Service changes at Liverpool - WMR/long distance

[B&I]

Allegedly running through to Euston from Birmingham.

Is the underlying issue here trying to reduce dwell times at New Street for the LNR stoppers to Euston?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the underlying issue here trying to reduce dwell times at New Street for the LNR stoppers to Euston?

Yes. But it'll also sell a load more cheap tickets.

 

[Bevan Price]

The current Crewe-Derby is a successor to a very useful Skegness-Manchester Airport.

The Airport bit was not well used - just me and one or two other passengers when I used it several years ago.

 

[SeanM1997]

Am I right in thinking, the services from Crewe to London will be (from December 2018):
VTWC
1ph Liverpool - London
1ph Manchester - London
1ph Chester - London
1ph Scotland - Birmingham - London

LNWR
1ph Crewe - Trent Valley - London
1ph Crewe - Stoke - Birmingham - Northampton - London
2ph Liverpool - Birmingham - Northampton - London

So a total of 8 trains an hour (even if some are slow), and even 4 trains an hour between Crewe and Birmingham International/Coventry (up from current 1 per hour)??

 

[sd0733]

Am I right in thinking, the services from Crewe to London will be (from December 2018):
VTWC
1ph Liverpool - London
1ph Manchester - London
1ph Chester - London
1ph Scotland - Birmingham - London

LNWR
1ph Crewe - Trent Valley - London
1ph Crewe - Stoke - Birmingham - Northampton - London
2ph Liverpool - Birmingham - Northampton - London

So a total of 8 trains an hour (even if some are slow), and even 4 trains an hour between Crewe and Birmingham International/Coventry (up from current 1 per hour)??

No there will only be 1 ph Liverpool to Euston lnwr. The other terminates at bham international

 

[SeanM1997]

No there will only be 1 ph Liverpool to Euston lnwr. The other terminates at bham international

I don't understand where the additional paths between Birmingham New Street and Birmingham International. Thought this line was full, especially with current ATW Wales-Birmingham services terminating at International. Its a shame the Liverpool-Birmingham service will only terminate at Birmingham International though - an extension to Northampton or even Leamington using the new Coventry-Kenilworth-Leamington service would have opened up more connectivity. An increase of services between Crewe and Birmingham Airport is welcome, as the services between Crewe and Manchester Airport are not good at all

 

[Ianno87]

The Airport bit was not well used - just me and one or two other passengers when I used it several years ago.

My memory is of my Dad and I being the only passengers between the Airport and Crewe. But given it didn't last very long (c. 2 years?) probably didn't have chance to build up much of a user base.

The FNW/Northern Crewe stopper via the Airport has never exactly been bursting at the seams either (though reasonably well used).

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect the Central Trains Manchester Airport service was so unreliable (as mentioned) that hardly anyone would use it for airport journeys - if there's a good chance it won't turn off or it will turn short with a wait of 30min or more then you're unlikely to rely on it when catching a flight. With network performance being better than in the early 2000s and without the Skegness leg that might be different if it was reinstated now. However HS2 services using the route between Crewe and Wilmslow probably makes this impossible anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't understand where the additional paths between Birmingham New Street and Birmingham International.

Existing paths are being used. I believe this one will replace the present Class 323-operated stopper.

 

[AndrewE]

However HS2 services using the route between Crewe and Wilmslow probably makes this impossible anyway.

Am I the only person to find this comment (by quite a few people and in lots of threads) very frustrating?
HS2 isn't going to arrive for a decade or so, and many of our train services are already long overdue for improvement, either to relieve overcrowding, to help cut road traffic or to provide rail services on lines that could serve the communities they go through but don't serve in any worthwhile way.
I'm not even convinced the new arrivals and the consequent switcharoo of rolling stock is going to address the current capacity issues...

