May 2019 timetable changes

[ForTheLoveOf]

Even then it's unclear what sort of improvements a case can be made for. How many people are going to commute from Lichfield to Stafford by rail?

With the new timetable, even fewer than currently might!

The issue here is, compared to the likes of the new Northern and Thameslink timetables, a lack of ambition rather than trying too hard.

Whilst it's good for the likes of Nuneaton, Tamworth and so on to have a better service to London (and routing the services via Weedon was a very good move), ultimately the service is still disappointing in my view, owing to the relatively speaking still late first trains and early last trains, and the significant variability in journey time and headway, especially outside of the week.

Passengers don't care for the politics of one TOC competing with another - ultimately if there is a relatively frequent clockface timetable from early til late, it will increase service patronage significantly. The introduction of the new CrossCountry timetable back around 15 years ago showed us that.

 

[scrapy]

I was following the lead of other posters and using May, but try May 13th. There do appear to be Northern entries, or is this being automatically carried over from the previous period?

..ahh.. it's too early, isn't it? Blanks if I try a bit later.

The current timetable runs until May 18th up to which time network rail still have evening engineering possessions so Northern couldn't run later trains even if they wanted. The new timetable past then should see a return to later evening train services all week (subject to the odd engineering possession). Timings should appear in the next few weeks in sites such as open train times although these may be subject to tweaking before March. I certainly wouldn't make any plans regarding them until they appear on the official National Rail site or tickets become available to book.

 

[nw1]

There seems to be a lack of symmetry.
The Liverpool to Euston uses the slow after Milton Keynes, but the Euston to Liverpool uses the fast to Milton Keynes.
So there are 16 direct trains from Crewe to Hemel, but only 2 from Hemel to Crewe.
Is this covered by the splitting/joining at New Street?
If so I hope the published timetables do a better job than Realtime Trains (I accept this is not its intended use).

How many of these combined routes will be advertised as through journeys, and how they will be announced on the trains?

I noticed that but with the Rugeley (via Walsall) services in reverse.

It seems very odd to have this asymmetry if you are going to advertise this as a through service; I'd have said either have an easy to understand, clean symmetric service where a through journey from A to B can always be made from B to A, or alternatively, run the trains to the same diagrams for operational convenience but don't advertise them as through services.

Actually while we're on the subject of the southern WCML what's the reason for the _three_ LNWR services from Euston to New St? The xx49 and xx13 are the ones which make sense as they're relatively fast but what's the rationale for the other one (xx24 or xx54, forget which) which is fairly slow anyway?

I'm not a local (though I am an occasional user of VT Pendolino services on the WCML, most recently this weekend) but was wondering hypothetically how a more regular, even interval, consistent-stopping-pattern service on the London Birmingham corridor (at the expense of the VT services dropping to 2tph off peak) would work. Something like this:

Two per hour VT trains: Watford (1tph), Milton Keynes (1tph), Coventry, International, New St (one continuing to Wolverhampton and northwards as now);

Two per hour 'fast' LM services: Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, International, New St (catering for the principal intermediate stops and providing an alternative from London to New St which is still reasonably fast). These then continuing to Liverpool;

Two per hour semi-fast services (similar to the current xx24 and xx54 but one per hour going to Northampton and one to Rugby);

Two per hour slows (the Tring terminators but extended to Milton Keynes);

Two per hour Coventry-New St all-stations shuttles, perhaps then continuing to Wolverhampton as the stoppers.

 

[sufian123]

I noticed that but with the Rugeley (via Walsall) services in reverse.

It seems very odd to have this asymmetry if you are going to advertise this as a through service; I'd have said either have an easy to understand, clean symmetric service where a through journey from A to B can always be made from B to A, or alternatively, run the trains to the same diagrams for operational convenience but don't advertise them as through services.

Actually while we're on the subject of the southern WCML what's the reason for the _three_ LNWR services from Euston to New St? The xx49 and xx13 are the ones which make sense as they're relatively fast but what's the rationale for the other one (xx24 or xx54, forget which) which is fairly slow anyway?

