West Coast freight paths vs passenger paths. How can things be improved?

[Bletchleyite]

In the May 23 timetable, one southbound Avanti daily skips Lancaster:

Realtime Trains | 9M59 1557 Glasgow Central to London Euston | 23/06/2023

Real-time train running information for 9M59 1557 departure from Glasgow Central to London Euston on 23/06/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Struggling to see why that one does, I guess pathing issues with some peak extra or other somewhere between Preston and Wolves? (It has a short dwell at Wolves which would make the time up if it did stop).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

Thinking on, it's of note that this will need revisiting if HS2 Golborne is built, partly so two additional 400m fasts (Preston and Carlisle only) can be fitted in, and partially so this doesn't make the Windermere branch pretty useless for connections once London services cease serving Oxenholme and Penrith. I think there'd be a definite case once that happens to have all Windermeres and Barrows working to Lancaster bays at least and to time for connections with the HS2 Lancaster semifast, or even all the way to Preston for the excellent connections there. If people have to change twice to get from London to Windermere they're just not going to bother.

 

[Greybeard33]

Struggling to see why that one does, I guess pathing issues with some peak extra or other somewhere between Preston and Wolves? (It has a short dwell at Wolves which would make the time up if it did stop).

In other hours, the southbound Brum arrives at Lancaster 2 to 4 minutes earlier.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

Thinking on, it's of note that this will need revisiting if HS2 Golborne is built, partly so two additional 400m fasts (Preston and Carlisle only) can be fitted in, and partially so this doesn't make the Windermere branch pretty useless for connections once London services cease serving Oxenholme and Penrith. I think there'd be a definite case once that happens to have all Windermeres and Barrows working to Lancaster bays at least and to time for connections with the HS2 Lancaster semifast, or even all the way to Preston for the excellent connections there. If people have to change twice to get from London to Windermere they're just not going to bother.

Even without the Golborne Link, the plan is for the hourly Euston - Glasgow direct to be replaced by a 200m HS2 service that will not call at any of Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockerbie or Motherwell. So clearly a recast will be needed as soon as Phase 1/2a opens fully.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

In other hours, the southbound Brum arrives at Lancaster 2 to 4 minutes earlier.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==


Even without the Golborne Link, the plan is for the hourly Euston - Glasgow direct to be replaced by a 200m HS2 service that will not call at any of Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockerbie or Motherwell. So clearly a recast will be needed as soon as Phase 1/2a opens fully.

I somehow suspect removing services from The Lake District and Lancaster to London will end up having to be reviewed or else could be prime territory for and open access operator.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I somehow suspect removing services from The Lake District and Lancaster to London will end up having to be reviewed or else could be prime territory for and open access operator.

Lancaster is getting a slower HS2 service to London (the one that calls all IC stations to Crewe then joins HS2 there). The issue of Oxenholme could be dealt with by extending all Windermere services back to Lancaster. Penrith would probably be left wanting, though I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to change at Birmingham or Manchester and it's not a big place, nor do (sadly) that many people use it to connect onto the bus to Kendal.

If Golborne isn't built, the pattern will be similar to now and the Glasgows will serve Lancaster etc and be 200m.

 

[tbtc]

I’m normally a big fan of simple clockface timetables (albeit without trying to use Germanic words)

And there are certainly inefficiencies with freight paths (where a daily service may stop an hourly passenger service from operating, or a timetable is littered with several Q-code paths that are seldom used), i think that the fact that freight services see “proper” trains (i.e. diesel locomotives) must skew perceptions a bit in the eyes of some

But I’m not sure that there’s as big a problem here as is suggested. For a start, surely the majority of passengers on board a Glasgow/Edinburgh bound service departing Lancaster are heading to those Scottish cities?

Whilst there’ll be some demand for trips like Oxenholme to Penrith, the much bigger market is the longer distance passenger who won’t care about the fact that the ex- Birmingham service is five minutes ahead/behind rather than a better balanced twenty/thirty minutes because all they are fussed about is a direct train from Manchester to Edinburgh or from London to Glasgow or whatever

if anything, the large number of long distance passengers mean it’s even desirable to flight fast services, so that someone trying to get from Birmingham/ Manchester to Edinburgh/ Glasgow in the hour that the direct service isn’t running direct face a long wait (since the next train to that Scottish city might be following closely behind)

However, as is often the case, there’s a feeling that this thread is disproportionately dominated by “concerns” about the Windermere branch

 

[Meerkat]

Penrith would probably be left wanting, though I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to change at Birmingham or Manchester

Wouldn't you get HS2 to Preston/Lancaster and then pick up a TPE from Manchester/Liverpool?

