London Midland to be broken up?

[Bletchleyite]

@Neil Williams

May we agree that:

a) no more subsidy should be offered to anyone
b) London Midland should be using more of their trains to run these services?
c) more thought needs to be given to serving the Trent Valley stations that have no other services.

I think so, yes. I don't necessarily even think that more subsidy shouldn't be paid to the railway as a whole - the Government have decided that. But if more subsidy was payable to reduce fares and provide the corresponding capacity increase, I'd rather see a large scale national reduction rather than on odd lines that happen to have a bit of competition. So the use of VT would perhaps become affordable to you.

I think there is a solution here that should please almost everyone without removing a useful service.

That would certainly be the ideal, yes.

The MK stop seems to be a large part of the problem but will generate a lot of the revenue as there are quite a few Nunaeton/Tamworth/Rugby - MKC season tickets floating about. They aren't served by another provider and explain a lot of the loadings coming from the south.

Making them u/s at MKC (thus at least preventing them filling with people going between MK and London who have plenty of other options, both LM and VT) might be something worth considering, but would be incredibly difficult to enforce. Removing the stop would be removing journey opportunities so probably not a great idea.

Another thought is that VT perhaps need to consider rejigging their service a bit to serve MK better if it is indeed a source of high demand.

Neil

 

[DarloRich]

There is demand both ways from MK. I think Virgin have dropped the ball a bit with their decision to squash all the southbound trains into the top of the hour. Going north there isn't really an option other than LM for anywhere south of Crewe. With MK set to grow and house prices rising even more the demand is just going to increase.

Ideally i think 2 trains an hour on that route might suffice, perhaps with one via Northampton - i just dont think the paths exist. Perhaps the next TOC should be pushing for 125 mph emus!

I think running 8 cars off peak is a big part of the solution, not just on the TV section but on the southern section of the LM route. Northampton/MK - Euston services can be really busy off peak but the mileage based maintenance agreements really scupper any increase in carriages - Which is maddening at times!

 

[CdBrux]

London to Crewe (and in the opposite direction as well) can be purchased for outbound travel leaving London at 13.00 for £16.25 tomorrow. Takes 5 hours and is with National Express. Wednesday and Thursday for just £9.00. So the ultra price concious traveller wouldn't use LM trains.

 

[jimjim]

LM are not an Open Access operator, though - they are receiving a subsidy for running the Trent Valley stopper, and the reason for that subsidy is to provide a rail service to people who don't have another one.

Ive got a feeling that LM run the Trent Valley services as Open Access services (at least the Trent Valley part)

I think one of the reasons for not allowing the Preston extension was that LM didnt have the Trent Valley paths in their franchise spec. I may be completely wrong though....

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is demand both ways from MK. I think Virgin have dropped the ball a bit with their decision to squash all the southbound trains into the top of the hour.

The issue is that what they have done with the long-distance stuff, namely joining the Euston-Wolves and Brum-Scotland trains together, was a very good thing indeed. What it has done is provided MK with a direct service to Scotland as well as allowed a capacity increase on the chronically overcrowded Brum-Scotland service. They are to be applauded for this.

But yes I agree that the side-effect has not been a good thing, and I wonder if long-term an extra MK stop is needed on one more WCML train, possibly another Birmingham one, or the Liverpool if that fits the timetable.

Going north there isn't really an option other than LM for anywhere south of Crewe. With MK set to grow and house prices rising even more the demand is just going to increase.

This is true. It's odd to think that the Northampton Line used to be 2tph, one semi one slow. The Sunday service has been better than that for over 5 years!

Ideally i think 2 trains an hour on that route might suffice, perhaps with one via Northampton - i just dont think the paths exist. Perhaps the next TOC should be pushing for 125 mph emus!

There might well be a good case for some IEP for "West Coast Connect" or whatever it ends up as. 125mph trains have been considered before - had the 140mph timetable gone ahead, Silverlink were seriously considering an order for Pendolinos to allow them not to be completely banished from the fasts. Though given what has happened, I think PUG2 having failed has actually turned out to be a good thing. LM on the slows only would be a much poorer service.

I think running 8 cars off peak is a big part of the solution, not just on the TV section but on the southern section of the LM route. Northampton/MK - Euston services can be really busy off peak but the mileage based maintenance agreements really scupper any increase in carriages - Which is maddening at times!

