• 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.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
I meant Poulton

Fair enough. But in that case I would say there is absolutely no justification for recommending that the London-Glasgow via Trent Valley services skip Lancaster. From considerable experience catching those trains and seeing the people boarding/alighting, I'd say that Lancaster generates a huge amount of traffic southbound on those services (of which I'd surmise a high proportion travels all the way to London), as well as a reasonable amount of Northbound traffic. By the way, in my experience, Oxenholme also generates a lot of traffic - albeit not as much as Lancaster.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
I thought quite a lot of people went to Glasgow on the train, but I guess your right that the stations they call at are important. The Glasgow service via Trent Valley doesn't need to stop at Crewe though because the Glasgow via Birmingham service goes direct from Crewe.

My concern with that argument would be that there is currently only one tph that runs all the way along the Preston-Wigan-Warrington-Crewe corridor. Given how important both Crewe and Preston are for interchange opportunities, I don't that's sufficient, and I'd imagine that is causing a lot of suppressed demand.

Added to that issue: Realistically, another hourly London-Preston train via Trent Valley is really required as the current service is very often packed out - so I'm somewhat disappointed that the new franchise doesn't include that. Personally, my preference would be similar to your suggestion of an hourly London-Blackpool service, except that I'd have it stop at Crewe as well as the stations you suggested: So it would run London-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston-Poulton-Blackpool. And make sure it's timed to fit in with the London-Birmingham-Glasgow service to give an approximately half-hourly service Crewe-Preston. If you could do that, then I'd be comfortable having the London-Trent Valley-Glasgow service run non-stop London-Preston (though I can see benefits from having it stop at Crewe too).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
My concern with that argument would be that there is currently only one tph that runs all the way along the Preston-Wigan-Warrington-Crewe corridor. Given how important both Crewe and Preston are for interchange opportunities, I don't that's sufficient, and I'd imagine that is causing a lot of suppressed demand.

I would agree with this, though an acceptable alternative solution would be to introduce the service FNW intended to do but didn't have the stock - hourly Crewe all stations (actually all stations, so Hartford etc as well as Euxton Balshaw Lane and Leyland) to Carlisle using say Class 319s.

As an alternative LNR could order additional Aventras and extend the 350-operated Trent Valley service through to Preston. An even better option here might be to run the Euston-Crewe semifast as an 8-car set with 4 for Liverpool and 4 for Carlisle.
 

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,748
I would agree with this, though an acceptable alternative solution would be to introduce the service FNW intended to do but didn't have the stock - hourly Crewe all stations (actually all stations, so Hartford etc as well as Euxton Balshaw Lane and Leyland) to Carlisle using say Class 319s.
First let alone virgin would never operate a service that slow as a West Coast service.
Even if First did that, that would no way be possible until enough 730s arrive to displace the 319s and even then we would be talking late 2021/early 2022 at the earliest if testing and entry goes to plan. Plus a service like that would be a disaster run by 319s considering that fleet is already as problematic as it is. First would never take them on again.

Where would this service start as well? As we already have i think 5 trains an hour terminating from crewe so that takes up a lot of space?
As an alternative LNR could order additional Aventras and extend the 350-operated Trent Valley service through to Preston. An even better option here might be to run the Euston-Crewe semifast as an 8-car set with 4 for Liverpool and 4 for Carlisle.
Possible to extend but unlikely especially to liverpool since to extend a trent valley train from crewe to liverpool would most likely mean the loss of a brum to liverpool train. It would be quicker than the current LNR euston to liverpool o course however brum customers would never support it

Niether would trent valley passengers as the service is unreliable as it is right now just getting to crewe and the idea of instead of terminating 4 cars at crewe to send them to Carlisle which although might be beneficial to North West passengers would cause a lot of disruption to crewe and TV passengers if their were an incident as not only are you risking sending short formed trains on an possibly even more busier service than right now especially if in rush hour but also disrupting the next service the delayed unit has to run

Its not worth the risk especially considering the ongoing shambles LNR has created with just splitting services at brum.

