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

RealTrains07 · 18 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
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.

Polesworth like norton bridge iam guessing lost its footbridge thanks to west coast upgrades

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 18 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Polesworth like norton bridge iam guessing lost its footbridge thanks to west coast upgrades

No. Norton Bridge was too difficult to serve because the slow lines moved over a mile to the west. Polesworth is not *overly* difficult to serve (though I think there may have been some pathing issues), but the footbridge had become dangerous.

Having said that, Polesworth was always fairly quiet. I reckon that could be turned around with a service to Birmingham - but there's no easy way to do that.

sd0733 · 18 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
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.

I'm led to believe that this was Network rails plan however the local authority had other ideas about using a new path towards the road bridge and it seems to have been forgotten about.

MidnightFlyer · 18 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Well iam sure it wouldnt be an issue for the northern stopper to miss kidsgrove out tbh, ...

So it then has only services on the Crewe branch, and anyone from there [or Longport, or Alsager to a lesser extent] wanting Macclesfield, Stockport or Manchester has to go via Stoke or Crewe?

Deafdoggie · 18 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
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.

It always amazes me how many people catch the Manchester trains at Kidsgrove. The number of daily commuters is staggering too. People already change there from Longport & Alsager, I can’t see removing the stop at Kidsgrove being helpful to anyone.

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

Agreed. It’s pointless and useless as it is. Sort it out one way or the other.

Ianno87 · 18 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
No. Norton Bridge was too difficult to serve because the slow lines moved over a mile to the west. Polesworth is not *overly* difficult to serve (though I think there may have been some pathing issues), but the footbridge had become dangerous.

.

The original reason for suspension of service at Norton Bridge was to (I think) declutter the WCML during the West Coast Route Modernisation, during which the footbridge was removed for (I think) upgrades to the overheads...and never put back.

The Stafford upgrade works realigned the Fast Lines slightly away from the platforms...and no chance of sensibly pathing a stop on them anyway these days...especially not for such a quiet station.

That and yes, the Slow Line flyover and realigned Slow Lines (now the main line towards Stone) being some distamce from the station location.

MidnightFlyer · 18 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
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.

Judging by this, the road in question has no (safe!) pedestrian access:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.625...4!1s4qsWhfGorkAvBpcMmTFohw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Out of interest, if they were to build some form of access provision from the southbound platform across the field to the road, would Network Rail (or whoever were to fund it) need to provide it all the way to the nearest safe pedestrian walkway, or could they literally dump them on the roadside despite it having no segregated pedestrian access? I genuinely have no idea how far obligation and legality goes with this sort of planning so would be interested to know!

Ianno87 · 18 Apr 2019

MidnightFlyer said:
Judging by this, the road in question has no (safe!) pedestrian access:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.625...4!1s4qsWhfGorkAvBpcMmTFohw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Out of interest, if they were to build some form of access provision from the southbound platform across the field to the road, would Network Rail (or whoever were to fund it) need to provide it all the way to the nearest safe pedestrian walkway, or could they literally dump them on the roadside despite it having no segregated pedestrian access? I genuinely have no idea how far obligation and legality goes with this sort of planning so would be interested to know!

Not a huge expert, but might fall foul of CDM regulations as such - designing to funnel alughting passengers into a 'Hazard' (i.e. middle of the road).

Would certainly not be good design to do do.

pt_mad · 19 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
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.

Aye but couldn't a passenger change at Tamworth to go south towards London if an evening train called at the existing Polesworth Northbound platform?

Looks from journey planner that it'd in theory be a good connection xx10arr xx20 depart southbound at Tamworth?

nuneatonmark · 19 Apr 2019

There is no way Polesworth is going to close. There is increasing political interest locally to fully reopen the station. As some people have said it’s one of the easiest reopenings as most of the infrastructure is already there, the main issue being the provision of access to the up platform which either needs a new station footbridge or upgrade and access from the nearby road bridge.

Deafdoggie · 19 Apr 2019

nuneatonmark said:
There is no way Polesworth is going to close. There is increasing political interest locally to fully reopen the station. As some people have said it’s one of the easiest reopenings as most of the infrastructure is already there, the main issue being the provision of access to the up platform which either needs a new station footbridge or upgrade and access from the nearby road bridge.

It needs to open or close. It’s ridiculous as it is. As there is nothing official going on either way at the moment I suspect this situation will drag on and on, which is something Railway’s specialise in, rather than dealing with it one way or another.
If no one is willing to write the cheque (which they aren’t) to keep it open, then close it. All too often we have these ridiculous situations as no one is prepared to do anything.

RealTrains07 · 19 Apr 2019

Deafdoggie said:
It needs to open or close. It’s ridiculous as it is. As there is nothing official going on either way at the moment I suspect this situation will drag on and on, which is something Railway’s specialise in, rather than dealing with it one way or another.
If no one is willing to write the cheque (which they aren’t) to keep it open, then close it. All too often we have these ridiculous situations as no one is prepared to do anything.

