Should Avanti services continue north from Manchester Piccadilly?

[Rhydgaled]

I didn't say this earlier but now that this topic has been split off I'll propose that, if you want a token through service between London and Bolton, wouldn't the thing to do be to reverse at Wigan? I don't know if Wigan-Bolton has been electrified yet, but I don't think it was on the list of scrapped schemes.

 

[Hey 3]

I didn't say this earlier but now that this topic has been split off I'll propose that, if you want a token through service between London and Bolton, wouldn't the thing to do be to reverse at Wigan? I don't know if Wigan-Bolton has been electrified yet, but I don't think it was on the list of scrapped schemes.

Wigan North Western to Lostock Parkway electrification (and then Bolton, but that is wired) was canned by Grayling, and was "Graylinged" and reversing at Wigan is unnescary, given the speed of Wigan Stn Jn

 

[Rhydgaled]

reversing at Wigan is unnescary, given the speed of Wigan Stn Jn

I cannot see a chord at Wigan allowing a train to go directly from Warrington Bank Quay to Ince so a reversal would surely be necessary? Not sure there is much benefit in token through London services (my concern for the Pembroke Coast Express a few years ago was much more about the extra capacity it provides and to a lessor extent through journey opertunities to Cardiff) but if Bolton justifies it (and the electrification had happened) the Wigan option would avoid sticking a Pendolino through Castlefield.

 

[Ianno87]

I didn't say this earlier but now that this topic has been split off I'll propose that, if you want a token through service between London and Bolton, wouldn't the thing to do be to reverse at Wigan? I don't know if Wigan-Bolton has been electrified yet, but I don't think it was on the list of scrapped schemes.

You can only reverse in Platforms 1 and 3 to get to both routes - neither of which are long enough.

And it would be robbing Preston of a path.

And then the small matter of what you do with the Pendolino when it gets to Bolton.


Best shout for any service to Bolton would be a very early Up service and late Down service that pass through Castlefield before the full "standard hour" has got going.

 

[Hey 3]

Oh and by the way, I did say post NPR/HS3 and HS2, so the Pendolinos won't be with us for much longer

 

[HSTEd]

In principle I would support something like this.

But realising it in a practical fashion would require my other pet project of a new Manchester Hbf.
Since we will never get that, not much to talk about really.

 

[Philip]

Could TPE be an option for this? In the normal timetable, I'm thinking along the lines of running the first arrival into Manchester Piccadilly from Edinburgh/Glasgow (I think 07:25/08:25?) non-stop between Manchester and Crewe via Styal, then perhaps Crewe, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Watford. Northbound it could leave London Euston in time to form either the 20:26 or 21:22 Manchester Piccadilly to Edinburgh/Glasgow. That way no extra services through Castlefield and you won't be putting a Pendolino full of passengers onto platforms 13/14 when it arrives in Manchester from either direction. Pick up and set down restrictions at Manchester Piccadilly could also help with this issue, and also helping not to abstract Avanti revenue from Piccadilly passengers.

In the normal timetable I think 10 out of 12 397s are normally in service, so this could be stretched to 11 whilst still leaving one for maintenance/spare. I realise they won't keep to Pendolino timings south of Crewe, but stopping at the stations I've listed will allow faster services to overtake - and there may be some sections where the slow lines can be used to allow a Pendolino to overtake.

The journey would be a bit longer, but TPE could put cheaper advance and walk up tickets on sale than Aventi's offerings in order to attract Bolton passengers.

 

[The Planner]

Could TPE be an option for this? In the normal timetable, I'm thinking along the lines of running the first arrival into Manchester Piccadilly from Edinburgh/Glasgow (I think 07:25/08:25?) non-stop between Manchester and Crewe via Styal, then perhaps Crewe, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Watford. Northbound it could leave London Euston in time to form either the 20:26 or 21:22 Manchester Piccadilly to Edinburgh/Glasgow. That way no extra services through Castlefield and you won't be carting a Pendolino full of passengers onto platforms 13/14 when it arrives in Manchester from either direction.

In the normal timetable I think 10 out of 12 397s are normally in service, so this could be stretched to 11 whilst still leaving one for maintenance/spare. I realise they won't keep to Pendolino timings south of Crewe, but stopping at the stations I've listed will allow faster services to overtake - and there may be some sections where the slow lines can be used to allow a Pendolino to overtake.