The best way to get more trains on the line to Carlisle and for a reliable service is for First to boost service frequency to glasgow

Slow service would take too long and too many things could go wrong, and you would risk delaying the fast west coast services anyway wouldn’t you?

What about First just running a service to Preston or Carlisle similar to how virgins run services to Birmingham right now. It Stops at more stations but still can run faster than regionals like LNR.

Hate to say it but First would be way more suited to run a service like this
 
Last edited:

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
First let alone virgin would never operate a service that slow as a West Coast service.
Even if First did that, that would no way be possible until enough 730s arrive to displace the 319s and even then we would be talking late 2021/early 2022 at the earliest if testing and entry goes to plan. Plus a service like that would be a disaster run by 319s considering that fleet is already as problematic as it is. First would never take them on again.

Where would this service start as well? As we already have i think 5 trains an hour terminating from crewe so that takes up a lot of space?

Possible to extend but unlikely especially to liverpool since to extend a trent valley train from crewe to liverpool would most likely mean the loss of a brum to liverpool train. It would be quicker than the current LNR euston to liverpool o course however brum customers would never support it

Niether would trent valley passengers as the service is unreliable as it is right now just getting to crewe and the idea of instead of terminating 4 cars at crewe to send them to Carlisle which although might be beneficial to North West passengers would cause a lot of disruption to crewe and TV passengers if their were an incident as not only are you risking sending short formed trains on an possibly even more busier service than right now especially if in rush hour but also disrupting the next service the delayed unit has to run

Its not worth the risk especially considering the ongoing shambles LNR has created with just splitting services at brum.

The best way to get more trains on the line to Carlisle and for a reliable service is for First to boost service frequency to glasgow

Slow service would take too long and too many things could go wrong, and you would risk delaying the fast west coast services anyway wouldn’t you?

What about First just running a service to Preston or Carlisle similar to how virgins run services to Birmingham right now. It Stops at more stations but still can run faster than regionals like LNR.

Hate to say it but First would be way more suited to run a service like this

It does baffle me why the East Coast Mainline runs two hourly main route services from London to Scotland. Yet the West Coast Mainline only runs one via the Trent Valley with the other one going via the West Midlands with quite a few stops. The latter only being the result of joining the Euston to West Mids services with the West Mids to Scotland service to form a through train.

Why does the West Coast not get two mainline direct London to Scotland services every hour?
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
It does baffle me why the East Coast Mainline runs two hourly main route services from London to Scotland. Yet the West Coast Mainline only runs one via the Trent Valley with the other one going via the West Midlands with quite a few stops. The latter only being the result of joining the Euston to West Mids services with the West Mids to Scotland service to form a through train.

Why does the West Coast not get two mainline direct London to Scotland services every hour?

Lack of Capacity maybe?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It does baffle me why the East Coast Mainline runs two hourly main route services from London to Scotland. Yet the West Coast Mainline only runs one via the Trent Valley with the other one going via the West Midlands with quite a few stops. The latter only being the result of joining the Euston to West Mids services with the West Mids to Scotland service to form a through train.

Why does the West Coast not get two mainline direct London to Scotland services every hour?

Because:-

1. The WCML's main demand is for London-Birmingham and London-Manchester - the ECML doesn't have anything like the same situation with regard to intermediate demand.

2. London-Glasgow demand is massively, massively smaller than London-Edinburgh. In particular the tourist demand for Edinburgh is massive.

3. The ECML has fewer branches/diversions that also need serving.
 

Sprinter150

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2018
Messages
104
It does baffle me why the East Coast Mainline runs two hourly main route services from London to Scotland. Yet the West Coast Mainline only runs one via the Trent Valley with the other one going via the West Midlands with quite a few stops. The latter only being the result of joining the Euston to West Mids services with the West Mids to Scotland service to form a through train.

Why does the West Coast not get two mainline direct London to Scotland services every hour?

Bear in mind that Edinburgh is a major tourist hub, so much more so that Glasgow, and also the second train per hour (which it is worth mentioning doesn’t run every hour - some terminate at Newcastle) calls at significantly more stations do in fact, even though they depart Kings Cross 30 minutes apart, arrives at Edinburgh just 10 minutes before the next fast. Not overly attractive. I would guess post HS2 that Glasgow will get 2tph to London, if not only one of them actually on HS2, but I’m really not the person to ask on that.