I dont see why more trains heading north cant serve the 1 operational platform it has, cant be that much of an issue to have no southbound service surely?

Kite159 · 19 Apr 2019

And the thing with Polesworth is that there is a fair bit of housing in the area already so there is the potential untapped demand.

Even if an easement is put in place to allow passengers travelling to Polesworth from stations north to double back via Atherstone (or even Nuneaton for step free access)

Deafdoggie · 20 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
I dont see why more trains heading north cant serve the 1 operational platform it has, cant be that much of an issue to have no southbound service surely?

That would be an ideal solution. Why can’t All Northbound trains call?
The answer, of course, is that people might then use it. Then they really would have to solve the problem. Do remember that Britains Railways don’t operate for the benefit of passengers.

RealTrains07 · 20 Apr 2019

Deafdoggie said:
That would be an ideal solution. Why can’t All Northbound trains call?
The answer, of course, is that people might then use it. Then they really would have to solve the problem. Do remember that Britains Railways don’t operate for the benefit of passengers.

Who do they operate for the benefit of? The TOC’s?? Thats surely bit of a quick judgement

I know the britains railways arn’t always the best for commuters but they have done some beneficial things for us? :lol:

Ianno87 · 20 Apr 2019

Deafdoggie said:
That would be an ideal solution. Why can’t All Northbound trains call?
The answer, of course, is that people might then use it. Then they really would have to solve the problem. Do remember that Britains Railways don’t operate for the benefit of passengers.

How popular would a uni-directional station actually be?

If the answer is "not very" then all the non-Polesworth passengers (vastly in the majority) going north get slowed down for little benefit to the minority of Polesworth passengers.

Result = Passengers overall net worse off.

Deafdoggie · 20 Apr 2019

Ianno87 said:
How popular would a uni-directional station actually be?

If the answer is "not very" then all the non-Polesworth passengers (vastly in the majority) going north get slowed down for little benefit to the minority of Polesworth passengers.

Result = Passengers overall net worse off.

It would only be a marginal slowing of services and would give an indication of demand. If there’s no increase in usage, it needs shutting, if there is an increase, then the up platform needs reopening.
The same argument can be made for every station. I’d say the vast majority of people don’t travel don’t travel to Atherstone, but we all have our journeys slowed down for every train to call.

RealTrains07 · 28 Apr 2019

Just checked the timetable, anyone know if the brum - liverpool service is being kept or will that go along with the london - brum service when the new london - liverpool direct starts?

Bletchleyite · 28 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Just checked the timetable, anyone know if the brum - liverpool service is being kept or will that go along with the london - brum service when the new london - liverpool direct starts?

Both services are being kept. They're just being joined together at New St.

I believe, but might be wrong, that both will be joined together i.e. all Liverpool services will run through to London, but that one of them will be overtaken so is not being put in the public timetable as such (a move I think they will regret, like LM did when they initially confused people by having 3tph Brum-London through trains but not advertising one of them as through due to being overtaken, so people had to get out at Northampton then straight back in, possibly losing their preferred seat).

RealTrains07 · 28 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Both services are being kept. They're just being joined together at New St.

I believe, but might be wrong, that both will be joined together i.e. all Liverpool services will run through to London, but that one of them will be overtaken so is not being put in the public timetable as such (a move I think they will regret, like LM did when they initially confused people by having 3tph Brum-London through trains but not advertising one of them as through due to being overtaken, so people had to get out at Northampton then straight back in, possibly losing their preferred seat).

I was gonna say, liverpool timetable mentions no LNR direct to Birmingham, only the 2tph direct to london

however

Funnily enough seems to be only 1tph in the opposite from london to liverpool

Bletchleyite · 29 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
I was gonna say, liverpool timetable mentions no LNR direct to Birmingham, only the 2tph direct to london

They are both to London via Birmingham. They are the existing service to Birmingham joined to an existing Birmingham-Euston service.

Funnily enough seems to be only 1tph in the opposite from london to liverpool

The other one is split in the timetable (because it sits somewhere for something like 10 minutes to join the half hourly Liverpool-Brum up with the 3tph Brum-Euston and so gets overtaken) but I believe will actually still run through.

RealTrains07 · 29 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
They are both to London via Birmingham. They are the existing service to Birmingham joined to an existing Birmingham-Euston service.

The other one is split in the timetable (because it sits somewhere for something like 10 minutes to join the half hourly Liverpool-Brum up with the 3tph Brum-Euston and so gets overtaken) but I believe will actually still run through.

Makes sense, after about or just before 9:00, 3 tph from london which stop at birmingham.

(Usually I presume direct to somewhere Like brum means terminating at brum)

1tph Liverpool train
1tph Rugelely trent valley train
(2 if you include the split service with crewe train)
1tph Crewe train

(Personally i dont see why new rugeley service needs 2ph but there you go.)

