WCML linespeed improvements - LSL objection

[The Planner]

It's normal for adversely affected parties to object; what isn't normal is for this to be able to substantively hold up the process.

The only issue on which I think they may have a point is that they should retain a reasonable shot at getting paths, following the speeding up of Avanti and TPE services. It would be unreasonable for the new timetable to effectively exclude them from using the WCML.

Happens all the time with Network Change, look at all the short term ones that kick problems into the long grass because there is no immediate fundable solution.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Happens all the time with Network Change, look at all the short term ones that kick problems into the long grass because there is no immediate fundable solution.

I must admit I do have a modicum of sympathy for the charter market (and in some cases, the FOCs) where they exist mainly on STP schedules which usually don’t have flexing rights against established LTP paths, but then that’s the nature of the market. It would not be right for a charter operator to have a reserved path on the WCML that only gets used a small number of times per year, particularly if that slot is compromising passenger timetables that run daily. But then it’s not the first time that charter operations on the WCML were thought to be in jeopardy - it was expected that Virgin’s VHF Pendolino timetable would put paid to any further steam runs over Shap! So similarly here I seriously doubt that LSL will struggle to find 100mph paths for their HST once the upgraded non-tilt speed profiles have been commissioned. And if they can justify it through regular use, maybe they should bid for an LTP ‘Q’ path for the core WCML section, much in the same way WCRC have their regular reserved slot for the Cumbrian Mountain Express.

 

[The Planner]

I must admit I do have a modicum of sympathy for the charter market (and in some cases, the FOCs) where they exist mainly on STP schedules which usually don’t have flexing rights against established LTP paths, but then that’s the nature of the market. It would not be right for a charter operator to have a reserved path on the WCML that only gets used a small number of times per year, particularly if that slot is compromising passenger timetables that run daily. But then it’s not the first time that charter operations on the WCML were thought to be in jeopardy - it was expected that Virgin’s VHF Pendolino timetable would put paid to any further steam runs over Shap! So similarly here I seriously doubt that LSL will struggle to find 100mph paths for their HST once the upgraded non-tilt speed profiles have been commissioned. And if they can justify it through regular use, maybe they should bid for an LTP ‘Q’ path for the core WCML section, much in the same way WCRC have their regular reserved slot for the Cumbrian Mountain Express.

I'm not sure that is in there now, the ECS from Southall is still there.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I'm not sure that is in there now, the ECS from Southall is still there.

The northbound is certainly in the June 24 data…

 

[Starmill]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that LSL, who only run a handful of trains a year are able to hold up an infrastructure project that should be a massive benefit to the regular every day users of the WCML?

Are they suggesting any alternatives that will deliver the benefits of the changed speed profile whilst still allowing their own services to run, or are they just asking for the status quo to be maintained?

I think the reason why they're successfully holding everything up is because Network Rail are very risk-averse. Difficult to criticise them over that when they're obliged by law to steward public money carefully, even if it does lead to some pretty perverse outcomes.

 

[The Planner]

I think the reason why they're successfully holding everything up is because Network Rail are very risk-averse. Difficult to criticise them over that when they're obliged by law to steward public money carefully, even if it does lead to some pretty perverse outcomes.

Its not a NR project, its Avanti proposing it.

 

[Wapps]

I am travelling to Coventry this week and the train is scheduled for 54mins. In the past (and it’s been years since I travelled) it was more like 58mins scheduled. Does anyone know if the line speed been increased on this route?

 

[Starmill]

I am travelling to Coventry this week and the train is scheduled for 54mins. In the past (and it’s been years since I travelled) it was more like 58mins scheduled. Does anyone know if the line speed been increased on this route?

Are you sure it's not just because you're on a non-stop train now?

 

[Wapps]

Are you sure it's not just because you're on a non-stop train now?

Might be the reason. I can’t seem to tell on the Avanti website whether there are stops

 

[jfollows]

It used to be 58.5 minutes start to stop at Coventry with 1 intermediate stop (Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central or Rugby), taken from the 2015 timetable for example. This is a Pendolino timing; Voyagers were 2 minutes slower.
A non-stop run such as 9G21 12:40 Euston-New Street next week is timetabled in 54 minutes.
(Hence it's a good starting point to assume a station stop "costs" 5 minutes although that's only a starting approximation.)

 

[Wapps]

Got it - thank you