WMT plans additional hourly service from Northampton to London Euston from Dec 2020

Jorge Da Silva · 18 Jan 2020

The purpose of this proposed Supplemental Agreement is to update the Track Access Contract (‘the Contract’) between West Midlands Trains and Network Rail to provide West Midlands Trains with the rights to operate a number of additional train services on the WCML South from the PCD in December 2020. These rights will expire on Principle Change Date 2026 to coincide with the duration of the West Midlands Franchise. West Midlands Trains is proposing to operate an additional hourly train service between Northampton and London Euston (SX and SO), calling at WOL, MKC, BLY, LBZ, BKH, HML and WFJ, between the hours of 11.05 – 15:05 and at 20.05 (SX) and hourly from 10.05 – 19.05 (SO). This operation of these additional services on the Slow Lines will enable the existing Liverpool – Euston (via Birmingham) services to be accelerated on the WCML South by reducing the dwell time at Northampton from the current 12 minutes to 7 minutes, then running non-stop (via Fast Lines) to Euston, with the existing station calls replaced by the new xx.05 services. Corresponding hourly return services in the Down direction will then be provided from Euston to Northampton between 09.25 and 15.25 (plus one SX evening return working to MKC). On Saturdays the pattern is broadly similar, with an additional 10 services between Northampton and Euston, and an additional 11 services in the Down direction between Euston and Northampton. West Midlands Trains is proposing to implement these changes as part of a wider package of measures to improve reliability and simplify service recovery on the WCML. No safety risks have been identified as part of this proposal. West Midlands Trains’ franchise is due to expire on 1st April 2026.

https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pd...ds-trains-limited-4th-sa-application-form.pdf

Any thoughts?

RailUK Forums

The Planner · 18 Jan 2020

Is there a date on that? This might be a second bite at the cherry as the document says, we said no before (and I think if we haven't already we will again)

Bletchleyite · 18 Jan 2020

Isn't this effectively just sending the portion from Northampton that would couple to the ex-Liverpool to Euston on its own? Will require more staff, though, which is a concern, and it rather complicates the consistency of the timetable.

And reducing dwell time? What planet are they on?

Overall I would say no - they need to stop chasing long-distance traffic until the short-distance commuter traffic is properly served with enough capacity and with a punctuality and reliability rate of consistently over 95%.

Class 170101 · 18 Jan 2020

Is there seriously a slot at xx25 from Euston? I thought the headway out of Euston was a minimum of 3 minutes?

sufian123 · 18 Jan 2020

Class 170101 said:
Is there seriously a slot at xx25 from Euston? I thought the headway out of Euston was a minimum of 3 minutes?

xx25 past out of Euston are the current Birmingham service. So I’m guessing it’s extending them. Those ones which used to do Euston-Northampton and then Northampton/Birmingham dwell time at Coventry. All services getting confined god help us.

The Planner · 18 Jan 2020

Class 170101 said:
Is there seriously a slot at xx25 from Euston? I thought the headway out of Euston was a minimum of 3 minutes?

Not sure what they are up to there as the xx.23 is there and the xx.30 Glasgow would catch it up.

Pumbaa · 18 Jan 2020

I read it as the slow line departure is xx25, the corresponding additional fast line as xx52.

I also expect it to be rejected as it was previously.

OrangeJuice · 18 Jan 2020

Is there not already a fast line departure at xx:49 or is that going to be on the slows now?

Bletchleyite · 18 Jan 2020

Isn't xx52 one that one of the open access operators was after, possibly the "new" Virgin Trains who conveniently were going to operate to, er, Liverpool? Could it be to try to stop them getting in?

If that's the actual reason, they need a very hard clout in the nuts for risking making the service even less reliable (by overstretching resources) in order to achieve purely commercial ends.

Class 170101 · 18 Jan 2020

What I don't get is why they can't come up with a timetable that gives the through services but with viable longer stops at major hubs - so for example Northampton a 10 minute stop, similiar at New Street / Wolverhampton / Crewe and sufficient turnarounds at terminating points, so 25 minutes at Rugeley and longer at Liverpool, Crewe, Euston etc as appropriate.

Bletchleyite · 18 Jan 2020

Class 170101 said:
What I don't get is why they can't come up with a timetable that gives the through services but with viable longer stops at major hubs - so for example Northampton a 10 minute stop, similiar at New Street / Wolverhampton / Crewe and sufficient turnarounds at terminating points, so 25 minutes at Rugeley and longer at Liverpool, Crewe, Euston etc as appropriate.

Because they are too cheap to (a) lease enough units, and (b) employ enough staff to deliver this.

Euston is difficult because of platform constraints, but there is plenty of room for layovers elsewhere on their route, and indeed services did used to sit at Northampton for 10-15 minutes to drop into the correct path south of MKC.

Merle Haggard · 18 Jan 2020

But this process has already started. Last December's T.T. changes included 'new fast trains from Northampton' and this was achieved by making the later afternoon (from NMP) up Liverpools non-stop NMP - EUS, with a new NMP - EUS service making the former booked stops. That's been mentioned on another thread somewhere, I think.

Bletchleyite · 18 Jan 2020

Merle Haggard said:
But this process has already started. Last December's T.T. changes included 'new fast trains from Northampton' and this was achieved by making the later afternoon (from NMP) up Liverpools non-stop NMP - EUS, with a new NMP - EUS service making the former booked stops. That's been mentioned on another thread somewhere, I think.

