West Coast Franchise speculation

[pt_mad]

Eh?

Corby is likely to receive a service using outersuburban EMUs which are basically the same as Liverpool's Birmingham service. Corby also has very little in the way of local employment outside of retail and a very small amount of remaining industry.

This is a classic example of the nature of the moaning. Liverpool is not as badly off as Corby. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I think the plan is 125mph capable stock for Corby. Two London arrivals an hour, two departures. So yes it will have a better London service than Liverpool at some point. Sorry.
I have no ties to Liverpool. It matters not to me personally whether they keep one train an hour or not. But if it's up for debate, and it is due to this invitation to tender, then I'd have thought one of the bidders would want to try and increase the Liverpool service in some way. And I'm sure they have the expertise to think of something innovative.

Years of pain with the WCRM and Liverpool didn't fair that well out of it really. Sped it up, but still no more frequent really and hasn't evolved much.

 

[pt_mad]

You should consider using a different phrase...

A lot of people are happy to stay the same. Remember, people as well as companies are afraid of change.

I know but this is a rail franchise. And if leaving everything fully as it is until HS2 is an option, what's the point in putting it out to tender? Just give them a direct award again and be done with it.

I presume the idea is to bring some major improvements over the 7/12 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the plan is 125mph capable stock for Corby. Two London arrivals an hour, two departures. So yes it will have a better London service than Liverpool at some point. Sorry.

I reckon they will end up with the ex-Stansted Express units. But in any case it's all a bit Northampton - it's far enough south to be a viable London commute, so of course it will have more of a London service than Liverpool. MK has many times the London service Liverpool has despite being much smaller. But that's not unfair, it's sensible.

 

[driver_m]

End of the day, Liverpool is going to have two London services eventually on HS2 .
Incidentally after reading a couple of the digs here about Liverpool being on the end of some branch lines. If you knew your routes, you'd see that the Liverpool 'branch' has a far higher entrance and exit speed than Manchester's. 100 as opposed to 45. The 1st inter-city line in the world is hardly a branch either . I've also worked in both cities and if Bletcheyite thinks that Mancs don't moan about Metrolink in comparison to Merseyrail then he is sadly mistaken. Take it from me that a lot in the area have not taken well to losing a "proper' rail link into Manchester. The geographical issue is more of a problem for the airport than the railway, some of Liverpools traffic is naturally taken by the Chester and Wigan/Bank Quay services, Manchester doesn't really have an equivalent taking its traffic, due in part to a lack of competition that could have been kept in place with the Rio trains from years back and the loss of the via Bakewell route.

If Merseytravel can get its act together and Steve Rotherham can reappear from whatever black hole he's disappeared into (City Region Mayor) then the area could gain more long distance services. I'd agree with whoever posted on here that too many services terminate at Picc and should carry on but we need 15 and 16 installing for that.

 

[pt_mad]

I reckon they will end up with the ex-Stansted Express units. But in any case it's all a bit Northampton - it's far enough south to be a viable London commute, so of course it will have more of a London service than Liverpool. MK has many times the London service Liverpool has despite being much smaller. But that's not unfair, it's sensible.

I've got a feeling Bath Spa has a better London service than Liverpool lol and they didn't have to go through the WCRM.

 

[The Ham]

A small order of tilting stock is likely to be extremely expensive due to the very limited number of manufacturers that could build them. It also means more slightly crampt tilting stock being used for non tilt services after 2026.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, 100 coaches should be a fairly easy order size to make, especially if it allows the replacement of some of the 221's from under the wire services (as 10 would be 60 coaches).

I wouldn't be surprised if there was still a need for some tilting stock after HS2 opens (Birmingham to Scotland being a good case in point). As such by resetting the age of the units running this service when there's enough other services which could justify it would appear to make sense.

The other thing that's worth considering is that after HS2 starts having 11 coach 390's could start to be overkill, even 9 coaches could be too many, for many of the existing services. As such having a shorter unit which could cover those services could be worthwhile. For instance would you need a 9 coach 390 going to Birmingham, when a significant number of the passengers will have swapped to HS2 and most of the rest are wanting to mostly travel to/from the stations inbetween.

Without tilting stock, as things stand (as I understand it), you're unlikely to be able to create new routes or serve other locations. As such you're likely to be left with 15 years of no growth on one of our busy intercity services. You just need to look at XC to see how that could work out.

 

[edwin_m]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was still a need for some tilting stock after HS2 opens (Birmingham to Scotland being a good case in point).

