New or extended through route possibilities

[grove]

With the current changes in travel patterns and some existing services running very lightly loaded are there opportunities for new long-distance through routes or extensions to existing services that might offer a better service for passengers.
(The European operators have been re-thinking their routes and rerouting/rebranding sleeper services for example.)
Some have been tried in the past but with the fragmentation of the network these have lapsed. Examples might be:

• Basingstoke to Norwich (London Crosslink)
• Brighton to Manchester
• Bournemouth/Southampton to York
• Extending more Corby services to Melton and Nottingham

 

[The Planner]

Brighton BINGO!

 

[ainsworth74]

Basingstoke to Norwich (London Crosslink)

I'm sure Anglia back in the 2000s had a stab at something like that already using a 170?

 

[tbtc]

I think that bi-modes will open up a few possibilities for services, since they won't be limited to electrification boundaries - e.g. Merseyrail to Preston/ Wrexham/ Wigan - but a lot of other changes would depend on HS2 freeing up paths on existing lines and allowing timetables to be recast

Southampton to York

There was a direct service every couple of hours pre-Covid - presumably to return?

 

[grove]

I'm sure Anglia back in the 2000s had a stab at something like that already using a 170?

Yes, that was the short-lived London Crosslink 2000-2002. That specific route might be a challenge now as the central section is part of London Overground.

 

[swt_passenger]

XC Southampton to York (and Newcastle) already happens 2 hourly, (ignoring current COVID reductions). But it’s back in the 2022 timetable as discussed in the main ECML 2022 consultation discussion thread.

It cannot run hourly without infrastructure work, according to Network Rail.

 

[JonathanH]

With the current changes in travel patterns and some existing services running very lightly loaded are there opportunities for new long-distance through routes or extensions to existing services that might offer a better service for passengers.

If a service is running very lightly loaded, you have to think about whether it should be cut back to its core operation, rather than being run on a highly spurious extension.

The thing to think about with extensions is
* what train is going to be removed to allow the extension
* is it worth leasing the extra stock to cover that extension
* what additional route knowledge / traincrew training is needed
* are there suitable stabling facilities on the extended route
* does it make the overall service more unreliable
* does it simply duplicate existing provision
* is the available rolling stock suitable / available
* is it actually better than the alternative

I'm sure there are others. As an example, Brighton to Manchester, while I appreciate it may have been raised as an example of something in the past rather than something being advocated, broadly fails every single one of those points.

If anything, we are likely to see the removal of duplication and operators having overlapping territory, not more of it.

 

[A0]

With the current changes in travel patterns and some existing services running very lightly loaded are there opportunities for new long-distance through routes or extensions to existing services that might offer a better service for passengers.
(The European operators have been re-thinking their routes and rerouting/rebranding sleeper services for example.)
Some have been tried in the past but with the fragmentation of the network these have lapsed. Examples might be:

• Basingstoke to Norwich (London Crosslink)
• Brighton to Manchester
• Bournemouth/Southampton to York
• Extending more Corby services to Melton and Nottingham

Corby > Melton > either Leicester or Nottingham is a *huge* time penalty against the alternatives.

It's actually quicker to go from Corby to Leicester by changing at Kettering than going "direct" via Melton.

And for Melton - London, it offers no time advantage over going via Leicester or Peterborough to London.

So I'm not sure who benefits from this suggestion.

Crosslink wouldn't happen because there simply isn't the space on the North London Line for other services.

 

[RobShipway]

If a service is running very lightly loaded, you have to think about whether it should be cut back to its core operation, rather than being run on a highly spurious extension.

The thing to think about with extensions is
* what train is going to be removed to allow the extension
* is it worth leasing the extra stock to cover that extension
* what additional route knowledge / traincrew training is needed
* are there suitable stabling facilities on the extended route
* does it make the overall service more unreliable
* does it simply duplicate existing provision
* is the available rolling stock suitable / available
* is it actually better than the alternative

I'm sure there are others. As an example, Brighton to Manchester, while I appreciate it may have been raised as an example of something in the past rather than something being advocated, broadly fails every single one of those points.

If anything, we are likely to see the removal of duplication and operators having overlapping territory, not more of it.

I would add the following personally:

* Is there paths within the routes passed for the trains to be travelling, not just for now but should patronage of the routes passed pick up?

The point above is made due to the fact that any of the XC services that ran from Brighton where stopped due to the paths being required by Thameslink services and London Overground services.

 

[cle]

Nottingham to Glasgow?

The only thing I can really see is re-linking certain services across Birmingham, Nottingham, Coventry, Cambridge I suppose, etc to provide longer Midlands regional services. Happening a little with the likes of Matlock to Crewe.

