West Coast franchise timetable - what would you do?

[MidnightFlyer]

I think Penrith should be kept on the London services, whoever said it, it can get busy, especially in summer for the Lake District and Keswick etc. Oxenholm,e too, it is slightly busier, and gets many for Kendal and Windermere. Wigan and Warrington at times could fill a Voyager themsleves.

I say:
xx30 - Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme / Penrith, Carlisle and Lockerbie / Motherwell (five a day each).
Free path - Milton Keynes Central, Crewe, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW and Preston.

 

[The Planner]

There are paths South of Brum, not many, but you can squeeze more in.

 

[cle]

Lockerbie has absolutely no demand for a train to London. It has a population of about 5,000! Think of the places 10x bigger than that which the London - Glasgow train doesn't stop at.

Oxenholme / Penrith I think should be less than hourly - some evening services out of London should call at both, but it should be on demand rather than regularly. More Friday and weekend calls for example.

If Blackpool/Lancaster semi trains covering Warrington and Wigan do alternate hourly, in the hour that Lancaster gets a service, it should be cut from the London - Glasgow.

 

[jaigee]

Not strictly true - the other option from Nuneaton is to travel via B'ham New St.

So 1 or 2 stops to New St.

Manchester can then be done using the XC service which first stops at Wolves or Stafford.

Liverpool has the LM service from NS.

Destinations to the NW can be achieved using the B'ham - Glasgow service.

Same applies to Tamworth.

Lichfield doesn't work quite so well as the TV - B'ham NS is an all stops journey, but then you're only 2 stops to Stafford in any case.

Using the WCML from Nuneaton to the NW is still quicker/shorter today, despite the slower trains and extra changes, than travelling on to Birmingham and then using the Stour Valley line. Of course there will always be alternative routes from point A to point B, but this discussion is about what we see as improvements that could be made to the WCML, and IMHO restoring a VT service to Nuneaton would do just that.

 

[swt_passenger]

The WCML RUS has been published today following consultation, it probably covers loads of the ideas already suggested in this thread...

 

[DarloRich]

Had a laugh when I read this - just because NR are moving their HQ to MK does not make it a special place.

Then read the part about people from Rugby changing there for Virgin trains to London and decided that you are not having a laugh but taking the p*ss.

Current Virgin train Rugby-Euston 50 mins.

Current LM trains Rugby-MK take 45/50 mins then say another 45 mins to Euston (including change time).

Milton Keynes gets 3 Virgin and 4 LM trains an hour to London (off peak) which is sufficient for their needs.

Yes because ONLY Network Rail is based in MK. You might not know about Santander, Argos,BT, The FCO, Daimler Chrysler UK Ltd, John Lewis Partnership, KPMG, Red Bull Racing, Mercedes-Benz, The Open University, Merchants Group, Skoda UK, Volkswagen Group UK Ltd, Unisys, BP Oil UK, Bosch, Siemens, Marshall Amps, Scania and many, many more

The local council are also proactive (to the extreme) in attracting large companies to the town. It is growing and is doing well despite all the problems. People are being attracted to MK and many of them commute to London. The town is growing, and will continue to do so. Service have to match demand.

As Zoe says I can see a situation soon where all Virgin trains will stop at MK. This will, of course, be to the detriment to other places further north. You could, in all honesty, make a case for an MK-Euston only peak hours Virgin service. I often get the train between 0630 and 0715 off the Keynes and it is full in all carriages with vestibules full of standees. The LM trains are also pretty full, especially the MKC-Buzzard-Euston trains.

Do places like Rugby or Tamworth have a similar service need? If it takes to long ( which it does in all honesty) from Rugby to MKC why not go to Coventry? It is what 15-20 minutes north. I used to do something similar with Northallerton. It was quicker to travel to Darlo, change there to EC and go back south, rather than go to York and change.

 

[cle]

The RUS isn't that great. Seemingly not much will happen until the 2013 timetable change.

I think that if there are 4tph to Manchester - stops could be more evened out rather than having differentials (1h 58 to 2h 8). I bet they're desperate to market the sub 2 hour journey though.

Ideally I would have under the new timetable:

00 Euston - Watford - Crewe - Stockport - Piccadilly
15 Euston - MK - Stoke - Stockport - Piccadilly
30 Euston - Crewe - Wilmslow - Stockport - Piccadilly
45 Euston - Stoke - Macclesfield - Stockport - Piccadilly

So Manchester is always the fourth stop.
Watford gets Crewe (MK-Crewe served by the Chester).
Journey times of around 2h 5 mins for each journey.

