WCML current running times

[Jack Hay]

Hi, I happened to be at Preston station this morning and saw the early arrival of the 0755 EUS-GLA. This left Euston 11 minutes late and arrived at Preston 14 minutes early. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:S13656/2022-10-17/detailed#allox_id=0 RTT says it's timetabled for a 390 but it doesn't look like it. I know the present timetable is temporary. What is the change that allows a Pendolino to gain 25 minutes between London and Preston? Thanks.

 

[jfollows]

Hi, I happened to be at Preston station this morning and saw the early arrival of the 0755 EUS-GLA. This left Euston 11 minutes late and arrived at Preston 14 minutes early. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:S13656/2022-10-17/detailed#allox_id=0 RTT says it's timetabled for a 390 but it doesn't look like it. I know the present timetable is temporary. What is the change that allows a Pendolino to gain 25 minutes between London and Preston? Thanks.

17.5 minutes of pathing allowance in the schedule, which is designed to allow for following other trains or waiting for them where there are conflicts. Take this out and the train will run early. Other time allowances add to this.
The London-Glasgow trains are currently running with an additional stop at Crewe and their timings have had to be a compromise to fit around other trains. In the "normal" timetable they run non-stop to Warrington and get a much better timetable path. In the "normal" timetable the Crewe service is provided by the London-Chester service which runs hourly but is currently not running regularly.

 

[Watershed]

17.5 minutes of pathing allowance in the schedule, which is designed to allow for following other trains or waiting for them where there are conflicts. Take this out and the train will run early. Other time allowances add to this.
The London-Glasgow trains are currently running with an additional stop at Crewe and their timings have had to be a compromise to fit around other trains. In the "normal" timetable they run non-stop to Warrington and get a much better timetable path. In the "normal" timetable the Crewe service is provided by the London-Chester service which runs hourly but is currently not running regularly.

Actually 24 minutes of pathing between Euston and Preston. Plus 6 minutes of engineering allowance, which is largely unused as there aren't many TSRs on the WCML at the moment. The dwells are Crewe and Warrington are also slightly generous (3 minutes as opposed to the 2 minute minimum) and the Wigan dwell is very generous (6 minutes). That effectively adds up to 36 minutes of "slack", so in fact the train "lost" time despite more than making up its initial delay!

It also looks like the Train Manager and platform staff at Warrington and Wigan weren't paying much attention to the advertised departure times, as they let the train depart Warrington and Wigan 1 and 2 minutes early, respectively. I hope nobody missed the train as a result!

 

[Falcon1200]

Pre-Covid, and of course Avanti's problems, this train was 0830 from Euston, due into Glasgow Central at 1259. Now, as above it starts at 0755, and it is not due into Central until 1304; 40 minutes additional running time for the sake of two extra stops, at Crewe and Penrith! Once upon a time the LNWR was known as the Premier Line, now its more like the Primark route.

 

[The Planner]

Pre-Covid, and of course Avanti's problems, this train was 0830 from Euston, due into Glasgow Central at 1259. Now, as above it starts at 0755, and it is not due into Central until 1304; 40 minutes additional running time for the sake of two extra stops, at Crewe and Penrith! Once upon a time the LNWR was known as the Premier Line, now its more like the Primark route.

Saves messing about retiming everything around it, simple as.

 

[Falcon1200]

Saves messing about retiming everything around it, simple as.

Understand that, but this is a train linking the largest city in the UK with the largest city in Scotland, and this is the best we can do?!!

(To which BTW yesterday Avanti saw fit to allocate a 9-car Pendolino).

 

[Railperf]

Understand that, but this is a train linking the largest city in the UK with the largest city in Scotland, and this is the best we can do?!!

(To which BTW yesterday Avanti saw fit to allocate a 9-car Pendolino).

It is a shame considering the millions spent and years of disruption upgrading the line for 125mph tilt to wind up with journey times no faster than the legacy 110mph non- tilt stock - albeit capacity has been improved. I guess it will help sell HS2 to punters.

 

[zwk500]

Understand that, but this is a train linking the largest city in the UK with the largest city in Scotland, and this is the best we can do?!!

(To which BTW yesterday Avanti saw fit to allocate a 9-car Pendolino).

It is a shame considering the millions spent and years of disruption upgrading the line for 125mph tilt to wind up with journey times no faster than the legacy 110mph non- tilt stock - albeit capacity has been improved. I guess it will help sell HS2 to punters.

Presumably when (if) avanti's driver problems ease, this schedule can be tightened up again as other services will pick up the stops?

 

[paul1609]

It is a shame considering the millions spent and years of disruption upgrading the line for 125mph tilt to wind up with journey times no faster than the legacy 110mph non- tilt stock - albeit capacity has been improved. I guess it will help sell HS2 to punters.