The future Liverpool - Shrewsbury could merge with a Telford service for instance, in the non-Cardiff hours. Things like that.

If frequencies are lowered and distancing is needed, the best thing to do is run the longest possible services with any spare stock we have.

 

[David Goddard]

While I support not running "spurious extensions" at random times of day, I think there remains merit in having them at the start and end of the day as adding to an otherwise core network. Examples are the Penzance and Aberdeen extensions of certain XC services.

Effectively extend the first couple of terminating services which would otherwise go to depot instead of returning in the direction it came, and likewise start back earlier the last couple which would have come off of depot.

Quite a few areas where this would be useful, staying with XC I would advocate a couple of Cardiff turbostars serving Swansea, and some Nottingham ones maybe going on to Lincoln.

 

[JonathanH]

Quite a few areas where this would be useful, staying with XC I would advocate a couple of Cardiff turbostars serving Swansea, and some Nottingham ones maybe going on to Lincoln.

It might make sense to consider that in the light of depot arrangements though. Nottingham's early Turbostars are stabled at Leicester and Cardiff's early Turbostar comes from Bristol with the next one having a very early start from Birmingham so Lincoln and Swansea extensions aren't very practical.

Also, the siting of a depot for IETs at Maliphant means there are plenty of services from Swansea to Cardiff early in the day without the need for XC to provide even more. Indeed, the frequency of the GWR service means the TfW long distance services call at the local stations.

Clearly if XC had different rolling stock that was serviced at Maliphant, Swansea starters might be more practical but that would also raise a question about traincrew.

 

[D6130]

I would quite like to see Northern's Blackpool-York service extended through to/from Scarborough, as it used to be a few years ago....effectively covering the planned Northern York-Scarborough service. However, I am aware that pathing issues with platforms 3, 4 & 5 at York - plus conflicting moves at the junction would make this difficult in the present day scenario.

 

[HST43257]

Use the layover time on the London to Lincoln services to extend as far as Grimsby ideally. Would mean you could either cut the all day EMR Grimsby service or double the service, with LNER and EMR alternating hours.

 

[zwk500]

Use the layover time on the London to Lincoln services to extend as far as Grimsby ideally. Would mean you could either cut the all day EMR Grimsby service or double the service, with LNER and EMR alternating hours.

How long would that leave for turnround at Grimsby? Considering LNER usually need 20 minutes between passenger services to clean and prep the train.

 

[RobShipway]

Use the layover time on the London to Lincoln services to extend as far as Grimsby ideally. Would mean you could either cut the all day EMR Grimsby service or double the service, with LNER and EMR alternating hours.

How long would that leave for turnround at Grimsby? Considering LNER usually need 20 minutes between passenger services to clean and prep the train.

As per https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/2022-finally-see-direct-rail-5522239, you may get your wish with trains starting at Cleethorpes from the May 2022 timetable if all goes to plan. The service is likely to be via Market Rasen and Lincoln as per the article as I don't believe that there is available paths to be travelling via Doncaster.

More local to me, in an ideal world, you would have one morning XC service from Brighton leaving about 6:30am travelling to Liverpool - Monday to Saturday. With a return service that got you back to Brighton by 10pm. The main problem with this is that none of the XC class 220/221's are serviced or stored at Three bridges anymore as the area where this used to happen is now used for Thameslink Class 700 trains. So, the XC unit would have to travel over from Eastleigh to Brighton, prior to doing any service. I guess the people of Brighton & Hove City will just have to either travel up to East Croydon to transfer to the service to Milton Keynes, travel to London Victoria and across on the tube to Euston/St Pancras/Kings Cross/Marylebone to then travel north or use the Southern service between Brighton and Southampton, to then change on to an XC service to the north.

 

[zwk500]

More local to me, in an ideal world, you would have one morning XC service from Brighton leaving about 6:30am travelling to Liverpool - Monday to Saturday. With a return service that got you back to Brighton by 10pm.
The main problem with this is that none of the XC class 220/221's are serviced or stored at Three bridges anymore as the area where this used to happen is now used for Thameslink Class 700 trains. So, the XC unit would have to travel over from Eastleigh to Brighton, prior to doing any service.

How long do you get in Liverpool for that, and would you have a balancing service?

I guess the people of Brighton & Hove City will just have to either travel up to East Croydon to transfer to the service to Milton Keynes, travel to London Victoria and across on the tube to Euston/St Pancras/Kings Cross/Marylebone to then travel north or use the Southern service between Brighton and Southampton, to then change on to an XC service to the north.

This isn't really that much of a problem. I have family in the Brighton area and by far the easiest way to do the journey is direct to Euston, Victoria Line, Southern to the coast. Anybody travelling to/from further north will have more services at Euston, which is better than single daily services any more.