If you wanted two slower services, you could add in one of Rugby/Nuneaton/Tamworth/Stafford on two of the services, to make 5 stops - but I wouldn't bother.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well reading through the final edition RUS to find changes from the draft, most significant is due to feedback it now believes both Option 1 of extending Euston-Lancaster services to Glasgow, removing some stops and inserting a new London-North West service to Blackpool/other NW destination and Option 2 of adding a fourth Manchester-London service are impossible or highly difficult to implement in the present timetable and would require a full recast around 2013 (Electrification influenced) with the whole industry working group involved.

Supports lengthening and conversion of Class 221 to Bi-mode. And as mentioned in other thread now specifies the Manchester-Scotland stock as 110mph rather than 100mph. An interim length of 6car which should by the end of the decade be 8car and the timetable altered to a clockface service.

Suggests the slow Birmingham-Manchester services should be diverted to run from Stafford to Man Pic via Crewe to free up more paths for fast services.

Thats all in the Executive summary, will update when I get through the main body of the document

Edit:

Ok new Gaps added to the RUS after consultation.
Friday-Sunday overcrowding between Manchester Airport and Scotland
Lack of freight paths north of Preston
Regional Link gap 14 (lack of morning high speed Birmingham New St to Milton Keynes) seems to have been renumbered 12 and widened to include the whole West Midlands and MK
Regional Link gap 13, poor frequency service between Motherwell and London added (due to reduction in stops from May 2011 timetable change).

 

[Dreadnought]

Yes because ONLY Network Rail is based in MK. You might not know about Santander, Argos,BT, The FCO, Daimler Chrysler UK Ltd, John Lewis Partnership, KPMG, Red Bull Racing, Mercedes-Benz, The Open University, Merchants Group, Skoda UK, Volkswagen Group UK Ltd, Unisys, BP Oil UK, Bosch, Siemens, Marshall Amps, Scania and many, many more

The local council are also proactive (to the extreme) in attracting large companies to the town. It is growing and is doing well despite all the problems. People are being attracted to MK and many of them commute to London. The town is growing, and will continue to do so. Service have to match demand.

As Zoe says I can see a situation soon where all Virgin trains will stop at MK. This will, of course, be to the detriment to other places further north. You could, in all honesty, make a case for an MK-Euston only peak hours Virgin service. I often get the train between 0630 and 0715 off the Keynes and it is full in all carriages with vestibules full of standees. The LM trains are also pretty full, especially the MKC-Buzzard-Euston trains.

Do places like Rugby or Tamworth have a similar service need? If it takes to long ( which it does in all honesty) from Rugby to MKC why not go to Coventry? It is what 15-20 minutes north. I used to do something similar with Northallerton. It was quicker to travel to Darlo, change there to EC and go back south, rather than go to York and change.

Maybe the council should lobby the government and get its own High Speed line to London if MK is so important.

If you think there is no requirement for VT at Rugby why do they stop 5 services between 06.32 and 07.55 if it was not to cater for commuters!

 

[Mr Spock]

Yes because ONLY Network Rail is based in MK. You might not know about Santander, Argos,BT, The FCO, Daimler Chrysler UK Ltd, John Lewis Partnership, KPMG, Red Bull Racing, Mercedes-Benz, The Open University, Merchants Group, Skoda UK, Volkswagen Group UK Ltd, Unisys, BP Oil UK, Bosch, Siemens, Marshall Amps, Scania and many, many more

The local council are also proactive (to the extreme) in attracting large companies to the town. It is growing and is doing well despite all the problems. People are being attracted to MK and many of them commute to London. The town is growing, and will continue to do so. Service have to match demand.

As Zoe says I can see a situation soon where all Virgin trains will stop at MK. This will, of course, be to the detriment to other places further north. You could, in all honesty, make a case for an MK-Euston only peak hours Virgin service. I often get the train between 0630 and 0715 off the Keynes and it is full in all carriages with vestibules full of standees. The LM trains are also pretty full, especially the MKC-Buzzard-Euston trains.

Do places like Rugby or Tamworth have a similar service need? If it takes to long ( which it does in all honesty) from Rugby to MKC why not go to Coventry? It is what 15-20 minutes north. I used to do something similar with Northallerton. It was quicker to travel to Darlo, change there to EC and go back south, rather than go to York and change.

You don't half talk a load of rubbish as even by going to Coventry its going to add 30 mins to a journey and cost more - seems to me you are just another selfish person who wants everything put on a plate for them.