Birmingham to Scotland will have a service on HS2 (at phase 2b at least).

 

[E6007]

I've got a feeling Bath Spa has a better London service than Liverpool lol and they didn't have to go through the WCRM.

No, they had GWML electrification instead, which if planned properly would have been known as GWRM!

 

[pt_mad]

No, they had GWML electrification instead, which if planned properly would have been known as GWRM!

Although to be fair they've had a better service for years. Way before electrification.

 

[pt_mad]

I wonder if we should take the topic away from what we think won't happen as part of the next WCP bids/franchise. But talk about what we think certainly WILL happen and what may happen or be part of bids?

Can we agree almost certainly:
- Full interior refurbishment of Pendolinos
- Possible amendments to seating arrangements and alignments with blank window panels and luggage racks.
- Some potential solution to smelly toilet tanks.
- Full refurb of Voyagers including mid life exterior repaint and rebrand.
- Full rollout of free WiFi over the whole VT fleet
- New smart ticketing options and initiatives.
- New station facilities at some locations?
- Changes to catering in some way or another? Such as changes to the shop, any trolley services, first class offering and weekend offering. Catering staffing hours and availability.
- Shorter delay repay period introduced?
- More ticket barriers introduced, maybe at Stafford?
- One or two extra daily services.
- The odd extra stop in the Trent Valley if the market is there and opportunities for connectivity.

 

[Chester1]

As I've pointed out elsewhere, 100 coaches should be a fairly easy order size to make, especially if it allows the replacement of some of the 221's from under the wire services (as 10 would be 60 coaches).

I wouldn't be surprised if there was still a need for some tilting stock after HS2 opens (Birmingham to Scotland being a good case in point). As such by resetting the age of the units running this service when there's enough other services which could justify it would appear to make sense.

The other thing that's worth considering is that after HS2 starts having 11 coach 390's could start to be overkill, even 9 coaches could be too many, for many of the existing services. As such having a shorter unit which could cover those services could be worthwhile. For instance would you need a 9 coach 390 going to Birmingham, when a significant number of the passengers will have swapped to HS2 and most of the rest are wanting to mostly travel to/from the stations inbetween.

Without tilting stock, as things stand (as I understand it), you're unlikely to be able to create new routes or serve other locations. As such you're likely to be left with 15 years of no growth on one of our busy intercity services. You just need to look at XC to see how that could work out.

All new stock would be unnecessary after 2026. The existing stock will be more than enough for all intercity services that would benefit from tilting in 2026. The London to Birmingham WCML services will be completely rewritten after 2026 and won't need tilting trains. If it was a matter of buying a ~100 coaches worth of conventional 125mph EMUs then it would be a good idea because they would be relatively cheap and could be cascaded elsewhere in 2026. Unless Alstom offers a really good deal to plug a gap in production then the cost of a bespoke tilting order will be excessive and would probably only enter service in 4 years prior to the completion of HS2.

If the DfT thought existing stock won't be enough then they would have specified a minimum order of new stock or set a transfer date for an existing service to move to a different franchise and be run with new non tilt stock. For instance Scotland to Birmingham doesn’t need to be part of the WCP and doesn't need to be run with tilting stock if 3 stops per service can be removed to offset the time difference. If it was run by the next CrossCountry franchise with non tilt EMU it would free up aproximately 10 Voyagers and 5 Pendolinos. The DfT didn’t think any major changes were neccessary or desirable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if we should take the topic away from what we think won't happen as part of the next WCP bids/franchise. But talk about what we think certainly WILL happen and what may happen or be part of bids?

Can we agree almost certainly:
- Full interior refurbishment of Pendolinos
- Possible amendments to seating arrangements and alignments with blank window panels and luggage racks.
- Some potential solution to smelly toilet tanks.
- Full refurb of Voyagers including mid life exterior repaint and rebrand.
- Full rollout of free WiFi over the whole VT fleet
- New smart ticketing options and initiatives.
- New station facilities at some locations?
- Changes to catering in some way or another? Such as changes to the shop, any trolley services, first class offering and weekend offering. Catering staffing hours and availability.
- Shorter delay repay period introduced?
- More ticket barriers introduced, maybe at Stafford?
- One or two extra daily services.
- The odd extra stop in the Trent Valley if the market is there and opportunities for connectivity.

Yes, I would be surprised *not* to see that list. I'd be equally surprised to see an awful lot more than it.

In particular free Wifi and Delay Repay 15 are a certainty.