 

[nw1]

The current plan AFAIUI will be:



Crewe starters:
1tph Alsager, kidsgrove, stoke, stone, Stafford, penkridge, wolves, stations to London via Birmingham

Is it really a good idea to run the Wolverhampton to Birmingham suburban service to and from London?
Starting at Crewe makes absolute sense, yes (providing direct links from Stone to Birmingham, allowing longer-distance services to skip Penkridge, etc) but to and from London? Means people travelling from Birmingham to suburban stations on the way to Wolverhampton will be held up by any delays between Birmingham and London. Better to terminate it at Birmingham or run it through to another West Midlands terminus like Coventry or Walsall surely?

 

[B&I]

Yes. But it'll also sell a load more cheap tickets.

Only to the not very well informed, I assume, unless there is a cheaper 'via Birmingham' ticket from points south of Rugby to Stafford, Crewe and Liverpool.

 

[sd0733]

Is it really a good idea to run the Wolverhampton to Birmingham suburban service to and from London?
Starting at Crewe makes absolute sense, yes (providing direct links from Stone to Birmingham, allowing longer-distance services to skip Penkridge, etc) but to and from London? Means people travelling from Birmingham to suburban stations on the way to Wolverhampton will be held up by any delays between Birmingham and London. Better to terminate it at Birmingham or run it through to another West Midlands terminus like Coventry or Walsall surely?

It wasn't going to but the user groups for Alsager, Kidsgrove and stone campaigned heavily to retain a direct London service and this was the compromise to enable them to keep it.
I'm not sure they realise quite how slow it will be but they got what they asked for i.guess!

 

[edwin_m]

Am I the only person to find this comment (by quite a few people and in lots of threads) very frustrating?
HS2 isn't going to arrive for a decade or so, and many of our train services are already long overdue for improvement, either to relieve overcrowding, to help cut road traffic or to provide rail services on lines that could serve the communities they go through but don't serve in any worthwhile way.
I'm not even convinced the new arrivals and the consequent switcharoo of rolling stock is going to address the current capacity issues...

The HS2 service in question is expected in 2026. Looking at how long it takes to do anything on the railway, I think it's highly improbable that any extension of Derby-Crewe could happen until two or three years before that - and probably not worth the bother if it has to be taken away so soon.

 

[cle]

It's funny because Central Trains used to run lots of random weird services like Aberystwyth to Stansted or Milford Haven to Lincoln - as a way of joining up, through-running and stringing separate journeys together.

This was then quite dramatically severed, mainly for reliability/New St rationalising - and now it seems as if LM are doing a similar tactic across BNS which makes sense from a platforming point of view, but surely the same problems will arise especially with cancellations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only to the not very well informed, I assume, unless there is a cheaper 'via Birmingham' ticket from points south of Rugby to Stafford, Crewe and Liverpool.

I assume you mean people would prefer to use the Trent Valley LNR service and change? I think many will appreciate the direct journey even if slower - as if you're using LNR for a journey like that you're already pretty much making a statement that time is not of the essence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wasn't going to but the user groups for Alsager, Kidsgrove and stone campaigned heavily to retain a direct London service and this was the compromise to enable them to keep it.
I'm not sure they realise quite how slow it will be but they got what they asked for i.guess!

Not just that but LNR also want to minimise (or even cease) terminating at New St.

 

[pt_mad]

Not just that but LNR also want to minimise (or even cease) terminating at New St.

So one of the Euston - Northampton - Birmingham services will combine with the Birmingham - Wolverhampton - Stone - Crewe service to form a through service.

One of the Euston - Northampton - Birmingham services will join with a Birmingham - Liverpool service to form another through service.

And the other Birmingham - Liverpool will start from Birmingham International.

What about the third hourly Euston - Northampton - Birmingham. Will this still terminate at Birmingham New Street and be the only ex London LNR service in the hour to terminate there?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well to complete the pack they could send it to Rugeley via Soho and Walsall...

 

[AndrewE]

... now it seems as if LM are doing a similar tactic across BNS which makes sense from a platforming point of view, but surely the same problems will arise especially with cancellations.

Well to complete the pack they could send it to Rugeley via Soho and Walsall...

