Do WCML stations have a worse service under VTWC?

[Ianno87]

I don't really understand why the new Blackpool - London services can't call at Crewe. The trains seem to get to Crewe heading south at xx:20 and get to Crewe at xx:28 heading north. These services could quite easily have platform capacity at Crewe (Platform 1 heading south and Platform 11 heading north) without conflicting current movements, and would help provide Blackpool with better connectivity to destinations such as Chester, Shrewsbury and Stoke, as at the moment it is very difficult to get from Blackpool to Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire

Crewe might be fine. It's the resulting impact on the path north or south of Crewe from the extra stop that might be the issue.

 

[The Planner]

The Scotland trains are not "slow", although the 12 minute wait at Wolverhampton makes them feel slow when travelling to Birmingham. All that money spent on 125mph running from Scotland, then wasted on a 32 minute journey time from Wolverhampton (arr. xx:33) to Birmingham (arr xx:05). A call at Stafford would not add to journey times - the wait at Wolverhampton would shorten, that is all.

You have the southbound XC up your backside and you cannot add a stop at Stafford without impacting it.

 

[Ianno87]

You have the southbound XC up your backside and you cannot add a stop at Stafford without impacting it.

...plus the elongated stand at Wolverhampton is deliberately there as performance recovery before the train enters the West Midlands "proper".

 

[a_c_skinner]

I'm not going to suggest detailed plans, my crayons are too blunt to write in a timetable and I don't have the knowledge either but for me the defect in the WCML timetable is the Crewe-Warrington gap which is 1TPH - the Via West Midlands to Scotland trains. I realise the a lot of the WCML gains have been in a cleverer stopping pattern but it has reduced customer choice. Basing future services on ticket sales for journeys the present timetable makes inconvenient is one of the railway's failings. Hardly anyone (for example) travels from Bentham to Leeds so there is no need for those services but it is false logic.

 

[nuneatonmark]

If you were going to do it properly, you would have all the Trent Valley services served by a Pendo or maybe a Voyager (off-peak) that is fast to Nuneaton (or maybe Rugby), then calls at Tamworth and Lichfield. If needed it could be overtaken on the 4 track section by a faster service. This service could then call Stafford, Crewe and then probably to Liverpool as it's second train train per hour or maybe Chester/North Wales. You could then also have a LNW stopping service splitting off a Northampton service. Nuneaton, Lichfield, Tamworth, Rugby and Watford all missed out on the VHF change. With the extra paths available now, this could be rectified but Virgin hate the TV stations, particularly Nuneaton. I did hear that a Virgin trains executive once had a bad experience in a Nuneaton pub so has been against us since! (only kidding)

 

[A0]

If you were going to do it properly, you would have all the Trent Valley services served by a Pendo or maybe a Voyager (off-peak) that is fast to Nuneaton (or maybe Rugby), then calls at Tamworth and Lichfield. If needed it could be overtaken on the 4 track section by a faster service. This service could then call Stafford, Crewe and then probably to Liverpool as it's second train train per hour or maybe Chester/North Wales. You could then also have a LNW stopping service splitting off a Northampton service. Nuneaton, Lichfield, Tamworth, Rugby and Watford all missed out on the VHF change. With the extra paths available now, this could be rectified but Virgin hate the TV stations, particularly Nuneaton. I did hear that a Virgin trains executive once had a bad experience in a Nuneaton pub so has been against us since! (only kidding)

Neither Tamworth nor Lichfield are significant enough to justify an hourly Virgin service - particularly with the LM service that offers sensible journey times and frequencies both north and south.

What everybody seems to be forgetting is the old TV local service was patchy and slow - quite unlike what they have now - which is vastly better.

Nuneaton's a trickier one because of the interchange from the Leicester / Birmingham line, but I'm still unconvinced there's that significant traffic flow to justify uplifting the number of Virgin services there.

 

[AlterEgo]

Over the Xmas period there were hourly services to Scotland, to obviously compensate for extra passengers traveling.

I don’t see why they can’t make bi hourly stops, or even only 3 times daily stops

The principle of the London to Scotland routes is to compete against domestic air travel. This is where the rump of the revenue comes from - London to Scotland. That’s why the direct Trent Valley services on VTWC don’t call at many places.

