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

DavidGrain · 31 May 2019

Travelled from Birmingham to Bletchley this morning no problems, The train had started from Rugeley.
This afternoon I returned to Birmingham. Train was two units due to split at Birmingham. Guard announce that the front half, those sitting on green seats would be going to Crewe and the rear half, those sitting on blue seats would be going to Rugeley, However when we came into Birmingham the guard did announce that those wishing to go to Rugeley should listen out for further announcements. The driver took the train right to the end of platform 3B so the whole 8 cars were within the area of the platform showing 3B Crewe. Unofficially I advised passengers wanting Smethwick Galton Bridge and Wolverhampton to go to the front train, It then became obvious that the train would not split and the whole train would be going to Crewe. I did hear an announcement on the train that because of the short platform at Smethwick Galton Bridge, passenger for that station should travel in the front 4 cars. Train left about 12 minutes late (I have not checked times on RTT)

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 31 May 2019

The Planner said:
On another forum that the Chase isn't fairing very well on occasion.

None of it is faring well because it's just too complicated and interrelated. A slight delay on any train knocks on across the whole network by close of play.

My hat remains uneaten.

sufian123 · 31 May 2019

DavidGrain said:
Travelled from Birmingham to Bletchley this morning no problems, The train had started from Rugeley.
This afternoon I returned to Birmingham. Train was two units due to split at Birmingham. Guard announce that the front half, those sitting on green seats would be going to Crewe and the rear half, those sitting on blue seats would be going to Rugeley, However when we came into Birmingham the guard did announce that those wishing to go to Rugeley should listen out for further announcements. The driver took the train right to the end of platform 3B so the whole 8 cars were within the area of the platform showing 3B Crewe. Unofficially I advised passengers wanting Smethwick Galton Bridge and Wolverhampton to go to the front train, It then became obvious that the train would not split and the whole train would be going to Crewe. I did hear an announcement on the train that because of the short platform at Smethwick Galton Bridge, passenger for that station should travel in the front 4 cars. Train left about 12 minutes late (I have not checked times on RTT)

Apparently that service was diverted not to call at stoke. Run direct to Crewe. Chase line is suffering a lot

RealTrains07 · 31 May 2019

RealTrains07 said:
The timetable is failing again today with services cancelled left right and center i can see why people are frustrated with the constant split and joins of trains.

Had a delayed train out of birmingham today because of delay to train separation.

Anyone else experience issues with the timetable directly to do with the way services are joined and split?

Something i have been wondering about is why the 15:14 from london to crewe via stoke was over formed with 8 carriage instead of 4 all the way through when its only meant to be 4 as it doesnt split.
Never happened before since the timetable started? Anyone know why?

Bletchleyite · 31 May 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Something i have been wondering about is why the 15:14 from london to crewe via stoke was over formed with 8 carriage instead of 4 all the way through when its only meant to be 4 as it doesnt split.
Never happened before since the timetable started? Anyone know why?

It could have been that the driver and/or guard who were going to take the other 4 forward to Rugeley were not available, so they were left attached to Crewe and back in order that the southbound train would be correctly formed.

RealTrains07 · 31 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
It could have been that the driver and/or guard who were going to take the other 4 forward to Rugeley were not available, so they were left attached to Crewe and back in order that the southbound train would be correctly formed.

Thats odd and irritating but understandable

Good thing it was timetabled that the train back wasnt a joiner like they are most of the day with a liverpool train.

Timetable gets really messy in the evenings i find

Bletchleyite · 31 May 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Thats odd and irritating but understandable

Good thing it was timetabled that the train back wasnt a joiner like they are most of the day with a liverpool train.

Timetable gets really messy in the evenings i find

The whole thing is near enough exactly the same as Northern's interworked mess and is failing in exactly the same way. I fear, however, that we're stuck with it, as it's unlikely LNR will be willing to "climb down" and re-split the services, even come next December.

Probably the only practical answer is to get more 319s in and recruit more staff so more slack can be put into the timetable.

RealTrains07 · 31 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
The whole thing is near enough exactly the same as Northern's interworked mess and is failing in exactly the same way. I fear, however, that we're stuck with it, as it's unlikely LNR will be willing to "climb down" and re-split the services, even come next December.

