Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Seemingly not, but that's because it seems they have not put their Advances where their mouth is, as it were.
-
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!
Virgin confirm seeking approval for additional calls in Trent Valley
- Thread starter pt_mad
- Start date
- Status
Seemingly not, but that's because it seems they have not put their Advances where their mouth is, as it were.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I believe there is a ticket available at Trent Valley stations marked 'Direct' rather than any permitted route. I think its somewhere around 50 or 60 quid for an off peak route 'Direct' day return to London Euston. What would be the first service into London these would be valid on?
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,857
Worth noting the exact same thing happens to Stafford too - it loses its call on the Liverpool train but gains one on the following Holyhead. The 1907 as a result does Runcorn in 1h43 and Liverpool in 2h01 from Euston - three minutes quicker than its southbound equivalent manages in the morning.
So it seems this will become one of the fast fast flagship services? Is this Liverpool service off-peak and is there overcrowding?
Last edited:
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Should be already for the Long Term Plan but I would say 12 weeks out, subject to ORR approval.
ScouserGirl
Member
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2015
- Messages
- 219
I always travel from Liverpool to London and I always am able to get an advance ticket and I booked my advance ticket for London to Liverpool yesterday on Virgin Trains app so yes advance tickets are available I don't know why your saying you can't get advance tickets to Liverpool as I've managed to get one no problem...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another stop or 2 to add to to already longer journey time on the Liverpool service! Great!Personally, I think they should omit Crewe again on the Liverpool services.
I remember when they cut Crewe out of the stopping pattern it was great! Tomorrow am coming back home from London on the last train and we sit at Crewe for about 10 minutes it's silly!!
All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,222
That has nothing to do with the 21:07 calling at Crewe, or any other intermediate station for that matter.
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,914
Is the double ladder at Doxey still to be used post-Norton Bridge?
The slow lines between Crewe and and Stafford will be 100mph throughout following the Norton Bridge upgrade and will make a grade separated junction with the Stone route.
Running the LM trains on the Fast Line will surely be obviated?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Amusing that you made the same misspelling of Bletchley that Z&S once did on their destination blinds!
To me it will always be Blotchley.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,965
Virgin Anglo-Scots will use it as will anything during standard two track timetable blocks.
The Sunday only 0933 Crewe - London Euston LM service (via the Trent Valley) is not in the may timetable. First LM Trent Valley service from Crewe is showing as the 1038 Crewe - Euston.
Sure to put a bit more pressure on any Sunday morning Trent Valley VT services.
http://www.opentraintimes.com/locat...on&show_stp=on&show_var=on&show_wtt=on&utf8=✓
Sure to put a bit more pressure on any Sunday morning Trent Valley VT services.
http://www.opentraintimes.com/locat...on&show_stp=on&show_var=on&show_wtt=on&utf8=✓
Last edited:
mikestone1952
Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 250
The 22.00 Euston-Crewe is now in RTT and OTT.
l
;
Up LM services, which I am sure were via the Chord when I first looked are now showing over the flyover into P.1 at stafford!
l
;
Up LM services, which I am sure were via the Chord when I first looked are now showing over the flyover into P.1 at stafford!
Last edited:
http://www.opentraintimes.com/locat...on&show_stp=on&show_var=on&show_wtt=on&utf8=✓
Yes the 2200 VT from Euston to Crewe calling in the Trent Valley is now in the systems to run as per normal from June.
Also the speculation that the 2230 Euston - Wolverhampton would extend to Manchester with the 2300 Euston - Manchester not running. This has not come to fruition.
The 2230 to Wolverhampton and the 2300 Euston - Manchester via Stoke are both in to run as normal (as previously) from June.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The usual first LM Sunday service from Crewe (0933) - Euston is now showing in the May timetables. Is booked to run as a 0932 Crewe - Euston Sunday service.
http://www.opentraintimes.com/locat...on&show_stp=on&show_var=on&show_wtt=on&utf8=✓
Yes the 2200 VT from Euston to Crewe calling in the Trent Valley is now in the systems to run as per normal from June.
Also the speculation that the 2230 Euston - Wolverhampton would extend to Manchester with the 2300 Euston - Manchester not running. This has not come to fruition.
The 2230 to Wolverhampton and the 2300 Euston - Manchester via Stoke are both in to run as normal (as previously) from June.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The usual first LM Sunday service from Crewe (0933) - Euston is now showing in the May timetables. Is booked to run as a 0932 Crewe - Euston Sunday service.
http://www.opentraintimes.com/locat...on&show_stp=on&show_var=on&show_wtt=on&utf8=✓
Last edited:
Johnnie2Sheds
Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 144
Totally agree with this: AFAIK Vermin didnt want to stop ANY of their trains in the TV. Hence the quadrupling (yes, yes for freight as well), Now LM are filling their trains nicely all day VT want to nick some of the business??? GAH
All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,222
Personally I think adding Trent Valley calls to Virgin services is a retrograde step, and that attention should instead be focussed on improving the London Midland service, such as: (i) running from Stafford to Crewe non-stop, to improve connections at Crewe; (ii) improving the quality of the accommodation, such as plug sockets throughout, a trolley service and better first class accommodation (which seems to be a frequent gripe of Lichfield passengers); and (iii) 12 car running throughout most of the day (which would be an easier alternative to the option of upgrading the service to half hourly).
