WCML services - number of WMT vs. Avanti services

[poffle]

I suspect that when HS2 starts initially in "Acton to Aston" mode that it will have to be priced lower than the WCML to attract people.

It will be very attractive to people starting from Central Birmingham going West London but people going from e.g. Wolverhampton to central London may have to be attracted to take a journey involving multiple trains and interconnects.

 

[AJDesiro]

I suspect that when HS2 starts initially in "Acton to Aston" mode that it will have to be priced lower than the WCML to attract people.

It will be very attractive to people starting from Central Birmingham going West London but people going from e.g. Wolverhampton to central London may have to be attracted to take a journey involving multiple trains and interconnects.

It depends how many people are actually going to somewhere around Euston. I’d imagine most people will be changing for the tube to go elsewhere, and in which case changing onto the Elizabeth line will be what people do instead of changing onto the Northern/Victoria at Euston. It’s probably about 10 minutes from OOC-Bond Street. However I fear I’m veering off topic.

 

[Trainbike46]

One thing WFJ is potentially good at is as an M25 Parkway. Most people are not going to be willing to go into London to go back out. It's often forgotten that most journeys are not city centre to city centre but rather suburb to city centre. The absence of an M25 Parkway on HS2 seems to me to be a particularly significant error, and the Manchester equivalent (the airport station, replacing Stockport) strikes me as an absolute essential.

Often more board Euston trains at Stockport than Piccadilly, and they're largely rich people driving from leafy south Manchester and north Cheshire.

Except of course that loads of people travel into central london and back out again for long-distance services, usually with a suburban train operator (SWR, Thameslink, etc.) or the tube.

HS2 may not have a "parkway" station, but London is a place where such a station is the least useful, as it has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the UK. The outer suburban station role is fulfilled by Old Oak Common.

If you want a parkway station for Buckinghamshire etc, wouldn't encouraging those passengers to take Chiltern / other rail serivce into Birmingham Moor street or into Birmingham International be better?

 

[MatthewHutton]

One thing WFJ is potentially good at is as an M25 Parkway. Most people are not going to be willing to go into London to go back out. It's often forgotten that most journeys are not city centre to city centre but rather suburb to city centre. The absence of an M25 Parkway on HS2 seems to me to be a particularly significant error, and the Manchester equivalent (the airport station, replacing Stockport) strikes me as an absolute essential.

Often more board Euston trains at Stockport than Piccadilly, and they're largely rich people driving from leafy south Manchester and north Cheshire.

I think the challenge of a station in South Buckinghamshire for HS2 is making sure commuters don’t use it in large numbers - or you ban them entirely and the seats will be empty from central London.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the challenge of a station in South Buckinghamshire for HS2 is making sure commuters don’t use it in large numbers - or you ban them entirely and the seats will be empty from central London.

Do we care if commuters use it?
The capacity of HS2 is so enormous that it will be very difficult to ever completely fill it.

Almost any passenger is preferable to an empty seat or a seat that isn't operated due to lack of demand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the challenge of a station in South Buckinghamshire for HS2 is making sure commuters don’t use it in large numbers - or you ban them entirely and the seats will be empty from central London.

Like Eurostar it wouldn't matter if those seats were empty from central London if the fare charged from M25 Parkway was the same as that from London. Nothing is lost.

See also Stockport-London. OK, local passengers can fill those seats in that case but they mostly don't.

 

[NCT]

Post HS2 the existing AWC and WMT demarcation on the classic WCML is almost irrelevant. The 390s will be due for replacement and the 350s not far off. Similarly irrelevant will be the existing differential fares. High AWC fares exist today only because capacity is rationed and AWC can afford to (or need to) price people off their trains.