At least they arn’t over forming sets on purpose

If the all services were split/join Northampton that needed to be 8 car then all other services beyond would remain 4 car meaning no splits or joins at birmingham.

Would that be better?

sufian123 · 31 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
It could have been that the driver and/or guard who were going to take the other 4 forward to Rugeley were not available, so they were left attached to Crewe and back in order that the southbound train would be correctly formed.

Rugeley train did run

sufian123 · 31 May 2019

RealTrains07 said:
At least they arn’t over forming sets on purpose

If the all services were split/join Northampton that needed to be 8 car then all other services beyond would remain 4 car meaning no splits or joins at birmingham.

Would that be better?

They will need another path from network rail to do that. Spilt and join avoids doing that.

Bletchleyite · 31 May 2019

RealTrains07 said:
At least they arn’t over forming sets on purpose

If the all services were split/join Northampton that needed to be 8 car then all other services beyond would remain 4 car meaning no splits or joins at birmingham.

Would that be better?

Not really, some services would be undercapacity there.

The issue isn't splits and joins at New St in and of themselves (though they don't help matters). The issue is interworked diagrams over a far wider area than previously, and staff changes from incoming to outgoing trains at New St. Indeed the issues are similar to Northern who aren't doing portion working at all that I can think of.

The proper solution is to split the trains back up again, and stop neglecting the core markets in order to rake in a bit more Advance money from passengers nicked from Virgin (all sounding very Chilternesque, n'est pas?). The secondary aim was to remove New St terminators, but you don't have to send a train all the way to Liverpool in order not to terminate it at New St.

Fundamentally, there needs to be the question asked before changing anything on the LNR part of WMT - "does it or could it adversely affect capacity or performance south of Northampton?" - if it does, don't do it.

ForTheLoveOf · 31 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
"does it or could it adversely affect capacity or performance south of Northampton?" - if it does, don't do it.

If that is to be the test then I suppose we can damn the rest of LNR, including places that have no alternative to it (e.g. journeys within the Trent Valley, Birmingham to Liverpool etc.).

Bletchleyite · 31 May 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
If that is to be the test then I suppose we can damn the rest of LNR, including places that have no alternative to it (e.g. journeys within the Trent Valley, Birmingham to Liverpool etc.).

Birmingham to Liverpool as a standalone service as it was prior to this change did not in any way affect the south WCML.

The Trent Valley, well, that didn't really either in its previous form. It was an additional service laid on top of what was there, and the 350/3s were brought in to ensure it didn't affect capacity south of Northampton.

RealTrains07 · 1 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Birmingham to Liverpool as a standalone service as it was prior to this change did not in any way affect the south WCML.

The Trent Valley, well, that didn't really either in its previous form. It was an additional service laid on top of what was there, and the 350/3s were brought in to ensure it didn't affect capacity south of Northampton.

What service was it laid on top of? I Agree. Don’t see how no matter the way the timetable was organised how the trent valley could disrupt south WCML since it only stops at 1 station that being MKC (mainly)

Regarding brum to liv. If that service was restored its undoing what the timetable was set out to do which was to reduce congestion caused by terminators in new street. Way too many terminators.

RealTrains07 · 1 Jun 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
If that is to be the test then I suppose we can damn the rest of LNR, including places that have no alternative to it (e.g. journeys within the Trent Valley, Birmingham to Liverpool etc.).

Has a point. Whats the point of having services south of NMP if their is poor service northbound to connect them to.

The issue here isnt lines like the trent valley or the liverpool or stoke line.
Its the organisation of the 3 tph from euston on the birmingham line with disorganised pattern of stops both ways on the South WCML not helping

RealTrains07 · 1 Jun 2019

sufian123 said:
Rugeley train did run

Well yeah theirs 2ph scheduled in the timetable but this one clearly didnt get anywhere near

DavidGrain · 1 Jun 2019

sufian123 said:
Rugeley train did run

I watched 9K30 depart for Crewe 14 minutes late with all 8 cars including the 4 which should have gone to Rugeley. I see a later train for Rugeley was terminated short

sufian123 · 1 Jun 2019

DavidGrain said:
I watched 9K30 depart for Crewe 14 minutes late with all 8 cars including the 4 which should have gone to Rugeley. I see a later train for Rugeley was terminated short

Yes I know but did run though. Some are presuming it was cancelled. It was replaced by 1836 bhm-lvp train. Not sure what happened to the Liverpool train.

si404 · 1 Jun 2019

It surely would have been more sensible to have the three Eus-Bham trains each extend to one of the three northern destinations, and then separate trains from Birmingham (one New Street, one International) to Rugeley and Liverpool to give them 2tph.

