Could the Class 397 be the perfect train for the Long-Distance London NorthWestern Railway services? (+my ideas for the future of LNWR)

[tetudo boy]

So, 45 Class 730 units are being rolled out on LNWR mid/short-distance services, but what about long-distance services? Well... could the Class 397 be the next generation of trains on LNWR long-distance services to replace the class 350 that currently operate them?

What I was thinking of was ordering about 45 Class 397's to operate on long-distance services on LNWR. There are also a couple of unoriginal routes I have in mind that we will talk about later.

Here are the benefits of the Class 397 on LNWR services:

1. Extra Capacity: As you know, countless amounts of people use the West Coast Main Line every day. The maximum seating capacity of a class 350 unit is about 212-270, while the Class 397 is 286. You can see that there is more capacity for a Class 397 than a 350 unit. This will most likely ease congestion. However, it's not much of a change, so maybe some set's could have an extra sixth carriage?
2. Higher Speed: Class 350 unit's run at 110 mph, However, there has been the introduction of a train that can reach Pendolino speeds while not tilting, namely the class 397. These trains can still be comfortable as tilting trains on the WCML. If the Class 397 sets also ran services on LNWR services then their services would also benefit from this. This could cut off about 20% of the time. An active suspension system could also be added on the train to also tackle the curvy sections of the WCML and possibly improve their speed to 125 mph. This article explains more: https://medium.com/@garethdennis/is...ight-for-britains-tilting-trains-b6ebb496433c

I also have some new and extended routes in mind:

1. Extend the London Euston to Crewe via Trent Valley service to Liverpool calling at Crewe, Hartford, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway and Liverpool Lime Street.
2. Birmingham New Street to Preston (Blackpool North in the weekends and holidays) calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Crewe, Hartford, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Euxton Buckshaw Lane, Leyland, and Preston. (Weekend and Holiday Extention calling at Kirkham & Wesham, Poulton-le-Fylde and Blackpool North.).
3. Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly Via Macclesfield service calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Stone, Stoke-On-Trent, Kidsgrove, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly.
4. Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly Via Wilmslow service calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly.
5. Have a new London Euston to Birmingham New Street service calling at London Euston, Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International and Birmingham New Street. The service would then continue onto other destinations north of Birmingham as usual.

Hopefully, the Class 397 can add some benefits to LNWR services in the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this (or an InterCity style Stadler FLIRT, which I was hoping to see in the bid) would not be a terrible idea, though I'm less convinced about the extensions and "scope creep" as this is what has caused the terrible (lack of) punctuality that was an issue for many months leading up to lockdown. The one thing I probably would do extension wise is to extend the Crewe service to either Preston, Liverpool Lime St or Manchester Piccadilly - the former may be of most benefit as there is only 1tph Preston-Crewe at present, and it would give that section of line a proper regional service.

5 car would be insufficient, though; going forward it's going to be operated by 8-car 350 formations all day, so for equivalent length you'd be looking at 7-car 397 formations.

 

[JonathanH]

Extra Capacity: As you know, countless amounts of people use the West Coast Main Line every day. The maximum seating capacity of a class 350 unit is about 212-270, while the Class 397 is 286. You can see that there is more capacity for a Class 397 than a 350 unit. This will most likely ease congestion. However, it's not much of a change, so maybe some set's could have an extra sixth carriage?

That isn't comparing like with like - 350 is a 80 metre unit, 397 is a 115 metre unit so not extra capacity.

The 'Euston' 730s are already due to be 5-car units.

Higher Speed: Class 350 unit's run at 110 mph, However, there has been the introduction of a train that can reach Pendolino speeds while not tilting, namely the class 397. These trains can still be comfortable as tilting trains on the WCML. If the Class 397 sets also ran services on LNWR services then their services would also benefit from this. This could cut off about 20% of the time. An active suspension system could also be added on the train to also tackle the curvy sections of the WCML and possibly improve their speed to 125 mph.

Are they approved for 125mph operation on the route out of Euston? I think it has been noted before that 125mph on services which 'turn off' at Ledburn Junction wouldn't really make much difference.

 

[JonathanH]

I also have some new and extended routes in mind:

1. Extend the London Euston to Crewe via Trent Valley service to Liverpool calling at Crewe, Hartford, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway and Liverpool Lime Street.

Is this instead of 2tph from Birmingham to Liverpool? How is that consistent with previous views expressed that Liverpool needs a service which goes further south from Birmingham?

2. Birmingham New Street to Preston (Blackpool North in the weekends and holidays) calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Crewe, Hartford, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Euxton Buckshaw Lane, Leyland, and Preston. (Weekend and Holiday Extention calling at Kirkham & Wesham, Poulton-le-Fylde and Blackpool North.).

Do you propose that the Northern service from Liverpool to Blackpool is cut back to facilitate this?

3. Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly Via Macclesfield service calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Stone, Stoke-On-Trent, Kidsgrove, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly.

