Avanti calls at Stockport and Stoke

[Philip]

Both Stockport and Stoke seem to have a somewhat generous London service, considering similar size or larger places in the region only have an hourly service, if that. Should Avanti cut the Stockport and Stoke calls from one of their London services along the North Staffs line?

I'm thinking of the :15 off Manchester as this doesn't stop at Macclesfield; so with only one stop at Milton Keynes this should bring the journey time down to about 2 hours or possibly slightly under which would be good for marketing. Stoke doesn't need a 2 per hour London frequency and Stockport certainly doesn't need 3!

 

[JonathanH]

Both Stockport and Stoke seem to have a somewhat generous London service, considering similar size or larger places in the region only have an hourly service, if that. Should Avanti cut the Stockport and Stoke calls from one of their London services along the North Staffs line?

I'm thinking of the :15 off Manchester as this doesn't stop at Macclesfield; so with only one stop at Milton Keynes this should bring the journey time down to about 2 hours or possibly slightly under which would be good for marketing. Stoke doesn't need a 2 per hour London frequency and Stockport certainly doesn't need 3!

No - since you would need to rewrite the timetable to either have the train leave Manchester Piccadilly later or arrive at Euston earlier.

What determines that Stoke and Stockport don't require the service they currently have? The frequency isn't just about journeys to London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both Stockport and Stoke seem to have a somewhat generous London service, considering similar size or larger places in the region only have an hourly service, if that. Should Avanti cut the Stockport and Stoke calls from one of their London services along the North Staffs line?

I'm thinking of the :15 off Manchester as this doesn't stop at Macclesfield; so with only one stop at Milton Keynes this should bring the journey time down to about 2 hours or possibly slightly under which would be good for marketing. Stoke doesn't need a 2 per hour London frequency and Stockport certainly doesn't need 3!

I don't know about Stoke, but Stockport is not justified on its own, the reason is that it's basically a "South Manchester Parkway" which anyone wishing to drive from home to a station for a London train will use, and so is very busy indeed with London passengers. The catchment is huge.

With HS2 that role is likely to move to the new Manchester Airport station.

Just looking at the size of a place is not enough to establish the size of its catchment. Crikey, if you looked at, say, Northallerton, you wouldn't see it as justifying of more than a 153 every hour or two, but people drive there from all over that part of Yorkshire to take TPE and LNER services.

 

[Hadders]

The timetable south of Rugby is so tight I doubt very much that missing a call at Stockport or Stoke would mean you could speed up the service.

The way to increase the speed of London to Manchester services is HS2.

 

[paddy1]

Stockport always seemed quite busy (pre Covid) with passengers getting on and off London trains considering it has three trains an hour. As someone has already pointed out, it already serves an important South Manchester catchment. In London flow figures produced about 10 years ago as part of the WC Route Utilsation Study, it was the 8th busiest London flow after Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Northampton, Coventry, Bham Int, Rugby, Stockport. 9th and 10th were Preston and Glasgow. Stoke did not figure in the top 10, neither did Wolverhampton. Although the passengers volumes will have increased over those 10 years, I would say the respective rankings would be pretty much the same. These rankings also most certainly do not reflect the 'on paper' size of the settlements that they actually serve.

Stoke never seems very busy with London passengers getting on and off trains there, never more than a handful or so off peak and around only 20 to 30 peak spread over two trains an hour, based on my experience and observations over many years travelling to and from Stoke over the years at different times of day and week. I guess quite a few price senstive Stoke passengers will also use the cheaper LNW/London Midland services. With an urban population of around 400k if you include Newcastle UL and other nearby settlements, plus other towns within it's drive catchment, you would expect the London trains to and from Stoke to be much busier, and certainly have figured in the top 10 London flow rankings, but it doesn't, and they're not, hence population/size etc isn't everything and lots of other factors come into play, not the least the fact that Stoke and it's surrounds are not particularly affluent, whereas much of Stockport's catchment area is.

To me it appears Stoke gets two London trains an hour purely out of convenience as it happens to be en route between London and Manchester and as you would have to crawl through it at low speed anyway, you may as well stop there and pick up or drop off a few passengers and benefit from the fact that extra frequencies will also generate an overall larger flow of passengers and revenue.

 

[cle]

4.3m at Stockport, 3.2m at Stoke. I think that is enough usage to justify it.

Both serve way beyond their own named municipalities, and the calls have other purposes (journeys into Manchester on the longest trains on the WCML - plus capacity on Stockport to Wilmslow/Crewe, both to MKC etc).

I'd love if they could work back in a Watford Junction call on a Manchester service, but that would be the only trade-off worth doing, if even pathable. Frankly I'd swap it for the Birmingham, but that's another debate.