To me the London end of the classic WCML should have 3 classes of services
- Slow Line stoppers at 4-6tph
- Fast Line Watford Junction, cross over to the Slows, then Hemel Hempstead and all (principal) stations to MK, at 4-6tph
- Fast Line regional expresses at 4-8tph with all calling at Watford Junction, MKC, Rugby, 2tph Trent Valley, 2tph Birmingham, 2tph Northampton (4tph peaks)

Each of the above 3 classes should have their own uniform rolling stock, with integrated Euston platform workings for maximum parallel moves. The fast line regional expresses should use 125mph capable stock with 1/3 2/3 doors for both speed and short dwells (a modern version of the 395 or a bullet nose version of the 730).

OK, there would be 1tph Chester but that wouldn't have had to exist if Crewe - Chester could get wired with Chester becoming an HS2 portion, but I digress ...

 

[JonathanH]

To me the London end of the classic WCML should have 3 classes of services
- Slow Line stoppers at 4-6tph
- Fast Line Watford Junction, cross over to the Slows, then Hemel Hempstead and all (principal) stations to MK, at 4-6tph
- Fast Line regional expresses at 4-8tph with all calling at Watford Junction, MKC, Rugby, 2tph Trent Valley, 2tph Birmingham, 2tph Northampton (4tph peaks)

Where are the slow line stoppers terminating? If Tring, then are there really going to be 8-12tph of services from Hemel Hempstead to Tring on the slow lines and freight paths. Moves on the flat Bourne End Junction need to be taken into account as well.

The clever thing with the current timetable is that the crossing move at Ledburn is north of where half the stopping service has already terminated.

 

[A S Leib]

If Willesden Junction were to get WCML platforms again, which services should stop there, especially if there's less of a distinction between regional and intercity services on classic lines south of Handsacre / Crewe?

 

[NCT]

Where are the slow line stoppers terminating? If Tring, then are there really going to be 8-12tph of services from Hemel Hempstead to Tring on the slow lines and freight paths. Moves on the flat Bourne End Junction need to be taken into account as well.

The clever thing with the current timetable is that the crossing move at Ledburn is north of where half the stopping service has already terminated.

Half the slows could terminate at Hemel Hempstead, but that would need a bit of capex for a bay platform. It would definitely be overkill to have all of them going to Tring. This would be a similar service pattern to Thameslink slows terminating at St Albans and Luton.

Ideally you want an extra pair of crossovers just south of Hemel Hempstead so stops are made on the SL platforms.

If Willesden Junction were to get WCML platforms again, which services should stop there, especially if there's less of a distinction between regional and intercity services on classic lines south of Handsacre / Crewe?

Hmmm, I think SLs. I think 'my' service pattern is already at an intensity where all FL services will need to call at Watford Junction, and to impose a further call into all of them at Willesden Junction would be an overkill.

 

[JonathanH]

This would be a similar service pattern to Thameslink slows terminating at St Albans and Luton.

I think that one particular counter to that desire is that the stations on the WCML simply aren't sited as centrally to the settlements they serve as those on the Midland, with consequently not the same ease of use.

 

[NCT]

I think that one particular counter to that desire is that the stations on the WCML simply aren't sited as centrally to the settlements they serve as those on the Midland, with consequently not the same ease of use.

Where the MML slows ought to be 8tph all day (the London stations are seeing massive developments and the MML inners ought to be an attractive alternative to the Northern line), I do think the WCML slows would cap out at 6tph (or even 4).

Out of my 4tph 'first stop Hemel', 2tph would skip Tring and Cheddington.

 

[A S Leib]

Out of my 4tph 'first stop Hemel

If Hemel gets 6tph to London, I doubt there'd be enough passengers to justify any skipping Watford Junction, at least off-peak.

The train isn't necessarily a good option for Hemel Hempstead to Watford Junction journeys alone due to distance from town centres at both ends (even with the areas around stations not being empty). Changing at Watford for Hemel might not be as common if Hemel had hourly Birmingham services and more frequent or faster Milton Keynes services, and Watford itself would probably still end up with a net increase of services. The best option's still probably to run a service between Euston and Watford Junction without needing to worry about which non-long-distance services are skipping it – the fifth-busiest station in the East of England, only 60,000 passengers per year behind Chelmsford in third.