It is indeed.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ive got a feeling that LM run the Trent Valley services as Open Access services (at least the Trent Valley part)

I don't believe that is the case, but if you have any evidence I'd be interested to see it.

Neil

 

[thenorthern]

Ive got a feeling that LM run the Trent Valley services as Open Access services (at least the Trent Valley part)

I am 100% confident they aren't, they had a problem in 2007 when they took over that Stone, Rugeley Trent Valley (Mainline) and Atherstone weren't getting enough trains so I would guess they created a service that joined all 3. I know they have to provide a service between Stafford and Nuneaton as well as Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent but I am not sure if a through service is a requirement or not.

On a different note one of the things with privatisation was to increase competition on the network which is exactly what London Midland are doing now at Crewe, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, Rugby and Milton Keynes Central so why stop that.

 

[455driver]

No TOC should be allowed to maximise profit by disregarding the comfort and health of their passengers, particularly those who have no (rail) choice but to use the service i.e. passengers from Trent Valley local stations - this is why we check PIXC (Passengers in Excess of Capacity) figures.

Why do none of these vastly overfull trains ever appear on the most crowded list then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

London to Crewe (and in the opposite direction as well) can be purchased for outbound travel leaving London at 13.00 for £16.25 tomorrow. Takes 5 hours and is with National Express. Wednesday and Thursday for just £9.00. So the ultra price concious traveller wouldn't use LM trains.

They are if they dont want to catch a poxy coach!
Only 2 and 3/4 hour on a train for (about) £26, I know what I would be travelling on.

 

[thenorthern]

Just checked the franchise agreement and it states that the trains must run from Rugby to Crewe via Stoke-on-Trent and that trains should be extended to London from Rugby unless another service is modified to replace it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why do none of these vastly overfull trains ever appear on the most crowded list then?

The 1646 London Euston to Crewe train was the most overcrowded train in the country in 2013.

The problem with the pricing on the WCML is that passengers are being priced from a 9/11-coach Pendolino or 5/10-coach Voyager on to a 4-coach 350. Getting rid of the cheap fares is one option- one that the mandarins at DafT have used before in Ipswich and Brighton- but probably not the best one.

But, as we've seen on the East Coast thread from several posters, privatisation is amazing and the Sainted Beard with his homophobic sidekick can do no wrong.

 

[Masbroughlad]

"The proposals under consideration would also see the London-Crewe semi-fast and Birmingham-Liverpool services currently operated by London Midland transferring to the West Coast franchise"

That's a direct quote...

Seems eminently sensible to me! Add in the Northern locals too.

 

[jimjim]

Just checked the franchise agreement and it states that the trains must run from Rugby to Crewe via Stoke-on-Trent and that trains should be extended to London from Rugby unless another service is modified to replace it.

Thanks for that. Its annoying me that i cant remember what the open access bit that was mentioned when they rejected the Preston extension. (Apart from.the actual Preston bit)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seems eminently sensible to me! Add in the Northern locals too.

The Liverpools get included in their plan to make it a 350 only franchise. 321s go to the West Mids franchise and solve the problem of trying to get 350s back to Northampton for maintainance. Not sure they would want to add other stock into the mix.

 

[Class172]

Except that the overwhelming evidence is that the users don't want to go there! They want New St or University. if they wanted Moor St they'd use the glossy new trains provided. they don't . They don't fill up until they depart Kiddy. I know. I and everyone else on the platform watch the empty four car depart DTW for Dorridge Preferring to join the fast two car to New St.

Exactly, you've hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Whilst the situation at peak times is more balanced, during off-peak, moggie's description is pretty much perfect.

Sounds more like a slow journey time rather than destination that the problem here. Moor Street and New Street are only between 5 and 10 minutes apart.

Unfortunately that is not the main issue. A huge number of people from Worcestershire travel to University (not only for the Uni but also the hospital) - this direct service can only be done on the New Street service.

 

[thenorthern]

Thanks for that. Its annoying me that i cant remember what the open access bit that was mentioned when they rejected the Preston extension. (Apart from.the actual Preston bit)

I think they wanted to change it so that the London to Crewe would run straight to Crewe from Stafford and then onto Liverpool. One of the Birmingham to Liverpool trains would run London to Manchester via Stoke-on-Trent and replace the current Northern Rail slow Stoke-Manchester train. A new service split from one of the trains at Crewe and run onto Preston. The Manchester to Crewe train would be extended to Alsager and Stoke to give Alsager another train.