 

[Bald Rick]

Both Stockport and Stoke seem to have a somewhat generous London service, considering similar size or larger places in the region only have an hourly service, if that.

Which places? How frequent are their services to Manchester, Birmingham, or their other nearby economic centres?

I notice that Leicester - a similarly sized city to Stoke in the Midlands - has 4 London trains an hour. Should they go too?

 

[Merle Haggard]

In London flow figures produced about 10 years ago as part of the WC Route Utilsation Study, it was the 8th busiest London flow after Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Northampton, Coventry, Bham Int, Rugby, Stockport. 9th and 10th were Preston and Glasgow.

Interesting that Northampton came 4th.
And the results was? Remind me, I must have missed it...

 

[Philip]

Which places? How frequent are their services to Manchester, Birmingham, or their other nearby economic centres?

I notice that Leicester - a similarly sized city to Stoke in the Midlands - has 4 London trains an hour. Should they go too?

Liverpool, Chester and Runcorn only have one per hour, Bolton has nothing. Preston, Wigan and Warrington all have two but one of these goes through the West Midlands. These are all of similar size.

The catchment area with Stockport might be big, but don't forget Wilmslow also has an hourly service, to pick some of these passengers up.

Avanti should at least bring back pick up and set down restrictions at Stockport btw, as Virgin used to do and TPE do at Bolton and Haymarket. No reason for the Avanti trains to serve as a short hop between Stockport and Manchester, when so many other trains serve that purpose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Avanti should at least bring back pick up and set down restrictions at Stockport btw, as Virgin used to do and TPE do at Bolton. No reason for the Avanti trains to serve as a short hop between Stockport and Manchester, when so many other trains serve that purpose.

There is no problem with them doing so, precisely because of the number of people who get on/off at Stockport who free the seats up. So why bother making things awkward for people? The only benefit would be if you had a nice standardised German style IC/IR/RE system, but I can't see much point in doing it just for those.

What is a nonsense is the Avanti Only fare for that journey, but that will I'm sure go away soon.

 

[Bald Rick]

Liverpool, Chester and Runcorn only have one per hour, Bolton has nothing. Preston, Wigan and Warrington all have two but one of these goes through the West Midlands.

And how many do they have to Manchester?

 

[Bungle965]

What is a nonsense is the Avanti Only fare for that journey, but that will I'm sure go away soon.

A nice money maker no doubt for Avanti, certainly most of the other TOC's have made "Only" tickets or added Advance tickets to that journey.

 

[Hadders]

Avanti should at least bring back pick up and set down restrictions at Stockport btw, as Virgin used to do and TPE do at Bolton. No reason for the Avanti trains to serve as a short hop between Stockport and Manchester, when so many other trains serve that purpose.

Virgin got rid of pick up and set down restrictions years ago at Stockport. In reality it’s practically unenforceable anyway.

Imagine if the restriction still existed, people on here would post about how the short local trains are packed but the longer inter-city trains cart fresh air around....

 

[Philip]

And how many do they have to Manchester?

Manchester is a much bigger place with all the facilities of a mainline terminal station, so doesn't really come into this argument.

It was a good point mentioned about Watford up thread. If time saving improvements aren't possible, then why not change the stops to better suit demand and give other stations a service to Manchester which don't have currently? Two from Lichfield, Nuneaton, Rugby and Watford for example instead of Stockport and Stoke.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester is a much bigger place with all the facilities of a mainline terminal station, so doesn't really come into this argument.

It was a good point mentioned about Watford up thread. If time saving improvements aren't possible, then why not change the stops to better suit demand and give other stations a service to Manchester which don't have currently? Two from Lichfield, Nuneaton, Rugby and Watford for example instead of Stockport and Stoke.

TBH, with HS2 on the horizon, they shouldn't (and in my view won't) fiddle with a successful formula that is well established.

HS2 is the big "mix-up" and the time to change the classic route timetable for more connectivity rather than speed.

 

[Ianno87]

Manchester is a much bigger place with all the facilities of a mainline terminal station, so doesn't really come into this argument.

It was a good point mentioned about Watford up thread. If time saving improvements aren't possible, then why not change the stops to better suit demand and give other stations a service to Manchester which don't have currently? Two from Lichfield, Nuneaton, Rugby and Watford for example instead of Stockport and Stoke.

Because Stockport/Stoke-Euston demand outweighs Trent Valley-Manchester demand.

 

[Bald Rick]

Manchester is a much bigger place with all the facilities of a mainline terminal station, so doesn't really come into this argument.

Of course it’s relevant! The London trains that call at Stoke are also a link to Manchester. If you remove the call, yu are reducing the service to Manchester, which as you say is a much bigger place...

