would cross pollinate delays.
I did once think sending the Crewe to Liverpool would be a sensible way to do a second Liverpool at low cost, but a second IC Liverpool was delivered and it would be very political to take it away now particularly if the Manchester service is to be improved. You could add it as a third though.
Fair enough, but now I do wonder if we could've swapped diagrams between the Crewe 350s/730s and the Avanti 805/807s on the Birmingham semi-fast so that the London-Crewe train could've been extended to Liverpool and included the stop at South Parkway while the Pendolino remained as the express Liverpool service. But this probably comes with it's own problems. At this stage I'm actually just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
What is the actual journey time saving for a Pendolino on the Birmingham run over a Class 350, 730 or similar? A Class 730 is 110mph and, I think, has every axle motored. It certainly accelerates quite rapidly anyway!
There is only a couple of years to go until the lease on the fleet is up, and its far from guaranteed that all fleets will continue as before
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