If they sell a seat on the 0930 EUS-GLC to Stafford, this is a seat they cannot sell to a much more valuable passenger heading to Glasgow. Intermediate stops are not always a good idea (sometimes they make commercial sense and sometimes they do not).

 

[dk1]

Hopefully when the extra Blackpool services start Virgin can look at omitting Wigan & Warrington from the Anglo-Scottish in the same hour. A couple of services did that a few years ago allowing arrival at Euston at xx.03.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Neither Tamworth nor Lichfield are significant enough to justify an hourly Virgin service - particularly with the LM service that offers sensible journey times and frequencies both north and south.

What everybody seems to be forgetting is the old TV local service was patchy and slow - quite unlike what they have now - which is vastly better.

Nuneaton's a trickier one because of the interchange from the Leicester / Birmingham line, but I'm still unconvinced there's that significant traffic flow to justify uplifting the number of Virgin services there.

If Tamworth or Lichfield were on any other direct line to London they would have at least an hourly service to and from London. Do Market Harborough, Wellingborough, Newark, Grantham, Chippenham, Warwick, Leamington etc not deserve hourly services to London? They are both significant sized towns/cities with significant catchment areas. As for Nuneaton the same as above applies but in addition, as you say, it has the interchange opportunities plus is a major town in it's own right of nearly 100000 population, many more if you count the the catchment area. It's been one of the fastest growing larger stations on the West Coast mainline and the hourly LNW service is completely inadequate, for anyone to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding. How many other towns or cities of around 100000, within 120 miles of London, have such a crap service to London? Answer - none.

 

[NSEFAN]

If Tamworth or Lichfield were on any other direct line to London they would have at least an hourly service to and from London. Do Market Harborough, Wellingborough, Newark, Grantham, Chippenham, Warwick, Leamington etc not deserve hourly services to London? They are both significant sized towns/cities with significant catchment areas. As for Nuneaton the same as above applies but in addition, as you say, it has the interchange opportunities plus is a major town in it's own right of nearly 100000 population, many more if you count the the catchment area. It's been one of the fastest growing larger stations on the West Coast mainline and the hourly LNW service is completely inadequate, for anyone to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding. How many other towns or cities of around 100000, within 120 miles of London, have such a crap service to London? Answer - none.

And what are the traffic densities like for the GWML through Chippenham or ECML through Grantham? I'd hazard a guess that there's fewer trains, meaning it's easier to fit the stops in. Compare that with Nuneaton, which has express trains passing much more frequently, making it much harder to fit in stops without messing the timetable up.

 

[nuneatonmark]

For the last 10 years it was possible to stop the Chester services at Nuneaton but Virgin declined to do so, with the new paths available it's even more possible to do so now. However Virgin won't do it hence why we need some competition from Alliance Rail. The Virgin Blackpool services are just spoilers for the Alliance Rail proposals. The sooner we get Virgin off the West Coast or open access operators on it the better.

 

[route101]

Motherwell springs to mind , only a few VT call a day now and only one TPE

 

[AlterEgo]

For the last 10 years it was possible to stop the Chester services at Nuneaton but Virgin declined to do so, with the new paths available it's even more possible to do so now. However Virgin won't do it hence why we need some competition from Alliance Rail. The Virgin Blackpool services are just spoilers for the Alliance Rail proposals. The sooner we get Virgin off the West Coast or open access operators on it the better.

Why did Virgin decide not to call more trains? You seem to imply it is something inherent within Virgin - perhaps a personal vendetta the company has against Nuneaton.

 

[DenmarkRail]

It’s a shame there isn’t a DB bid in 2019, as I’d be frantically supportive, however I do think it’s time for change on WC routes to allow VT operated stops like Stafford to flourish

 

[Tetchytyke]

The principle of the London to Scotland routes is to compete against domestic air travel. This is where the rump of the revenue comes from - London to Scotland. That’s why the direct Trent Valley services on VTWC don’t call at many places.

Indeed.

The lack of a call at Milton Keynes or Watford Junction put me back on the plane though. Coming back from Glasgow to Hemel, it was quicker and cheaper to get back from Heathrow or Luton. And less frustrating too, given that I could see my flat from the train more than an hour before I finally arrived home.

But I can see why the Glasgow does run fast.