 

[NCT]

If Hemel gets 6tph to London, I doubt there'd be enough passengers to justify any skipping Watford Junction, at least off-peak.

The train isn't necessarily a good option for Hemel Hempstead to Watford Junction journeys alone due to distance from town centres at both ends (even with the areas around stations not being empty). Changing at Watford for Hemel might not be as common if Hemel had hourly Birmingham services and more frequent or faster Milton Keynes services, and Watford itself would probably still end up with a net increase of services. The best option's still probably to run a service between Euston and Watford Junction without needing to worry about which non-long-distance services are skipping it – the fifth-busiest station in the East of England, only 60,000 passengers per year behind Chelmsford in third.

By 'first stop xxx' I really mean 'first stop after Watford Junction, as I already think all my FL trains would have to stop there for timetabling reasons. And yes the classic WCML should be about regional connectivity (i.e. making it easy to go between neighbouring towns) without the lucrative point-to-point intercity demand walking over everyone else.

 

[Zomboid]

Where are the slow line stoppers terminating? If Tring, then are there really going to be 8-12tph of services from Hemel Hempstead to Tring on the slow lines and freight paths. Moves on the flat Bourne End Junction need to be taken into account as well.

The clever thing with the current timetable is that the crossing move at Ledburn is north of where half the stopping service has already terminated.

If the fast line regional trains are every 10 minutes and call at Watford, how many stops could a semi fast make on the fast lines before they'd get in the way? 1?

And if they were flighted a bit more would something like this work on the fasts:
xx00 Birmingham ("Fast": WFJ, MKC, Rugby...)
xx05 Trent Valley ("Fast": WFJ, MKC, Rugby...)
xx08 Northampton ("Semi Fast": WFJ, Hemel, Berkhamstead, slows at Ledburn)
xx12 MKC ("Slowish": WFJ onto slows, doesn't call everywhere from there onwards)
xx20 Northampton ("Fast": WFJ & MKC, slows at Roade, continuing Birmingham to alleviate platform use at Northampton)
xx23 Northampton ("Semi Fast": WFJ, Hemel, Berkhamstead, slows at Ledburn)
xx30 Birmingham (cycle restarts)

That's a mere 12tph on the fast lines; I'd imagine the slow lines would be all shacks to Tring, though there are 6tph that move over from the fasts at some point, and freight to path in that lot too. The exact destinations of the "fast" trains don't really matter that much; might be better for the xx05 to be the Northampton and Birmingham one to spread them better north of Rugby and the xx20 to go up the Trent Valley.

Crayon timetables are hard, kudos to those who do it for real and have to think about the up lines and junction conflicts as well!

 

[A S Leib]

kudos to those who do it for real and have to think about the up lines and junction conflicts as well!

And freight – giving them lower priority doesn't stop them from needing to be scheduled as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't forget that due to the increasing importance of Milton Keynes, there are likely to be residual fast line "Avanti" services post HS2. The most likely arrangement mooted so far is 2 Birmingham, 1 Manchester, 1 North Wales.

 

[Zomboid]

Don't forget that due to the increasing importance of Milton Keynes, there are likely to be residual fast line "Avanti" services post HS2. The most likely arrangement mooted so far is 2 Birmingham, 1 Manchester, 1 North Wales.

I accounted for Birmingham - no need for actual fast trains there with HS2 doing the job, but Manchester and North Wales need a path that doesn't stop more than once.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I accounted for Birmingham - no need for actual fast trains there with HS2 doing the job, but Manchester and North Wales need a path that doesn't stop more than once.

I would personally stop them all at WFJ, MKC and RUG, however I believe the proposals have them all stop at MKC (basically maintaining the long distance service it has now but plus one more Birmingham) but each stop at one of the other two.

