LNR new WCML timetable, May 2019 (in open data feeds)

Bletchleyite · 17 Apr 2019

agbrs_Jack said:
What are the logistical challenges in running an 8 car 350 somewhere-Stoke then split to Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe / Congleton & Macclesfield.

Once again, Stone. You can't call an 8-car there.

RailUK Forums

agbrs_Jack · 17 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Once again, Stone. You can't call an 8-car there.

I didn't say you had to call at Stone

Bletchleyite · 17 Apr 2019

agbrs_Jack said:
I didn't say you had to call at Stone

There is no justification for a second TPH missing Stone but running that way.

A0wen · 17 Apr 2019

agbrs_Jack said:
Have to call one of the XC services then. No one in Macclesfield asked for the non-stop XC to make calls there last May. Congleton needs 2 tph more than Macclesfield needs 4 tph.

What are the logistical challenges in running an 8 car 350 somewhere-Stoke then split to Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe / Congleton & Macclesfield.

Bletchleyite's comments did not appear to be based on whether service increases are possible, but whether they are needed. Regardless of logistics or feasibility, Congleton deserves more services than Stone, Kidsgrove & Alsager.

Approximately a 5 minute dwell time if the split / join at Northampton is any benchmark. Your next challenge is to 'rejoin' them heading south, which means they need to arrive at the same place at the same time.

The solution to Congleton would be to stop on XC an hour there - the timings for the few which do still stop there as opposed to those which don't is no different interestingly.

Bletchleyite · 17 Apr 2019

A0wen said:
Approximately a 5 minute dwell time if the split / join at Northampton is any benchmark. Your next challenge is to 'rejoin' them heading south, which means they need to arrive at the same place at the same time.

The solution to Congleton would be to stop on XC an hour there - the timings for the few which do still stop there as opposed to those which don't is no different interestingly.

What is the reason they don't stop? Overcrowding?

LNW-GW Joint · 17 Apr 2019

Once HS2 reaches Crewe, there will be plenty of capacity on the existing WCML routes through Stafford/Stoke with the fast services diverted to HS2.
The current XC service could be reduced to semi-fasts while the fast services run via HS2 and Crewe.
Stoke is unlikely to get 2tph fast to Euston.
Local and regional services could look quite different in 8-ish years.
It's the same debate about what HS2 is for and what impact it will have on current services.

agbrs_Jack · 17 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
What is the reason they don't stop? Overcrowding?

No idea really, normally north of Stoke they don't seem too busy. I'm guessing journey time.

Since May, however, the Macclesfield stopping XC is ahead of the next-stop-Stockport VT due to Norton Bridge improvement a few years ago. They are the wrong way around and it is the reason Congleton got no XC calls on strike days.

The Planner · 17 Apr 2019

They added the call at Macclesfield due to them getting shifted slightly as part of the May timetable change, it was lost time which could be turned into a stop. The stop at Congleton does change the schedule, look at 1H09 and 1M18 for comparison.

agbrs_Jack · 17 Apr 2019

The Planner said:
They added the call at Macclesfield due to them getting shifted slightly as part of the May timetable change, it was lost time which could be turned into a stop. The stop at Congleton does change the schedule, look at 1H09 and 1M18 for comparison.

That service calls at both MAC and CNG. If you only call at one then it doesn't change.

Ianno87 · 17 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
I honestly cant see the usage at Barlaston being near the same amount as stone anyway, it could probably be missed mabye??

Wasn't/isn't there a proposal for housing on/near the Wedgwood factory site? If so, developing that station (Rather than Barlaston) might make more long-term strategic sense.

Ianno87 · 17 Apr 2019

agbrs_Jack said:
Have to call one of the XC services then. No one in Macclesfield asked for the non-stop XC to make calls there last May. Congleton needs 2 tph more than Macclesfield needs 4 tph.

What are the logistical challenges in running an 8 car 350 somewhere-Stoke then split to Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe / Congleton & Macclesfield.

Bletchleyite's comments did not appear to be based on whether service increases are possible, but whether they are needed. Regardless of logistics or feasibility, Congleton deserves more services than Stone, Kidsgrove & Alsager.

Splitting/joining services in the through platforms at Stoke is almost certainly a resilience/timetable no-no.

agbrs_Jack · 17 Apr 2019

Ianno87 said:
Splitting/joining services in the through platforms at Stoke is almost certainly a resilience/timetable no-no.

Looks like I have to depend on XC then. Either that or am extra semi fast northern service

Deafdoggie · 17 Apr 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
Perhaps, but where would such a service start and end on the north side? Stoke-on-Trent has only two south-facing platforms (the through ones), both of which already have a substantial number of services. It doesn't seem feasible to reliably turn around a train there. The single line between Alsager and Crewe is going to cause difficulties there, and even if that weren't an issue, you still have to fit in north of Stoke, which itself seems unlikely without a major signalling upgrade (given there are 7tph already, including three stoppers).

