WCML current running times

[Taunton]

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.

What I can tell you is the first ever, that 07.45 from Euston on opening day, arrived at Glasgow Central right on time. Because I saw it come in.

 

[hexagon789]

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.

On the very first day, the down Royal Scot was 2m36 late arriving.

The 5 hour timing lasted until about 1979, when 8 mins was added. Most of the other services had already had some engineering padding added.

1980 Carlisle was added as a stop.

1981 was the really bad year for the WCML, lots of overdue engineering work saw all journeys extended, the average Glasgow timing became 5h26 down/5h28 up. The Royal Scot now called at Lancaster and took almost 5.5 hours.

1983 things had improved to a standard 5h15 timing, the Royal Scot had 3 stops by now.

1984, the two 110mph runs each way are introduced, Royal Scot down to 5h05 down; 5hr03 up. The other 110mph trains, the Glasgow Executives were 5h05 and 5h15 respectively.

1985, all Glasgow trains timed for 110mph but still nothing achieving 5 hours.

I forget if the 5 hour barrier was broken in 1988, but in 1989 the schedule was 4h45 - the best ever - and finally a timing illustrating the benefit of 110mph running.

 

[paul1609]

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.

The overnight Megabus is scheduled to do Glasgow to London in 8 hours. On the soutbound service Ive experienced several occasions where an early arrival has managed just over 7 hours despite 20 miles of roadworks on the M6 and careful observation of speed limits. Always emphasises to me how tardy the rail service is considering the pop star fares.

 

[cle]

And yet the Pendo era’s headline journey time was 4h10 for many years - since with more calls added, but 4h15-4h29 should be the range to vaguely compete with air. Preston and Carlisle as the only guaranteed calls, and maybe 1-2 others at certain hours, with another pattern for other stations.

They’ve learned this on the eastern side.

 

[Bald Rick]

And yet the Pendo era’s headline journey time was 4h10 for many years

For one train each way a day, which whenever I used it never had more than a third of seats occupied out of Euston, and never more than 20% departing Preston. (And yes I did count).

but 4h15-4h29 should be the range to vaguely compete with air.

well it’s back to c 4h30 in 8 weeks’ time.

They’ve learned this on the eastern side.

Sort of. The typical time to Edinburgh is 4h20, which given the journey is 8 miles shorter and has two fewer stops is actually not much different. One of the reasons the ECML timetable recast is being delayed for faster services is the incompatibility of having fast trains to Edinburgh mixed in with all the ‘stakeholder driven’ requirements for not so fast trains to places off the ECML.

Besides there is a much bigger market London to Edinburgh than London to Glasgow - more than 50% bigger (Air and rail combined)

 

[cle]

I think the 'only Preston' was too stark. Preston and Carlisle are not quite York and Newcastle! But I think a standard timing with 3-4 stops: (Watford/MKC alt), Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow (Motherwell 1-2 in the peak, same as Watford maybe) - hitting around 4'15-25 would be good.

Suppressed demand on the route for sure, I agree

 

[AndrewE]

I think the 'only Preston' was too stark. Preston and Carlisle are not quite York and Newcastle! But I think a standard timing with 3-4 stops: (Watford/MKC alt), Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow (Motherwell 1-2 in the peak, same as Watford maybe) - hitting around 4'15-25 would be good.

Suppressed demand on the route for sure, I agree

Why Preston and Lancaster? A lot of people travel from Wales and the N Midlands to Scotland joining at Crewe. (and even more would if there was a better service ythan has existed for several years now.)
It's not just about Euston to places Londoners want to go, you know!

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the 'only Preston' was too stark. Preston and Carlisle are not quite York and Newcastle! But I think a standard timing with 3-4 stops: (Watford/MKC alt), Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow (Motherwell 1-2 in the peak, same as Watford maybe) - hitting around 4'15-25 would be good.

Suppressed demand on the route for sure, I agree

I wouldn’t bother with Watford / MK, except at the edge of the day; there’s not that much of a market from there as shown by the relatively small air market from Luton - Glasgow.

I‘m not sure demand on the whole corridor is suppressed, London - Glasgow always has been a smaller market than London - Edinburgh.

 

[Some guy]

It’s all to mainly do with pathing the Crewe stop into the express Glasgow services meaning the just 1 Glasgow train per hour has to deal with a longer running time and an extra station load of passengers on an already extremely busy train

 

[cle]

Why Preston and Lancaster? A lot of people travel from Wales and the N Midlands to Scotland joining at Crewe. (and even more would if there was a better service ythan has existed for several years now.)
It's not just about Euston to places Londoners want to go, you know!