I like it! But on a serious note, I can see the benefits of not terminating trains in New St. So why not let the relatively long distance arrivals (Liverpool, Euston, Manchester) go forward on short-distance services (Wolves or Coventry stoppers or semi-fasts) and give them a sensible turn-round time at their termini? That way the consequences of late running or cancellation don't spread much outside the region (and can be replaced for the local leg by a unit slotted in from Soho - if there is one available.)
The good people of the west midlands get useful connections further afield without having to change too.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Branding now gets in the way of some of the nice cross-Birmingham technical solutions.
A mostly local Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham-Euston cuts right across the split between WMR and LNR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Branding now gets in the way of some of the nice cross-Birmingham technical solutions.
A mostly local Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham-Euston cuts right across the split between WMR and LNR.

With it now not certain if the TOC will be split fully at the next renewal as was originally proposed, I can see the split going away, or just looking a bit like the old London Midland City split.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

With it now not certain if the TOC will be split fully at the next renewal as was originally proposed, I can see the split going away, or just looking a bit like the old London Midland City split.

Yes but they somehow have to split the till between the two, with separate accounting required in the current franchise.
Same for the Liverpool-Birmingham-Euston, and Liverpool-Birmingham International.
Not to mention getting the appropriate stock on the right service.
All very messy.

 

[AndrewE]

So scrap the franchising pantomime then. It's not even as though there is any baby that we risk losing with the bathwater!

 

[ChrisHogan]

Branding now gets in the way of some of the nice cross-Birmingham technical solutions.
A mostly local Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham-Euston cuts right across the split between WMR and LNR.

Not entirely as the New Street to Coventry section of the 'Little Londons' was already jointly specified as being both TfWM and DfT sponsored (see the map in the DfT's Stakeholder Briefing) It just extends the joint sponsorship further west.

More puzzling is how WMT thinks the cross-linking of services will reduce platform occupation at New Street (the easiest way to do that, of course, is to stop VTWC from parking a Pendolino continuously at New Street). Assuming there is no recast of services on either the Coventry corridor or the Stour, then WMT arrivals from London are at 02 and 17 and from International at 34, with linked departures to Liverpool at 01, 36 and the likely extension to Crewe via Stoke at 39. 34 in to 36 out might just be achieveable (bending Rules of the Plan no doubt) although unlikely to be robust but the others give both long platform stopovers and extended journey times that won't be attractive to passengers, unless I've missed something ......

 

[pt_mad]

Well to complete the pack they could send it to Rugeley via Soho and Walsall...

Sounds a great idea on the face of it. And it would give Walsall and Cannock a regular direct London service.

Anybody able to say whether this would be viable planning wise?

With it now not certain if the TOC will be split fully at the next renewal as was originally proposed, I can see the split going away, or just looking a bit like the old London Midland City split.

Is the full split not on the cards now then? What has changed?

 

[All Line Rover]

Crewe has to accommodate 3TPH of extra non-stopping Manchester trains between HS2 phases 1 and 2B

Says who? HS2 is consulting on a proposal of that nature, during the course of which the fact that Crewe would lose its primary Manchester service hasn't gone unnoticed. There is no definitive "has to".

 

[edwin_m]

Says who? HS2 is consulting on a proposal of that nature, during the course of which the fact that Crewe would lose its primary Manchester service hasn't gone unnoticed. There is no definitive "has to".

Considering that for a period HS2 goes to Crewe and not to Manchester, and Manchester is the most important single market for that part of HS2, it is close to certain that during that period Manchester services will run on HS2 to Crewe then via Wilmslow. Certainly far more likely than any of the other speculations on this thread!

 

[AndrewE]

Considering that for a period HS2 goes to Crewe and not to Manchester, and Manchester is the most important single market for that part of HS2, it is close to certain that during that period Manchester services will run on HS2 to Crewe then via Wilmslow. Certainly far more likely than any of the other speculations on this thread!

But will those trains be able to call at Crewe? More to the point, will they call at Crewe?

 

[edwin_m]

But will those trains be able to call at Crewe? More to the point, will they call at Crewe?

Probably not (discussion for another thread I think), but they still take up capacity there.