EDIT - beaten me to it
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
Bear in mind that Edinburgh is a major tourist hub, so much more so that Glasgow, and also the second train per hour (which it is worth mentioning doesn’t run every hour - some terminate at Newcastle) calls at significantly more stations do in fact, even though they depart Kings Cross 30 minutes apart, arrives at Edinburgh just 10 minutes before the next fast. Not overly attractive. I would guess post HS2 that Glasgow will get 2tph to London, if not only one of them actually on HS2, but I’m really not the person to ask on that.

EDIT - beaten me to it
In effect, each Anglo-Scottish route has one 'fast' and one 'stopper', just that on the East Coast they go up the same line whilst the West Coast stopper comes off the direct route slightly to serve Birmingham.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
My concern with that argument would be that there is currently only one tph that runs all the way along the Preston-Wigan-Warrington-Crewe corridor. Given how important both Crewe and Preston are for interchange opportunities, I don't that's sufficient, and I'd imagine that is causing a lot of suppressed demand.

Added to that issue: Realistically, another hourly London-Preston train via Trent Valley is really required as the current service is very often packed out - so I'm somewhat disappointed that the new franchise doesn't include that. Personally, my preference would be similar to your suggestion of an hourly London-Blackpool service, except that I'd have it stop at Crewe as well as the stations you suggested: So it would run London-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston-Poulton-Blackpool. And make sure it's timed to fit in with the London-Birmingham-Glasgow service to give an approximately half-hourly service Crewe-Preston. If you could do that, then I'd be comfortable having the London-Trent Valley-Glasgow service run non-stop London-Preston (though I can see benefits from having it stop at Crewe too).

That service pattern has been postulated in various sources starting with the WCML RUS in 2009 or thereabouts.
But Liverpool seems to have hijacked the extra path (the RUS did suggest alternating Preston and Liverpool).
But now we have the half-baked Grand Central Blackpool services (5tpd, odd stopping pattern), plus the few direct franchise services to Blackpool.
Neither of these fits the bill of taking stops out of the Glasgow service, and servicing Crewe.
In fact looking at the wider WCP franchise changes, the lack of improvement from Crewe northwards is disappointing.

In effect, each Anglo-Scottish route has one 'fast' and one 'stopper', just that on the East Coast they go up the same line whilst the West Coast stopper comes off the direct route slightly to serve Birmingham.

And yet the DfT has let TPE run another hourly service Newcastle-Edinburgh, making 4tph on that stretch (2xLNER, 1xXC, 1xTPE).
You'd think the priority for TPE would be further south.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
Quick note to say that for anyone who wishes to discuss livery issues for the new franchise please use the new dedicated thread which can be found here.
 

Andrew*Debbie

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
315
Location
Llanfairpwllgwyngyll ...
We have to accept the older stuff is going. The Class 800s are horrible, far worse than the 390s.

The 221s are fuel hogs. Replacing them with bi-modes will save money, especially on the hourly Chester service which is electric all the way to Crewe.

Bi-modes will improve the air quality where the trains stand, especially at Euston.

I think the top 2 providers were Virgin and Stagecoach in terms of customer satisfaction and reliability. Those 2 are now gone! Talk about rewarding failure! Punishing success.


In the Spring 2019 survey, Heathrow Express (!) top the list at 95% followed by Virgin Trains at 91%. First Group's GWR are taking over Heathrow Express.

http://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.ne...-Passenger-Survey-Main-Report-Spring-2019.pdf



Err, before you start telling one of my colleagues who drives them that he’s wrong, I’d just point out to you that the pendo repaint has definitely NOT finished, New lighting was replacement of Halogen with LED, not exactly a major strip out. ... The only thing being currently done to 221s is to extend the Beam and WiFi functionality to them what’s already on a 390.

LED lighting saves a surprising amount of power and money. Along with the power reduction there is a reduced load on the AC.