I'm not a local (though I am an occasional user of VT Pendolino services on the WCML, most recently this weekend) but was wondering hypothetically how a more regular, even interval, consistent-stopping-pattern service on the London Birmingham corridor (at the expense of the VT services dropping to 2tph off peak) would work. Something like this:

Two per hour VT trains: Watford (1tph), Milton Keynes (1tph), Coventry, International, New St;
Two per hour 'fast' LM services: Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, International, New St (catering for the principal intermediate stops and providing an alternative from London to New St which is still reasonably fast). These then continuing to Liverpool;

Two per hour semi-fast services (similar to the current xx24 and xx54 but one per hour going to Northampton and one to Rugby);

Two per hour slows (the Tring terminators but extended to Milton Keynes);

Two per hour Coventry-New St all-stations shuttles, perhaps then continuing to Wolverhampton as the stoppers.

Hi this could massively change when it’s confirmed officially by March. This could be a draft timetable. Nothing has been confirmed yet.

 

[87015]

Hi this could massively change when it’s confirmed officially by March. This could be a draft timetable. Nothing has been confirmed yet.

It’s offered and responded too. Any major change can basically only be for out of course issues. It’s live, not draft.

 

[sufian123]

It’s offered and responded too. Any major change can only be for out of course issues. It’s live, not draft.

Fair enough. Thanks

 

[cle]

I noticed that but with the Rugeley (via Walsall) services in reverse.

It seems very odd to have this asymmetry if you are going to advertise this as a through service; I'd have said either have an easy to understand, clean symmetric service where a through journey from A to B can always be made from B to A, or alternatively, run the trains to the same diagrams for operational convenience but don't advertise them as through services.

Actually while we're on the subject of the southern WCML what's the reason for the _three_ LNWR services from Euston to New St? The xx49 and xx13 are the ones which make sense as they're relatively fast but what's the rationale for the other one (xx24 or xx54, forget which) which is fairly slow anyway?

I'm not a local (though I am an occasional user of VT Pendolino services on the WCML, most recently this weekend) but was wondering hypothetically how a more regular, even interval, consistent-stopping-pattern service on the London Birmingham corridor (at the expense of the VT services dropping to 2tph off peak) would work. Something like this:

Two per hour VT trains: Watford (1tph), Milton Keynes (1tph), Coventry, International, New St (one continuing to Wolverhampton and northwards as now);

Two per hour 'fast' LM services: Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, International, New St (catering for the principal intermediate stops and providing an alternative from London to New St which is still reasonably fast). These then continuing to Liverpool;

Two per hour semi-fast services (similar to the current xx24 and xx54 but one per hour going to Northampton and one to Rugby);

Two per hour slows (the Tring terminators but extended to Milton Keynes);

Two per hour Coventry-New St all-stations shuttles, perhaps then continuing to Wolverhampton as the stoppers.

I think that if VT and LNWR were merged/agnostic - then the pattern you mention could work. Capacity for the local stations is the tricky part.

Birmingham International is at least, useful as an overtaking/terminating point. If the odd call is added to the Shrewsbury/Mid Wales/Liverpool services - which already do Smethwick for instance, maybe a better frequency can be offered.

Rugby now has the Weedon fast, and so is better covered for London express journeys - if it loses the 'VT' hourly.

 

[pt_mad]

A long gap is pretty disappointing though. It could of course have been filled by a northbound morning VT service which has a call at Tamworth and Lichfield TV. Nuneaton has had one for a long time.

Which Northbound VT service is planned to call at Tamworth and Lichfield TV in the morning?

 

[sufian123]

Which Northbound VT service is planned to call at Tamworth and Lichfield TV in the morning?

Virgin are not showing yet. Could be the usual morning ones?

 

[matt]

Whilst it's good for the likes of Nuneaton, Tamworth and so on to have a better service to London (and routing the services via Weedon was a very good move), ultimately the service is still disappointing in my view, owing to the relatively speaking still late first trains and early last trains, and the significant variability in journey time and headway, especially outside of the week.

There are late services now in the week with a 21:49 from Euston to Crewe via the Trent Valley.