The journey would be a bit longer, but TPE could put cheaper advance and walk up tickets on sale than Aventi's offerings in order to attract Bolton passengers.

You are massively overcomplicating something that would be best served by Avanti. Think about everything else that is required here, off pattern paths on the WCML, somewhere for the train to stable during the day, crew facilities etc... for one return trip a day it would never wash its face. It would be substantially cheaper and easier to provide mitigation measures at Picc p13/14 for the two trains a day.

 

[Hey 3]

Could TPE be an option for this? In the normal timetable, I'm thinking along the lines of running the first arrival into Manchester Piccadilly from Edinburgh/Glasgow (I think 07:25/08:25?) non-stop between Manchester and Crewe via Styal, then perhaps Crewe, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Watford. Northbound it could leave London Euston in time to form either the 20:26 or 21:22 Manchester Piccadilly to Edinburgh/Glasgow. That way no extra services through Castlefield and you won't be putting a Pendolino full of passengers onto platforms 13/14 when it arrives in Manchester from either direction.

In the normal timetable I think 10 out of 12 397s are normally in service, so this could be stretched to 11 whilst still leaving one for maintenance/spare. I realise they won't keep to Pendolino timings south of Crewe, but stopping at the stations I've listed will allow faster services to overtake - and there may be some sections where the slow lines can be used to allow a Pendolino to overtake.

The journey would be a bit longer, but TPE could put cheaper advance and walk up tickets on sale than Aventi's offerings in order to attract Bolton passengers.

But a Euston-Manchester-Scotland service doesn't put any paths at all on the WCML(branches and core(including Castlefield) and uses existing TPE paths to Scotland and existing AWC paths to London and in my plans, would serve Stockport and Northampton, and is a post HS2 and HS3/NPR/"Crossrail for the North" proposal.

 

[Watershed]

Could TPE be an option for this? In the normal timetable, I'm thinking along the lines of running the first arrival into Manchester Piccadilly from Edinburgh/Glasgow (I think 07:25/08:25?) non-stop between Manchester and Crewe via Styal, then perhaps Crewe, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Watford. Northbound it could leave London Euston in time to form either the 20:26 or 21:22 Manchester Piccadilly to Edinburgh/Glasgow. That way no extra services through Castlefield and you won't be putting a Pendolino full of passengers onto platforms 13/14 when it arrives in Manchester from either direction. Pick up and set down restrictions at Manchester Piccadilly could also help with this issue, and also helping not to abstract Avanti revenue from Piccadilly passengers.

Complete non-starter, for reasons including commercial justification, traction knowledge, service reliability, balancing, actually providing a service to Piccadilly(!), abstraction, paths...

In the normal timetable I think 10 out of 12 397s are normally in service, so this could be stretched to 11 whilst still leaving one for maintenance/spare. I realise they won't keep to Pendolino timings south of Crewe, but stopping at the stations I've listed will allow faster services to overtake - and there may be some sections where the slow lines can be used to allow a Pendolino to overtake.

There are currently 6 full and 2 half day diagrams and CAF/Alstom are still struggling to provide enough serviceable units, even with all units accepted and in service over a year ago. 2 spare units is an absolute bare minimum to ensure any sort of reliability.

The journey would be a bit longer, but TPE could put cheaper advance and walk up tickets on sale than Aventi's offerings in order to attract Bolton passengers.

Right, so this is effectively an open access proposal? In which case it's a non-starter for that reason as well - see the recently rejected Grand Union application.

Bolton passengers will just have to make do with changing at Piccadilly or Wigan for the foreseeable future.

 

[Hey 3]

Complete non-starter, for reasons including commercial justification, traction knowledge, service reliability, balancing, actually providing a service to Piccadilly(!), abstraction, paths...


There are currently 6 full and 2 half day diagrams and CAF/Alstom are still struggling to provide enough serviceable units, even with all units accepted and in service over a year ago. 2 spare units is an absolute bare minimum to ensure any sort of reliability.


Right, so this is effectively an open access proposal? In which case it's a non-starter for that reason as well - see the recently rejected Grand Union application.

Bolton passengers will just have to make do with changing at Piccadilly or Wigan for the foreseeable future.

They can also change at Preston, Stockport or Wilmslow

 

[JonathanH]

The journey would be a bit longer, but TPE could put cheaper advance and walk up tickets on sale than Aventi's offerings in order to attract Bolton passengers.