 

[The Planner]

But, all the signals, points etc would be needed for a loop at Oxenholme, but with the additional complecity of integrating into the WCML signalling, which wouldn't be the case if you just added a loop. And again, you wouldn't get the timetable uplift offered by the loop.

Bare in mind the focus of my point was a comparison of what the council suggested, vs an idea posted by another user. I'm not drawing a comparison to current line usage.

You need to integrate with the WCML signaling regardless as it goes into Carlisle PSB. In terms of extra signaling, I don't believe they would be the same. You could end up just needing the one signal at the end of the new down direction and you might not even need that as you remove/move signal 53 at the end of the platform 3. The ones at the south end of the station on the Down Main and Down Windermere arguably would just need a new Junction Indicator/feather. You wouldn't need any more on the Up.

 

[Ken H]

People writing off Oxenholme and Penrith need to visit the area. They support a huge hinterland - most of the Lakes, and also Eastern Cumbria.

 

[Greybeard33]

If Golborne isn't built, the pattern will be similar to now and the Glasgows will serve Lancaster etc and be 200m.

The latest indicative Train Service Specification shows that, without the the Golborne Link, the 200m Euston - Glasgow service will call at Carlisle only between Preston and Glasgow. See Fig.A8 in the SOBC:

HS2 Crewe to Manchester: update on the strategic outline business case

Provides an update on the 2017 strategic outline business case for the HS2 western leg route from Crewe to Manchester.

www.gov.uk

This could change if journey time is traded for connectivity. But I should think there might be a concern that a 200m train would get overcrowded if it served the intermediate stations (fewer seats than an 11-car 390).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't you get HS2 to Preston/Lancaster and then pick up a TPE from Manchester/Liverpool?

Depends on the quality of the connection and the cost. With 3tph from Manchester it may be a better connection and may be cheaper.

 

[Greybeard33]

It's an aside from this thread, but no, that's not quite right. One of the problems with the Golborne Link was that whilst it bypassed the two track section of railway from Winsford to Weaver Junction, it did nothing to relieve the two track section north of Wigan. Thus the amount of extra traffc that could be carried by construction of the Golborne Link was not very high, owing to the Wigan bottleneck, and as the Link also led to HS2 trains bypassing Warrington (a very big town, population 300,000 approx.) with likely loss of revenue, my guess is that the business case for the Golborne Link was poor or even negative. I agree that the two-track stretch north of Preston is busy too, but the one north of Wigan is busier.

No need to guess, because the Government has assessed the business case for the Golborne Link as an add-on increment to the Crewe to Manchester business case. The BCR is calculated to be 1.0, increasing to 1.4 when Wider Economic Impacts are included. This is much better than the BCR for the Crewe to Manchester line without the Link. See Fig.A1 in the Supplement to the SOBC:

HS2 Crewe to Manchester: impacts of removing the Golborne Link

Supplement to the update on the strategic outline business case.

www.gov.uk

With or without the Link, the only HS2 service planned to call at Warrington is the hourly Lancaster train. Without the Link, the Glasgow train would run through Warrington non stop.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Depends on the quality of the connection and the cost. With 3tph from Manchester it may be a better connection and may be cheaper.

In reality removing direct trains from London to stations between Preston and Carlisle really isn’t going to be a vote winner. Nobody has got too excited about it yet as it’s a long way in the future but once reality dawns you can see this becoming an issue.

I would not be surprised if the direct services are abandoned open access getting interested in this market.

Interesting question, are there actually any barriers to open access bidding to run on HS2 - a competing London to Scotland service but getting round the ORCATS issue by not calling at Preston or Carlisle but serving the 3 stations in between…

 

[The Planner]

Interesting question, are there actually any barriers to open access bidding to run on HS2 - a competing London to Scotland service but getting round the ORCATS issue by not calling at Preston or Carlisle but serving the 3 stations in between…

As I doubt NR will take ownership of it, it would be down to HS2 to allow it, and I don't see how it would ever pass an abstractive test.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

As I doubt NR will take ownership of it, it would be down to HS2 to allow it, and I don't see how it would ever pass an abstractive test.