The press release should have said Free WiFi that works on the 221s ;)
 

Andrew*Debbie

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
315
Location
Llanfairpwllgwyngyll ...
Don`t count on that. Cardboard sandwiches beckon for you matey.

The press release promises "Catering with Household brands" That means Walkers crisps, Lipton tea, Kit Kats, and soggy sandwiches made with genuine Hovis Bread.

I doubt we will see anything remotely like Virgin's Summer Thali salad.

The shop offering, especially on the Pendolinos is pretty good. I'm going to miss that.

https://www.westcoastrail.co.uk/plan.html
 

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
782
It does baffle me why the East Coast Mainline runs two hourly main route services from London to Scotland. Yet the West Coast Mainline only runs one via the Trent Valley with the other one going via the West Midlands with quite a few stops. The latter only being the result of joining the Euston to West Mids services with the West Mids to Scotland service to form a through train.

Why does the West Coast not get two mainline direct London to Scotland services every hour?
The imbalance in demand between Glasgow and Edinburgh shows that assuming passenger demand based solely on population figures is seriously misleading. The population of Glasgow and its metropolitan area is much greater than Edinburgh and yet the passenger numbers on services to London for Edinburgh are higher than Glasgow. This is not just the case for rail, Edinburgh's airport handles significantly more passengers than Glasgow as well. The reasons are that Edinburgh is not just Scotland's political capital, but its financial capital and a large tourist centre. I would also suggest that, generally speaking, it is a wealthier area than Glasgow and a wealthy population is a more likely to be a mobile population.
 

TrainTube

Member
Joined
24 Sep 2018
Messages
487
I hope First-Trenitalia can introduce good services once HS2 is complete, there are already planned services on Wikipedia ( I know), and these don't look too great. Firstly I might be missing something but im struggling to see why every single service should stop at Old Oak common, for example I doubt many people coming from north of Crewe would interchange there. Secondly, a lot more services will start/terminate at intermediate stations on the WCML, meaning there are less London services.
For example, at Warrington, there will be 3TPH to Scotland (2 to Glasgow, 1 to Edinburgh), however, there will be 1TPH to London. That means there will be more trains heading for Birmingham than there are to London. Wigan also suffers this, although Wigan receives services to Manchester interchange, despite only having 200,000 more passengers than Warrington, it receives DOUBLE the amount of services per hour, along with all of the Northern and TPE services.
I hope that, being Wikipedia this info is all nonsense, and that I can take it by a pinch of salt, but if it is then they need to revise it.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
The imbalance in demand between Glasgow and Edinburgh shows that assuming passenger demand based solely on population figures is seriously misleading. The population of Glasgow and its metropolitan area is much greater than Edinburgh and yet the passenger numbers on services to London for Edinburgh are higher than Glasgow. This is not just the case for rail, Edinburgh's airport handles significantly more passengers than Glasgow as well. The reasons are that Edinburgh is not just Scotland's political capital, but its financial capital and a large tourist centre. I would also suggest that, generally speaking, it is a wealthier area than Glasgow and a wealthy population is a more likely to be a mobile population.

Yup, this applies to Caledonian Sleeper as well. If the Edinburgh portion is full or only has more expensive tickets available, it's almost certain that there will be space on the Glasgow portion, probably at one of the lower pricing tiers too.

As someone who lives near Edinburgh, I think it's fair to say that the city has a serious over-tourism problem that makes it a difficult city to visit for routine purposes, especially at this time of year. Glasgow doesn't have that problem at all.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Firstly I might be missing something but im struggling to see why every single service should stop at Old Oak common, for example I doubt many people coming from north of Crewe would interchange there.
The DfT's reasoning (from their Review of the Technical Specification for High Speed Rail in the UK) is:
London Old Oak Common was developed to provide very easy interchange with Crossrail. This would provide for rapid access to and from West London, the West
End, the City of London, Docklands and East London/South Essex. There is also connectivity with the Great Western Main Line serving destinations to Bristol, the South West and South Wales, as well as rail interconnectivity to Heathrow Airport; and
London Euston was selected as the practical location which offers effective connectivity with North London, Westminster and South London, then to the wider area south of London.
Stopping everything at OOC and Euston means that people can choose which station gives them the best connection for wherever they're going, and will reduce the passenger load on connecting services in the Euston area in the future.
Secondly, a lot more services will start/terminate at intermediate stations on the WCML, meaning there are less London services.
For example, at Warrington, there will be 3TPH to Scotland (2 to Glasgow, 1 to Edinburgh), however, there will be 1TPH to London. That means there will be more trains heading for Birmingham than there are to London.
Do bear in mind that those services are only those that will operate along HS2. It doesn't include any that will be running along the WCML. (As an example: there are no trains to Chester or North Wales listed either!)
 