Ah...so are they just making it up to all of them?

London Trains · 18 Jan 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Isn't xx52 one that one of the open access operators was after, possibly the "new" Virgin Trains who conveniently were going to operate to, er, Liverpool? Could it be to try to stop them getting in?

If that's the actual reason, they need a very hard clout in the nuts for risking making the service even less reliable (by overstretching resources) in order to achieve purely commercial ends.

I think the open access path is at xx:33.

London Trains · 18 Jan 2020

It says that the new SL service to Northampton will run at xx:25, but currently theres a SL service to Birmingham (currently Rugeley) at xx:24 that calls Watford - Hemel - Berkhamsted - Tring - Cheddington - Leighton Buzzard - Bletchley - MK - Wolverton - Northampton... i.e more stops than the new xx:25 service. Will the SL timetable have a total recast then?

The current FL slots from Euston are at xx:15 (this was xx:13 before May 2019, which made sense as it had more time before the xx:20 VT Manchester caught up, so why was this service moved later?) (currently to Rugeley/Crewe) and at xx:49 (currently to Liverpool), so I infer that when the Rugeley and Crewe services are cut back to Bham, these will both go to Liverpool, and one of them will be nonstop Euston to Northampton (which one will this be, the train which calls at Watford, MK (that it would make the most sense to go fast) or the one that calls at Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MK, Wolverton?), thus there will be no more FL paths needed.

Also, the new SL service seems to be duplicating the xx:54 MK service, so couldn't this be extended to Northampton, as this would greatly simplify the timetable, as there would then be 2tph Liverpool, 2tph Northampton (1 to Bham) and 2tph Tring

Class 170101 · 18 Jan 2020

London Trains said:
The current FL slots from Euston are at xx:15 (this was xx:13 before May 2019, which made sense as it had more time before the xx:20 VT Manchester caught up, so why was this service moved later?)

The xx13 was a 100mph path I believe. The xx15 path is a 110mph path. So a journey time reduction. However I expect the slot where the trains crosses from fast to slow at Ledburn Jn still has to be met so it needs to depart later to avoid clashing with other trains.

Scotrail314209 · 26 Jan 2020

London Trains said:
I think the open access path is at xx:33.

I thought that path would've been reserved for Avanti services, as they use the XX:33 path during the day and at peaks for the Blackpool and additional Liverpool.

Maybe there would be an XX:57 path they could use instead, as that is also used at peak times. Maybe LNWR could also considering using it?

The Planner · 26 Jan 2020

Scotrail314209 said:
I thought that path would've been reserved for Avanti services, as they use the XX:33 path during the day and at peaks for the Blackpool and additional Liverpool.

Maybe there would be an XX:57 path they could use instead, as that is also used at peak times. Maybe LNWR could also considering using it?

You cannot "reserve" paths.

Scotrail314209 · 26 Jan 2020

The Planner said:
You cannot "reserve" paths.

I think reserved was the wrong word, but I don’t think Avanti would be too happy with the XX:33 being taken by another operator, as that hinders their ability to add an extra service.

The Planner · 26 Jan 2020

If it is a spare path and someone bids compliantly into it and it isn't considered a performance risk there ain't much they can do!

Bletchleyite · 26 Jan 2020

Scotrail314209 said:
I think reserved was the wrong word, but I don’t think Avanti would be too happy with the XX:33 being taken by another operator, as that hinders their ability to add an extra service.

They don't necessarily get a choice in the matter.

Thinking on, are LNR perhaps, for that exact reason, doing this to grab the path for potential later use?

London Trains · 26 Jan 2020

Scotrail314209 said:
Maybe there would be an XX:57 path they could use instead, as that is also used at peak times. Maybe LNWR could also considering using it?

The xx:57 path wouldn't be viable for LNWR as you can't run an 110mph train in this path because the xx:00 Manchester would catch it up. This path can only work for an 125mph service which is fast to at least Stafford/switches to the slows in the Trent Valley to let the Manchester overtake/runs towards Birmingham first stop Coventry.

Class 170101 · 26 Jan 2020

Scotrail314209 said:
Maybe there would be an XX:57 path they could use instead, as that is also used at peak times. Maybe LNWR could also considering using it?

London Trains said:
The xx:57 path wouldn't be viable for LNWR as you can't run an 110mph train in this path because the xx:00 Manchester would catch it up. This path can only work for an 125mph service which is fast to at least Stafford/switches to the slows in the Trent Valley to let the Manchester overtake/runs towards Birmingham first stop Coventry.

The xx57 path is only viable if the xx46 WMT recesses at Rugby to allow it and the xx00 to pass as it does for the 16:46 and 17:46 SX and the 18:46 FSX departures from Euston.

London Trains · 26 Jan 2020

Class 170101 said:
The xx57 path is only viable if the xx46 WMT recesses at Rugby to allow it and the xx00 to pass as it does for the 16:46 and 17:46 SX and the 18:46 FSX departures from Euston.

This is when the path is an Avanti 125mph path though. The xx:00 would catch up before Ledburn if it was an 110mph path so it would not be viable for LNWR in any circumstances.

WMT plans additional hourly service from Northampton to London Euston from Dec 2020

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member