 

[Hadders]

Of course it’s relevant! The London trains that call at Stoke are also a link to Manchester. If you remove the call, yu are reducing the service to Manchester, which as you say is a much bigger place...

Quite! Avanti trains between London to Manchester also provide the fast train between Stoke and Manchester.

There is a significant commuter flow between Stoke and Manchester.

 

[cle]

In theory, 18/20/22 Avanti cars per hour between Stoke and Manchester. They are the most efficient way of moving people on that route. What else would do the heavy lifting? The pokey Voyagers? Or the slows?

Same for the Macclesfield service. I'd wonder if there are more users Macc>Manc than Macc>Euston. It's quick and has a lot of capacity. Worst case scenario, easy enough to stand, but as mentioned upthread, folks get off too. And way more at Stockport.

But with comments on Runcorn and Bolton, you are forgetting plain geography. Stockport benefits from being on the final stretch. Bolton is not on a London mainline. Runcorn will only get whatever Liverpool can justify.

 

[Trackman]

I've converted a few people to change at Stockport when travelling from the south if there Picc onwards connecting service stops at Stockport.
It really is a hassle free option, especially when it's busy.

 

[adamedwards]

Bolton to London is a much easier change at Stockport, as same of cross platform rather than a crowded platform and footbridge. For anyone coming from Buxton, if no Stockport stop you are adding 20 mins plus to the journey doubling back to Piccadilly.

 

[Ianno87]

Bolton to London is a much easier change at Stockport, as same of cross platform rather than a crowded platform and footbridge. For anyone coming from Buxton, if no Stockport stop you are adding 20 mins plus to the journey doubling back to Piccadilly.

From Bolton, I'd generally change at Piccadilly to get a seat (unless I had a specific reservation via Stockport).

Towards Bolton, I'd change at Stockport, unless I'd just missed the direct train.

 

[Philip]

Of course it’s relevant! The London trains that call at Stoke are also a link to Manchester. If you remove the call, yu are reducing the service to Manchester, which as you say is a much bigger place...

Even taking out one Stoke call still leaves 3 fast trains between Stoke and Manchester, which still ought to be sufficient. Providing a new direct service between Manchester and the stations I've listed would probably be of more use than maintaining the current Stoke and Stockport frequencies

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Think this thread is starting to looks like an inelegant solution in search of a problem.

 

[Greybeard33]

Bolton to London is a much easier change at Stockport, as same of cross platform rather than a crowded platform and footbridge. For anyone coming from Buxton, if no Stockport stop you are adding 20 mins plus to the journey doubling back to Piccadilly.

Likewise from Altrincham or anywhere on the Mid Cheshire line, it is much easier and quicker to change at Stockport than take the Metrolink to Piccadilly. Or from Warrington, to stay on the EMR service through to Stockport, rather than trek between P13/14 and the main shed at Piccadilly.

But all these connecting services are only hourly, so if one of the Avantis skipped Stockport there would be a greater risk of a long wait for a connection.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even taking out one Stoke call still leaves 3 fast trains between Stoke and Manchester, which still ought to be sufficient.

Ah yes, the people responsible for decisions like these take them on the principle that something ‘ought to be sufficient’. Then they find out it’s not.

 

[CBlue]

Think this thread is starting to looks like an inelegant solution in search of a problem.

There's a theme here, don't you think?


I understand curiosity about what is possible with changes to services or infrastructure, but there does seem to be an aspect of asking more or less the same question multiple times and expecting a different answer.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

... there does seem to be an aspect of asking more or less the same question multiple times and expecting a different answer.

Didn't Albert Einstein once have a quotation attributed to him in this vein....

 

[6Gman]

Manchester is a much bigger place with all the facilities of a mainline terminal station, so doesn't really come into this argument.

It was a good point mentioned about Watford up thread. If time saving improvements aren't possible, then why not change the stops to better suit demand and give other stations a service to Manchester which don't have currently? Two from Lichfield, Nuneaton, Rugby and Watford for example instead of Stockport and Stoke.

Because fitting in a stop on the southern WCML is much more problematic than fitting one in on the North Staffs.

As pointed out upthread the time penalties of stopping at Stockport and Stoke are minimal.

Even taking out one Stoke call still leaves 3 fast trains between Stoke and Manchester, which still ought to be sufficient. Providing a new direct service between Manchester and the stations I've listed would probably be of more use than maintaining the current Stoke and Stockport frequencies

Hang on - weren't you complaining in another thread about overcrowded Voyagers on that very route?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Didn't Albert Einstein once have a quotation attributed to him in this vein....

And then I had a work IT issue last week that was resolved (pending a proper fix) by pressing refresh a certain number of times