Could Grand Union Trains proposed London Euston to Stirling service be viable?

[RealTrains07]

No better use than making Liverpool twice hourly. Birmingham and Manchester are already 3 trains an hour, Glasgow is 1 or 2.

Liverpool is next in line for improvements as I see it.

Manchester is more than 2 an hour surely

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

No better use than making Liverpool twice hourly. Birmingham and Manchester are already 3 trains an hour, Glasgow is 1 or 2.

Liverpool is next in line for improvements as I see it.

Wouldn’t be surprised if First second liverpool service was because of virgins plans. Their are other services that need more trains not liverpool. That path could surely be put to better use?

If blackpool to london is possible with the current amount of trains on the WCML then surely their the arguments that their is space is just all about how the service is timetabled. Surely direct services to london from places like Stirling are more of a priority than extra services to motherwell? Does it have demand?

• Manchester is 3 times an hour
• Birmingham is 3 times an hour
• Glasgow is 2 times an hour (1 of which is continued from Birmingham)

So Liverpool is not a bad move, in fact I would go as far as to say it is needed.

Would Grand Union's application relieve some congestion from the WCML considering no additional services are planned north of Preston.

 

[InOban]

Surely Glasgow is 3 trains every two hours? On alternate hours the Birmingham train continues to Edinburgh.

 

[RealTrains07]

• Manchester is 3 times an hour
• Birmingham is 3 times an hour
• Glasgow is 2 times an hour (1 of which is continued from Birmingham)

So Liverpool is not a bad move, in fact I would go as far as to say it is needed.

Would Grand Union's application relieve some congestion from the WCML considering no additional services are planned north of Preston.

Manchester is 5 times an hour if you include crosscountry 2 runs an hour via birmingham

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Saw the title of this thread and straight away thought "here we go again"

Me too - one has to consider if the man is on some form of narcotics...

 

[The Planner]

Manchester is 5 times an hour if you include crosscountry 2 runs an hour via birmingham

Not from London it isn't

 

[EE Andy b1]

https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41688/grand-union-trains-notification-form.pdf

Another service from Grand Union Trains:



Any thoughts?

They blow hot and cold!!

One things for sure it'll kill Class 91s.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

There's some analysis of this on the ORR site for the Alliance application for Blackpool services, but the upshot was it only just scraped through the qualification.
I imagine this application is a bit of a test of the updated open access rules, and the commercial framework of the new WC franchise.
It also impinges on HS2 planning for the northern WCML.
OA operators are now supposed to pay a share of the underlying costs of the route, rather than just the incremental costs of their services.
We don't know what the commercial terms are for First Trenitalia yet, or what OA assumptions might have been anticipated in the bid.
The WCML already has an "alternate operator" on its whole length apart from Crewe-Warrington-Wigan, though FT is now in the same camp as TPE.
It looks as though Alliance want a full hourly path from Preston to London, shared between Blackpool/Stirling services.
You wouldn't think a 9-car IC225 solution would work north of Preston.
5-car EMUs doubling up south of Preston would be a better fit, or even repurposed 350/2s.

Strangely, 350/2s simply ‘tarted up’ to look wholly different to how they are now might not be a bad shout. If they had a 3-hourly path, it would mean Virgin’s Liverpool could operate hourly then two-hourly then hourly (etc) assuming up to 40 minute turnarounds at each end and circuits for their Mk4 services. 3-hourly London to Preston and portion workings to Stirling and Blackpool thereafter (8 or 12 car between London and Preston) wouldn’t be a disaster. The high acceleration also helps.

 

[hexagon789]

Manchester is more than 2 an hour surely

It's 3 which is what I said.

 

[hexagon789]

So Liverpool is not a bad move, in fact I would go as far as to say it is needed.

Long overdue what with Manchester and Birmingham having long been 3 trains an hour.

 

[route:oxford]

If this is terminating/starting from Stirling then it would surely have to be based out of the terminating platform at the far side of the station.

Why?

Clearly platform 10 could be used. But why wouldn't platforms 6 or 9 be used?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Long overdue what with Manchester and Birmingham having long been 3 trains an hour.