Overall it may have worked but I think the DfT didn't like it and I couldn't imagine Virgin Trains being happy about it.

 

[Lampshade]

Ive got a feeling that LM run the Trent Valley services as Open Access services (at least the Trent Valley part)

I've heard this many times (at least the London - Crewe stopper) but I can't find anything to say it's the case.

 

[Class 170101]

Overall it may have worked but I think the DfT didn't like it and I couldn't imagine Virgin Trains being happy about it.

I suspect the DfT didn't like it because Virgin told them they didn't and would cause a stink if it happened. <cynical>

 

[wellwhatitis]

I think running 8 cars off peak is a big part of the solution, not just on the TV section but on the southern section of the LM route. Northampton/MK - Euston services can be really busy off peak but the mileage based maintenance agreements really scupper any increase in carriages - Which is maddening at times!

The new timetable contains many services being upped from 4 to 8 and 8 to 12 on both sections, in peak and off peak Monday to Friday and across the whole timetable Saturday and Sunday too. Whether thay have taken a commercial decision to do so or not I have no idea, but a lot of changes are happening.

 

[Starmill]

If anyone is unhappy about particular trains they use that are consistently overcrowded and routes that are consistently undercapacity then they can take it up with their MP, who can ask the train company what is to be done. It takes a long time, but a solution can and will be found. If however the train is only busy at peak times then really this is something that just has to be accepted.

I have a perfectly good understanding of price elasticity of demand thank you, and I don't believe anyone has contributed a value for that elasticity to the debate, so I'm not sure what conclusions anyone might hope to draw are.

There is no more insanity in charging 50p and filling 12 cars 4 times an hour than there is subsidising empty 11 car trains to run empty all day because they are classed as 'peak' when there isn't much demand. This is the opposite of selling cheap advances on already overcrowded trains, and it is just as stupid and representative of poor yield management and bad at maximising revenue. It's just that this time it benefits those with lots of money, whereas the cheap advances benefit those without much. Funny how we have heard someone doing a lot of complaining about one but not the other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think they wanted to change it so that the London to Crewe would run straight to Crewe from Stafford and then onto Liverpool. One of the Birmingham to Liverpool trains would run London to Manchester via Stoke-on-Trent and replace the current Northern Rail slow Stoke-Manchester train. A new service split from one of the trains at Crewe and run onto Preston. The Manchester to Crewe train would be extended to Alsager and Stoke to give Alsager another train.

Overall it may have worked but I think the DfT didn't like it and I couldn't imagine Virgin Trains being happy about it.

I really wish that had happened. Would have been so good.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How will they probably divide up the stock? 350s for the WCML routes and the other classes for the rest of the routes? If the WCML went over to using IEPs eventually, which TOC would the 350s goto?

 

[northwichcat]

How will they probably divide up the stock? 350s for the WCML routes and the other classes for the rest of the routes? If the WCML went over to using IEPs eventually, which TOC would the 350s goto?

My guess would be TPE would get 350/1s or 350/3s instead of releasing 350/4s.

SWT would be another viable option but they've just ordered a number of new trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How will they probably divide up the stock? 350s for the WCML routes and the other classes for the rest of the routes? If the WCML went over to using IEPs eventually, which TOC would the 350s goto?

Unless a local IEP variant is built I can't see LM moving to IEP other than for the Crewe services which, apart from between Stafford and Crewe, have an InterCity type stopping pattern.

I would expect TPE to get new stock, probably Aventras or new-type Desiros.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

their MP, who can ask the train company what is to be done. It takes a long time, but a solution can and will be found. If however the train is only busy at peak times then really this is something that just has to be accepted.

In my experience the off-peak trains on the southern WCML tend to be much busier than the peak trains, because most of them are only four carriages. Certainly the mid-evening Tring stoppers at 2034 and 2104 are usually very overcrowded all the way to Watford, because London Midland have decided that four carriages is all they're getting. The 2134 is now just about tolerable since it went up to eight carriages last month. All of these trains get even worse when London Midland and Network Rail get together to cancel half of them for "engineering works" and not bother putting stop orders in or extending the remaining trains.