TrainTube

Member
Joined
24 Sep 2018
Messages
487
I hope First-Trenitalia can introduce good services once HS2 is complete, there are already planned services on Wikipedia ( I know), and these don't look too great. Firstly I might be missing something but im struggling to see why every single service should stop at Old Oak common, for example I doubt many people coming from north of Crewe would interchange there. Secondly, a lot more services will start/terminate at intermediate stations on the WCML, meaning there are less London services.
For example, at Warrington, there will be 3TPH to Scotland (2 to Glasgow, 1 to Edinburgh), however, there will be 1TPH to London (this starts at P. That means there will be more trains heading for Birmingham than there are to London. Wigan also suffers this, although Wigan receives services to Manchester interchange, despite only having 200,000 more passengers than Warrington, it receives DOUBLE the amount of services per hour, along with all of the Northern and TPE services.
I hope that, being Wikipedia this info is all nonsense, and that I can take it by a pinch of salt, but if it is then they need to revise it.
The DfT's reasoning (from their Review of the Technical Specification for High Speed Rail in the UK) is:

Stopping everything at OOC and Euston means that people can choose which station gives them the best connection for wherever they're going, and will reduce the passenger load on connecting services in the Euston area in the future.

Do bear in mind that those services are only those that will operate along HS2. It doesn't include any that will be running along the WCML. (As an example: there are no trains to Chester or North Wales listed either!)
So you reckon that services today that go to places in the north will continue to run on WCML? Hopefully that means those services will have cheap advance tickets, like Chiltern services to Birmingham.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
So you reckon that services today that go to places in the north will continue to run on WCML? Hopefully that means those services will have cheap advance tickets, like Chiltern services to Birmingham.
I blooming well hope that there'll be WCML service to the north, or everyone in Chester & North Wales travelling to London will need to change trains en-route! :)

On a less emotive level, services on the WCML that continue north of Crewe will offer journey options to people from places like Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Nuneaton, etc. who are bypassed by HS2. They'll presumably have more stops than the expresses that Virgin are running (as the fastest trains will be via HS2), so a bit slower than today's timings.
 

Master29

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
1,967
The press release promises "Catering with Household brands" That means Walkers crisps, Lipton tea, Kit Kats, and soggy sandwiches made with genuine Hovis Bread.

I doubt we will see anything remotely like Virgin's Summer Thali salad.

The shop offering, especially on the Pendolinos is pretty good. I'm going to miss that.

https://www.westcoastrail.co.uk/plan.html
They say similar things in GWR land if the useless trolley service actually runs.
 

Andrew*Debbie

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
315
Location
Llanfairpwllgwyngyll ...
Firstly I might be missing something but im struggling to see why every single service should stop at Old Oak common, for example I doubt many people coming from north of Crewe would interchange there.

Heathrow. Changing at Old Old Oak common probably shaves 45 minutes off the journey to LHR. Euston to LHR takes about an hour on the tubes. Taxi to Paddington + HX is about 45 minutes.

Other than that, it depends on the final destination. The Elizabeth line and GWR interchange there.

If I recall the station will have space for eventual Overground platforms too although there aren't plans to connect any time soon.