I am advocating a second service to Glasgow. But Crewe already has the hourly London-Birmingham-Scotland which I think should be all Edinburgh.

And a second, slower Glasgow (possibly Carlisle if stock is hard) which could also call at Crewe.

Re Lancaster, it's basically on a par with Carlisle. Preston doesn't fill the train, nor does Glasgow. So even the fast needs another NW call. Lancaster is the smart choice if we're running fast south of Preston still. If not then maybe Crewe-Preston-Carlisle but Crewe itself is well-served heading south, others need the London service more.

 

[Watershed]

But Crewe already has the hourly London-Birmingham-Scotland which I think should be all Edinburgh.

Why do you say this? Do you think that Birmingham-Glasgow doesn't warrant a direct service? The proposed HS2 service patterns suggest otherwise!

How would you propose for Manchester-Edinburgh services to be accommodated if all Birmingham-Scotland services ran to Edinburgh?

 

[cle]

Why do you say this? Do you think that Birmingham-Glasgow doesn't warrant a direct service? The proposed HS2 service patterns suggest otherwise!

How would you propose for Manchester-Edinburgh services to be accommodated if all Birmingham-Scotland services ran to Edinburgh?

Well primarily because otherwise you'd have 3tph Crewe/Lancs to Glasgow in some hours. So it would even it out by extending the London-Brum-Scot to Edinburgh as it's not the primary London-Edinburgh service by any means.

And Birmingham and definitely Manchester skew to Edinburgh demand, if you look at flights and so on. Perhaps Liverpool-Glasgow could one day ramp up, and Birmingham folks can change all of anywhere north of Crewe. It's not a massive flow despite the forthcoming population stats hysteria (Britain's second and third cities!111) - etc.

Or there is stock which can split/combine as per HS2 plans. Plus, that might make sense for the Manchester service, which in an ideal world would serve both hourly too.

 

[AndrewE]

I am advocating a second service to Glasgow. But Crewe already has the hourly London-Birmingham-Scotland which I think should be all Edinburgh.

And a second, slower Glasgow (possibly Carlisle if stock is hard) which could also call at Crewe.

Re Lancaster, it's basically on a par with Carlisle. Preston doesn't fill the train, nor does Glasgow. So even the fast needs another NW call. Lancaster is the smart choice if we're running fast south of Preston still. If not then maybe Crewe-Preston-Carlisle but Crewe itself is well-served heading south, others need the London service more.

So people from the provinces wanting to get on at Crewe and go to Glasgow can just lump it? The Class 9s from Brum to Scotland are/were usually very well loaded in my experience.

 

[Falcon1200]

Perhaps Liverpool-Glasgow could one day ramp up, and Birmingham folks can change all of anywhere north of Crewe. It's not a massive flow despite the forthcoming population stats hysteria (Britain's second and third cities!111) - etc.

Glasgow/Birmingham may not be a massive flow just now thanks to the abysmal service between the cities provided by Avanti, ie none, at all! But it certainly should be. And I have seen plenty of people changing from the Birmingham-Edinburghs at Preston or Carlisle for Glasgow.

The service pattern pre-Covid IMHO provided the best service possible, with hourly Euston/Glasgow fasts, hourly Euston/Scotland via Birmingham alternating to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and on the opposite hour, hourly Manchester Airport/Scotland, also alternating to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Plus the odd Liverpool proving additional journeys.

 

[Bald Rick]

The service pattern pre-Covid IMHO provided the best service possible, with hourly Euston/Glasgow fasts, hourly Euston/Scotland via Birmingham alternating to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and on the opposite hour, hourly Manchester Airport/Scotland, also alternating to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Plus the odd Liverpool proving additional journeys.

Agreed. A very good service, and far better than anything Pre 2008.

 

[cle]

So people from the provinces wanting to get on at Crewe and go to Glasgow can just lump it? The Class 9s from Brum to Scotland are/were usually very well loaded in my experience.

They would be able to take the other (new) service I mentioned. And also travel to Edinburgh too.

The service pattern pre-Covid IMHO provided the best service possible, with hourly Euston/Glasgow fasts, hourly Euston/Scotland via Birmingham alternating to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and on the opposite hour, hourly Manchester Airport/Scotland, also alternating to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Plus the odd Liverpool proving additional journeys.