 

[The Ham]

All new stock would be unnecessary after 2026. The existing stock will be more than enough for all intercity services that would benefit from tilting in 2026. The London to Birmingham WCML services will be completely rewritten after 2026 and won't need tilting trains. If it was a matter of buying a ~100 coaches worth of conventional 125mph EMUs then it would be a good idea because they would be relatively cheap and could be cascaded elsewhere in 2026. Unless Alstom offers a really good deal to plug a gap in production then the cost of a bespoke tilting order will be excessive and would probably only enter service in 4 years prior to the completion of HS2.

If the DfT thought existing stock won't be enough then they would have specified a minimum order of new stock or set a transfer date for an existing service to move to a different franchise and be run with new non tilt stock. For instance Scotland to Birmingham doesn’t need to be part of the WCP and doesn't need to be run with tilting stock if 3 stops per service can be removed to offset the time difference. If it was run by the next CrossCountry franchise with non tilt EMU it would free up aproximately 10 Voyagers and 5 Pendolinos. The DfT didn’t think any major changes were neccessary or desirable.

The solution is either:

- do the minimum that the DfT asks, and hope that everyone else does the same. Resulting in basically a no growth franchise for nearly 15 years (2012 - 2026).

- do something like getting new trains, like I've suggested, which may result in some rolling stock being surplus to requirements after 2026 (however the new trains could be a better fit for the requirements at that time compared to fairly long units). However be able to provide new/lengthened services (extend Manchester services to the north through Bolton, extend Birmingham services through to Liverpool, split services to serve two places from one path or of London).

The second, I would suggest, is more in keeping with what's been happening with new franchises of late. Based on some franchises the 380's may not even be safe! (not that I would be that brave to suggest would actually be the outcome).

Would I be surprised if the first happens, no, not in the slightest. However, I like to look to see what could be practical, which is why I suggested the 100 coaches (about 105 coaches was the order size to provide the 4 units plus +2 coaches for some of the fleet), add that could allow to improve sine of the problems which others have highlighted (diesel under wires, no extra services, better service provision for Liverpool).

 

[SeanM1997]

The solution is either:

- do the minimum that the DfT asks, and hope that everyone else does the same. Resulting in basically a no growth franchise for nearly 15 years (2012 - 2026).

- do something like getting new trains, like I've suggested, which may result in some rolling stock being surplus to requirements after 2026 (however the new trains could be a better fit for the requirements at that time compared to fairly long units). However be able to provide new/lengthened services (extend Manchester services to the north through Bolton, extend Birmingham services through to Liverpool, split services to serve two places from one path or of London).

The second, I would suggest, is more in keeping with what's been happening with new franchises of late. Based on some franchises the 380's may not even be safe! (not that I would be that brave to suggest would actually be the outcome).

Would I be surprised if the first happens, no, not in the slightest. However, I like to look to see what could be practical, which is why I suggested the 100 coaches (about 105 coaches was the order size to provide the 4 units plus +2 coaches for some of the fleet), add that could allow to improve sine of the problems which others have highlighted (diesel under wires, no extra services, better service provision for Liverpool).

I would like to see some extension of services. These should include:
Birmingham services:
1 to Glasgow Central/Edinburgh (All Pendolino) - calling at Wolverhampton, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and Glasgow Central OR Haymarket and Edinburgh
1 to Blackpool North (Pendolino) - calling at Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston and Blackpool
1 to Crewe (Voyager) - calling at Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton, Telford Central, Wellington, Shrewsbury and Crewe (giving a direct service from Telford to Crewe)

Manchester services:
1 to Preston (Pendolino) - calling at Bolton

Chester services (run as 2x5 coach Voyagers):
Split at Chester:
1 to Wrexham General
1 to Holyhead - calling at Flint, Prestatyn, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno Junction, Bangor and Holyhead

It maybe difficult to get slots between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, so an alternative to operate the services via Bescot and the Wolverhampton avoiding curve to allow the services to continue towards Penkridge. These would give greater connectivity between Crewe and Telford (currently no direct service) and Crewe to Preston which is often overcrowded. It would also give a direct service between Bolton and London, Blackpool and Birmingham and Stafford and Preston

 

[DenmarkRail]

I’m not having a go at barriers, as I understand that some really really bad people have forced that need upon us, but some of my earliest memories at Stafford, were meeting family straight from the train at Stafford, and welcoming them back! Now it works well, that i can get all their luggage from them, so they can enjoy their walk to the car. I would miss these moments of barriers were introduced in Stafford.

