Do WCML stations have a worse service under VTWC?

[Ianno87]

I assume Darlorich was once from or is from Darlington, a town roughly the same size as Nuneaton. I am sure he'd be the first person to complain if Virgin stopped stopping there and for the London service to be replaced by a 4 coach outer-surburban EMU, once an hour, to and from London? To say that Nuneaton (the largest town or city in Warwickshire btw) is insignificant is simply stupid in every single way. There is so much pent up demand from the TV stations that a proper inter-city service plus a local service would continue the huge growth in use along the Trent Valley. The fact that they are having to go to 8 coaches and want to speed up the service to Crewe just goes to show that. If it's ok for Grantham, Kettering, Chippenham, Newark etc etc then it should be for all the main TV stations.

Darlington is a railhead for the considerable population of Teesside.

Nuneaton is the railhead for...Nuneaton and Hinckley. Leicester, Coventry and Birmingham (the substantial nearby centres of population) have their own superior direct services.

 

[Confused147]

Is the XC service (and other services around) still there and in the same path at those times?

I believe there are two sets of lines into Stafford, the slows and fasts. Towards Birmingham The VT could use the fasts and depart from P1 after a ten min dwell rather than Wolverhampton and the XC depart P4 as normal.

 

[Ianno87]

I believe there are two sets of lines into Stafford, the slows and fasts. Towards Birmingham The VT could use the fasts and depart from P1 after a ten min dwell rather than Wolverhampton and the XC depart P4 as normal.

See The Planner's assessment in Post #111

 

[6Gman]

It theoretically looks to work and could make Ledburn work better as the Manchester would come just after the LM that crosses fasts to slows, but it needs to be reliable or it causes problems. Virgin wouldn't agree to adding 4 minutes into a Manchester though.

Which is a shame.

 

[6Gman]

But what about in the Northbound direction? Surely if a different stop was pencilled in on the Liverpool, it'd have to be in both directions?

I think it could probably work as far as Crewe, but could well be tricky between Cheadle Hulme and Piccadilly. (For the Manchester - the Liverpool looks ok.)

 

[All Line Rover]

I assume Darlorich was once from or is from Darlington, a town roughly the same size as Nuneaton. I am sure he'd be the first person to complain if Virgin stopped stopping there and for the London service to be replaced by a 4 coach outer-surburban EMU, once an hour, to and from London? To say that Nuneaton (the largest town or city in Warwickshire btw) is insignificant is simply stupid in every single way. There is so much pent up demand from the TV stations that a proper inter-city service plus a local service would continue the huge growth in use along the Trent Valley. The fact that they are having to go to 8 coaches and want to speed up the service to Crewe just goes to show that. If it's ok for Grantham, Kettering, Chippenham, Newark etc etc then it should be for all the main TV stations.

The Crewe to Euston stopper, once directed away from Stoke, will provide a perfectly satisfactory service for Nuneaton. It is already a mere 10-15 minutes slower to/from London than *non-stop* Virgin services while providing travel opportunities to/from Milton Keynes. Once directed away from Stoke, it will also provide reasonable journey times to Crewe (where onward connections are available), while still calling at key intermediate stations such as Stafford.

The focus should be on making further improvements to the stopper, rather than insisting that longer distance services should be slowed to call at Nuneaton (with the added disbenefit that few passengers travelling between London and Nuneaton are likely to be replaced by passengers travelling between Nuneaton and stations further north - a different situation to e.g. Milton Keynes).

Darlington is not 1h 15m from London.

Stations such as Grantham, Kettering, Chippenham, Newark etc would likely be dropped from most long distance services if a semi-fast stopper existed - e.g. in the case of Grantham or Newark, an hourly stopper calling at Stevenage and Peterborough and then all stations further north.

 

[AlterEgo]

I assume Darlorich was once from or is from Darlington, a town roughly the same size as Nuneaton. I am sure he'd be the first person to complain if Virgin stopped stopping there and for the London service to be replaced by a 4 coach outer-surburban EMU, once an hour, to and from London? To say that Nuneaton (the largest town or city in Warwickshire btw) is insignificant is simply stupid in every single way. There is so much pent up demand from the TV stations that a proper inter-city service plus a local service would continue the huge growth in use along the Trent Valley. The fact that they are having to go to 8 coaches and want to speed up the service to Crewe just goes to show that. If it's ok for Grantham, Kettering, Chippenham, Newark etc etc then it should be for all the main TV stations.

But Darlington is over 200 miles from London and Nuneaton only 90.