How is it that every open access proposal or extension of operations suggested on this forum is made on the premise of 'cheaper' fares? Anyone would think that the existing operators are making extortionate profits on their operations which they aren't.

 

[Metrolink]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...inue-north-from-manchester-piccadilly.211756/

I think Avanti West Coast services should continue north of Manchester Piccadilly post NPR and HS2 and be combined with the Transpennine Express Manchester Airport to Scotland service(dropping the Ringway stop bar 1tpd for route knowledge)
So my calling pattern
London Euston, Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, B'ham Intl, B'ham New St, Sandwell and Dudley, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Congleton(1tp2h), Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Deansgate(1tp2h), Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme Lake District(1tp2h), Penrith North Lakes(1tp2h), Carlisle then alternate to Glasgow and Edinburgh
Glasgow Central portion
Motherwell, Glasgow Central
Edinburgh Waverley
Edinburgh Haymarket, Edinburgh Waverley
Diversion of 1tpd via Crewe, Airport, Bolton and Chorley
Calling pattern
Crewe, Wilmslow, Manchester Airport, East Didsbury, Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Deansgate, Salford Crescent, Bolton, Chorley , Preston and then as above

It seems like a great idea really and the calling pattern would be effective.
As mentioned already platform length is an issue. Yet there is a solution, Avanti could run 221s instead and as they are five-car sets platform length is not an issue because I believe all your stations mentioned can accomadate these trains. It may be opinionated that a five-car train is not enough for Scotland to London but this serves a purpose in many ways: B’ham Intl to Manchester, Northampton to Manchester, a direct connection from Manchester Airport to London, and additionally no shortened trains on the Scottish Route if Avanti were to take over the TPE route ( the 802s are already five car sets and 185s are three).

If you were to take a train from Scotland to London Euston there are existing services in place that are more direct. This service takes longer but merges multiple routes and destinations into one service. There are services that are similar in place e.g EMR Norwich to Liverpool - where a ticket for the whole route is rarely bought, however acts as multiple services. With the 221s Avanti could serve East Didsbury, Chorley, Bolton, Deansgate and Manchester Airport etc at ease and therefore inter-connect more services and routes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Feb 2021 ==

Oh and by the way, I did say post NPR/HS3 and HS2, so the Pendolinos won't be with us for much longer

Even so this route could start before HS3/NPR and then possibly removed afterward.

 

[Hey 3]

It seems like a great idea really and the calling pattern would be effective.
As mentioned already platform length is an issue. Yet there is a solution, Avanti could run 221s instead and as they are five-car sets platform length is not an issue because I believe all your stations mentioned can accomadate these trains. It may be opinionated that a five-car train is not enough for Scotland to London but this serves a purpose in many ways: B’ham Intl to Manchester, Northampton to Manchester, a direct connection from Manchester Airport to London, and additionally no shortened trains on the Scottish Route if Avanti were to take over the TPE route ( the 802s are already five car sets and 185s are three).

If you were to take a train from Scotland to London Euston there are existing services in place that are more direct. This service takes longer but merges multiple routes and destinations into one service. There are services that are similar in place e.g EMR Norwich to Liverpool - where a ticket for the whole route is rarely bought, however acts as multiple services. With the 221s Avanti could serve East Didsbury, Chorley, Bolton, Deansgate and Manchester Airport etc at ease and therefore inter-connect more services and routes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Feb 2021 ==


Even so this route could start before HS3/NPR and then possibly removed afterward.

No, they could use 805/807s as they will be 5/7 or 9 cars long and AWC won't have voyagers then

 

[Metrolink]

No, they could use 805/807s as they will be 5/7 or 9 cars long and AWC won't have voyagers then

Ahh, but if this was to be introduced say by December 221s could be used before introducing 805/807s, couldn’t they?

 

[Hey 3]

Ahh, but if this was to be introduced say by December 221s could be used before introducing 805/807s, couldn’t they?

But that would mean a diesel under the wires all the way from Euston-Manchester-Scotland

 

[Metrolink]

But that would mean a diesel under the wires all the way from Euston-Manchester-Scotland

Oh of course...

 

[Hey 3]

Oh of course...

And it already happens with Euston-Birmingham-Scotland and Euston-Trent Valley-Scotland