Exactly.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Manchester is 5 times an hour if you include crosscountry 2 runs an hour via birmingham

I was talking about from London? what was you think about. CrossCountry do not run to London.

 

[RealTrains07]

Strangely, 350/2s simply ‘tarted up’ to look wholly different to how they are now might not be a bad shout. If they had a 3-hourly path, it would mean Virgin’s Liverpool could operate hourly then two-hourly then hourly (etc) assuming up to 40 minute turnarounds at each end and circuits for their Mk4 services. 3-hourly London to Preston and portion workings to Stirling and Blackpool thereafter (8 or 12 car between London and Preston) wouldn’t be a disaster. The high acceleration also helps.

Is the whole route between preston and stirling electrified then?

Would not suggest a split service operation. Not after LNRs ongoing shambles

 

[RealTrains07]

I was talking about from London? what was you think about. CrossCountry do not run to London.

Point is, their are clearly more paths available for trains to manchester and Birmingham than liverpool

 

[RealTrains07]

There's some analysis of this on the ORR site for the Alliance application for Blackpool services, but the upshot was it only just scraped through the qualification.
I imagine this application is a bit of a test of the updated open access rules, and the commercial framework of the new WC franchise.
It also impinges on HS2 planning for the northern WCML.
OA operators are now supposed to pay a share of the underlying costs of the route, rather than just the incremental costs of their services.
We don't know what the commercial terms are for First Trenitalia yet, or what OA assumptions might have been anticipated in the bid.
The WCML already has an "alternate operator" on its whole length apart from Crewe-Warrington-Wigan, though FT is now in the same camp as TPE.
It looks as though Alliance want a full hourly path from Preston to London, shared between Blackpool/Stirling services.
You wouldn't think a 9-car IC225 solution would work north of Preston.
5-car EMUs doubling up south of Preston would be a better fit, or even repurposed 350/2s.

What about 220s and 221s you could easily get 5 and 10 car operation out of those and they do have the tilt function
Would be faster than what Grand Central have planned

 

[EE Andy b1]

What about 220s and 221s you could easily get 5 and 10 car operation out of those and they do have the tilt function
Would be faster than what Grand Central have planned

Class 220s don't tilt and there XCs. We don't really want diesels running under the wires for that length any longer.

 

[InOban]

Is the whole route between preston and stirling electrified then?

Would not suggest a split service operation. Not after LNRs ongoing shambles

The whole route is electrified.

 

[The Planner]

Point is, their are clearly more paths available for trains to manchester and Birmingham than liverpool

Yes purely as the timetable was designed that way for December 2008, its not by chance.

 

[Speed43125]

Why?

Clearly platform 10 could be used. But why wouldn't platforms 6 or 9 be used?

Platform 9 is rarely in use (only used to allow ALO services to pass each other in STG), Platform 10 more than often has a 385 parked up in, though that could easily just use platform 7/8, Platform 6 is used by some services, such as the splitting evening EDI to ALO and DBL service, but yeah, could facilitate trains at certain hours. If they end up as short as some commenters here suggest, terminating into platforms 7 and 8 could even be viable, but as you say, platform 10 would be the obvious choice, if a bit of a pain walking quite so far (hopefully the scaffolding bridge between 6 and 9 will be gone by then!)

 

[Speed43125]

158s?

It's been done before (sort of)!

With 90mph top speeds? even 365s would make more sense!

 

[tbtc]

It apparently costs bidders millions of pounds for every franchise application they need to make, yet Grand Union/Alliance just need to find a spare fag packet to scribble their crayons on - there'll be another one along soon enough, I guess.

Stirling was apparently a proposal for the abortive 2012 franchise (when wired, which is only now available).
This was notably missing from the First Trenitalia announcement recently

Good point; I'd not noticed that it didn't make it into the 2019 version of the winning franchise bid (despite the additional trains being ordered) - I don't know if that suggests that Stirling was only ever a bit of window dressing (to give their 2012 bid something "extra") but any Carlisle - WCML - Stirling path is one that could be used for yet another Carlisle - WCML - Glasgow Central service, and the latter is always going to put more bums on seats.