 

[pt_mad]

Virgin are not showing yet. Could be the usual morning ones?

Don't believe there is a VT northbound one in the morning currently?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

There are late services now in the week with a 21:49 from Euston to Crewe via the Trent Valley.

This is about as early as is possibly acceptable. Ideally there ought to be one an hour later as well. If there was a 05:49 to 22:49 clockface timetable Monday-Saturday and say 07:49 to 20:49 on a Sunday that would already be a massive improvement. Sadly that's still a far stretch from today.

 

[sufian123]

Don't believe there is a VT northbound one in the morning currently?

It’s evening always?

 

[Starmill]

Which Northbound VT service is planned to call at Tamworth and Lichfield TV in the morning?

None I would imagine. I was just trying to say, it would probably make sense from the perspective of that gap, and Nuneaton has had one for a long time.

 

[Starmill]

This is about as early as is possibly acceptable. Ideally there ought to be one an hour later as well. If there was a 05:49 to 22:49 clockface timetable Monday-Saturday and say 07:49 to 20:49 on a Sunday that would already be a massive improvement. Sadly that's still a far stretch from today.

There is already a 2200 from London to Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield TV. Note that the new service does not call at Atherstone. The 2149 is good for London to Rugeley I guess, but...

It would be a bit difficult to justify an additional train arriving in Crewe after 0100, probably even later given the impact of line closures, just for the benefit of London to Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Rugeley. I would note that Nuneaton station is also closed at this time, as this was the reason given for the 2300 London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly not to call there, as it was meant to.

If there were the demand, and the resources to organise the necessary staff, the 2300 could perhaps call at Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield. It would be a lot of work for just an hour later, and it would be a very slow journey, with perhaps frequently needing to transfer to a replacement bus at Northampton or Rugby, but it would probably be possible.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

There is already a 2200 from London to Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield TV. Note that the new service does not call at Atherstone. The 2149 is good for London to Rugeley I guess, but...

It would be a bit difficult to justify an additional train arriving in Crewe after 0100, probably even later given the impact of line closures, just for the benefit of London to Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Rugeley. I would note that Nuneaton station is also closed at this time, as this was the reason given for the 2300 London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly not to call there, as it was meant to.

If there were the demand, and the resources to organise the necessary staff, the 2300 could perhaps call at Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield. It would be a lot of work for just an hour later, and it would be a very slow journey, with perhaps frequently needing to transfer to a replacement bus at Northampton or Rugby, but it would probably be possible.

True, there are later services, but if you are on a 'WMR/LNR only' ticket then those later services are of little use. The cheapest option on the likes of the 22:00 is almost always an Advance, and yet that can cost nearly as much as a whole 'WMR/LNR only' Super Off-Peak Return!

Now obviously it is already a much better situation than a lot of stations with that level of usage, that far from London, find themselves in. But what is galling is how it would clearly be possible, it may just require some creative thinking and incur some extra costs over just going with the franchise spec's bare minimum.

And to be honest, if having engineering possessions is the problem (I can hardly believe that the parts further north couldn't be run as a 2 track railway if necessary, that late in the evening), I would find it an acceptable alternative to have the normal service operational by default, but if a longer possession is needed then it is bustituted by routine. Better to have a service most of the time than nothing, all of the time.

What's particularly telling IMO is how many other stations that are a similar time-wise distance from London have frequent services from early til late, but only really where they are in what used to be the ex-Network SouthEast area. Outside of that, the TOCs just seem to take the ex-Regional Railways legacy of "any old heap of assorted services", with a couple of improvements over the years, as an acceptable default standard.

 

[Starmill]

True, there are later services, but if you are on a 'WMR/LNR only' ticket then those later services are of little use.

So don't buy one then! The 2200 isn't particularly an expensive service, even though it's only formed of 5 coaches. This tells you all you need to know about demand from London to Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield at that time of night.

I can hardly believe that the parts further north couldn't be run as a 2 track railway if necessary, that late in the evening

They are, pretty much every night. That's exactly the problem with Tamworth and Lichfield - there may be no platform available.