There's also the issue of needing to access the Slows on both the BML and WCML to get to/from the West London Line. Adds conflicting moves (or gets trapped behind slow trains) onto very busy main lines just outside the terminus.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

How long do you get in Liverpool for that, and would you have a balancing service?


This isn't really that much of a problem. I have family in the Brighton area and by far the easiest way to do the journey is direct to Euston, Victoria Line, Southern to the coast. Anybody travelling to/from further north will have more services at Euston, which is better than single daily services any more.

There's also the issue of needing to access the Slows on both the BML and WCML to get to/from the West London Line. Adds conflicting moves (or gets trapped behind slow trains) onto very busy main lines just outside the terminus.

And the slow lines are pretty full themselves.

 

[RobShipway]

How long do you get in Liverpool for that, and would you have a balancing service?


This isn't really that much of a problem. I have family in the Brighton area and by far the easiest way to do the journey is direct to Euston, Victoria Line, Southern to the coast. Anybody travelling to/from further north will have more services at Euston, which is better than single daily services any more.

There's also the issue of needing to access the Slows on both the BML and WCML to get to/from the West London Line. Adds conflicting moves (or gets trapped behind slow trains) onto very busy main lines just outside the terminus.

And the slow lines are pretty full themselves.

Try travelling from Brighton to Birmingham with two or more children under 10, at least two large suitcases and a few other items of luggage. My parents did this many times during the 1970's with my sister and I. They where quite glad in the 1980's, when direct services from Brighton to Birmingham started without the need to cross land. In later years my sister and I grew up to be of an age where we could take our own luggage and further on, both my sister, Mum and I all passed our driving tests, which meant getting from front door locally in East Sussex to relatives within the West Midlands even easier. But with many people doing the same, it has added to the amount of CO2 in the air.

Access to the slows whether it is on the BML or WCML, or as was in the 1980's with trains travelling to Kensington Olympia and then on to GWML to Reading, before going north towards Oxfords at Didcot Parkway are all such that there is not the paths. Whether the building of Old Oak Common station as part of HS2, will help capacity on other lines to enable paths to be available, who knows as I think only time will tell if that can be the case.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Try travelling from Brighton to Birmingham with two or more children under 10, at least two large suitcases and a few other items of luggage. My parents did this many times during the 1970's with my sister and I. They where quite glad in the 1980's, when direct services from Brighton to Birmingham started without the need to cross land. In later years my sister and I grew up to be of an age where we could take our own luggage and further on, both my sister, Mum and I all passed our driving tests, which meant getting from front door locally in East Sussex to relatives within the West Midlands even easier. But with many people doing the same, it has added to the amount of CO2 in the air.

Access to the slows whether it is on the BML or WCML, or as was in the 1980's with trains travelling to Kensington Olympia and then on to GWML to Reading, before going north towards Oxfords at Didcot Parkway are all se Wouch that there is not the paths. Whether the building of Old Oak Common station as part of HS2, will help capacity on other lines to enable paths to be available, who knows as I think only time will tell if that can be the case.

HS2 and Old Oak Common does nothing for the BML, Sussex or Kent routes and when HS2 is finished the BML will still be at full capacity. Even if the Windmill Bridge Works go ahead, what few spare paths that will be created by that will be used up by additional services from Victoria and perhaps another freight path. Certainly not more services from the WLL.

 

[zwk500]

Try travelling from Brighton to Birmingham with two or more children under 10, at least two large suitcases and a few other items of luggage. My parents did this many times during the 1970's with my sister and I. They where quite glad in the 1980's, when direct services from Brighton to Birmingham started without the need to cross land. In later years my sister and I grew up to be of an age where we could take our own luggage and further on, both my sister, Mum and I all passed our driving tests, which meant getting from front door locally in East Sussex to relatives within the West Midlands even easier. But with many people doing the same, it has added to the amount of CO2 in the air.

This is not a major flow. Rail is bulk transport, not personal service. Those who wish to avoid the underground have the option on the Southern service. But most traffic heading North of Brighton is heading to London, and likewise for southbound from Birmingham.

Access to the slows whether it is on the BML or WCML, or as was in the 1980's with trains travelling to Kensington Olympia and then on to GWML to Reading, before going north towards Oxfords at Didcot Parkway are all such that there is not the paths. Whether the building of Old Oak Common station as part of HS2, will help capacity on other lines to enable paths to be available, who knows as I think only time will tell if that can be the case.

How would a station on a different brand newine help with paths on existing lines?

 

[Philip]

I think a good example would be joining up the Scotland-Manchester with either an Avanti London service, or a Cross Country as was the case before 2005.