Although if Scotland does become independent international services do not have to pass abstractive test…

 

[Bletchleyite]

In reality removing direct trains from London to stations between Preston and Carlisle really isn’t going to be a vote winner. Nobody has got too excited about it yet as it’s a long way in the future but once reality dawns you can see this becoming an issue.

I would not be surprised if the direct services are abandoned open access getting interested in this market.

Interesting question, are there actually any barriers to open access bidding to run on HS2 - a competing London to Scotland service but getting round the ORCATS issue by not calling at Preston or Carlisle but serving the 3 stations in between…

My personal view is that there's a good chance the Lancaster terminator could be extended to Carlisle, and it probably should. You could even send it to Edinburgh, meaning there's an HS2 service there, albeit a slower one.

 

[Greybeard33]

My personal view is that there's a good chance the Lancaster terminator could be extended to Carlisle, and it probably should. You could even send it to Edinburgh, meaning there's an HS2 service there, albeit a slower one.

Only if you could find a path betwixt the freights!

 

[The Planner]

My personal view is that there's a good chance the Lancaster terminator could be extended to Carlisle, and it probably should. You could even send it to Edinburgh, meaning there's an HS2 service there, albeit a slower one.

It only goes to Lancaster based on the dead time and not wanting it to hang around at Preston. It would originally be another diagram to get it further north.

 

[furnessvale]

Why do anythin on Preston - Carlisle via west coast main line. Just send the freights via Blea Moor

Most freights are containers, which simply won't fit on the Drag.

 

[Starmill]

Struggling to see why that one does, I guess pathing issues with some peak extra or other somewhere between Preston and Wolves? (It has a short dwell at Wolves which would make the time up if it did stop).

It's to permit it to stop at Motherwell. It could stop at Lancaster, as the one two hours earlier does, but it would need to drop its stop at Oxenholme Lake District to do so. It has three minutes at Crewe and four and a half at Wolverhampton, but moving its departure from Preston later would result in a clash at Euxton Jn. Withdrawing the stop at Oxenholme Lake District would remove the connection it provides from the 1708 departure from Windermere.

 

[Falcon1200]

The argument for clockface is really no different to anywhere else, and it's the only bit of the WCML that isn't proper clockface.

WCML north has never really been clockface as Euston services only ever usually serve 2/3 stations between Preston and Carlisle to balance journey time v connectivity.

I must admit to being somewhat mystified by this repeated assertion that the WCML north is not a clockface timetable, because it seems to me that it is, or rather, is intended to be! The pre-Covid TT had an hourly Glasgow/Euston via Trent Valley train, an hourly Scotland/Euston via Birmingham train, alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and an hourly Scotland/Manchester Airport train, also alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh but on the opposite hour from the via Birmingham service. The fly in the ointment is perhaps the stopping pattern, but how could this be resolved? Some of the intermediate stations justify some direct trains to say Birmingham or London, but not a train every hour.

Flighting freight is a lot harder than flighting passenger paths. You generally need the infrastructure to hide them first.

Indeed. An issue I have not seen mentioned yet, perhaps peculiar to the northern WCML, is that as well as speed affecting pathing, some freights are authorised to run overlength, and therefore cannot be accommodated in loops; The infamous 4S43 Daventry-Mossend is one such example, it is not looped anywhere in Scotland so occupies the WCML, at 75mph, from passing Floriston (booked 1216) until reaching Law Jc (1333). Such timings only work if the freight, and the trains around it, all run to time. Which, to be fair, does happen, sometimes.....

 

[Manutd1999]

Even without the Golborne Link, the plan is for the hourly Euston - Glasgow direct to be replaced by a 200m HS2 service that will not call at any of Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockerbie or Motherwell. So clearly a recast will be needed as soon as Phase 1/2a opens fully.

If the Golborne link is scrapped, all of the Scotland/Lancaster services might as well start as soon as HS2 reaches Crewe? The initial plan was for 2x 400m HS2 services to Scotland, both dividing at Carlisle for Glasgow/Edinburgh.