If MK is so important exactly how many Virgin trains can you join at MKC between 07.15 and 09.15 to go to London?

If all these companies quoted are in MK why do people need to travel to London when they can live and work locally?

The reason most of those trains you talk about are full is because they pick up so many passengers from Rugby and other places - perhaps you should be at Rugby and see the number of people boarding trains to commute to London.

Its about time you understood that most Virgin trains need to get to London as quick as possible from points well north of this London overspill town so why would they stop everything there.

As for Zoe's arguement this just seems to centre round the fact that Reading gets all FGW trains stopping there so MKC should have all WC trains stopping there - pretty pathetic arguement.

 

[The Planner]

Reading is hideously over catered for in stops, it really doesn't need every train stopping there. FGW could do so much more if they thought about it in terms of providing a WCML like timetable.

 

[Zoe]

Reading is hideously over catered for in stops, it really doesn't need every train stopping there. FGW could do so much more if they thought about it in terms of providing a WCML like timetable.

There used to be quite a few services that didn't stop at Reading but additional calls to almost all of these were added in December 2004 and December 2006. I doubt they would have added the calls for no reason. It may be in the future that Milton Keynes will simply be to important to not stop at.

 

[thefab444]

Unlike Milton Keynes, there's not really a decent alternative service from Reading. You can't expect all the London passengers to use slow Turbos or even slower SWT!

The time saving of skipping Reading at the moment isn't that great, wheres a MKC stop will add considerable time (I would guess around 5 minutes) to journey times.

 

[whhistle]

If there is space, why don't Virgin just run a Milton Keynes shuttle service all day?
Obviously if there is the requirement in passenger numbers.

Rugby is an important place (IE, on the junction) and it's a shame they don't use it more for connections to take some of the strain off of Birmingham.

I have just checked the layout of Rugby and if a train stopped in platform 4 it would delay any train overtaking as they would have to slow down.

p4 at Rugby is the UF AFAIK, so if the blokes at Rugby SCC knew there was an overtake that would be needed, why not put it in on p5/6 (the US and UPL?)?

You would always use 5 or 6 to regulate a train, never 4.

Most VT services to Euston stop in P5 (US) anyway which can then access back to the UF. P6 (Up Northampton I think is its correct designation) can only access the US and would then need to use Hillmorton crossovers to gain access to the UF.

Just to clear things up:

UP TRAINS (TOWARDS LONDON):
From Trent Valley = Platform 4.
From Birmingham = Platform 5.

Trent Valley > Platform 5
If a train was coming from Nuneaton way, it would have to cross on to the Up Slow (heading into Platform 6) and then cross back into Platform 5. This adds about 3 minutes to the journey. However, then it would be ready to cross on to the Up Fast.

Trent Valley > Platform 6
If a train was coming from Nuneaton way, it wouldIf a train was coming from Nuneaton way, it would have to cross on to the Up Slow heading into Platform 6. Then it would have to use Hillmorton Junction to get back over to the Up Fast, again adding about 3/4 minutes to the journey.


Trains have occasionally been regulated in Platform 4 if a Birmingham train is running late (will pass through Platform 5).

The problem with Rugby is the need to cross trains in a basic X formation. With the lack of more flyovers, then trains are nearly always crossing over the same sets of tracks. I'll try and draw a little layout for all this later.

 

[The Planner]

If there is space, why don't Virgin just run a Milton Keynes shuttle service all day?

Thats a waste of a path, you would run it further. You would also need to use 5 to turn it in and that blocks a useful little bolt hole.

Just to clear things up:
UP TRAINS (TOWARDS LONDON):
From Trent Valley = Platform 4.
From Birmingham = Platform 5.

Works on the whim of the signaller for Birmingham trains, 4 and 5 are both used. They are planned through 4.

Trent Valley > Platform 5
If a train was coming from Nuneaton way, it would have to cross on to the Up Slow (heading into Platform 6) and then cross back into Platform 5. This adds about 3 minutes to the journey. However, then it would be ready to cross on to the Up Fast.

If a Trent Valley train were to be regualted, which tends to be a much rarer occurance as the EBWs get held on the flyover normally, it would only ever be via Newbold Jn and P5, like you say using 6 and Hilmorton would be a killer.

The problem with Rugby is the need to cross trains in a basic X formation. With the lack of more flyovers, then trains are nearly always crossing over the same sets of tracks. I'll try and draw a little layout for all this later.