If all this ever gets built, the station will be a magnet for new development and will become a destination.

https://www.hs2.org.uk/stations/old-oak-common/
 

TrainTube

Member
Joined
24 Sep 2018
Messages
487
I blooming well hope that there'll be WCML service to the north, or everyone in Chester & North Wales travelling to London will need to change trains en-route! :)

On a less emotive level, services on the WCML that continue north of Crewe will offer journey options to people from places like Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Nuneaton, etc. who are bypassed by HS2. They'll presumably have more stops than the expresses that Virgin are running (as the fastest trains will be via HS2), so a bit slower than today's timings.
I think they should keep it the same, but the only services that should stop at places like Northampton and Nuneaton should be ones that are served well by HS2. (E.G the Manchester services).
For your problem they could run HS2 services that call at Crewe then go to Chester and the North Wales line. You could also have a service that goes up to WBQ then backs down towards Helsby, Frodsham and Runcorn East before Chester (Maybe 1 train per 2 hours).
 

TrainTube

Member
Joined
24 Sep 2018
Messages
487
Heathrow. Changing at Old Old Oak common probably shaves 45 minutes off the journey to LHR. Euston to LHR takes about an hour on the tubes. Taxi to Paddington + HX is about 45 minutes.

Other than that, it depends on the final destination. The Elizabeth line and GWR interchange there.

If I recall the station will have space for eventual Overground platforms too although there aren't plans to connect any time soon.

If all this ever gets built, the station will be a magnet for new development and will become a destination.

https://www.hs2.org.uk/stations/old-oak-common/
Im not saying 0 trains should stop at OOC, but for your argument about Heathrow why should the Glasgow Fasts stop there? People from Preston aren't going to go from Heathrow, neither are people from Manchester.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
For your problem they could run HS2 services that call at Crewe then go to Chester and the North Wales line.
Bear in mind that there are no wires west of Crewe, and electrification to Chester (let alone the coast) is believed to be costly. There's been no suggestion yet that any Classic-Compatibles will be bi-mode, and no official plan for HS2 timetables has mentioned Chester at all. This isn't a new issue, though: it's been discussed here on HS2 threads in the past.

Im not saying 0 trains should stop at OOC, but for your argument about Heathrow why should the Glasgow Fasts stop there? People from Preston aren't going to go from Heathrow, neither are people from Manchester.

They may also be going to Reading, London's financial district, or other locations on Crossrail or London Overground.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Im not saying 0 trains should stop at OOC, but for your argument about Heathrow why should the Glasgow Fasts stop there? People from Preston aren't going to go from Heathrow, neither are people from Manchester.

Why not?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Bear in mind that there are no wires west of Crewe, and electrification to Chester (let alone the coast) is believed to be costly. There's been no suggestion yet that any Classic-Compatibles will be bi-mode, and no official plan for HS2 timetables has mentioned Chester at all. This isn't a new issue, though: it's been discussed here on HS2 threads in the past.

Chester could be wired, I suppose, the Coast is unlikely to be. This does make me wonder about other options such as not having direct North Wales to London services at all, instead having a well-timed hourly connection at Chester (wired) or Crewe (if Chester wasn't wired), but in addition reinstating the fast hourly Holyhead-Birmingham via Stafford operated using IC bi-modes. That might actually be better for demand than what we have now.
 

Y Ddraig Coch

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2013
Messages
1,288
I blooming well hope that there'll be WCML service to the north, or everyone in Chester & North Wales travelling to London will need to change trains en-route! :)

We know this not to the the case as they have announced there will be extra direct trains to London from North Wales, on weekends , new trains s , later trains leaving Wales for London in the week and also a new direct service form Llandudno. So changing trains wont be happening.
 

Y Ddraig Coch

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2013
Messages
1,288
Chester could be wired, I suppose, the Coast is unlikely to be. This does make me wonder about other options such as not having direct North Wales to London services at all, instead having a well-timed hourly connection at Chester (wired) or Crewe (if Chester wasn't wired), but in addition reinstating the fast hourly Holyhead-Birmingham via Stafford operated using IC bi-modes. That might actually be better for demand than what we have now.

No thank you, that wont be getting me to London in under 3 hours as is the case now.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
We know this not to the the case as they have announced there will be extra direct trains to London from North Wales, on weekends , new trains s , later trains leaving Wales for London in the week and also a new direct service form Llandudno. So changing trains wont be happening.

Yet. Nothing has been announced about post-HS2, the announcement is purely for the "WCML franchise" part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top