That being said, I can’t see that happening until the station is rebuilt / a new station is built

 

[The Planner]

It maybe difficult to get slots between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, so an alternative to operate the services via Bescot and the Wolverhampton avoiding curve to allow the services to continue towards Penkridge. These would give greater connectivity between Crewe and Telford (currently no direct service) and Crewe to Preston which is often overcrowded. It would also give a direct service between Bolton and London, Blackpool and Birmingham and Stafford and Preston

Good luck with that, you have to get them to and from Bescot first, let alone north of Stafford.

 

[whhistle]

The London to Birmingham WCML services will be completely rewritten after 2026 and won't need tilting trains.

Please cite your source...
Or is this a guess?

As someone else posted above, why should the West Coast receive a slower service when HS2 comes out?

 

[B&I]

The solution is either:

- do the minimum that the DfT asks, and hope that everyone else does the same. Resulting in basically a no growth franchise for nearly 15 years (2012 - 2026).

- do something like getting new trains, like I've suggested, which may result in some rolling stock being surplus to requirements after 2026 (however the new trains could be a better fit for the requirements at that time compared to fairly long units). However be able to provide new/lengthened services (extend Manchester services to the north through Bolton, extend Birmingham services through to Liverpool, split services to serve two places from one path or of London).

The second, I would suggest, is more in keeping with what's been happening with new franchises of late. Based on some franchises the 380's may not even be safe! (not that I would be that brave to suggest would actually be the outcome).

Would I be surprised if the first happens, no, not in the slightest. However, I like to look to see what could be practical, which is why I suggested the 100 coaches (about 105 coaches was the order size to provide the 4 units plus +2 coaches for some of the fleet), add that could allow to improve sine of the problems which others have highlighted (diesel under wires, no extra services, better service provision for Liverpool).

While I welcome the idea of doing something useful with the 2 services per hour from London which terminate at New Street, the journey times will be so long that they will not be adequate substitutes for a better Euston-Trent Valley-Lime Street service. They could I suppose replace the LNR Liverpool-Birmingham service, but at the disadvantage of losing its current clockface timetable.

The better solution would I think ave involved electrification and sending one of these services on per hour to Shrewsbury, and another to Chester, Blackpool or somewhere else that could usefully have been connected to Brum. However, this is Britain, so we can forget about anything useful happening.

 

[The Ham]

Please cite your source...
Or is this a guess?

As someone else posted above, why should the West Coast receive a slower service when HS2 comes out?

There's still going to be demand to travel between MK and Scotland or Coventry and Manchester. As such there's still going to be some services running. Would they need to be 11 coaches, probably not. How about 9 coaches, maybe on some services but probably not all.

As such, and to avoid the need to use 221's all the time under the wires when shorter units are needed, the use of 6 coach tilting stock then starts to make sense.

The fact that it also provides the opportunity to start running services which provides connections to the HS2 hubs in advance of HS2 and provide better services to places such as Liverpool and there's then there's more potential for such units to be built.

With regards to the trains, the chances are that given that there had been a UK tilting train built in the past should help keep the costs of developing one down. Especially given that a lot of the advances since then have been used in other trains (admittedly not with UK gauge, but if have thought that a lot of it would be to be fitted with little or no adjustments)

As I've said before, that doesn't mean that it certain, but it does at least mean that it could be something that we do see.

 

[The Ham]

While I welcome the idea of doing something useful with the 2 services per hour from London which terminate at New Street, the journey times will be so long that they will not be adequate substitutes for a better Euston-Trent Valley-Lime Street service. They could I suppose replace the LNR Liverpool-Birmingham service, but at the disadvantage of losing its current clockface timetable.

The better solution would I think ave involved electrification and sending one of these services on per hour to Shrewsbury, and another to Chester, Blackpool or somewhere else that could usefully have been connected to Brum. However, this is Britain, so we can forget about anything useful happening.

For London to Liverpool they wouldn't be very helpful (although there could be some who did use then) although they could provide a more frequent service to Crewe to allow a change to another service.

As such it's not about end to end services but rather connectivity, which is often more important.

 

[B&I]

For London to Liverpool they wouldn't be very helpful (although there could be some who did use then) although they could provide a more frequent service to Crewe to allow a change to another service.

As such it's not about end to end services but rather connectivity, which is often more important.