To answer the question, it depends what you mean by "worse". Some stations have a "worse" VT service- Rugby and Stafford in particular- but the overall package with the extra LM trains is much improved. Nuneaton and Tamworth have lost Intercity trains to London (but still have LM semi-fasts) but Atherstone, Lichfield and Rugeley have gained. The old Trent Valley stopper of a 153 trundling up and down at irregular intervals is a million miles away.

 

[Taunton]

The reduction in Watford/Milton Keynes stops wouldn't be so bad if the through service didn't run nonstop to Warrington, where no connection is available from intermediate southern points. I recently had to get from Watford to Carlisle, air is not an option, but the quickest (not very much) rail routing was via Euston. Returning, using one of the services that now runs via Birmingham, I was struck by just how many other people the conductor was telling they could arrive at Euston earlier by changing at Crewe. However, it seems that a good number of London to Glasgow passengers on Advances are now encouraged by cheaper fares (and opaqueness on booking sites if you are not a timetable aficionado about the journey time) to take the train via Birmingham, which among other things on another trip from Birmingham to Carlisle led to a distinct lack of available seats at New Street.

Conventional railway logic would have made the Glasgows first stop Crewe, rather than Warrington, for the connection possibilities.

 

[A0]

If Tamworth or Lichfield were on any other direct line to London they would have at least an hourly service to and from London. Do Market Harborough, Wellingborough, Newark, Grantham, Chippenham, Warwick, Leamington etc not deserve hourly services to London? They are both significant sized towns/cities with significant catchment areas. As for Nuneaton the same as above applies but in addition, as you say, it has the interchange opportunities plus is a major town in it's own right of nearly 100000 population, many more if you count the the catchment area. It's been one of the fastest growing larger stations on the West Coast mainline and the hourly LNW service is completely inadequate, for anyone to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding. How many other towns or cities of around 100000, within 120 miles of London, have such a crap service to London? Answer - none.

You're comparing apples with bananas.

Leamington technically doesn't get 'Inter City' standard services on an hourly basis to London - a good number use Chiltern's 168s which are to all intents and purposes equivalent to the LNW Desiros.

To use Nuneaton - it virtually has an hourly service to and from London - the journey time is 1h 15m and it makes two stops.

Few, if any, of the stations you listed have fewer stops en route to London - Wellingborough has 2 for example for virtually all services.

A non-stop Virgin service to Nuneaton makes no sense - it might save 5 minutes on the journey time, in terms of comfort usually the TV services are 2+2 seated Desiros so there's little to choose there. And you'd be expecting Virgin to pass up on stopping at more lucrative places e.g. MK to achieve this.

 

[nuneatonmark]

You're comparing apples with bananas.

Leamington technically doesn't get 'Inter City' standard services on an hourly basis to London - a good number use Chiltern's 168s which are to all intents and purposes equivalent to the LNW Desiros.

To use Nuneaton - it virtually has an hourly service to and from London - the journey time is 1h 15m and it makes two stops.

Few, if any, of the stations you listed have fewer stops en route to London - Wellingborough has 2 for example for virtually all services.

A non-stop Virgin service to Nuneaton makes no sense - it might save 5 minutes on the journey time, in terms of comfort usually the TV services are 2+2 seated Desiros so there's little to choose there. And you'd be expecting Virgin to pass up on stopping at more lucrative places e.g. MK to achieve this.

Firstly all those stations I quoted have either a more frequent service OR a faster service to London, in most cases they have both. Leamington, for example, has at least 2 or 3 trains an hour to London. Secondly : Off peak Nuneaton has a single semi-fast 4 coach train to/from London using stock that should have never been used for Intercity travel, a 350 is hardly a Pendolino. Thirdly : The demand is easily there for an hourly fast Virgin West Coast service PLUS an hourly stopper via Northampton. Nuneaton is a town close to 100000 residents, closer to 200000 if you include the catchment area. When you combine all the major towns along the Trent Valley you're looking at a catchment area of a large city. Nuneaton itself had 1.3 entries/exits in 2016/17 and 600k interchanges. If that's not big enough to warrant an hourly fast service plus an hourly stopper then what is?