They don't though unless it goes wrong, In the up, Northamptons don't conflict with the Trent Valley as they will go through 5, Crewe trains through 6 and Virgin trains just merge at Trent Valley Jn, there is no getting around that.

In the down Northampton trains go over the flyover and through 1 and merge at Trent Valley Jn again, the Crewe trains through 2 and merge at Brinklow.

I can't see how extra flyovers gets you out of what happens already ? The only issue you have really got is if Brinklow to Attleborough ever gets 4 tracked, then you have a confliction somewhere (probably Attleborough) as the Down Fasts and Slows would be the wrong way around.

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't see how extra flyovers gets you out of what happens already ? The only issue you have really got is if Brinklow to Attleborough ever gets 4 tracked, then you have a confliction somewhere (probably Attleborough) as the Down Fasts and Slows would be the wrong way around.

I've mentioned this before. They seem to have 'painted themselves into a corner' with the current Rugby layout. It's almost certainly the cost of another flyover that they are scared of...

I'm sure this is why they are happy to read articles suggesting that four tracking is impossible because of the Oxford canal - but I reckon that the canal is a red herring, there's plenty of room alongside it.

 

[radamfi]

Just looked at the proposed post-HS2 service on the WCML. Looks like 8 trains per hour on the fast line between MKC and Euston although none of them are non-stop

2 tph stopping at Watford Junction
2 tph stopping at Hemel Hempstead and Watford Junction
2 tph stopping at Leighton Buzzard
2 tph stopping at Leighton Buzzard and Watford Junction

Not sure if that meets the approval of the MK lobby. Perhaps they would prefer a smaller number of non-stop trains.

 

[krisk]

In all honesty 4tph to Manchester thru the day maybe too much, matching the amount of northbound departures to a similar level of that southbound in the morning may help.

18.57 FO becomes a Mon - Fri service.

16.57 and 17.57 Euston thru to Stockport and Picc only would help.

 

[swt_passenger]

In all honesty 4tph to Manchester thru the day maybe too much, matching the amount of northbound departures to a similar level of that southbound in the morning may help.

Well it has been on the cards for quite a few months, did you write in and remind NR's planners that it would be too much? They'd probably have welcomed your expertise.

It does explain somewhere that the idea of 4 tph to Man Picc is to give them a capacity increase from 27 to 36 carriages per hour, ie still using 9 car trains. The Birmingham route gets an increase from 27 to 33 carriages per hour by using 3 x 11 car trains.

Perhaps a completley differenet solution would be proposed if DfT had allowed all the 390s to be extended...

 

[Lampshade]

4tph to Manchester is ridiculous, even 3tph is too many. The services at the moment are only full because of people on VT only tickets to Wilmslow/Crewe/Macclesfield, other than that the 390s are carting round fresh air.

 

[MCR247]

16.57 and 17.57 Euston thru to Stockport and Picc only would help.

They are busy Glasgow services that shouldn't be removed

 

[thefab444]

Probably hideously unrealistic but here's what I'd do:

 

[dk1]

4tph to Manchester is ridiculous, even 3tph is too many. The services at the moment are only full because of people on VT only tickets to Wilmslow/Crewe/Macclesfield, other than that the 390s are carting round fresh air.

Lots of cash to be made on the Manchesters though. With companies like BBC etc moving North expense account business is very good business . Future growth predictions on this route are very high. Often at Euston there is a scrum as the next Piccadilly train is advertised & within 5 mins of the last departure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just seen this...

Virgin Trains to run additional London to Manchester train to relieve Thursday evening crowding

Virgin Trains has responded to growing customer demand by introducing an additional London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly train on Thursday evenings. Off-peak ticket holders will be able to use the new service, which will leave London Euston at 18:57, starting this Thursday 07 July.

The company had already acted last December to provide extra capacity on the route by introducing the 18:57 as a Friday evening train.

All seats on the new Thursday train will be Standard, with First Class accommodation fully de-classified. It will run to the same schedule as the Friday train, leaving London Euston at 18:57, calling at Crewe at 20:33 and arriving at Manchester Piccadilly at 21:17.

Virgin Trains’ Chief Operating Officer Chris Gibb said: "The number of journeys on Virgin Trains has more than doubled in six years - from 14 million in 2004 to over 28 million. The additional train on Fridays has had a very positive effect in reducing crowding. Increasingly we are now seeing similar issues on Thursdays, so we have moved to provide extra seats on that day too.”