Virgin services are already, for the most part, very busy. Adding additional intermediate stops south of Stafford: (i) reduces revenue, as passengers travelling from, for example, London to Lichfield will not be paying anywhere near as much as passengers travelling from London to Manchester, but will not be replaced to any significant extent by passengers travelling from Lichfield to Manchester; and (ii) slows the services down, lowering their flagship status, and even having an impact on services whose calling pattern remains unchanged (e.g. the 08:15 from Manchester is having its arrival time in Euston extended by 6 minutes to enable the 07:55 to call at Lichfield and Tamworth, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up regularly grinding to a half somewhere along the Trent Valley to allow the 07:55 to maintain its path).
On the Manchester route (e.g. the 19:40 Euston to Manchester), the vast, vast majority of passengers are on the train for the whole distance to Stockport / Manchester, especially in first class. I'm less sure about the southbound morning services and the 16:57 and 17:57 northbound services (via Warrington), but there is a clear contrast with London Midland services where the vast, vast majority of passengers from London alight the train by Lichfield.
If Virgin introduced a second hourly Liverpool to London service to call at Lichfield and Tamworth, where else would it call? Nuneaton, almost certainly. And how about Milton Keynes? Milton Keynes is a major employment hub. It would make little sense not to connect Milton Keynes with Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield. That leaves Rugby, which could perhaps be skipped, but the Rugby Rail Users Group would have something to say about that, particularly as Rugby only has an hourly fast service to Milton Keynes at present. At this rate, the Virgin service will end up being only 5 or 10 minutes faster than the London Midland service, and with the existing hourly Liverpool service just behind! What is the value of using expensive 390s on this route over more affordable, more flexible (4, 8, 12 car), high specification 350s, which in turn permit more affordable fares?
Virgin services are already, for the most part, very busy. Adding additional intermediate stops south of Stafford: (i) reduces revenue, as passengers travelling from, for example, London to Lichfield will not be paying anywhere near as much as passengers travelling from London to Manchester, but will not be replaced to any significant extent by passengers travelling from Lichfield to Manchester; and (ii) slows the services down, lowering their flagship status, and even having an impact on services whose calling pattern remains unchanged (e.g. the 08:15 from Manchester is having its arrival time in Euston extended by 6 minutes to enable the 07:55 to call at Lichfield and Tamworth, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up regularly grinding to a half somewhere along the Trent Valley to allow the 07:55 to maintain its path).
On the Manchester route (e.g. the 19:40 Euston to Manchester), the vast, vast majority of passengers are on the train for the whole distance to Stockport / Manchester, especially in first class. I'm less sure about the southbound morning services and the 16:57 and 17:57 northbound services (via Warrington), but there is a clear contrast with London Midland services where the vast, vast majority of passengers from London alight the train by Lichfield.
If Virgin introduced a second hourly Liverpool to London service to call at Lichfield and Tamworth, where else would it call? Nuneaton, almost certainly. And how about Milton Keynes? Milton Keynes is a major employment hub. It would make little sense not to connect Milton Keynes with Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield. That leaves Rugby, which could perhaps be skipped, but the Rugby Rail Users Group would have something to say about that, particularly as Rugby only has an hourly fast service to Milton Keynes at present. At this rate, the Virgin service will end up being only 5 or 10 minutes faster than the London Midland service, and with the existing hourly Liverpool service just behind! What is the value of using expensive 390s on this route over more affordable, more flexible (4, 8, 12 car), high specification 350s, which in turn permit more affordable fares?
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
The second Liverpool service should call at Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay and Liverpool Lime Street.
All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,222
Not Lichfield?
via Warrington??
The Prisoner
Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 326
If I am reading this right and they are planning to stop the 1910 Euston to Holyhead @ Nuneaton and Stafford as well as Milton Keynes it will be utterly hideous. Train is rammed with Milton Keynes customers as it is and provides a grim experience. Use some common sense and stagger the stops over a few services.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This is yet another case, just like price-dumped LM Only tickets causing overcrowding on the Trent Valley, where cheaper fares are skewing passenger loadings inappropriately.
These trains used to be u/s at MKC, and only VT's greed has made them overcrowded.
It does not make sense to overcrowd InterCity trains with commuters. It used to be that the LM Only discounted fares from MKC provided a German-style InterCity supplement to control this off-peak, but now the VT fares are cheaper so the silliness almost reaches that of Paddington-Reading.
nuneatonmark
Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 471
I agree with most of this post but most of the first points are actually good reasons for using the right type of stock for the TV services. 350s should never have been used but credit to LM for seeing a market that Virgin were too blind to see. Alliance have also seen that market too. I don't agree that the Virgin services are full, for most of the day they cart around a lot fresh air whereas even the off-peak LM TV services are pretty full. That doesn't make sense. A good solution might be to have one 125mph service calling Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, maybe Stafford then Runcorn and Liverpool plus two LM 110mph 'stopping' services, fast to MKC (maybe Watford pu only), then Northampton split 8 coach (or 12) with 4 going going down the TV all stations, one via Stoke (as present) and one direct to Crewe. The other half off to Brum as now.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
That's just Virgin-bashing.