Bletchleyite · 29 Apr 2019

OK, so this confirms both Liverpools run to Euston, one with a portion from Crewe and one not.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...HM/2019/06/10/0851?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

However in the other direction it doesn't, it's a Rugeley to International reversing there.

What a tangled web we weave. I now fear more than ever this timetable turning into a Northern style mess...

Jorge Da Silva · 29 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
OK, so this confirms both Liverpools run to Euston, one with a portion from Crewe and one not.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...HM/2019/06/10/0851?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

However in the other direction it doesn't, it's a Rugeley to International reversing there.

What a tangled web we weave. I now fear more than ever this timetable turning into a Northern style mess...

Thanks for the information.

DavidGrain · 29 Apr 2019

I think Rugeley does need 2tph to Walsall and Birmingham but this is another case of LNR operating local West Midlands services on behalf of WMR making another mockery of the DafT plan to split the franchise. Walsall to London is a necessary service and continuing on past Walsall to Rugeley is just operational convenience.

Bletchleyite · 29 Apr 2019

DavidGrain said:
Walsall to London is a necessary service

It's really not. Walsall to Birmingham is a necessary service; the London service could be provided by connecting onto VTWC and was for many years when there wasn't even a through London to Birmingham local service, it being split at Northampton.

It is probably a good service to have, but it is not necessary.

RealTrains07 · 29 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
OK, so this confirms both Liverpools run to Euston, one with a portion from Crewe and one not.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...HM/2019/06/10/0851?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

However in the other direction it doesn't, it's a Rugeley to International reversing there.

What a tangled web we weave. I now fear more than ever this timetable turning into a Northern style mess...

Dont understand
so one train liverpool to euston train becomes 8 car at crewe??

I get overall what they have done with the timetable

All the Birmingham - liverpool services and the london -birmingham services have been either been joined together with other services or extended to reduce the amount of LNR trains terminating at new street, so it becomes more of a through station.

That was the main idea of the new timetable, reducing the amount of trains being turnaround at new street

Bletchleyite · 29 Apr 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Dont understand
so one train liverpool to euston train becomes 8 car at crewe??

One 4-car set runs from Liverpool to New St. Another runs from Crewe to New St via Stoke. They meet at New St and join to form an 8-car train to Euston via Northampton.

This is an utter inter-related mess and it is all going to end in tears just like Northern. Having seen just how complex it is, I now strongly oppose it. It shouldn't have been done until enough units and crews existed to keep the diagrams separated and simple.

As an example of how it should be diagrammed to be reliable and have adequate capacity for the extra demand the through working will bring, there should be a self-contained set of 8-car trains and crews (with an extra 4 to bring to 12 south of Northampton at peak times) operating nothing but Euston-Brum-Liverpool and vice versa, with the same calling pattern both ways.

If that wasn't possible (as I suspect it wasn't), the service should not be operated.

RealTrains07 · 29 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
One 4-car set runs from Liverpool to New St. Another runs from Crewe to New St via Stoke. They meet at New St and join to form an 8-car train to Euston via Northampton.

This is an utter inter-related mess and it is all going to end in tears just like Northern. Having seen just how complex it is, I now strongly oppose it. It shouldn't have been done until enough units and crews existed to keep the diagrams separated and simple.

At least you understand whats happening, i think travelling from birmingham is gonna become a lot more complicated, outside it shouldn’t be too bad just as long as the services arrive and join up or detach in good time then should be fine

Apparently northampton is in a similar situation to brum with a lot of trains joining and splitting there too

On the note of liverpool trains again:
Network rail app doesnt show liverpool to birmingham services, only liverpool to london so they still have much of the new timetable to upload

driver_m · 29 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
One 4-car set runs from Liverpool to New St. Another runs from Crewe to New St via Stoke. They meet at New St and join to form an 8-car train to Euston via Northampton.

This is an utter inter-related mess and it is all going to end in tears just like Northern. Having seen just how complex it is, I now strongly oppose it. It shouldn't have been done until enough units and crews existed to keep the diagrams separated and simple.

As an example of how it should be diagrammed to be reliable and have adequate capacity for the extra demand the through working will bring, there should be a self-contained set of 8-car trains and crews (with an extra 4 to bring to 12 south of Northampton at peak times) operating nothing but Euston-Brum-Liverpool and vice versa, with the same calling pattern both ways.

If that wasn't possible (as I suspect it wasn't), the service should not be operated.

Southern area seems to manage the concept of portion working quite well. Let’s see. As long as there is contingency drivers and guards allocated, should trains not turn up on time to couple up, then why wouldn’t it work. Even we do it at VT, admittedly on a smaller scale, but by and large it works. Give it a chance first before condemning it. You can do you’re ‘told you so’ then, IF it doesn’t work well.

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member