 

[A0]

Firstly all those stations I quoted have either a more frequent service OR a faster service to London, in most cases they have both. Leamington, for example, has at least 2 or 3 trains an hour to London. Secondly : Off peak Nuneaton has a single semi-fast 4 coach train to/from London using stock that should have never been used for Intercity travel, a 350 is hardly a Pendolino. Thirdly : The demand is easily there for an hourly fast Virgin West Coast service PLUS an hourly stopper via Northampton. Nuneaton is a town close to 100000 residents, closer to 200000 if you include the catchment area. When you combine all the major towns along the Trent Valley you're looking at a catchment area of a large city. Nuneaton itself had 1.3 entries/exits in 2016/17 and 600k interchanges. If that's not big enough to warrant an hourly fast service plus an hourly stopper then what is?

Banbury had double the number of passengers at nearly 3m on a population which is far smaller than Nuneaton - perhaps the reason it has a better service to London? Add in, it's on one of the London - Birmingham main routes.

The 350s are ideal medium-distance trains - they more than compare with the Mk2 stock stoppers which places like Nuneaton used to have.

You're just wanting the "prestige" of a Pendo service for purely emotional reasons. There are many places which have similar stock providing similar journeys - look at the West of England mainline for example or the Chiltern line to Birmingham.

Nuneaton doesn't justify a "fast" i.e. non stop service to London. Northampton's double the size of Nuneaton, has 3 times as many journeys from it's station and doesn't justify a non-stop service to London either.

 

[nuneatonmark]

This is a wind up right? or do you work for Virgin trains or the DfT by any chance? So Banbury is smaller but has more services to London and more people use Banbury. Exactly the point I was making. Also Northampton, has 3x more trains to London and 3 times more people use it, again exactly my point although both are closer to London hence more commuters. 'purely emotional reasons', are you kidding? Time to end this thread from my part anyway. Also get your facts right, Nuneaton used to have an hourly London/Liverpool fast service plus other additional services, hardly 'mk2 stoppers'.

 

[pt_mad]

For the last 10 years it was possible to stop the Chester services at Nuneaton but Virgin declined to do so, with the new paths available it's even more possible to do so now. However Virgin won't do it hence why we need some competition from Alliance Rail. The Virgin Blackpool services are just spoilers for the Alliance Rail proposals. The sooner we get Virgin off the West Coast or open access operators on it the better.

They could potentially have stopped the Chester at Nuneaton in the Northbound direction, and one of the fast Manchester to London's via Stoke at Nuneaton in the southbound direction without disrupting much through the Trent. However, it wouldn't be very consistent, with Chesters stopping there northbound and Manchesters southbound. Plus there's the problem that the Chester is only a 5 car and these are said to get busy. Likewise, Manchester to London is one of the premier routes and probably not something they'd wish to slow down on an hourly basis.

One x 4 car train an hour to some of the stations mentioned above (Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield) which they all have to share is indeed probably not sufficient.
We have to believe that the DFT and the new franchisee for the semi-fasts agree. Hence longer trains are planned for the London to Crewe services in December.
It stands to reason that when a lot of those towns had their fast services removed in 2008, and replaced by an all stations train, which was then made 110mph to Rugby, and was the cheapest of all, that it would be hugely popular and probably fill up more than a lot of the other trains even the expresses. Why this wasn't foreseen from the off was anyone's guess.

Taking Nuneaton, it probably would be worthy of a few extra fast stops during the late morning and early evening. The new VT Blackpools would have been a perfect opportunity for this. However, if there's only room for one stop before reaching Crewe, and Rugby is a VT station, and one which currently has no off peak fast service going north, excluding Birmingham, then it was quite likely Rugby would get the stop.

In theory there's nothing wrong with a class 350 running the semi fast. As long as it's 2+2 seating. They are 110mph capable. And similar Siemens units work all the express work on South Western Rail. As long as all the London/Crewe services ran as minimum 8 cars, possibly 12 on some workings. And are extended to 12 when growth demands it.

It probably would be viable for VT to slot in the odd extra stop on one or two VT workings a day to what the stations have now.

And then if the GNWR Blackpool operation were to be granted, this would give Nuneaton and Milton Keynes another 6 110mph intercity trains in each direction in the off peak.

 

[Confused147]

You have the southbound XC up your backside and you cannot add a stop at Stafford without impacting it.

They manage perfectly in late evening and early morning with a Stafford call

 

[DarloRich]

For Stafford read Nuneaton - the same comments apply: Small, insignificant place with little going for it economically other than as a dormitory for larger cities. To improve services there you have to sacrifice revenue from better served towns and cities.