The 2008 timetable was developed by DfT (SRA) and NR to maximise the utilisation of the route and the two fleets (VT and LM).
That's where 9tph VT out of Euston came from, with limited stops.
VT didn't choose not to stop in the Trent Valley, they were told not to by the DfT.
LM got the TV job (and the subsidy attached).
Remember the old TV stoppers were a basket case.
The choice was between odd stops in VT services or a consistent all-stations stopper on LM which ran through to somewhere useful.
They are now fine-tuning the timetable while not building new stock.
LM can certainly object to ORR if they don't like it.
VT has more competition from the LM 110mph services on the fast line.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That they did, but notably they were not required to run through services to/from London nor offer very low TOC specific fares. That was done on a semi-commercial, almost open-access-style, basis.
All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,222
It's true that Virgin services aren't very busy during the shoulder-peak and (most) of the weekday off-peak, but during true peak hours they are typically 75% to 95% reserved. Take a look at the Manchester departures tomorrow (Wednesday) morning using Virgin's seat selector. In standard class, the 05:55 is about 75% reserved, the 06:10 about 90%, the 06:35 about 90%, the 06:43 about 95%, the 07:00 is full (and is even worse on a Monday!), the 07:15 about 95%, the 07:35 about 75%, and the 07:55 about 75%. This is despite the removal of the railcard easement (quadrupling peak fares for Railcard holders on the Manchester route) and 'Advance' fares being, on most of the trains I have mentioned, a minimum of £110 single. In future years there won't be enough capacity to cope with the relentless increase in demand from existing stops, let alone from additional stops.
The London Midland services are crowded off-peak because 4 cars isn't enough. 8 or 12 cars would, however, be enough, particularly if walk-up fares were raised slightly compared to their current artificially low levels (especially the Off Peak Return - not so much the Anytime Return). If the London Midland services were, throughout the day, 8 or 12 cars, additional Virgin services would add surplus capacity. While your proposal for additional services might be ideal in theory, it wouldn't be as easy to implement in practice as longer trains.
I'd be interested to know why you think the 350s 'should never have been used'. Much of the route on which these trains operate is limited to 110mph, so 390s would be surplus and wasteful. I consider the Euston to Trent Valley route to be more like Waterloo to Southampton than Euston to Manchester or Kings Cross to Leeds. The 350/4 units, while not ideal for a route where a significant proportion of journeys are around 3 hours in length (Manchester to Scotland), would fit quite well on the Trent Valley route, in my opinion.
Not sure how much faith I would put in that as an indication of being truly so busy. How often do you get on a train to find lots of reservations haven't been taken up?
nuneatonmark
Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 471
Using the 350s as the principle stock for places such as Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield is a bit like using the class 700s for services to Grantham, Newark, Kettering, Market Harborough, Corby and Loughborough. You might consider the TV services like Waterloo to Southampton but that is simply daft, they are much more similar to the stations mentioned above and places like Chippenham.
As for it all being the DfT's fault that is largely true. I met the DfT when they proposed it. They used made up stats to justify it. However, very early on after the VHF timetable was implemented it was clear to everyone that Virgin could, if they wished, stop all the Chester/Holyhead services at Nuneaton with no impact to the timetable. They chose not to despite lots of evidence pointing to the situation we have now. That is fact as I was talking directly to Virgin, the DfT and Network Rail at the time. So Virgin are very definitely part of the problem.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Oh come on, no it isn't. The 350/1s and 350/3s have InterCity interiors. The only thing that isn't InterCity is the First Class, the lack of catering (it didn't pay) and the door positions. There are many things about a 350 that are nicer than a Pendolino.
They are not even similar to the 700s.
They are not even similar to the 700s.
Hmm well they're not bad but I'm not sure if we can go quite that far?
The door positions are not as much of an issue as they might be, true, but if a route is IC and we're going for fast runs with a longer time between stops, its likely that the extra seats from having end doors will be more use than the extra standing space.
While I agree, this is far more about the shortcomings of the Pendolino than it is to do with the suitability of a 350 for long-distance work.
Easy solution: reduce the Any Permitted tickets...
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Not an *easy* solution; subsidy would be required to do that.
What they *could* do I suppose is make a revenue neutral adjustment - abolish the cheapo LM Only tickets and reduce the Any Permitted ones to a revenue neutral level.
What they *could* do I suppose is make a revenue neutral adjustment - abolish the cheapo LM Only tickets and reduce the Any Permitted ones to a revenue neutral level.
Why are people talking negatively about one of the few instances where there is genuine competition on fares, resulting in reasonable fares for travellers??
All networks have cheap advances. As for any cheaper LM only walk up fares, I really do not see the issue. Over longer distances the services take much much longer, so they should be cheaper.
All networks have cheap advances. As for any cheaper LM only walk up fares, I really do not see the issue. Over longer distances the services take much much longer, so they should be cheaper.
- Status