Is this instead of the Cross Country service? Where is the path if it isn't?

4. Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly Via Wilmslow service calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly

Again, can this be accommodated? What does it run instead of?

Have a new London Euston to Birmingham New Street service calling at London Euston, Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International and Birmingham New Street. The service would then continue onto other destinations north of Birmingham as usual.

Isn't this what the xx49 from Euston does? The LNR trains have to provide the stopping service between Coventry and Birmingham New Street. The xx49 only calls at Long Buckby and Tile Hill in addition to the stations you have listed.

Hopefully, the Class 397 can add some benefits to LNWR services in the future.

Seems very unlikely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 'Euston' 730s are already due to be 5-car units.

They are, but they aren't, subject to the random unit generator, planned for use on the Trent Valley services - these are to be 8.350, and demand is not such that 12.350 would be necessary (which would be the same as 10.730).

 

[JonathanH]

They are, but they aren't, subject to the random unit generator, planned for use on the Trent Valley services - these are to be 8.350, and demand is not such that 12.350 would be necessary (which would be the same as 10.730).

Well yes, and 8-350 seems preferable to 5-730 (or indeed 5-397) if capacity is important.

Some speculative ideas posted here seem simply to be about 'more exciting trains than the current ones' being used on a particular service.

 

[tetudo boy]

Is this instead of 2tph from Birmingham to Liverpool? How is that consistent with previous views expressed that Liverpool needs a service which goes further south from Birmingham?

No, this is just an Extention. Birmingham to Liverpool service would still be operated.

Do you propose that the Northern service from Liverpool to Blackpool is cut back to facilitate this?

No, but I'm kinda worried about a large number of paths on the line.

Is this instead of the Cross Country service? Where is the path if it isn't?

Maybe. I don't know. It could be to ease paths.

Again, can this be accommodated? What does it run instead of?

Limited CrossCountry trains serve Crewe and Wilmslow so I thought I would just add that in there.

Isn't this what the xx49 from Euston does? The LNR trains have to provide the stopping service between Coventry and Birmingham New Street. The xx49 only calls at Long Buckby and Tile Hill in addition to the stations you have listed.

Ah! I'm sorry, I didn't know that existed! However, My service could also accommodate more through services north, that's probably why I made it.

 

[A0wen]

Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly Via Macclesfield service calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Stone, Stoke-On-Trent, Kidsgrove, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly.

Not sure how you justify Stone or Kidsgrove but not Congleton?

Either way, paths through Stoke are at a premium already - it came up in the discussion about reopening Etruria, but basically you've already got 2 x AWC, 2 x XC, 1xNT, 1xLNWR and 1xEMR all trying to get through Stoke each way and the added fun of at Kidsgrove the southbounds from Crewe block the northbound to Manchester when they cross. All on a 2 track railway.

And if your LNW service were to replace an XC, which would Machester lose - the direct link to the south coast or the south west?

 

[Purple Orange]

1. Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly Via Macclesfield service calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Stone, Stoke-On-Trent, Kidsgrove, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly.
2. Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly Via Wilmslow service calling at Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly.

I think these type of services will be more viable once HS2 Ph2b has been completed. Given that it won’t be catering for end-to-end passenger journeys, but rather catering for those who are making intermediate journeys, I think adding in more stops and running it with a class 350 (or whatever the equivalent train will be in 2038).

On the Manchester to Birmingham route, passengers from Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Piccadilly will have faster options going via HS2 to Curzon Street.

Going from a Birmingham to Manchester, passengers from Brum, Smethwick and Wolverhampton will have faster options travelling via HS2.

Stoke to Manchester passengers will have the both the Northern services and the HS2 service to Macclesfield (which is likely to go to Piccadilly anyway).

Stafford passengers will be quicker to change at Crewe for Manchester in HS2.

Therefore I’d make it almost a commuter service on the home run in to Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[tetudo boy]

I think these type of services will be more viable once HS2 Ph2b has been completed. Given that it won’t be catering for end-to-end passenger journeys, but rather catering for those who are making intermediate journeys, I think adding in more stops and running it with a class 350 (or whatever the equivalent train will be in 2038).

On the Manchester to Birmingham route, passengers from Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Piccadilly will have faster options going via HS2 to Curzon Street.

Going from a Birmingham to Manchester, passengers from Brum, Smethwick and Wolverhampton will have faster options travelling via HS2.

Stoke to Manchester passengers will have the both the Northern services and the HS2 service to Macclesfield (which is likely to go to Piccadilly anyway).

Stafford passengers will be quicker to change at Crewe for Manchester in HS2.

Therefore I’d make it almost a commuter service on the home run in to Birmingham and Manchester.

Oh! That's an Idea!

 

[Energy]

The 397 could have an issue with loading times, the 350/730 with its doors at 1/3 and 2/3 will have much quicker loading than the 397 with end doors, this doesn't really matter for TOCs like Avanti and TPE who operate intercity services with few stops but LNWR has quite a few more.