You get direct hourly trains into London which take 75 minutes, plus some at the extremes of the day taking 60 minutes. This is quite a good service. Your only complaint really can be the stock used.

Why does Nuneaton warrant intercity stock with carriage end doors rather than Desiros with 1/3, 2/3 doors?

 

[nuneatonmark]

Well Nuneaton is actually 107 miles from London Euston for a start and I was comparing Nuneaton with Darlington slightly ironically in case no one got that. I believe that I am right in saying that south of Nuneaton, a 110mph train effectively takes up 2 x 125mph paths, hence the MAIN need for 125mph stock as using 110mph stock actually reduces overall line capacity. A 125mph service, first stop Nuneaton would free up capacity, then it can use the slows (which are in fact pretty fast) to call at Tamworth and Lichfield then probably Stafford and Crewe. The solution of using 110mph stock is simply a fudge of a solution, it doesn't make sense. If you then add a stopping service via Northampton you cover all the requirements.

 

[Mathew S]

I have never worked out what Wign and Warrington do to get so many services.

Convenient for people from a fairly wide area to catch the train to London. That's it really. Also links to Merseyside startions and Bolton make Wigan a useful interchange.

 

[Mathew S]

Wigan NW also acts as a Parkway station for a fairly large chunk of West Lancashire going to London.

Is that the Borough population including surrounding towns? That Wigan itself would have a population larger than MK despite being about a quarter of the size is surprising - it's not super-high density, with very little housing being more than the standard two-storey terrace or semi.

317,800 is the population of just the Wigan borough itself as measured in the 2011 census. Include West Lancs, parts of Bolton, potentially St Helens (or parts of it) and the potential 'catchment' of Wigan NW becomes well over half a million.

 

[pt_mad]

But Darlington is over 200 miles from London and Nuneaton only 90.

You get direct hourly trains into London which take 75 minutes, plus some at the extremes of the day taking 60 minutes. This is quite a good service. Your only complaint really can be the stock used.

Why does Nuneaton warrant intercity stock with carriage end doors rather than Desiros with 1/3, 2/3 doors?

You can understand his point, since 2008 the train has been only 4 cars in length, and has to serve all those stations along the Trent Valley.

Originally it was timetabled via Northampton. So they went from an hourly 9 car fast service plus some odd extras, to an hourly 4 car desiro service via Northampton which at that time took a lot longer I understand.

Later, pressure from the Trent Valley or whatever lead to the trains being rerouted on the fast line, with 110mph modifications. Which was obviously an afterthought.

Now whatever anyone says about the worthyness of the Trent Valley stations to have a regular fast service, stations such as (Lichfield, Tamworth, Nuneaton and possibly Rugeley?) went from having some sort of regular daytime fast service to London with 9 car trains, to a 4 car via Northampton slow line service which was supposed to accommodate the flows from all those towns in one train together without any overcrowding.

Was that ever realistically going to happen?

Before long the service was upgraded to the fast line to make journey times realistic, bit the length of the train was never improved because of past decisions that the same service must serve local stations around Stoke on Trent.

Now it wouldn't take that much out there thinking and foresight to guess that the train would probably not cope with the needs of this route in the future as a 4 car.

Well Nuneaton is actually 107 miles from London Euston for a start and I was comparing Nuneaton with Darlington slightly ironically in case no one got that. I believe that I am right in saying that south of Nuneaton, a 110mph train effectively takes up 2 x 125mph paths, hence the MAIN need for 125mph stock as using 110mph stock actually reduces overall line capacity. A 125mph service, first stop Nuneaton would free up capacity, then it can use the slows (which are in fact pretty fast) to call at Tamworth and Lichfield then probably Stafford and Crewe. The solution of using 110mph stock is simply a fudge of a solution, it doesn't make sense. If you then add a stopping service via Northampton you cover all the requirements.

125mph stock for use on the Euston - Crewe service must be a no hoper now. With HS2 due in 2026, cant see the leasing companies purchasing any new tilting stock. And the 125mph and tilt would only be utilised as far as Rugby, and slow line running from there to Crewe wouldn't really justify the purchase and manufacture of new design tilting trains (the old 390 design is now not up to current new train regulations).

110mph is pretty good. As long as the trains are up to standard. I.e. refurbishment when needed, not running 350/2s in fast paths at max 100mph with 3+2 seating. And lengthening all workings to 12 car if necessary.

One thing VT could have looked at though, was stopping the 3 new Blackpool services at Nuneaton, potentially rather than Rugby. It wouldn't upset journey times as these services are yet to be established, and the fact they're not calling at Kirkham and Poulton would surely have meant a few minutes extra in the Trent wouldn't have been that much of a big deal.