We should have a new trivia thread. Biggest town that Grand Union hasn't proposed a service to.

 

[hexagon789]

With 90mph top speeds? even 365s would make more sense!

I was joking!

But there is a precedent.

No, you definitely want something that can do 110mph at least.

 

[MarkWiles]

People from Carlisle and Preston use the Birmingham services to Euston to benefit from cheaper fares than on the direct route; they may do the same if fares on a GU service are below the usual market price.

That may be the case, I'm sure it is, but that isn't a different operator, both services are Virgin so they would get the revenue for any open tickets sold. ORCATS assigns revenue on multi-operator tickets where multiple operators work a common route, and traditionally would favour the fastest journeys over the route because it assumed people would always choose the fastest trains. The term "ORCATS raiding" was used when one operator introduced a limited fast service quicker than say the normal service and therefore got a bigger slice of the revenue. That's why I can't see ORCATS allocating more revenue from inter-operator tickets to a slower service. If people choose to go on the Stirling service because the operator charges less for it's specific tickets, like GC do on the East coast, from stations served by both operators, that's revenue abstraction but nothing to do with ORCATS. ORCATS is an accounting tool set up to share out revenue from tickets that can be used on any operator and any reasonable route. If the people of Preston and Carlisle choose to buy a multi-operator ticket, but then elect to use a slower train, ORCATS won't take a blind bit of notice, the biggest chunk of pooled revenue will still go to the faster operator, unless the system has been changed since I first encountered it in the 90's!

 

[cle]

Is there enough Stirling et al outbound demand to the south and to London?

I know it’s a relatively medium sized settlement in Scotland, but I can’t think of anyone in England who really even knows where it ism or would need to go there, at any decent quantity.

 

[gingerheid]

Is there enough Stirling et al outbound demand to the south and to London?

I know it’s a relatively medium sized settlement in Scotland, but I can’t think of anyone in England who really even knows where it ism or would need to go there, at any decent quantity.

Rough guess, but almost certainly not? The LNER / XC services may be busy north of Edinburgh, but they have the advantage of serving Edinburgh...

If there was genuine demand for a Clansman to Stirling (and I suspect there'd have been more demand for such a thing when easyJet wasn't so much of a thing) there'd still be one?

I can of course see the benefits of a connection between Stirling and Motherwell, but they're... small? SPT and the Scottish Government have been quite active about making the most of existing infrastructure. If they thought there was something in it I'm sure they'd have done it.

I wonder if they'll withdraw it and replace it with an application to go to Alloa as well...

 

[modernrail]

Exactly.

I would personally go for an extra service to Liverpool and an extra service to Carlisle on alternate hours.

I use the WCML regularly to Southport as well as other destinations. Liverpool definitely needs an uplift, but so I think does the main route up to Carlisle as the current services are often super busy. If pathing is an issue, an alternate hours uplift might work well.

 

[InOban]

The combined populations of the areas of Stirling, Falkirk, Cumbernauld and the eastern suburbs of Glasgow would, I have thought, provide significant demand for those wanting a no-change trip to London, as well as those heading for the intermediate destinations.

 

[Failed Unit]

The combined populations of the areas of Stirling, Falkirk, Cumbernauld and the eastern suburbs of Glasgow would, I have thought, provide significant demand for those wanting a no-change trip to London, as well as those heading for the intermediate destinations.

I am sure the north (Inverness / Aberdeen) would use it if the price was right. Changing in Glasgow isn’t the best. Edinburgh better of course but another option may be welcome.

If first groups east coast proposal passed why not?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I would personally go for an extra service to Liverpool and an extra service to Carlisle on alternate hours.

I use the WCML regularly to Southport as well as other destinations. Liverpool definitely needs an uplift, but so I think does the main route up to Carlisle as the current services are often super busy. If pathing is an issue, an alternate hours uplift might work well.

as stated previously extra to Liverpool is coming in 2022.