Still. In the case of Nuneaton, the 2300 was supposed to call and there was really no excuse then or now for not sorting that farce out.

 

[sufian123]

There is already a 2200 from London to Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield TV. Note that the new service does not call at Atherstone. The 2149 is good for London to Rugeley I guess, but...

It would be a bit difficult to justify an additional train arriving in Crewe after 0100, probably even later given the impact of line closures, just for the benefit of London to Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Rugeley. I would note that Nuneaton station is also closed at this time, as this was the reason given for the 2300 London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly not to call there, as it was meant to.

If there were the demand, and the resources to organise the necessary staff, the 2300 could perhaps call at Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield. It would be a lot of work for just an hour later, and it would be a very slow journey, with perhaps frequently needing to transfer to a replacement bus at Northampton or Rugby, but it would probably be possible.

2300 to Manchester can differ some nights due to route close. Divert via Northampton or via Crewe or avoid Macclesfield. It always changes. Maybe that has a factor to it?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So don't buy one then! The 2200 isn't particularly an expensive service, even though it's only formed of 5 coaches. This tells you all you need to know about demand from London to Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield at that time of night.

Not particularly expensive to me would mean releasing the V2X tier when Advances are released, as that is the lowest tier that Virgin usually ever release. But the lowest I have ever seen that service on has been V2Q, which is quite a bit more expensive.

And in any case, people should not be restricted in terms of whether or not they can have a night out by the particular company that runs the late services, and their fare structure.

As to the 5 coach Voyager, I would bet that this is more down to operational convenience than anything else. If it were more convenient, I don't see that it wouldn't be operated by a 10 coach double.

They are, pretty much every night. That's exactly the problem with Tamworth and Lichfield - there may be no platform available.

Make the passengers disembark and walk across the T3'd track

 

[Starmill]

And in any case, people should not be restricted in terms of whether or not they can have a night out by the particular company that runs the late services, and their fare structure.

This is a matter for the government though, not the timetable (the subject of this thread). You don't get to say 'I don't like the train company that has been awarded this path, they charge too much, send them away and award it to a different one' or 'I don't like that train company, so I demand another service on the same route just because it'll probably be a wee bit cheaper.' both are a ludicrous waste of time.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This is a matter for the government though, not the timetable (the subject of this thread). You don't get to say 'I don't like the train company that has been awarded this path, they charge too much, send them away and award it to a different one' or 'I don't like that train company, so I demand another service on the same route just because it'll probably be a wee bit cheaper.' both are a ludicrous waste of time.

True, but not entirely. It is also about West Midlands Trains expanding their timetable, so that there is a uniform WMT timetable throughout the day. That's something that exists on some lines but not on most, and that's disappointing.

 

[Ianno87]

And in any case, people should not be restricted in terms of whether or not they can have a night out by the particular company that runs the late services, and their fare structure.

You're not restricted. If you want a night out, pay the fare that comes with it! Simple. It's not government's responsibility to be subsidising people's eveninigs out in London. The very fact you can already benefit fromlower NR/WMT only fares for most of the day is already a benefit that many routes in the country don't have, so be grateful.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You're not restricted. If you want a night out, pay the fare that comes with it! Simple. It's not government's responsibility to be subsidising people's eveninigs out in London. The very fact you can already benefit fromlower NR/WMT only fares for most of the day is already a benefit that many routes in the country don't have, so be grateful.

I don't live on that line, as I've said, but the thing is - it's not like as if I am suggesting that an entirely new service should be introduced. It's just that I'm saying it seems a shame that the service is so inhibited compared to what some other equivalent lines are, and what is technically feasible.

So many of the problems with the rail industry are to do with things that could be fixed with a bit of effort. But that effort isn't put in, in most cases. Passengers are told to be grateful for the services they already have, as if it's entirely unreasonable to expect the lines and trains to be used to provide the service they are able to provide.

 

[bionic]

Just a quick question.... with the supposed future splitting of WMT and LNR, how does the Rugeley to Walsall line fit in to this? I assumed it would be WMT due to its local all stops branch line nature but if they've got through trains to London then presumably it will end up being LNR?

