• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

West Coast Partnership: Awarded to First Trenitalia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,715
Location
Glasgow
If they went on the Birmingham services I wouldn't have a problem.

It would seem more logical, allows connectivity between Lanarkshire and the Midlands and still gives through journeys to London.

The Glasgow service would be 10 mins shorter, meaning it would be around 4h 20 mins, around the same as LNER to Edinburgh, and considering Edinburgh is closer to London that is an achievement.

A credible achievement with that number of stops.

Though that would happen about the same time LNER drops to 4hrs-4hrs 05 on the Edinburgh fasts.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Also at moment Wigan has two direct services to London, 1 fast (2hrs) and 1 slow (3hrs) with the slow calling at Birmingham. Sacrificing the fast for an extra slow to Birmingham wouldn't be beneficial, particularly as it already has two direct trains per hour to Blackpool (though they aren't spaced very well) and one indirect with competitive timings that does fill in that gap a little, it doesn't really need more services to Blackpool.

Also considering the highest loading point on London-Scotland service flows is Warrington to Wigan northbound and Preston to Wigan southbound, taking capacity away doesn't really help much either.
 
Last edited:

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
Why ? - Rugby is another important station.

Rugby will become more important if we continue to see reasonably large homebuilding in the area. Luckily some capacity exists to add some calls there. Post HS2 we can probably therefore expect to see further stops.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Rugby will become more important if we continue to see reasonably large homebuilding in the area. Luckily some capacity exists to add some calls there. Post HS2 we can probably therefore expect to see further stops.
There is a huge amount of house building planned there, hence the plans for Rugby Parkway on the Northampton lines.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,082
If they went on the Birmingham services I wouldn't have a problem. I would recommend they introduce an hourly service to Blackpool calling at Warrington Wigan Preston Lancaster, then the fast Glasgow could only call at Warrington Preston and Carlisle. Oxenholme and Penrith both get fast TPE trains, people headed for London could change at Preston. Warrington has an absurdly small amount of services for the Town it is, so that would benefit them. The Glasgow service would be 10 mins shorter, meaning it would be around 4h 20 mins, around the same as LNER to Edinburgh, and considering Edinburgh is closer to London that is an achievement.
How is a Blackpool service going to stop at Lancaster?
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
There is a huge amount of house building planned there, hence the plans for Rugby Parkway on the Northampton lines.

Which many passengers who are 'time critical' will likely avoid as they'll be on a 350 with no trolley and worse facilities that goes round and probably stops at least everywhere to Leighton Buzzard with portions on/off at Northampton. They'd sooner, I'm sure, pay extra and get a train that takes them into Euston in 45 minutes flat...
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Possibly true, but mainly because not very many people live in "very remote places with no public transport" to start with.

Last week I spent a few days in Winsford, Somerset. Three buses a day, plus one more during school terms. I was talking to somebody who doesn't have a bike or any kind of motorised vehicle. If she needs to go to the doctor she has to catch the bus with a long wait in Dulverton before she can come back, or if she is lucky she may get a lift. A journey to London requires careful planning. In such situations talk about "choice" between modes of transport is unrealistic.


There are always places which will have nothing or not very much which was why I posted like I did to make this known.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Which many passengers who are 'time critical' will likely avoid as they'll be on a 350 with no trolley and worse facilities that goes round and probably stops at least everywhere to Leighton Buzzard with portions on/off at Northampton. They'd sooner, I'm sure, pay extra and get a train that takes them into Euston in 45 minutes flat...
And they will have that option by taking a 3 minute journey changing at Rugby with Ive no doubt a substantial car park that Parkway will provide.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Rugby will become more important if we continue to see reasonably large homebuilding in the area. Luckily some capacity exists to add some calls there. Post HS2 we can probably therefore expect to see further stops.

Would it make sense for the Euston-Chester services to call there (and possibly at Stafford too) once they are being run by the new bi-modes and therefore presumably have far better acceleration than the Voyagers that currently run them?
 

driver_m

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
2,248
Would it make sense for the Euston-Chester services to call there (and possibly at Stafford too) once they are being run by the new bi-modes and therefore presumably have far better acceleration than the Voyagers that currently run them?

No. It would cause conflicts at Crewe and vastly reduce the turnaround time at Chester.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If they went on the Birmingham services I wouldn't have a problem. I would recommend they introduce an hourly service to Blackpool calling at Warrington Wigan Preston Lancaster, then the fast Glasgow could only call at Warrington Preston and Carlisle. Oxenholme and Penrith both get fast TPE trains, people headed for London could change at Preston.

Oxenholme is a major tourist destination including for people from London. Unless you were to change the branch service to run to/from Lancaster bays (which would also work) all London services need to stop there.

TBH, in my view all trains should stop at all stations (except Euxton and Leyland) between Crewe and Carlisle. Consistency of the Takt is to me more important than 5-10 minutes off for the relatively few people actually going to Glasgow.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Would it make sense for the Euston-Chester services to call there (and possibly at Stafford too) once they are being run by the new bi-modes and therefore presumably have far better acceleration than the Voyagers that currently run them?

The 221s are no slouches and are only fractionally slower than the 390s.
They do have some stops at Rugby and Nuneaton in the peaks (10-car).
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
TBH, in my view all trains should stop at all stations (except Euxton and Leyland) between Crewe and Carlisle. Consistency of the Takt is to me more important than 5-10 minutes off for the relatively few people actually going to Glasgow.
Including Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge? on a Virgin Euston Glasgow?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Oxenholme is a major tourist destination including for people from London. Unless you were to change the branch service to run to/from Lancaster bays (which would also work) all London services need to stop there.