The only difference is that Stafford already has an hourly Virgin service to Euston which Nuneaton doesn't. I doubt it needs more.

It’s a shame there isn’t a DB bid in 2019, as I’d be frantically supportive, however I do think it’s time for change on WC routes to allow VT operated stops like Stafford to flourish

Why - what do you think that would bring that Virgin wont?

Why did Virgin decide not to call more trains? You seem to imply it is something inherent within Virgin - perhaps a personal vendetta the company has against Nuneaton.

You're comparing apples with bananas.

Leamington technically doesn't get 'Inter City' standard services on an hourly basis to London - a good number use Chiltern's 168s which are to all intents and purposes equivalent to the LNW Desiros.

To use Nuneaton - it virtually has an hourly service to and from London - the journey time is 1h 15m and it makes two stops.

Few, if any, of the stations you listed have fewer stops en route to London - Wellingborough has 2 for example for virtually all services.

A non-stop Virgin service to Nuneaton makes no sense - it might save 5 minutes on the journey time, in terms of comfort usually the TV services are 2+2 seated Desiros so there's little to choose there. And you'd be expecting Virgin to pass up on stopping at more lucrative places e.g. MK to achieve this.

Don't you understand how Nuneaton is the centre of the universe?

This is a wind up right? or do you work for Virgin trains or the DfT by any chance? So Banbury is smaller but has more services to London and more people use Banbury. Exactly the point I was making. Also Northampton, has 3x more trains to London and 3 times more people use it, again exactly my point although both are closer to London hence more commuters. 'purely emotional reasons', are you kidding? Time to end this thread from my part anyway. Also get your facts right, Nuneaton used to have an hourly London/Liverpool fast service plus other additional services, hardly 'mk2 stoppers'.

Toys out of pram because people don't share your view on the importance of Nuneaton to the economy of the country? It has a good and regular service to Euston residents with limited stops and more importantly Milton Keynes which is also a draw for commuting Nuneaton . Yes, the trains are too small (I speak from regular use!) and they aren't "intercity" style trains but they are decent and perfectly suitable for the run between Nuneaton and Euston.

I think the focus for Nuneaton should be getting longer trains on both the LM run and on the XC run to Brum. What extra would a Virgin service offer over the current LM run? 5 minutes of the journey time? I suggest you would lose that calling at MK to serve that market.

 

[DenmarkRail]

For Stafford read Nuneaton - the same comments apply: Small, insignificant place with little going for it economically

Stafford’s a major commuter town, which I admit isn’t the best, but is improving. Still, it deserves SOME Scotland services due to the fact its completely possible to implement in a town, where virgin trains loadings are good.

I’d go as far as saying I’d drop the a few of the hourly LNWR services, as I’d avoid them like the plague, with the slow journey times.

 

[A0]

They could potentially have stopped the Chester at Nuneaton in the Northbound direction, and one of the fast Manchester to London's via Stoke at Nuneaton in the southbound direction without disrupting much through the Trent. However, it wouldn't be very consistent, with Chesters stopping there northbound and Manchesters southbound. Plus there's the problem that the Chester is only a 5 car and these are said to get busy. Likewise, Manchester to London is one of the premier routes and probably not something they'd wish to slow down on an hourly basis.

One x 4 car train an hour to some of the stations mentioned above (Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield) which they all have to share is indeed probably not sufficient.
We have to believe that the DFT and the new franchisee for the semi-fasts agree. Hence longer trains are planned for the London to Crewe services in December.
It stands to reason that when a lot of those towns had their fast services removed in 2008, and replaced by an all stations train, which was then made 110mph to Rugby, and was the cheapest of all, that it would be hugely popular and probably fill up more than a lot of the other trains even the expresses. Why this wasn't foreseen from the off was anyone's guess.

Taking Nuneaton, it probably would be worthy of a few extra fast stops during the late morning and early evening. The new VT Blackpools would have been a perfect opportunity for this. However, if there's only room for one stop before reaching Crewe, and Rugby is a VT station, and one which currently has no off peak fast service going north, excluding Birmingham, then it was quite likely Rugby would get the stop.

In theory there's nothing wrong with a class 350 running the semi fast. As long as it's 2+2 seating. They are 110mph capable. And similar Siemens units work all the express work on South Western Rail. As long as all the London/Crewe services ran as minimum 8 cars, possibly 12 on some workings. And are extended to 12 when growth demands it.