That way northbound and southbound have the same service, there's simpler split/join patterns (simply dropping or picking up carriages). OK, you'd still have 1tph terminating at New Street, and some carriages, but it's far fewer than before the change.

Aictos · 1 Jun 2019

It would have been better to cut back the London to Liverpool service to Crewe so instead of being a London to Liverpool via Birmingham service, it merely terminates at Crewe calling at the same stops and used the freed up path to extend the Crewe terminator to Liverpool instead.

Which apart from missing out Birmingham would give decent connections at Crewe.

RealTrains07 · 1 Jun 2019

si404 said:
It surely would have been more sensible to have the three Eus-Bham trains each extend to one of the three northern destinations, and then separate trains from Birmingham (one New Street, one International) to Rugeley and Liverpool to give them 2tph.

That way northbound and southbound have the same service, there's simpler split/join patterns (simply dropping or picking up carriages). OK, you'd still have 1tph terminating at New Street, and some carriages, but it's far fewer than before the change.

By northern destinations i presume liverpool is 1 of the 3???

What your saying seems to be 3tph eus - somewhere via birmingham and 4 trains per hour out of birmingham stations on top of that??

How would that be better?

Bletchleyite · 1 Jun 2019

RealTrains07 said:
By northern destinations i presume liverpool is 1 of the 3???

What your saying seems to be 3tph eus - somewhere via birmingham and 4 trains per hour out of birmingham stations on top of that??

How would that be better?

I'm not sure it would. The issue is (a) very long regional services, and (b) interworked diagrams, which put together mean a problem at Runcorn (say) will soon knock onto the whole operation, and the operation is so complex that you can't just cancel a round trip to bring things back to time.

RealTrains07 · 1 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I'm not sure it would. The issue is (a) very long regional services, and (b) interworked diagrams, which put together mean a problem at Runcorn (say) will soon knock onto the whole operation, and the operation is so complex that you can't just cancel a round trip to bring things back to time.

What 3 northern destinations would you have the birmingham trains go to?

It’s probably possible to split the services up again we just have to work out what to do with the 2 new ones added with the timetable.

It would be the same with a problem down south aswell like watford 2 days ago. It will ripple across everywhere

700007 · 1 Jun 2019

RealTrains07 said:
What 3 northern destinations would you have the birmingham trains go to?

It’s probably possible to split the services up again we just have to work out what to do with the 2 new ones added with the timetable.

It would be the same with a problem down south aswell like watford 2 days ago. It will ripple across everywhere

In my opinion Liverpool Lime Street, Liverpool Lime Street and Crewe & Rugeley Trent Valley.

Aictos · 1 Jun 2019

700007 said:
In my opinion Liverpool Lime Street, Liverpool Lime Street and Crewe & Rugeley Trent Valley.

I would say:

London to Liverpool via Crewe
London to Crewe via Birmingham and Stoke on Trent
London to Wolverhampton and Rugeley

Worse case I would try to fit the Rugeley service into a Cross City service somehow....

si404 · 1 Jun 2019

RealTrains07 said:
By northern destinations i presume liverpool is 1 of the 3???

yes. Rugeley and Crewe via Stoke the other two. I'm not changing the aims, just seeking a way of meeting the aims in a less messy way.

What your saying seems to be 3tph eus - somewhere via birmingham and 4 trains per hour out of birmingham stations on top of that??

err 5 north of Birmingham... (And 4 south of there as far as Brum International).

Yes there's a mishmash, but that's the spec.

How would that be better?

Well, for a start, all the journeys you can do directly one way can be done the other way - a far less confusing situation for passengers. Secondly, there's no split/divides beyond dropping portions. Thirdly the Euston->Rugeley->International->Liverpool->Euston diagrams can't exist.

The second and third things help keep the preverbial problem at Runcorn creating issues for Chase line. There's still the potential for delays due to lengthy services, but the delays are more isolated.