All improvements in connectivity are welcome, particularly if this would lead to the vital service to Birmingham being speeded up. Given the choice, though, I'd rather have a cross-country bi-mode from Liverpool to the south coast or south west via Brum, if necessary joining with a Manchester service, and a second hourly service via the Trent Valley with a different set of caling points

 

[pt_mad]

I’m not having a go at barriers, as I understand that some really really bad people have forced that need upon us, but some of my earliest memories at Stafford, were meeting family straight from the train at Stafford, and welcoming them back! Now it works well, that i can get all their luggage from them, so they can enjoy their walk to the car. I would miss these moments of barriers were introduced in Stafford.

That being said, I can’t see that happening until the station is rebuilt / a new station is built

You may be allowed through the barriers to assist relatives with their luggage if you explain the reason to the gate line assistants.

 

[Chester1]

Please cite your source...
Or is this a guess?

As someone else posted above, why should the West Coast receive a slower service when HS2 comes out?

Grayling seems to be unusually honest as to the governments intentions. It wouldn't make financial sense to have the same services that run today on the WCML competing against HS2 services south of Birmingham when more local and commuter capacity will be desperately needed. North of Lichfield there is no chance of running competing services as there is simply not the capacity into Manchester or up the WCML to Scotland on 2 track sections. Some tilting services will run but fewer than today and enough to cascade some Pendolinos and certainly not need any new after 2026.

http://m.railjournal.com/index.php/...hed-with-fully-integrated-vision-for-hs2.html

BRITAIN’s secretary of state for transport Mr Chris Grayling announced in a statement to parliament on March 27 that vertical integration or a public private partnership (PPP) could be considered for the future operation and maintenance of High Speed 2, which will link London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

Grayling’s announcement coincides with the publication of the Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the West Coast Partnership (WCP) franchise, which will encompass both Inter-City West Coast (ICWC) services from London Euston to the West Midlands, North Wales, northwest England and Scotland via the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and shadow operations on the southern section of HS2 from London to Birmingham.

“The West Coast franchise has been very successful in recent years, with high passenger satisfaction and substantial revenue growth for the taxpayer,” Grayling says. “It is my intention that the new contract will build on this up to and including 2026. There is already a close working relationship between Network Rail and the train operator, and I intend that this should be deepened under the new contract with the new operator.

“After that, though, the way we run this railway will change. After 2026 the express services will start to move off an increasingly congested part of the existing network and onto the new HS2. Brand new and more frequent trains will provide additional capacity on faster services. Space will be freed up on the existing routes for improved services to other destinations.

“This will require a carefully managed transition, as initial services begin to Birmingham and then gradually the HS2 network provides more and more of the intercity service.”

According to the ITT, an “approach to delivering operational integration will be delivered in-life through collaboration between the WCP, the DfT, and HS2 Ltd. The ITT includes an indicative timeline (see below) for achieving greater integration of track and train, although Grayling stresses no decisions have yet been made on what form this should take.

“One option could be an integrated railway operation, akin to some Japanese high-speed lines, and in line with government strategy on bringing together track and train. It could also be structured as a PPP and there will be other options that we should explore before any final decisions are made.”

According to the ITT, ICWC services will operate until the opening of HS2 on a partial revenue risk basis, with the franchisee acting in parallel as a shadow operator preparing for the launch of HS2 services. When the high-speed line opens in 2026, the WCP franchisee will begin integrating HS2 and ICWC services, continuing to operate both until at least 2031. The DfT will retain the majority of risk on costs and revenue from the start of the integrated operator phase.

The shortlisted bidders for the franchise are:

- First Trenitalia West Coast: a joint venture of First Rail Holdings and Trenitalia
- MTR West Coast Partnership: a joint venture between MTR Corporation and Guangshen Railway Company, with Deloitte MCS, Panasosnic Systems Europe, Snowfall, Trainline.com, and WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff as key contractors, and
- West Coast Partnership: a joint venture between Stagecoach Group, Virgin Holdings and SNCF C3.

The deadline for submission of bids is July 13, and the contract will be awarded by May 2019. The new franchise will start on September 15 2019.

 

[The Ham]

Grayling seems to be unusually honest as to the governments intentions. It wouldn't make financial sense to have the same services that run today on the WCML competing against HS2 services south of Birmingham when more local and commuter capacity will be desperately needed. North of Lichfield there is no chance of running competing services as there is simply not the capacity into Manchester or up the WCML to Scotland on 2 track sections. Some tilting services will run but fewer than today and enough to cascade some Pendolinos and certainly not need any new after 2026.

http://m.railjournal.com/index.php/...hed-with-fully-integrated-vision-for-hs2.html

That article doesn't say that trains would be 110mph, which is the core question being asked.