The new service will initially not be shown in timetables or reservation databases but will be loaded into industry systems at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

[WatcherZero]

Mmm, a Thursday evening train from London, call it the MP's special? lol

 

[jaigee]

Mmm, a Thursday evening train from London, call it the MP's special? lol

Not if he's the Nuneaton, Tamworth or Lichfield MP it isn't!

 

[DarloRich]

You don't half talk a load of rubbish as even by going to Coventry its going to add 30 mins to a journey and cost more - seems to me you are just another selfish person who wants everything put on a plate for them.

If MK is so important exactly how many Virgin trains can you join at MKC between 07.15 and 09.15 to go to London?

If all these companies quoted are in MK why do people need to travel to London when they can live and work locally?

The reason most of those trains you talk about are full is because they pick up so many passengers from Rugby and other places - perhaps you should be at Rugby and see the number of people boarding trains to commute to London.

Its about time you understood that most Virgin trains need to get to London as quick as possible from points well north of this London overspill town so why would they stop everything there.

As for Zoe's arguement this just seems to centre round the fact that Reading gets all FGW trains stopping there so MKC should have all WC trains stopping there - pretty pathetic arguement.

I disagree with you so want everything on a plate? Not sure how that works. Anyone who knows me knows that i live here under protest. It is a strange place unlike anywhere else in the UK but I could either move here or not work. However, i am not as i quite like my job and dont really want to be on the dole - Trust me i would prefer to be much further North!


You seem to have a lot of issues with Milton Keynes, perhaps you need to chill out and relax! Sorry that Rugby suffers because of the growth of Milton Keynes, but such is life

The point is that MK IS growing. Both in terms of attracting business to MK and in persuading people to move from London to commute. Rail is the only real option in moving large numbers of people into and out of London every day.

Rugby has a population of about 62000, Tamworth about 75000, Nuneaton about 71,000 Lichfield about 31,000 while MIlton Keynes has a population of about 241,000. I simply suggest that as a larger town it might benefit from more Virgin and LM services stopping there. Sorry if your favorite, more genteel town, has to loose out but that is life. Companies will look at how best to maximise profit from the customer base available.

As for the set down only on Virgin services and the service gaps in the morning and evening, i understand that this is part of an agreement with LM to enable them to collect more passenger revenue on the Northampton-Euston section plus it is an attempt to limit overcrowding on the VT trains as they can get very full out of MK.

Rugby, like Milton Keynes, is served on an hourly, off peak, VT London Birmingham basis. MK has further stops on all Manchester services and some North Wales services. This pattern seems sensible, if a little heavy on service for the numbers boarding at both stations. However, having used all of the services at various times there do seem to be more passengers boarding and alighting at MK. I simply suggest that more peak services would be better at MK than Rugby.

The Peak service is about the same at present, other than Rugby has an extra service,the 0620 via Northampton. ( Btw - It seems ok for Rugby to have a dedicated VT commuter service but IF i suggest one for MK i want everything on plate - one detects double standards!) In the evening peak MK is slightly better served.

As for going to Coventry, it seems silly, but it is no different from going north from Northallerton to Darlington to go south by EC. It actually saved time when i used to do this.

Looking at the VT & LM timetables Rugby to Coventry is 9-11 minutes. VT services from Coventry to London run every 20 (ish) minutes, with the best VT to VT connection being about 5 minutes. Hardly a massive penalty

I take the point that the fare structure might have to change to reflect the double back.

To me, MK has a case for more stopping services. The current customer base is bigger, the potential customer base is bigger, and this will only get bigger as the town grows and more business and people are attracted in.
This means someone looses out. Who that is would come down to passenger loadings, passenger flows, stock utilisation and revenue.

 

[Dreadnought]

As for going to Coventry, it seems silly, but it is no different from going north from Northallerton to Darlington to go south by EC. It actually saved time when i used to do this.

This bit confuses me as when I looked on NRE, Northallerton - Kings Cross seems to have a 2 hourly EC service interspersed with GC trains. Yet inbetween it suggests you get a TPE service to York for onward EC to KGX so why would you go backwards to Darlington which would appear to be a longer journey (or is there something obvious I am missing?)

 

[Mr Spock]

You seem to have a lot of issues with Milton Keynes, perhaps you need to chill out and relax! Sorry that Rugby suffers because of the growth of Milton Keynes, but such is life

The point is that MK IS growing. Both in terms of attracting business to MK and in persuading people to move from London to commute. Rail is the only real option in moving large numbers of people into and out of London every day.