Bletchleyite · 1 Jun 2019

I would do one of:

1. Put it back the way it was, with the exception of the Trent Valley service and Crewe-Stoke-Brum-London which would be an extension of *one* of the Brum services to compensate for the loss of Trent Valley services. This should have a good layover at New St to ensure punctuality and should run as 8-car south of Northampton (12 peak). There is absolutely no need for a Rugeley TV to Euston slow through service whatsoever; the Chase Line should be self-contained and worked using 323s, not 350s. While a direct Liverpool-Euston service, if there ever is one, needs to be an extension of the Trent Valleys, not a Brum service.

2. Set up self-contained diagrams for each route, i.e. if a set and crew do Euston-Brum-Liverpool, they do that for the whole of their shift. This might be difficult for the Trent Valley service due to layovers at Euston, in which case interwork it with something relatively simple like a Tring stopper or Watford shuttle.

I prefer #1. It worked well the way it was - it was punctual and reliable even with New St terminators. It just needed more capacity.

sufian123 · 2 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I would do one of:

1. Put it back the way it was, with the exception of the Trent Valley service and Crewe-Stoke-Brum-London which would be an extension of *one* of the Brum services to compensate for the loss of Trent Valley services. This should have a good layover at New St to ensure punctuality and should run as 8-car south of Northampton (12 peak). There is absolutely no need for a Rugeley TV to Euston slow through service whatsoever; the Chase Line should be self-contained and worked using 323s, not 350s. While a direct Liverpool-Euston service, if there ever is one, needs to be an extension of the Trent Valleys, not a Brum service.

2. Set up self-contained diagrams for each route, i.e. if a set and crew do Euston-Brum-Liverpool, they do that for the whole of their shift. This might be difficult for the Trent Valley service due to layovers at Euston, in which case interwork it with something relatively simple like a Tring stopper or Watford shuttle.

I prefer #1. It worked well the way it was - it was punctual and reliable even with New St terminators. It just needed more capacity.

Not enough 323s. Cross city suffering as it is as well.

RealTrains07 · 2 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I would do one of:

1. Put it back the way it was, with the exception of the Trent Valley service and Crewe-Stoke-Brum-London which would be an extension of *one* of the Brum services to compensate for the loss of Trent Valley services. This should have a good layover at New St to ensure punctuality and should run as 8-car south of Northampton (12 peak). There is absolutely no need for a Rugeley TV to Euston slow through service whatsoever; the Chase Line should be self-contained and worked using 323s, not 350s. While a direct Liverpool-Euston service, if there ever is one, needs to be an extension of the Trent Valleys, not a Brum service.

I did mention a earlier on in the thread it would make more sense the trent valley stoppers being extended to liverpool instead of birmingham. Good idea now i think?

If that was in place it would free up a platform at crewe every hour or maybe even 2 some hours as it means no more late evening euston via birmingham services terminating at crewe instead of liverpool and vice versa Liverpool terminating at crewe/birmingham new street.

Could give a very high possibility of getting 2 tph crewe via stoke instead maybe compared to now. 2 ways of doing it currently

700007 · 2 Jun 2019

RealTrains07 said:
I did mention a earlier on in the thread it would make more sense the trent valley stoppers being extended to liverpool instead of birmingham. Good idea now i think?

If that was in place it would free up a platform at crewe every hour or maybe even 2 some hours as it means no more late evening euston via birmingham services terminating at crewe instead of liverpool and vice versa Liverpool terminating at crewe/birmingham new street.

Could give a very high possibility of getting 2 tph crewe via stoke instead maybe compared to now. 2 ways of doing it currently

If there is an opportunity to do so, I would support a Liverpool Lime Street via Trent Valley and split the current London - Birmingham - Liverpool back into a London to Birmingham and Birmingham to Liverpool service. I would have gotten rid of the Crewe & Rugeley train as well but for political reasons passengers and MPs I can't imagine will be pleased having a new direct London service gone so soon so I would keep it as the only splitting train there is. I definitely agree with Bletchleyite that diagrams both trains and crew should ideally be as self contained as possible to maximise reliability. Only acceptable interworking would be stuff like Tring and Milton Keynes alternating as that's roughly the same geographical area and Walsall - Wolverhampton / Birmingham - Liverpool.

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member