It probably would be viable for VT to slot in the odd extra stop on one or two VT workings a day to what the stations have now.

And then if the GNWR Blackpool operation were to be granted, this would give Nuneaton and Milton Keynes another 6 110mph intercity trains in each direction in the off peak.

The reason the LNW Crewe's are mainly 4 car at the moment is certain stations further north - Stone and Alsager in particular - cannot accommodate 8 car units, which is why in due course the London - Crewe's are going to be diverted to run direct from Stafford away from the Potteries line. That will allow longer trains on the TV.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why did Virgin decide not to call more trains? You seem to imply it is something inherent within Virgin - perhaps a personal vendetta the company has against Nuneaton.

It's all nonsense.
The VHF timetable was decided by the DfT and Network Rail to get the maximum benefit from the WCRM investment.
It wasn't nasty old Branson with a grudge against the Trent Valley.
The DfT also gave the TV services largely to LM/LNR, to upgrade the stopping services with a fast Euston service.
Another operator would also have to follow the VHF timetable.
Of course, these things can be renegotiated, and probably will be for WCP.
But the DfT policy since VHF in 2008 has been not to develop the VT services (no new stock in any of the direct award periods).
Life might have been different had there been a clear winner in 2012.
Anyway, Stafford and Crewe have not "lost out", they have at least the same service as before VHF.
Tamworth and Lichfield never had a regular fast service, they were only in the peaks, as now.
Missing out Motherwell and Lockerbie is also DfT/Transport Scotland policy, though TPE do make calls instead.
I think Motherwell is due to come back at some point, early and late.

 

[DarloRich]

Stafford’s a major commuter town, which I admit isn’t the best, but is improving. Still, it deserves SOME Scotland services due to the fact its completely possible to implement in a town, where virgin trains loadings are good.

I’d go as far as saying I’d drop the a few of the hourly LNWR services, as I’d avoid them like the plague, with the slow journey times.

I understand you want these services but why does Stafford DESERVE services to Scotland? Is there a large number of anglo scots expats in Staffordshire? Did they flock south to turn the china? Is there strong business links between Scotland and Staffordshire that need to be conserved? Or is it that you think having such a service offers some cachet?

BTW - it isnt a major commuter town. Reading is a major commuter town. Stafford is a dormitory for Brum.

I don't think the LM services are that slow. 1h 20m by Virgin and 1h 55m by LM. The big issue is the run via Stoke which is turgid. That should go soon. However the LM services do offer connections to towns local to Stafford which I suggest are of more use than other ideas floated here.

 

[A0]

Stafford’s a major commuter town, which I admit isn’t the best, but is improving. Still, it deserves SOME Scotland services due to the fact its completely possible to implement in a town, where virgin trains loadings are good.

I’d go as far as saying I’d drop the a few of the hourly LNWR services, as I’d avoid them like the plague, with the slow journey times.

A commuter town, yes - but NOT to London by and large.

Stafford's key destinations for employment are Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stoke and possibly Telford and Derby.

So it probably doesn't need / justify direct services to Scotland, nor does it necessarily warrant more, fast services to London if the net effect of that is to either slow down longer distance services OR mean that other, more profitable stops, are to be omitted.

 

[DarloRich]

A commuter town, yes - but NOT to London by and large.

Stafford's key destinations for employment are Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stoke and possibly Telford and Derby.

So it probably doesn't need / justify direct services to Scotland, nor does it necessarily warrant more, fast services to London if the net effect of that is to either slow down longer distance services OR mean that other, more profitable stops, are to be omitted.

With an hourly Virgin service to London! What more could be offered to tempt these London commuters to sample the delights of Stafford?

 

[Taunton]

The reason the LNW Crewe's are mainly 4 car at the moment is certain stations further north - Stone and Alsager in particular - cannot accommodate 8 car units,

It does seem bizarre to have dumped the quite substantial amount of high-earning long distance revenue from passengers boarding at Watford Junction, while at the same time making additional provision for minor stations like these, which between them probably have a handful of passengers daily to London, all the while causing crush conditions from the more mainstream Trent Valley points. I suppose a second unit attached/detached at Stafford is far too difficult for anyone to organise.