A new southbound bay platform at Stoke might be the easiest solution - but how expensive is that going to be? And just for 1tph?

That's without even considering the southern pathing and termination. Unfortunately Stone is one of those places that is doomed to have a poor service unless everyone else suffers (e.g. stopping every train there, or shortening longer services), simply through the geography of what was built.The other alternative is an inordinate and frankly unjustifiable level of infrastructure investment.

The easiest thing is extend the Northern train to Stafford & call Barlaston and Stone. Obviously you’d have to retune it though...

The Planner · 17 Apr 2019

agbrs_Jack said:
That service calls at both MAC and CNG. If you only call at one then it doesn't change.

That isn't what I meant, 1H09 gets to Manchester later than any other XC train in the pattern. It isn't a case of a Congleton stop works in all of the trains.

The Planner · 17 Apr 2019

Deafdoggie said:
The easiest thing is extend the Northern train to Stafford & call Barlaston and Stone. Obviously you’d have to retune it though...

Completely as it would get ran down by the following XC before it even got to Stone.

vlad · 17 Apr 2019

Deafdoggie said:
The easiest thing is extend the Northern train to Stafford & call Barlaston and Stone. Obviously you’d have to retune it though...

Back in the day (although it wasn't run by Northern then...) it was all stations Man Picc - Stoke - Wolves - Brum NS - Walsall. From what I remember it waited for ages in Macclesfield platform 3 to be overtaken by something faster but I could just have been too impatient at that age!

agbrs_Jack · 17 Apr 2019

The Planner said:
That isn't what I meant, 1H09 gets to Manchester later than any other XC train in the pattern. It isn't a case of a Congleton stop works in all of the trains.

Yes, it calls at both Congleton AND Macclesfield.
If you only call at one or the other then there is little difference.
1H09 is the only service to call at more than 1 station between Stoke and Stockport (excluding via Crewe) in both directions.

bionic · 17 Apr 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
Once HS2 reaches Crewe, there will be plenty of capacity on the existing WCML routes through Stafford/Stoke with the fast services diverted to HS2.
The current XC service could be reduced to semi-fasts while the fast services run via HS2 and Crewe.
Stoke is unlikely to get 2tph fast to Euston.
Local and regional services could look quite different in 8-ish years.
It's the same debate about what HS2 is for and what impact it will have on current services.

I thought it was pretty much an open secret by now that HS2 will not be reaching Crewe, and may not in fact even leave Euston.

If there are HS2 trains running around the north west two decades from now, I'll eat my hat.

Deafdoggie · 18 Apr 2019

bionic said:
I thought it was pretty much an open secret by now that HS2 will not be reaching Crewe, and may not in fact even leave Euston.

If there are HS2 trains running around the north west two decades from now, I'll eat my hat.

No one told the BBC this. They have two articles on HS2 on their news page today. Can I add a quote from you saying it’s not happening after all?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47881368

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-en...t-s-it-like-to-be-in-the-way-of-the-hs2-route

pt_mad · 18 Apr 2019

bionic said:
I thought it was pretty much an open secret by now that HS2 will not be reaching Crewe, and may not in fact even leave Euston.

If there are HS2 trains running around the north west two decades from now, I'll eat my hat.

One for the HS2 thread that. But briefly phase one is now in law and Euston is having two platforms closed very soon for building work. And phase one rejoins the mainline at Armitage, so HS2 trains will run to Crewe even if only phase one goes ahead.

bionic · 18 Apr 2019

Yeah I was aware it was going off topic somewhat. Personally i think it will still get binned, law or no law, and if it does get built it will end up years late, billions over budget and cut back to phase one only.

Going back to the subject of the LNR timetable, which is very much tangled up in what happens with HS2, you'd think they could spare a few quid to up the line speeds on the WCML slow lines from 75 to 110. That would offer a quick fix and positive PR, providing faster journey times at what one would assume would be not a great cost in relation to what gets thrown at other projects. Presumably there is some reason why its not been done, but it seems a no brainer to me. Huge swathes of 75 on one of the country's main rail arteries seems very short sighted, and also easily fixed.

Ianno87 · 18 Apr 2019

bionic said:
Yeah I was aware it was going off topic somewhat. Personally i think it will still get binned, law or no law, and if it does get built it will end up years late, billions over budget and cut back to phase one only.