Following a recast, the north WCML would then look something like this:

xx00 (HS2) - PRE ----------------------- CAR -------- MTH - Glasgow
xx05 (MAN) - PRE - LAN - OXN - PEN - CAR --------------- Glasgow
xx10 (BHM) - PRE - LAN - OXN / PEN - CAR - (Edinburgh)
xx20 (HS2) - PRE - LAN
xx30 (HS2) - PRE -------- OXN / PEN - CAR ---------------- Glasgow
xx35 (MAN) - PRE - LAN - (Barrow)

The times are purely indicative, but flighting all of the passenger services into 35 minutes of the hour should be comfortable enough and leave plenty room for freight?

The Manchester and Birmingham services would alternate between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Oxenholme and Penrith would have a 1p2h direct service via HS2, plus an extra 3p2h southbound to offer connections at Preston/Lancaster.

I wonder if the plan is still to have the Birmingham train continue to Euston via the "classic" WCML? Alternatively it could run via HS2 to Curzon Street.

 

[HSTEd]

I wonder if the plan is still to have the Birmingham train continue to Euston via the "classic" WCML? Alternatively it could run via HS2 to Curzon Street.

Assuming the Curzon Street approach signaling can cope, I would suggest that running via HS2 is preferable, it allows simplification of the South WCML timetable and faster journeys for people using it.

Extend all three (or four!) Birmingham HS2 trains to the North over the Classic line.
Even with the reverse into Birmingham and stop it will probably still beat the journeys over the classic line.

 

[The Planner]

I must admit to being somewhat mystified by this repeated assertion that the WCML north is not a clockface timetable, because it seems to me that it is, or rather, is intended to be! The pre-Covid TT had an hourly Glasgow/Euston via Trent Valley train, an hourly Scotland/Euston via Birmingham train, alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and an hourly Scotland/Manchester Airport train, also alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh but on the opposite hour from the via Birmingham service. The fly in the ointment is perhaps the stopping pattern, but how could this be resolved? Some of the intermediate stations justify some direct trains to say Birmingham or London, but not a train every hour.



Indeed. An issue I have not seen mentioned yet, perhaps peculiar to the northern WCML, is that as well as speed affecting pathing, some freights are authorised to run overlength, and therefore cannot be accommodated in loops; The infamous 4S43 Daventry-Mossend is one such example, it is not looped anywhere in Scotland so occupies the WCML, at 75mph, from passing Floriston (booked 1216) until reaching Law Jc (1333). Such timings only work if the freight, and the trains around it, all run to time. Which, to be fair, does happen, sometimes.....

Ah, the good old specially authorised load or trial..

If the Golborne link is scrapped, all of the Scotland/Lancaster services might as well start as soon as HS2 reaches Crewe? The initial plan was for 2x 400m HS2 services to Scotland, both dividing at Carlisle for Glasgow/Edinburgh.

Following a recast, the north WCML would then look something like this:

xx00 (HS2) - PRE ----------------------- CAR -------- MTH - Glasgow
xx05 (MAN) - PRE - LAN - OXN - PEN - CAR --------------- Glasgow
xx10 (BHM) - PRE - LAN - OXN / PEN - CAR - (Edinburgh)
xx20 (HS2) - PRE - LAN
xx30 (HS2) - PRE -------- OXN / PEN - CAR ---------------- Glasgow
xx35 (MAN) - PRE - LAN - (Barrow)

The times are purely indicative, but flighting all of the passenger services into 35 minutes of the hour should be comfortable enough and leave plenty room for freight?

The Manchester and Birmingham services would alternate between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Oxenholme and Penrith would have a 1p2h direct service via HS2, plus an extra 3p2h southbound to offer connections at Preston/Lancaster.

I wonder if the plan is still to have the Birmingham train continue to Euston via the "classic" WCML? Alternatively it could run via HS2 to Curzon Street.

Never understand the need for tidy spaced trains. You plan them at the headway required and alter the station stops so you arent condensing into all your station stops in a 15 minute window. Xx08 xx14 every hour is still clockface.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Never understand the need for tidy spaced trains. You plan them at the headway required and alter the station stops so you arent condensing into all your station stops in a 15 minute window. Xx08 xx14 every hour is still clockface.

Slightly easier to remember if they're tidy intervals (for Merseyrail for instance you just need to remember one number and add 15 to it). But at least you want them spaced decently - xx05 and xx10 might be 2tph, but it's not any more useful than 1tph other than insurance against cancellation.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder if the plan is still to have the Birmingham train continue to Euston via the "classic" WCML? Alternatively it could run via HS2 to Curzon Street.