How many billion for HS2 to match the Virgin timings? Sounds like a project ripe for the axe to me

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How many billion for HS2 to match the Virgin timings? Sounds like a project ripe for the axe to me

HS2 will knock off 30% from even Virgin's best times*, and offer 18tph out of Euston.

* to Birmingham/Manchester; less to Scotland, especially without the Golborne link.

 

[zwk500]

How many billion for HS2 to match the Virgin timings? Sounds like a project ripe for the axe to me

'We should cancel HS2 because Avanti have had to hack around their schedules temporarily while they resolve a shortage of trained drivers' is quite the leap of reasoning.

 

[hexagon789]

Presumably when (if) avanti's driver problems ease, this schedule can be tightened up again as other services will pick up the stops?

Certainly the provisional December timetable has the ones not calling at Motherwell (which is roughly every second one southbound but more random northbound) taking 4h31-4h32 on average depending on direction - identical to the standard timing introduced under the VHF timetable.

 

[paul1609]

Certainly the provisional December timetable has the ones not calling at Motherwell (which is roughly every second one southbound but more random northbound) taking 4h31-4h32 on average depending on direction - identical to the standard timing introduced under the VHF timetable.

The last £9 billion of investment on this moneypit promised London to Glasgow journey times of 4 h 10 in 1998.

 

[hexagon789]

The last £9 billion of investment on this moneypit promised London to Glasgow journey times of 4 h 10 in 1998.

And were promised in 1979 and achieved briefly in 1983/4.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The last £9 billion of investment on this moneypit promised London to Glasgow journey times of 4 h 10 in 1998.

That's because trains now make 2-3 stops between Preston and Carlisle, 4h10 would be possible with only two stops at Preston and Carlisle.
They are doubling as regional trains as well as fast intercity (extra stops at Lockerbie and Motherwell as well).
The ECML has similar problems with extra stops inserted en route - as does the GWML to the west.

 

[paul1609]

That's because trains now make 2-3 stops between Preston and Carlisle, 4h10 would be possible with only two stops at Preston and Carlisle.
They are doubling as regional trains as well as fast intercity (extra stops at Lockerbie and Motherwell as well).
The ECML has similar problems with extra stops inserted en route - as does the GWML to the west.

I cant for the life of me think of the rationale behind constantly spending billions to reduce journeytimes only to subsequently put in extra stops that write off the time savings.

 

[The Planner]

I cant for the life of me think of the rationale behind constantly spending billions to reduce journeytimes only to subsequently put in extra stops that write off the time savings.

This is due to the current issues Avanti have, once they are sorted the timetable will revert.

 

[zwk500]

I cant for the life of me think of the rationale behind constantly spending billions to reduce journeytimes only to subsequently put in extra stops that write off the time savings.

Spending billions is over a lifetime of 20-50+ years. The extra stops are in as a temporary response to staffing issues.

 

[hexagon789]

I cant for the life of me think of the rationale behind constantly spending billions to reduce journeytimes only to subsequently put in extra stops that write off the time savings.

Because the intermediate traffic, in many cases, is as important as the end-to-end traffic.

Same reasons stops were progressively added by BR to the InterCity 125 services on the GWML (originally two stops only off-peak on the Bristol fasts) and ECML (originally two stops one hour, four stops the next on the Edinburgh fasts), the Glasgow services on the WCML (usually two stops in 1974, but some peak services called additionally at Motherwell and/or Watford). Etc etc...

 

[cle]

I saw the Rail stats about the uptick in Edinburgh share. Feels like Glasgow is ripe for this too, but the service is terrible. Lumo is just one part.

And anyone who looks into flying (as i do often) will see how crazy expensive but also unreliable BA has become on LON-GLA. Needs a second rail service per hour - a faster pattern to start to capitalize on the air situation and Edinburgh progress - and then the existing one can be more regional, keep the Crewe call etc. And send all the Wolves/'rounders' to Edinburgh.

 

[Bald Rick]

The last £9 billion of investment on this moneypit promised London to Glasgow journey times of 4 h 10 in 1998.

You make it sound like the money was spent only on improving journey times on London to Glasgow. As you well know it was spent on much more, ie reduced journey times from London to all WCML inter city locations and significantly improved frequencies to most. Plus significant extra capacity for freight. Plus significant extra capacity for other passenger services.

By any measure eg passenger numbers, freight carried, cash, it has been a very successful investment.

That there are temporary issues with train crew leading to a temporary extension in journey times for some passengers is of course regrettable. But the key word is temporary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2022 ==

Needs a second rail service per hour - a faster pattern to start to capitalize on the air situation and Edinburgh progress - and then the existing one can be more regional, keep the Crewe call etc.

There isn’t capaciy for that until HS2 arrives.