Going back to the subject of the LNR timetable, which is very much tangled up in what happens with HS2, you'd think they could spare a few quid to up the line speeds on the WCML slow lines from 75 to 110. That would offer a quick fix and positive PR, providing faster journey times at what one would assume would be not a great cost in relation to what gets thrown at other projects. Presumably there is some reason why its not been done, but it seems a no brainer to me. Huge swathes of 75 on one of the country's main rail arteries seems very short sighted, and also easily fixed.

The Slows between Crewe and Stafford are already 100mph (done as part of the Stafford upgrade works), as are the Slows throughout the seciton upgraded to 4 tracks in the 2000s, and the Down Slow from Armitage to Colwich.

bionic · 18 Apr 2019

Ianno87 said:
The Slows between Crewe and Stafford are already 100mph (done as part of the Stafford upgrade works), as are the Slows throughout the seciton upgraded to 4 tracks in the 2000s, and the Down Slow from Armitage to Colwich.

I was specifically talking about the bits of the slow lines that are still 75mph!

The Planner · 18 Apr 2019

You would either just catch up with a Class 4 freight or remove freight paths from the timetable. I don't disagree that it shouldn't be increased but that isn't HS2 dependent. You wouldn't necessarily be able to use all the benefits either, especially as a slow line train is going to stop at stations. Might be 3 or 4 minutes to be had if you did all of the up slow from Polesworth to Newbold.

RealTrains07 · 18 Apr 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
Perhaps, but where would such a service start and end on the north side? Stoke-on-Trent has only two south-facing platforms (the through ones), both of which already have a substantial number of services. It doesn't seem feasible to reliably turn around a train there. The single line between Alsager and Crewe is going to cause difficulties there, and even if that weren't an issue, you still have to fit in north of Stoke, which itself seems unlikely without a major signalling upgrade (given there are 7tph already, including three stoppers).

A new southbound bay platform at Stoke might be the easiest solution - but how expensive is that going to be? And just for 1tph?

That's without even considering the southern pathing and termination. Unfortunately Stone is one of those places that is doomed to have a poor service unless everyone else suffers (e.g. stopping every train there, or shortening longer services), simply through the geography of what was built.The other alternative is an inordinate and frankly unjustifiable level of infrastructure investment.

Its always gonna be impossible terminating at stoke apart from platform 3. No space to build another platform anyway so i agree it shouldn’t even be an option.

I guess an option could be timetabling trains close together where appropriate since thats how it seems to work with the manchester trains?

If their should be any upgrade or change near stoke surely if possible a second track should be put in place between alasger and crewe considering that 4 tph already use that line as it is, would that be actually possible though??

RealTrains07 · 18 Apr 2019

agbrs_Jack said:
Have to call one of the XC services then. No one in Macclesfield asked for the non-stop XC to make calls there last May. Congleton needs 2 tph more than Macclesfield needs 4 tph.

What are the logistical challenges in running an 8 car 350 somewhere-Stoke then split to Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe / Congleton & Macclesfield.

Bletchleyite's comments did not appear to be based on whether service increases are possible, but whether they are needed. Regardless of logistics or feasibility, Congleton deserves more services than Stone, Kidsgrove & Alsager.

Well iam sure it wouldnt be an issue for the northern stopper to miss kidsgrove out tbh, congleton has far longer platforms than stone so its a surprise why more trains dont stop their at the moment.

Like i said earlier in the thread. No 8 car services are feasible past stafford. The closest we could get a 8 car to stoke beyond may is if it splits at brum which i know is the plan with some services to crewe doubling with a rugeley service running as a 8 car till brum then splitting and each 4 car going their seperate ways

RealTrains07 · 18 Apr 2019

The Planner said:
You would either just catch up with a Class 4 freight or remove freight paths from the timetable. I don't disagree that it shouldn't be increased but that isn't HS2 dependent. You wouldn't necessarily be able to use all the benefits either, especially as a slow line train is going to stop at stations. Might be 3 or 4 minutes to be had if you did all of the up slow from Polesworth to Newbold.

Speaking of polesworth? Anyone know whether its gonna get more than 1 train a day after may?

sufian123 · 18 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Speaking of polesworth? Anyone know whether its gonna get more than 1 train a day after may?

No. Going to be the same as today. One train towards Crewe as it is.

pt_mad · 18 Apr 2019

sufian123 said:
No. Going to be the same as today. One train towards Crewe as it is.

Shame there isn't an evening one at least then one could do a return with a potential change over to the South at Tamworth.

Bletchleyite · 18 Apr 2019

pt_mad said:
Shame there isn't an evening one at least then one could do a return with a potential change over to the South at Tamworth.

They just need to bite the bullet and either serve it hourly with the Trent Valley service or get closure proceedings in.

The problem with a return is that the bridge is missing, but it still looks viable to me to put a path up to the road to replace it.

LNR new WCML timetable, May 2019 (in open data feeds)

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member