I agree, it was the best yet - although I didn't love the TPE/regional feel/diesel of the Manchesters, earlier on. Since resolved.

But my thinking here is about stimulating future growth and modal shift away from air. Ideally both of Birmingham and Manchester would have an hourly to each. Brums would call at Crewe of course. But I know that isn't possible. I also support the nascent rise of new services out of Liverpool: North Wales, Cardiff and Glasgow...

but most importantly, for the air conversation specifically - is a speeding up of London-Glasgow - to make that more attractive.

I know pathing/freight is the issue - could there be other solves, like via Hellifield? Will HS2 just be like-for-like on frequencies? How will Manchester and Liverpool be served by then (Birmingham via HS2 to Scotlandf is well-documented)

 

[Falcon1200]

but most importantly, for the air conversation specifically - is a speeding up of London-Glasgow - to make that more attractive.

Using the service regularly as I do, I would certainly support faster Glasgow/London services, calling only for example at Carlisle, Preston and Crewe, but the problem would then be serving, adequately, the other stations en route, at a financially justifiable and operationally achievable level; That would be an interesting conundrum!

 

[Bald Rick]

I know pathing/freight is the issue - could there be other solves, like via Hellifield? Will HS2 just be like-for-like on frequencies? How will Manchester and Liverpool be served by then (Birmingham via HS2 to Scotlandf is well-documented)

Via Hellifield has all sorts of issues, not least journey time for the time critical postals and stuff in boxes.

HS2 is expected to be 2tph London to Scotland, with each train splitting to both Glasgow and Edinburgh. although this is not straightforward, and there are pathing issues with freight.

Manchester and Liverpool to Scotland will be as ‘now’ (Ie as now should be).

 

[AndrewE]

They would be able to take the other (new) service I mentioned. And also travel to Edinburgh too.

Not on the ones you were happy to see terminating at Carlisle they wouldn't...

I know pathing/freight is the issue - could there be other solves, like via Hellifield? Will HS2 just be like-for-like on frequencies? How will Manchester and Liverpool be served by then (Birmingham via HS2 to Scotlandf is well-documented)

My understanding is that the double track Warrington to Wigan is the pinch point. It was recognised when the APT services were being planned and the Whelley line alignment was protected for freight back then... gone now though!

 

[dk1]

And yet the Pendo era’s headline journey time was 4h10 for many years

It did reduce to 4h08 but was continually delayed by the TPX service directly ahead so rarely achieved this. Just a gimmicky service that was of very little use for most. Didn’t even seem to have any headline advance fares to attract Anglo-Scottish passengers off the frequently overcrowded 15:30 ex-Euston.

 

[Jack Hay]

Going back to the remarkable (with hindsight) EUS-GLA times achieved with 100mph running in the 1970s, one difference not mentioned yet is that the Electric Scots timetable of the 1970s included London-Carlisle and London-Blackpool services, alternating most hours (some hours there was a Holyhead service), which served Warrington and Wigan. This allowed the Glasgow service to have very few calls. Now there are no Euston-Carlisle trains and the Glasgow trains have to cover those stops. Moreover, in 1974 there was a Crewe-Preston local service (usually operated by a class 304 EMU, so not very fast) which nevertheless provided connections for Warrington and Wigan. Now only Avanti serves Crewe-Warrington and Warrington-Wigan, so the long distance services are doubling up as local services in NW England. This is diluting the purpose of the Avanti trains, and it might be better to extend the LNR London-Crewe service to Preston to provide local connectivity.

 

[30907]

Going back to the remarkable (with hindsight) EUS-GLA times achieved with 100mph running in the 1970s, one difference not mentioned yet is that the Electric Scots timetable of the 1970s included London-Carlisle and London-Blackpool services, alternating most hours (some hours there was a Holyhead service), which served Warrington and Wigan. This allowed the Glasgow service to have very few calls. Now there are no Euston-Carlisle trains and the Glasgow trains have to cover those stops. Moreover, in 1974 there was a Crewe-Preston local service (usually operated by a class 304 EMU, so not very fast) which nevertheless provided connections for Warrington and Wigan. Now only Avanti serves Crewe-Warrington and Warrington-Wigan, so the long distance services are doubling up as local services in NW England. This is diluting the purpose of the Avanti trains, and it might be better to extend the LNR London-Crewe service to Preston to provide local connectivity.

True, but that timetable soon got cut back - and the total number of trains was rather fewer than today.