The point about the new trains is very much that they would be able to run services which wouldn't be financially viable as 11 coach or even maybe as a 9 coach train after HS2 is built.

I also think that there's a lot of thought that there's going to be no need for a service from Euston to Glasgow via Birmingham using the WCML. When there could still be, although it would be mostly used by passengers between points not served by HS2. For the simple reason that there's petite who want to travel from Coventry to London, Watford to Wolverhampton and even from some places to London using HS2 but changing at a HS2 hub.

 

[Class83]

Post HS2 (phase 1) opening, would a London-Birmingham-Liverpool service make sense as part of the WCML franchise. It would provide a second (3rd in peak) to Liverpool but more importantly offer an hourly Birmingham-Liverpool service on a decent standard Intercity train, the current 350s (particularly the /2s) are wholly inadequate for non-commuter duty, hopefully the /4s will be diverted to this duty when they transfer from TransPennineScotland.

Also reforming the 390s to 10/11 car if the power supply systems allow, in a 8 standard, 2/3 first formation as most of the premium first demand will be on HS2 so provide cheaper standard capacity. If not 9 car as 7s2f and 11 car as 8s3f.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Post HS2 (phase 1) opening, would a London-Birmingham-Liverpool service make sense as part of the WCML franchise. It would provide a second (3rd in peak) to Liverpool but more importantly offer an hourly Birmingham-Liverpool service on a decent standard Intercity train, the current 350s (particularly the /2s) are wholly inadequate for non-commuter duty, hopefully the /4s will be diverted to this duty when they transfer from TransPennineScotland.

The route is due to get 5x24m (equivalent to 6x20m) Aventras.

 

[whhistle]

Grayling seems to be unusually honest...

The article doesn't give that much detail... like nearly anything by this generation of governments.
I can't see them spending millions of pounds upgrading the line all those years back for it to be purposefully forcefully made slower when it really doesn't need to be.
Remember, I'm talking about line speed and such, not adding in stops here there and everywhere.

Also of note, Virgin have already looked into reducing the three trains an hour (between Birmingham and Euston) down to two in the middle of the day.

 

[pt_mad]

The article doesn't give that much detail... like nearly anything by this generation of governments.
I can't see them spending millions of pounds upgrading the line all those years back for it to be purposefully forcefully made slower when it really doesn't need to be.
Remember, I'm talking about line speed and such, not adding in stops here there and everywhere.

Also of note, Virgin have already looked into reducing the three trains an hour (between Birmingham and Euston) down to two in the middle of the day.

Is it recently that they've looked into reducing the frequency between Birmingham and Euston? I think the new ITT includes firm provisions for 3 express together along the Coventry corridor for the WCP so looks like that will be a non starter?


Where several posters said earlier 110mph timed stock would hold services up. What about the Pretendolino? That was allowed at 110 which suggests one Birmingham could do it at 110 freeing up some Pendolinos.

 

[Chester1]

The article doesn't give that much detail... like nearly anything by this generation of governments.
I can't see them spending millions of pounds upgrading the line all those years back for it to be purposefully forcefully made slower when it really doesn't need to be.
Remember, I'm talking about line speed and such, not adding in stops here there and everywhere.

Also of note, Virgin have already looked into reducing the three trains an hour (between Birmingham and Euston) down to two in the middle of the day.

There simply are not the paths into Manchester for 6 London services in 2026. In 2026 the HS2 services will need to replace the current services, probably with one tilting service via Stoke. That is immediately 10+ Pendolinos freed up. The case for retaining current frequency on Liverpool and Scotland services will have to be looked at carefully too. Birmingham services will likely have significantly more stops even if they are run by 125mph not 110mph units. It doesn’t make financial sense to order more tilting trains at the price they are likely to cost, there is not enough demand for tilting trains after 2026.

 

[pt_mad]

There simply are not the paths into Manchester for 6 London services in 2026. In 2026 the HS2 services will need to replace the current services, probably with one tilting service via Stoke. That is immediately 10+ Pendolinos freed up. The case for retaining current frequency on Liverpool and Scotland services will have to be looked at carefully too. Birmingham services will likely have significantly more stops even if they are run by 125mph not 110mph units. It doesn’t make financial sense to order more tilting trains at the price they are likely to cost, there is not enough demand for tilting trains after 2026.

So would a small fleet of 125mph capable EMUs running at 110mph be a compromise then? Working just one Birmingham an hour in each direction out of the 3?
Possibly a small rake of 225 sets. Six?

The Pretendolino which ran in the VHF says it's possible to fit in at 110mph?