Rugby has a population of about 62000, Tamworth about 75000, Nuneaton about 71,000 Lichfield about 31,000 while MIlton Keynes has a population of about 241,000. I simply suggest that as a larger town it might benefit from more Virgin and LM services stopping there. Sorry if your favorite, more genteel town, has to loose out but that is life. Companies will look at how best to maximise profit from the customer base available.

As for the set down only on Virgin services and the service gaps in the morning and evening, i understand that this is part of an agreement with LM to enable them to collect more passenger revenue on the Northampton-Euston section plus it is an attempt to limit overcrowding on the VT trains as they can get very full out of MK.

Rugby, like Milton Keynes, is served on an hourly, off peak, VT London Birmingham basis. MK has further stops on all Manchester services and some North Wales services. This pattern seems sensible, if a little heavy on service for the numbers boarding at both stations. However, having used all of the services at various times there do seem to be more passengers boarding and alighting at MK. I simply suggest that more peak services would be better at MK than Rugby.

The Peak service is about the same at present, other than Rugby has an extra service,the 0620 via Northampton. ( Btw - It seems ok for Rugby to have a dedicated VT commuter service but IF i suggest one for MK i want everything on plate - one detects double standards!) In the evening peak MK is slightly better served.

As for going to Coventry, it seems silly, but it is no different from going north from Northallerton to Darlington to go south by EC. It actually saved time when i used to do this.

Looking at the VT & LM timetables Rugby to Coventry is 9-11 minutes. VT services from Coventry to London run every 20 (ish) minutes, with the best VT to VT connection being about 5 minutes. Hardly a massive penalty

I take the point that the fare structure might have to change to reflect the double back.

To me, MK has a case for more stopping services. The current customer base is bigger, the potential customer base is bigger, and this will only get bigger as the town grows and more business and people are attracted in.
This means someone looses out. Who that is would come down to passenger loadings, passenger flows, stock utilisation and revenue.

So are you just talking peak or off peak as well?

If it is just peak I still do not understand why you think that people from Rugby should have to go to Coventry to get to London as I have said you obviously have no idea how many people commute from Rugby.

As for going to Coventry what is the point of quoting a best VT to VT connection when you think all VT's should not stop at Rugby.

You have said previously that all VT should stop at MK so what part of Virgin want to run faster to London from the north do you not understand. Outside of the peak if you exclude the Brums only one train stops south of Crewe (excludes MK stops) which is the Liverpool at Stafford and from Brum there is one that stops at Rugby and one that stops at Watford. So if everything stops at MK most of these services will be slower - anyway I thought only one Manchester stopped at MK!

There are sufficient passengers from Rugby and stations down the Trent Valley to justify a VT stop so not sure why you keep wanting to take it out.

As for you comment about more LM services stopping at MK which ones don't now?

You also mention that the peak VT trains are full leaving MK in the morning well that is because they are full before they reach there, after all MK passengers should not be joining them so all passengers must have joined before MK.

Not sure what you are on about with the dedicated commuter service as it is just a Virgin train that starts from Rugby, probably a fill in turn before going onto a standard diagram. Why do you think that Virgin have this train if it is not justified.

 

[LE Greys]

From a purely-independent point of view (i.e. being an East Coast man) I often think that Milton Keynes does get a certain over-provision at the expense of Rugby. However, my answer would not be to divide stops, but to put in a genuine semi-fast to Birmingham New Street, calling at Watford Junction, MKC, Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham Int. I know that London Midland are supposed to fulfil that role, but they all go via Northampton and are somewhat slower, although in an ideal world LM would merge with VT to form the new LNWR. Further north, I would ideally like to see in increase in services to Glasgow, with some only calling at Crewe, Preston and Carlisle. Eventually, we should end up with 2 tph on the Glasgow route, one fast and one slow, but making connections at MKC and Crewe.

On the Lockerbie issue, that could be served as part of a triangle, Glasgow Central-Carlisle-Edinburgh, all via Carstairs. There's probably not much chance of reopening any of the little stations such as Lamington and Beattock, but the triangle route could cover some of the stations nearer Glasgow, such as Cambuslang, Motherwell and Shieldmuir, as well as Lockerbie, Carstairs and Haymarket. Maybe some of the Shotts Line stations as well, certainly Kirknewington.

 

[tbtc]

From a purely-independent point of view (i.e. being an East Coast man) I often think that Milton Keynes does get a certain over-provision at the expense of Rugby. However, my answer would not be to divide stops, but to put in a genuine semi-fast to Birmingham New Street, calling at Watford Junction, MKC, Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham Int

I guess this will be the case after HS2 is up and running