 

[A S Leib]

Don't forget that due to the increasing importance of Milton Keynes

Between 2001 and 2021, the population of the UK as a whole grew by 14%. For Northampton and Rugby, it's 24%, and 39% for Milton Keynes. Bedford grew 18%, Peterborough by 17% and North Northamptonshire (Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough) by 14% just in 2011-21, so high growth in the south Midlands / Oxford-Cambridge arc as a whole.

 

[Zomboid]

I would personally stop them all at WFJ, MKC and RUG, however I believe the proposals have them all stop at MKC (basically maintaining the long distance service it has now but plus one more Birmingham) but each stop at one of the other two.

As I've said in another thread, I don't think that slowing the North Wales service in particular is a great idea. It's a political issue already that HS2 is classified as "England and Wales" when the direct benefits to Wales are hard to define. I'd be unable to defend slowing down one of the few services that could be said to be impacted. Though perhaps there is a lot of suppressed demand for Rhyl to Watford travel.

Birmingham can all stop at WFJ MKC RUG & COV, Wales and Manchester I'd say should call at MK for the connectivity that EWR will offer, but they should be fast otherwise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I've said in another thread, I don't think that slowing the North Wales service in particular is a great idea. It's a political issue already that HS2 is classified as "England and Wales" when the direct benefits to Wales are hard to define. I'd be unable to defend slowing down one of the few services that could be said to be impacted. Though perhaps there is a lot of suppressed demand for Rhyl to Watford travel.

I suppose you could argue that that one should be non stop to Crewe, or just MKC (as people from North Wales may want to go there for business, and people from MK definitely want to go to North Wales!). But the other three should definitely call at all three of WFJ, MKC and RUG.

The Manchester is about connectivity, it needn't be fast - there will be at least three an hour, possibly four, fast via HS2. North Wales is the only one that doesn't have an HS2 option.

 

[cactustwirly]

Between 2001 and 2021, the population of the UK as a whole grew by 14%. For Northampton and Rugby, it's 24%, and 39% for Milton Keynes. Bedford grew 18%, Peterborough by 17% and North Northamptonshire (Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough) by 14% just in 2011-21, so high growth in the south Midlands / Oxford-Cambridge arc as a whole.

How does this compare to the rest of the southeast?

 

[poffle]

As I've said in another thread, I don't think that slowing the North Wales service in particular is a great idea. It's a political issue already that HS2 is classified as "England and Wales" when the direct benefits to Wales are hard to define. I'd be unable to defend slowing down one of the few services that could be said to be impacted. Though perhaps there is a lot of suppressed demand for Rhyl to Watford travel.

Birmingham can all stop at WFJ MKC RUG & COV, Wales and Manchester I'd say should call at MK for the connectivity that EWR will offer, but they should be fast otherwise.

I think people starting from Euston would get a HS2 train to Crewe and change to the North Wales service there. I would expect that will be faster than taking one train all the way from Euston.( I'm assuming that there will be at least 4 HS2 and preferably 6 HS2 services per hour calling at Crewe.

It would greatly speed up services from Milton Keynes to North Wales however.

The "Avanti" North Wales services beyond Crewe stop about every 10 miles or so I don't think there is much point in trying to run a HS2 train to North Wales. They need trains with acceleration rather than speed which are much more compatible with the legacy WCML. ( Until there is a fixed link to Ireland.)

( I remember in the 1980s travelling in West Germany and the way the intercity trains used to come in alongside each other at the main interchange stations like Mannheim with lots of passengers transferring across the platform between trains. Britain never really got into the interconnected services culture.)