 

[tetudo boy]

The 397 could have an issue with loading times, the 350/730 with its doors at 1/3 and 2/3 will have much quicker loading than the 397 with end doors, this doesn't really matter for TOCs like Avanti and TPE who operate intercity services with few stops but LNWR has quite a few more.

Well...my idea for the class 397 was for it to serve long-distance services so... Isn't there already fewer stops?

 

[JonathanH]

Well...my idea for the class 397 was for it to serve long-distance services so... Isn't there already fewer stops?

No, you were suggesting long-distance services on routes with commuter flows. It isn't the number of stops that is the issue, more how many people you are trying to board at each station.

 

[Energy]

Well...my idea for the class 397 was for it to serve long-distance services so... Isn't there already fewer stops?

They still have loads of stops

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 397 could have an issue with loading times, the 350/730 with its doors at 1/3 and 2/3 will have much quicker loading than the 397 with end doors, this doesn't really matter for TOCs like Avanti and TPE who operate intercity services with few stops but LNWR has quite a few more.

The Trent Valley services are very different from the rest of LNR which is a commuter operation (yes, they carry commuters between MKC and Euston, but then so do Avanti in the mornings). It's quite similar to TPE in terms of distance between stops and the kind of demand you get, so if end-doored units work for them...

 

[Energy]

The Trent Valley services are very different from the rest of LNR which is a commuter operation (yes, they carry commuters between MKC and Euston, but then so do Avanti in the mornings). It's quite similar to TPE in terms of distance between stops and the kind of demand you get, so if end-doored units work for them...

Trent Valley is only a 1tph from London to Crewe, not really worth creating a microfleet just for this service.

 

[tetudo boy]

The Trent Valley services are very different from the rest of LNR which is a commuter operation (yes, they carry commuters between MKC and Euston, but then so do Avanti in the mornings). It's quite similar to TPE in terms of distance between stops and the kind of demand you get, so if end-doored units work for them...

...Could the service be feasible for this train?

 

[tetudo boy]

Trent Valley is only a 1tph from London to Crewe, not really worth creating a microfleet just for this service.

But what if we extended it to Liverpool?

 

[Energy]

But what if we extended it to Liverpool?

Liverpool already has 1tph to London and 1tph to Birmingham International, Avanti also provide a 1tph service to London. Liverpool may need another service to London but LNWR is not the operator for it.

 

[JonathanH]

But what if we extended it to Liverpool?

How many more journeys would you personally make with LNR if they ran 397s instead of 350s or 730s?

Ultimately, decisions about rolling stock and extra routes come down to the patronage (and revenue) created by making changes.

 

[Andy Pacer]

Whilst the 350s are very annoying if operating as 4 car, and sometimes full as an 8 (thus 12 car being the capacity boost) it would appear the flexibility would be lost by using fixed formation units.

 

[Energy]

Also AWC plan another service to Liverpool although it is subject to approval.

 

[tetudo boy]

Whilst the 350s are very annoying if operating as 4 car, and sometimes full as an 8 (thus 12 car being the capacity boost) it would appear the flexibility would be lost by using fixed formation units.

I did say that I was considering maybe having six-car sets.

 

[Energy]

I did say that I was considering maybe having six-car sets.

The 730s will be the equivalent of a 6 car 350.

 

[Andy Pacer]

I did say that I was considering maybe having six-car sets.

Can these run as a double set? I'm not too familiar on the 397.

 

[tetudo boy]

Can these run as a double set? I'm not too familiar on the 397.

Maybe. The only issue I have with double sets is that there are no gangways between the two trains.

 

[Andy Pacer]

Maybe. The only issue I have with double sets is that there are no gangways.

That's true. The flexibility could be lost but if it's a better product then it could be worth that. Or just push toward better forward planning.

 

[tetudo boy]

Is the class 397 good with stop-start nature?

 

[Energy]

Is the class 397 good with stop-start nature?

It has good acceleration but, again, the end doors will increase loading times

This thread seems to be trying to find a problem for a solution not a solution for a problem. Avanti are the long distance operator on the WCML, not LNWR. If more demand is needed on the long distance route to Liverpool then Avanti should be the ones with more services which is why they have planned an additional service to Liverpool. LNWR take 3h52m direct London to Liverpool while Avanti take only 2h12m, I know which one most people will be taking...

 

[Andy Pacer]

It has good acceleration but, again, the end doors will increase loading times

This thread seems to be trying to find a problem for a solution not a solution for a problem. Avanti are the long distance operator on the WCML, not LNWR. If more demand is needed on the long distance route to Liverpool then Avanti should be the ones with more services which is why they have planned an additional service to Liverpool. LNWR take 3h52m direct London to Liverpool while Avanti take only 2h12m, I know which one most people will be taking...

This is true, and even from a fares perspective Avanti have always seemed fairly competitive (although I haven't looked recently in these challenging times).