 

[Deafdoggie]

The 23:00 Euston to Manchester is a slow train, as the fast lines are invariably shut at that time of the night, but in different places most nights. So stops are just set down only, and it can run early at some, all, or none of the stations, a "Local" train then has the problem of either waiting everywhere, or not being local. It would take a long time to get to Crewe, timed slow lines all the way. The 23:00 doesn't get to Stoke till turned 01:15 and he hasn't stopped all that much. The 23:00 is usually very lightly loaded, I can't see a demand for another late train that far north. 21:49 isn't unreasonably early.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Just a quick question.... with the supposed future splitting of WMT and LNR, how does the Rugeley to Walsall line fit in to this? I assumed it would be WMT due to its local all stops branch line nature but if they've got through trains to London then presumably it will end up being LNR?

It may be a service that is split between brands by part of the journey. It could even be advertised as a service to Birmingham as far as about Walsall, and only as a London service from there (given that it is quicker to go via Rugeley due to the relatively faster Trent Valley service).

I note that some of these new combined through services have a varying reservation status depending on the stage of their journey. For instance, some services from Walsall to London are non-reservable from Walsall to Birmingham, and reservable thenceforth. If that isn't confusing... I don't know what is! I can certainly foresee this causing problems with several TISes (at least initially), which won't think to try and only start the reservation request (for Advances etc.) from Birmingham rather than the entered origin.

 

[bionic]

It may be a service that is split between brands by part of the journey. It could even be advertised as a service to Birmingham as far as about Walsall, and only as a London service from there (given that it is quicker to go via Rugeley due to the relatively faster Trent Valley service).

I note that some of these new combined through services have a varying reservation status depending on the stage of their journey. For instance, some services from Walsall to London are non-reservable from Walsall to Birmingham, and reservable thenceforth. If that isn't confusing... I don't know what is! I can certainly foresee this causing problems with several TISes (at least initially), which won't think to try and only start the reservation request (for Advances etc.) from Birmingham rather than the entered origin.

Can you even reserve a seat on a 350? Every time I've been on one the seats have been first come first served.

 

[sufian123]

Not particularly expensive to me would mean releasing the V2X tier when Advances are released, as that is the lowest tier that Virgin usually ever release. But the lowest I have ever seen that service on has been V2Q, which is quite a bit more expensive.

And in any case, people should not be restricted in terms of whether or not they can have a night out by the particular company that runs the late services, and their fare structure.

As to the 5 coach Voyager, I would bet that this is more down to operational convenience than anything else. If it were more convenient, I don't see that it wouldn't be operated by a 10 coach double.


Make the passengers disembark and walk across the T3'd track

Can you even reserve a seat on a 350? Every time I've been on one the seats have been first come first served.

No reservations available. Never had been.

 

[sufian123]

It may be a service that is split between brands by part of the journey. It could even be advertised as a service to Birmingham as far as about Walsall, and only as a London service from there (given that it is quicker to go via Rugeley due to the relatively faster Trent Valley service).

I note that some of these new combined through services have a varying reservation status depending on the stage of their journey. For instance, some services from Walsall to London are non-reservable from Walsall to Birmingham, and reservable thenceforth. If that isn't confusing... I don't know what is! I can certainly foresee this causing problems with several TISes (at least initially), which won't think to try and only start the reservation request (for Advances etc.) from Birmingham rather than the entered origin.

Don’t believe what it says on RTT. 350s don’t come with reservations anyway. First come to get a seat anyway.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Can you even reserve a seat on a 350? Every time I've been on one the seats have been first come first served.

No reservations available. Never had been.

You can get, and need, a counted place reservation to get an Advance on one of those services. There are no specific reserved seats in the same way there are for, e.g. Virgin or CrossCountry services, but there is a notional pot of seat reservations. It is that which a booking engine might struggle with (and the crucial thing is that on a 'X & Connections' Advance, for any legs where you haven't been given a reservation, you are only permitted to use non-reservable services).