 

[MatthewE707]

Returning to the current London - Birmingham services, I would personally propose a service pattern something like:
Avanti, 2tph EUS - COV - BHI - BHM (then 1tph continues to Shrewsbury and the other to Edinburgh / Glasgow)
LNR, 2tph EUS - WFJ (1tph) - MKC - NMP - RUG - COV - BHI - BHM (potentially continuing to Walsall to reduce terminating trains at BHM)
LNR, 2tph EUS - WFJ (1tph) - LBZ - BLY - MKC - WOL - NMP - LBK - RUG (existing BHM slow service curtailed at Rugby - only continues to Rugby to maintain direct London service for Long Buckby (and Daventry which it serves))

Ideally more trains would stop at Watford, but it isn't possible to stop any more than 2tph there on the fast lines, and even they have to be directly next to each other (i.e. 3 minutes apart)

This is what I came up with in my project to make my own timetable for the network (hopefully better than the existing one), albeit with some infrastructure improvements / new lines and ignoring freight - however, as a teenager I tried to make it a bit easier for myself!

BHI = Birmingham International
BHM = Birmingham New Street
BLY = Bletchley
COV = Coventry
EUS = Euston
LBK = Long Buckby
LBZ = Leighton Buzzard
MKC = Milton Keynes Central
NMP = Northampton
RUG = Rugby
WFJ = Watford Junction
WOL = Wolverton

 

[The Planner]

Returning to the current London - Birmingham services, I would personally propose a service pattern something like:
Avanti, 2tph EUS - COV - BHI - BHM (then 1tph continues to Shrewsbury and the other to Edinburgh / Glasgow)
LNR, 2tph EUS - WFJ (1tph) - MKC - NMP - RUG - COV - BHI - BHM (potentially continuing to Walsall to reduce terminating trains at BHM)
LNR, 2tph EUS - WFJ (1tph) - LBZ - BLY - MKC - WOL - NMP - LBK - RUG (existing BHM slow service curtailed at Rugby - only continues to Rugby to maintain direct London service for Long Buckby (and Daventry which it serves))

Ideally more trains would stop at Watford, but it isn't possible to stop any more than 2tph there on the fast lines, and even they have to be directly next to each other (i.e. 3 minutes apart)

This is what I came up with in my project to make my own timetable for the network (hopefully better than the existing one), albeit with some infrastructure improvements / new lines and ignoring freight - however, as a teenager I tried to make it a bit easier for myself!

BHI = Birmingham International
BHM = Birmingham New Street
BLY = Bletchley
COV = Coventry
EUS = Euston
LBK = Long Buckby
LBZ = Leighton Buzzard
MKC = Milton Keynes Central
NMP = Northampton
RUG = Rugby
WFJ = Watford Junction
WOL = Wolverton

You need a faster Milton Keynes Birmingham. Going via Northampton isn't ideal. What are you doing with the locals between Cov and International as you have now provided 4 fast Birmingham Coventry services?
A Watford call uses 4 minutes, so a following fast has to leave Euston 7 minutes after a stopper. How did you arrive at the 2tph max?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You need a faster Milton Keynes Birmingham. Going via Northampton isn't ideal. What are you doing with the locals between Cov and International as you have now provided 4 fast Birmingham Coventry services?
A Watford call uses 4 minutes, so a following fast has to leave Euston 7 minutes after a stopper. How did you arrive at the 2tph max?

You also don't want to drop the Bletchley calls from the WMT fasts. They are not only more justified by East West Rail, but also because of the traincrew depot there are operationally convenient.

 

[778]

Northampton - Birmingham really needs 12 car trains but some of the platforms are too short. A possible solution could be too extend the Litchfield Trent Valley - Birmingham International local trains to Coventry. The LNR Euston - New Street services could be extended to 12 car trains and not call at the smaller stations between Coventry and New Street.

 

[eldomtom2]

Don't forget that due to the increasing importance of Milton Keynes, there are likely to be residual fast line "Avanti" services post HS2. The most likely arrangement mooted so far is 2 Birmingham, 1 Manchester, 1 North Wales.

So lose the Liverpool, gain a Birmingham and a NWC?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northampton - Birmingham really needs 12 car trains but some of the platforms are too short. A possible solution could be too extend the Litchfield Trent Valley - Birmingham International local trains to Coventry. The LNR Euston - New Street services could be extended to 12 car trains and not call at the smaller stations between Coventry and New Street.

Umm, ASDO?