The Hemel Gazette's been complaining about it again recently. They got London Midland's stock response of "we're sorry you felt that it was overcrowded", which we all know means "we're sorry that you're wrong and we're right". Every mile these trains operate costs London Midland money, which is why Camden sidings are full all day, and the directors of Go-Ahead would much rather spend that money on something more important, like themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Hemel Gazette's been complaining about it again recently. They got London Midland's stock response of "we're sorry you felt that it was overcrowded", which we all know means "we're sorry that you're wrong and we're right". Every mile these trains operate costs London Midland money, which is why Camden sidings are full all day, and the directors of Go-Ahead would much rather spend that money on something more important, like themselves.

Would LM lose money if they got them out to make daytime and evening services 8-car? If so, why can they be expected to do so unless (a) there was a fare increase or (b) a subsidy increase?

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

They wouldn't lose money but they would make less money. If you get the fares for two trainloads of people but manage to squeeze them on one train then you're making more money. And if our franchised railway industry tells us anything its that the Rail Barons love money.

 

[infobleep]

Would LM lose money if they got them out to make daytime and evening services 8-car? If so, why can they be expected to do so unless (a) there was a fare increase or (b) a subsidy increase?

Neil

What they need to address is why they would lose money? Clearly if they need more carriages that costs but if some exist that in theory could be run they need to look at why they can't be run and ways to solve it. If a new franchise could run more carriages with the same stock then perhaps they need to look at why they can't.

 

[northwichcat]

What they need to address is why they would lose money? Clearly if they need more carriages that costs but if some exist that in theory could be run they need to look at why they can't be run and ways to solve it. If a new franchise could run more carriages with the same stock then perhaps they need to look at why they can't.

The reason for the franchise being subsided might because a route like Bedford-Bletchley is loss making. Then that won't change as a result of changes to Euston services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reason for the franchise being subsided might because a route like Bedford-Bletchley is loss making. Then that won't change as a result of changes to Euston services.

Yes, but the amount of subsidy will change. And the DfT has to agree that. And they are not well known for agreeing things like that.

So it might be that a fare increase is the only way to allow daytime trains to go 8-car. Or even a fare decrease if it brings more passengers in, but I doubt to be honest that it would.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They wouldn't lose money but they would make less money.

That rather depends on (a) how many additional 350s are used, (b) how much it costs to use them and (c) how profitable the company is, does it not?

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

That rather depends on (a) how many additional 350s are used, (b) how much it costs to use them and (c) how profitable the company is, does it not?

Not really. If you have 500 people on one four-carriage train you make more money than if you have 500 people on two four-carriage trains coupled together.

 

[aylesbury]

Off peak trains are crowded just recently I travelled to the NEC from Leighton Buzzard on a Sunday.By the time we reached Coventry it was full and standing and even after International it looked pretty full .As far as Northampton it was a four car but another unit was added there but it should have been an eight car from Euston ,this must be changed as passengers are obviously fed up .The railway in the UK is becoming a seven day busy network and railway companies must react accordingly.

 

[The Ham]

Not really. If you have 500 people on one four-carriage train you make more money than if you have 500 people on two four-carriage trains coupled together.

Although to add to the complexity, you could (over the course of a franchise) make more money by having some services as longer as more people could then use the services.

For example a station with 3 trains per hour all 4 coaches long with 500 people on (meaning they all have no spare seats and a number of people standing) will not be able to increase by very much the total number of people using those services.

Conversely, by lengthening one service to 8 coaches it could mean that by the end of the franchise rather than there being 1,500 per hour on those trains that it could be 1,800 per hour as some people move to the quieter train freeing up space on all the services for more people to use them.

Yes that is an increase in income of 20% whilst an increase in trains of 33%. However the increase in costs will not be as high as 33% as not all costs increase equally. For instance, some of the TOC's costs are fixed (i.e. head office), some costs although are not fixed do not (always) increase proportionately to the number of passengers carried or trains run (e.g. ticket office costs or driver costs, cost of spare units, etc.).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really. If you have 500 people on one four-carriage train you make more money than if you have 500 people on two four-carriage trains coupled together.

The only real way to avoid that one is to be stricter about the PIXC rules, fining LM etc heavily for avoidable overcrowding. Then it is cheaper to add the 350 than not.

Neil