TBH, in my view all trains should stop at all stations (except Euxton and Leyland) between Crewe and Carlisle. Consistency of the Takt is to me more important than 5-10 minutes off for the relatively few people actually going to Glasgow.

Consistency for consistency's sake is pointless. Remember the extra 5-10 minutes in a Glasgow is not free - train crew etc need to get paid for longer, and it all eats into the ability to recover during turnrounds at Glasgow.

Penrith/Oxenholme get two trains most hours, which is more than adequate for their local demand (a third wouldn't add much in fequency terms anyway due to the close flighting), and longer distance demand from these stations will be more aim-for-booked-train, than turn-up-and-go. That, and clogging up.long distance trains with more local demand is generally not sensible.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Including Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge? on a Virgin Euston Glasgow?

Oh, sorry, forgot those were north of Crewe or that they weren't on the Liverpool branch!

No, not those, I meant all services should call at Crewe, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith and Carlisle.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Consistency for consistency's sake is pointless

It's not; a 100% consistent hourly timetable has huge benefits. Though I could be convinced of a two-hourly pattern, I certainly don't think UK InterCity operations benefit from odd "couple of trains a day" or "dropping of odd stops" messing around at all.

Of course if you implemented my proposal of all trains from both Barrow and Windermere running through to Manchester Airport as a pair, you could drop the Oxenholme stops from far more trains.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Well you're right about adding 10 minutes in, as that is what putting Crewe and Oxenholme in on the Euston Glasgow will do.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Well you're right about adding 10 minutes in, as that is what putting Crewe and Oxenholme in on the Euston Glasgow will do.

That is fine; consistency is more important than raw speed in my view. We are in the era of the clockface timetabled regional express, not the once a day crack express that suits almost nobody.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
Given the incoming 110mph units on the line both from TPE and non tilting classic compatibles, won't more stops be an inevitability for those trains that can actually reach 125?
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,082
Oxenholme is a major tourist destination including for people from London. Unless you were to change the branch service to run to/from Lancaster bays (which would also work) all London services need to stop there.

TBH, in my view all trains should stop at all stations (except Euxton and Leyland) between Crewe and Carlisle. Consistency of the Takt is to me more important than 5-10 minutes off for the relatively few people actually going to Glasgow.

You'd need 110mph DMUs on the Windermere branch to avoid blocking the line north of Lancaster. Arguably a waste of resources.

As for all trains stopping............in the golden days of the Mk3 stock the Carlisle terminators DID stop at every station as you suggest, while the Glasgows skipped Oxenholme and some also Lancaster. Has to be a case now for terminating more at Carlisle, with onward travel by TransPennine
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
With the new fleet has it been announced if it will be Tilt enabled? I would imagine it would be to take advantage of the higher speeds possible with tilting trains on the WCML.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
With the new fleet has it been announced if it will be Tilt enabled? I would imagine it would be to take advantage of the higher speeds possible with tilting trains on the WCML.
It doesn't seem to have been announced from what's been said in the thread so far.

I think people are hedging their bets on that so far as Grand Central have proven that a path can be given at 110mph with non tilt on the fast. On the other hand they may well procure tilting trains if they're actually available to UK requirements.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
With the new fleet has it been announced if it will be Tilt enabled? I would imagine it would be to take advantage of the higher speeds possible with tilting trains on the WCML.
All that's been announced is that there'll be 13 bi-modes and 10 EMUs. No announcements on their length or tilting capability.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Its been briefed they will be non tilt, but that they are looking to clear sections for 125mph non tilt operation with test runs being conducted at the moment by a 397.
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,019
Its been briefed they will be non tilt, but that they are looking to clear sections for 125mph non tilt operation with test runs being conducted at the moment by a 397.
I will admit I am confused. I thought a great deal of money had to be spent on trackside upgrades when the WCML was modernised to allow for tilt operation, as well as the extra cost and weight and therefore operational cost of the trains themselves. If it is possible to carry out fairly simple upgrades to achieve sufficient 125mph sections to allow a non-tilter to hit the same timings as a tilter, what was the point in going for tilters in the first place?
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
Its been briefed they will be non tilt, but that they are looking to clear sections for 125mph non tilt operation with test runs being conducted at the moment by a 397.

Whereabouts are they looking at this possibility? Both the West Coast operator and TPE would benefit north of Preston, but the important bit for pathing West Coast services will be at the London end.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Its been looked at for HS2 as the classic compatible services would be losing time compared to existing services by not tilting once they were north of Wigan, but the new west coast franchise and TPE having 125mph stock available seem to have provided fresh impetus. From what ive heard they aren't looking to clear Pendolino but are looking at whether lighter stock (using 397 as a test vehicle) could do 125mph on currently 110mph non-tilt sections. Naturally this would be a little more uncomfortable for the passengers than a tilting train.

First-Trenitalia have apparently bid that the new EMU to replace the Voyagers would operate at 125mph on currently 110mph EMU limit sections if possible.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Its been looked at for HS2 as the classic compatible services would be losing time compared to existing services by not tilting once they were north of Wigan, but the new west coast franchise and TPE having 125mph stock available seem to have provided fresh impetus. From what ive heard they aren't looking to clear Pendolino but are looking at whether lighter stock (using 397 as a test vehicle) could do 125mph on currently 110mph non-tilt sections. Naturally this would be a little more uncomfortable for the passengers than a tilting train.

First-Trenitalia have apparently bid that the new EMU to replace the Voyagers would operate at 125mph on currently 110mph EMU limit sections if possible.

Still probably a LOT better for passenger comfort than a lot put up with when driving/being driven.

Before anyone suggests that it will lead to more spilled coffee, it's no longer served in open cups on a saucer; therefore unless it will tip the cups over its unlikely to be a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top