Assuming the Curzon Street approach signaling can cope, I would suggest that running via HS2 is preferable, it allows simplification of the South WCML timetable and faster journeys for people using it.

It’s via the WCML. It provides Wolverhampton with its London service, and also a decent chunk of capacity on the Crewe - Stafford - Wolverhampton - Birmingham - Coventry corridor, and also connectivity from various WCML. Stations to the North West and Scotland.

 

[Greybeard33]

If the Golborne link is scrapped, all of the Scotland/Lancaster services might as well start as soon as HS2 reaches Crewe? The initial plan was for 2x 400m HS2 services to Scotland, both dividing at Carlisle for Glasgow/Edinburgh.

Following a recast, the north WCML would then look something like this:

xx00 (HS2) - PRE ----------------------- CAR -------- MTH - Glasgow
xx05 (MAN) - PRE - LAN - OXN - PEN - CAR --------------- Glasgow
xx10 (BHM) - PRE - LAN - OXN / PEN - CAR - (Edinburgh)
xx20 (HS2) - PRE - LAN
xx30 (HS2) - PRE -------- OXN / PEN - CAR ---------------- Glasgow
xx35 (MAN) - PRE - LAN - (Barrow)

The times are purely indicative, but flighting all of the passenger services into 35 minutes of the hour should be comfortable enough and leave plenty room for freight?

The Manchester and Birmingham services would alternate between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Oxenholme and Penrith would have a 1p2h direct service via HS2, plus an extra 3p2h southbound to offer connections at Preston/Lancaster.

I wonder if the plan is still to have the Birmingham train continue to Euston via the "classic" WCML? Alternatively it could run via HS2 to Curzon Street.

Only one HS2 train to Scotland without Golborne. 200m Euston - Glasgow. See link in my post #69.

 

[Manutd1999]

Only one HS2 train to Scotland without Golborne. 200m Euston - Glasgow. See link in my post #69.

Interesting, and also slightly strange. Surely there is enough capacity through Warrington to fit in 2ph HS2 to Glasgow, with or without the Golborne link?

Splitting at Carlisle could also be achieved with or without the Golborne link, so why wouldn't you do it? Even if the journey time savings to Edinburgh are relatively modest, it would still help to free up capacity on the ECML.

 

[43096]

However, most freight is hauled by powerful, modern electric locomotives. We can do that bit - we already have Class 90s and you can use two, though new kit could be ordered in due course. Or if they absolutely must use old American two-stroke junk, use three.

You are aware that those Class 90s are older than the “old American two-stroke junk”?

 

[Nottingham59]

powerful, modern electric locomotives. We can do that bit

We already do, of course.

Can anyone say how well the intermodal trains from Daventry to Mossend perform over Shap and Beattock, hauled by Class 88s (4MW=5400HP under the wires)? These are far more powerful than Class 66s.

If 88s are fast enough not to hold up passenger services, then the freight problem is going to go away over time. Class 93s and 99s will come on stream and class 66s will be scrapped. And surely no FOC is going to order new purely diesel locomotives nowadays.

Also, is it possible under the current legislation for NR to impose minimum power/weight ratios on lines like the WCML?

 

[Greybeard33]

Interesting, and also slightly strange. Surely there is enough capacity through Warrington to fit in 2ph HS2 to Glasgow, with or without the Golborne link?

Splitting at Carlisle could also be achieved with or without the Golborne link, so why wouldn't you do it? Even if the journey time savings to Edinburgh are relatively modest, it would still help to free up capacity on the ECML.

I believe the issue is lack of capacity on the 2-track sections of the WCML between Crewe and Weaver Junction, rather than further north. The service pattern is the same as has always been proposed for Phase 2a, and, without the Golborne Link, the Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester Bill does nothing to increase WCML capacity north of Crewe.

I believe the Bill does still include powers for 400m platform extensions at Preston and Carlisle, which would enable an Edinburgh portion to be split off at Carlisle. But those powers do not have to be exercised. They can be kept in reserve in case the Golborne Link, or an alternative link, is reinstated in the future. Maybe the extra time needed for splitting and joining would mean that another pair of unit diagrams would be needed to give sufficient turnaround time at Glasgow and Edinburgh? That would undermine the business case.

There will still be the classic services to Edinburgh from Birmingham New Street and Manchester Airport.