 

[thatapanydude]

I would extend the great northern ecml peak services from Peterborough to start and end at Newark (stopping at Grantham too). This will help during peak hours to provide extra capacity for LNER services from further afield if more commuters from Newark and Grantham use the Great Northern service. Plus helping local connectivity about to be reduced from Newark, Grantham and Peterborough.

 

[zwk500]

I think a good example would be joining up the Scotland-Manchester with either an Avanti London service, or a Cross Country as was the case before 2005.

Who gains from this? Passengers from Soctland to Crewe or south thereof already have Avanti services, and can change at Crewe, Stafford or Birmingham where needed.

I would extend the great northern ecml peak services from Peterborough to start and end at Newark (stopping at Grantham too). This will help during peak hours to provide extra capacity for LNER services from further afield if more commuters from Newark and Grantham use the Great Northern service. Plus helping local connectivity about to be reduced from Newark, Grantham and Peterborough.

You can only turnround in the back platform, which will block Lincoln services that reverse for the connections. And you have an increased risk of adverse aspects across the Flat Crossing, a performance issue. Might be possible on a plan but won't take much for a small delay to spread like wildfire.

 

[Philip]

Who gains from this? Passengers from Soctland to Crewe or south thereof already have Avanti services, and can change at Crewe, Stafford or Birmingham where needed.

Who gains from this? Passengers from Soctland to Crewe or south thereof already have Avanti services, and can change at Crewe, Stafford or Birmingham where needed.

You can only turnround in the back platform, which will block Lincoln services that reverse for the connections. And you have an increased risk of adverse aspects across the Flat Crossing, a performance issue. Might be possible on a plan but won't take much for a small delay to spread like wildfire.

Again it provides Bolton with direct services to the south which it had until 15 years ago. It would save turning around trains in Piccadilly terminating platforms, along with Manchester Airport and a path gained on that line. If Voyagers were used then the doubling up of them would double the capacity offered on the Manchester to Scotland route, compared with single 397s.
Alternatively if more 397s were ordered and cleared for 125mph running then the service could join up with the London via Wilmslow/Crewe and run as doubled up 397s, releasing Pendolinos for use elsewhere.

 

[cle]

Again it provides Bolton with direct services to the south which it had until 15 years ago. It would save turning around trains in Piccadilly terminating platforms, along with Manchester Airport and a path gained on that line. If Voyagers were used then the doubling up of them would double the capacity offered on the Manchester to Scotland route, compared with single 397s.

We can't have London trains coming through P13/14. Services through there need to load up and move on sharpish!

I can't see the case for Bolton long distance services. From a network point of view, it's not really on a mainline and doesn't work. Wigan is fortunate in that regard, and a much better/quicker bet.

 

[Philip]

We can't have London trains coming through P13/14. Services through there need to load up and move on sharpish!

I can't see the case for Bolton long distance services. From a network point of view, it's not really on a mainline and doesn't work. Wigan is fortunate in that regard, and a much better/quicker bet.

The platform 13/14 argument is far fetched nowadays with the drop in passenger numbers. And with longer trains there are more places for people to board, so reducing the dwell time.

Although not built as part of the WCML, the Bolton route is arguably now a spur/loop of the WCML in the same way the Crewe to Manchester line is.

 

[JonathanH]

The platform 13/14 argument is far fetched nowadays with the drop in passenger numbers.

You can't have it both ways though - you are suggesting longer trains via Manchester while at the same time suggesting fewer people are going to be travelling.

Regardless of that the problem is always going to be that more people want to board trains to London at Manchester than Bolton and platform 13 isn't the place to do that when the alternative is to spread that boarding over a 20 minute period in one of the terminal platforms.

 

[Philip]

You can't have it both ways though - you are suggesting longer trains via Manchester while at the same time suggesting fewer people are going to be travelling.

Regardless of that the problem is always going to be that more people want to board trains to London at Manchester than Bolton and platform 13 isn't the place to do that when the alternative is to spread that boarding over a 20 minute period in one of the terminal platforms.

But at the same time it takes platforms 6 or 7 pretty much out of use throughout the day for medium distance or local trains to use (in the 3 per hour timetable). Shifting a WCML service onto the through platforms could allow one of the TPE services currently using Ordsall Chord to run into Piccadilly via Guide Bridge instead, and terminate.

Platforms 13 and 14 are long enough to accommodate Pendolinos, therefore they should be an option to use.

 

[JonathanH]

Platforms 13 and 14 are long enough to accommodate Pendolinos, therefore they should be an option to use

Yes, but you are willfully ignoring the practicality of boarding the demand from Piccadilly at those platforms.