 

[cle]

Where is the trickiest path issue? If Liverpool can go up to 2tph with the new stock, isn't that something available at least until Weaver?

From there to Lancaster, no huge issues surely? North of Lancaster is tricky (but which hourly paths were free for Liverpool-Glasgow?) -

To me, Manchester could go down to 2tph if it had to. With Macclesfield on all (and MKC on the Crewe - to keep journey times roughly equal)

 

[Oxfordblues]

Despite spending 16 minutes at Preston waiting time this train still managed to depart Lancaster 2 minutes late on the public times. This was partly because the standard running time takes no account of the mandatory moving brake test following driver relief at Preston. This leads to at least a minute's "delay" to most northbound Avanti trains. It's not helped by the public times suggesting that the train will restart from Lancaster immediately after it stops! (10:57-10:57)

 

[Falcon1200]

Bizarrely (to me anyway) the train in the OP, 1S44 0755 Euston-Glasgow C, was today booked to depart Euston at 0810 and with the same stops, arrive at Glasgow C at the same time; This applies for the rest of this week.

 

[Bald Rick]

Where is the trickiest path issue? If Liverpool can go up to 2tph with the new stock, isn't that something available at least until Weaver?

Well, if you were willing to give up the 2nd Liverpool, and have this imaginary second Glasgow take the same time to Weaver as the 2nd Liverpool (non tilt with a call at Crewe), then yes as far as Weaver. But I wouldn’t want to be the one telling Steve Rotherham.

From there to Lancaster, no huge issues surely?

Yes, including freight, TPE, Northern, etc.

North of Lancaster is tricky (but which hourly paths were free for Liverpool-Glasgow?) -

I don’t think the Liverpool Glasgow were ever hourly. But if they were, then that takes more services from Liverpool, see above. And the path took 2h35 or so to get from Preston - Glasgow due to stopping everywhere and being limited to 110mph. And the path doesn’t line up with when a second path might get to Preston.

Other than that, all fine!

(All paths are not equal)

 

[cle]

I don’t think the Liverpool Glasgow were ever hourly. But if they were, then that takes more services from Liverpool, see above. And the path took 2h35 or so to get from Preston - Glasgow due to stopping everywhere and being limited to 110mph. And the path doesn’t line up with when a second path might get to Preston.

Well that wasn't intentional - I don't want to wake that beast lol

More thinking that if there were room for those Liverpool - WCML services in certain hours, there might be in others.

To the topic, it might be that 2-3 extra services per day at key times London<>Glasgow might be a good way to begin building mode-shift, which has to be an aspiration on this route.

Maybe the second Liverpool could alternate with a Blackpool/Preston/Lancaster - enabling Crewe/W/W to drop from Glasgows in that hour.

 

[Watershed]

More thinking that if there were room for those Liverpool - WCML services in certain hours, there might be in others.

Freight paths on the northern WCML (between Winsford and Law Jn) are very much based around the existing passenger services (e.g. they enter loops just before a train passes, and depart immediately after another service passes). So just because it's possible for a passenger service to run around a given path once every four hours, that doesn't guarantee the same is possible in the intermediate hours.

 

[Taunton]

Pre-Covid, and of course Avanti's problems, this train was 0830 from Euston, due into Glasgow Central at 1259. Now, as above it starts at 0755, and it is not due into Central until 1304;

If I'm not mistaken the 1974 Electric Scot', conventional loco and coaches, left Euston at 0745 and arrived Glasgow Central 1245, having stopped at Watford, Preston, and I think Motherwell.

The loss of good end-to-end times is becoming widespread, as the onetime Inter-City operation is diluted down to a variant of an outer-suburban operation. You find the same, with times longer than 50 years ago, elsewhere, such as London to Bristol, or even Glasgow to Edinburgh.

 

[hexagon789]

If I'm not mistaken the 1974 Electric Scot', conventional loco and coaches, left Euston at 0745 and arrived Glasgow Central 1245, having stopped at Watford, Preston, and I think Motherwell.

Only the Royal Scot was scheduled 5 hours dead each way with just a Preston call, all others stopped at Carlisle additionally and some at Watford &/or Motherwell in which case journey time went up to 5h07-5h08 on average.

The 0745 was Watford Jcn., Preston, Carlisle & Motherwell - arr. Glasgow Cen. 1255.

 

[Jack Hay]

Only the Royal Scot was scheduled 5 hours dead each way with just a Preston call, all others stopped at Carlisle additionally and some at Watford &/or Motherwell in which case journey time went up to 5h07-5h08 on average.

The 0745 was Watford Jcn., Preston, Carlisle & Motherwell - arr. Glasgow Cen. 1255.

That's right, and it was achieved with 100mph running. 110mph didn't come in until later. I remember the launch of the Electric Scots. The 5h00 timing was quite a leap forward. I don't know how reliable it was.