Add to that the potential of the GNWR fast service calling at Milton Keynes and Nuneaton.

 

[DarloRich]

I assume Darlorich was once from or is from Darlington, a town roughly the same size as Nuneaton. I am sure he'd be the first person to complain if Virgin stopped stopping there and for the London service to be replaced by a 4 coach outer-surburban EMU, once an hour, to and from London? To say that Nuneaton (the largest town or city in Warwickshire btw) is insignificant is simply stupid in every single way. There is so much pent up demand from the TV stations that a proper inter-city service plus a local service would continue the huge growth in use along the Trent Valley. The fact that they are having to go to 8 coaches and want to speed up the service to Crewe just goes to show that. If it's ok for Grantham, Kettering, Chippenham, Newark etc etc then it should be for all the main TV stations.

Where to start with this preposterous & deluded nonsense?

On what basis is Nuneaton such an important place? It is a small, insignificant place with very little going for it other than cheaper housing than further south. It has little to attract inward commuting and these days exists to offer housing to people working in the bigger towns and cities locally. Those flows are already well catered for. Birmingham is 30 minutes away. Surely this is the main commuter route for the town but you will, of course, claim otherwise but anyone. London is 1hr 15 minutes away with a stop at what is becoming an important location for residents of Nuneaton: Milton Keynes.

You constantly whine on about some latent untapped demand for Virgin trains to serve Nuneaton however your entire argument seems to be that because other towns have them you must have them! WHY must Nuneaton have services at the expense of outer towns ( mainly Milton Keynes and Rugby?) Personally i think your whole argument is that you are too good to travel on a mere EMU.....................

In honesty the reason "they" are going to 8 carriages on the TV run is to serve Milton Keynes and Euston. People travel in good numbers from Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth to Milton Keynes. There are some who travel on to London but the bow wave of London commuting is at Rugby. It may be creeping up to Nuneaton but only because the houses are cheaper. There is also good travel between the TV stations.

BTW - I am not sure you understand geography but Darlington is 2hrs 30 mins from Kings Cross. Darlington serves a much wider area than Nuneaton. Darlington serves Teesside, North Yorkshire ( including Catterick Garrison - the largest UK army base) and County Durham.

Well Nuneaton is actually 107 miles from London Euston for a start and I was comparing Nuneaton with Darlington slightly ironically in case no one got that. I believe that I am right in saying that south of Nuneaton, a 110mph train effectively takes up 2 x 125mph paths, hence the MAIN need for 125mph stock as using 110mph stock actually reduces overall line capacity. A 125mph service, first stop Nuneaton would free up capacity, then it can use the slows (which are in fact pretty fast) to call at Tamworth and Lichfield then probably Stafford and Crewe. The solution of using 110mph stock is simply a fudge of a solution, it doesn't make sense. If you then add a stopping service via Northampton you cover all the requirements.

Why would you bypass a major reveune point in Milton Keynes to offer people of Nuneaton a direct service to London on an hourly basis? Which towns will you deprive of services to fit in your almost pointless calls at Nuneaton outside of peak hours? Perhaps you could list them here with your reasoning?

I would be prepared to consider more peak hours Virgin calls at Nuneaton if the demand really existed and the impact on more major flows could be minimised.

You can understand his point, since 2008 the train has been only 4 cars in length, and has to serve all those stations along the Trent Valley.

Originally it was timetabled via Northampton. So they went from an hourly 9 car fast service plus some odd extras, to an hourly 4 car desiro service via Northampton which at that time took a lot longer I understand.

Later, pressure from the Trent Valley or whatever lead to the trains being rerouted on the fast line, with 110mph modifications. Which was obviously an afterthought.

Now whatever anyone says about the worthyness of the Trent Valley stations to have a regular fast service, stations such as (Lichfield, Tamworth, Nuneaton and possibly Rugeley?) went from having some sort of regular daytime fast service to London with 9 car trains, to a 4 car via Northampton slow line service which was supposed to accommodate the flows from all those towns in one train together without any overcrowding.

Was that ever realistically going to happen?

Before long the service was upgraded to the fast line to make journey times realistic, bit the length of the train was never improved because of past decisions that the same service must serve local stations around Stoke on Trent.

Now it wouldn't take that much out there thinking and foresight to guess that the train would probably not cope with the needs of this route in the future as a 4 car.

Was there an hourly 9 car train calling at Nuneaton before the VHF timetable Virgin created? If the market was a s strong as is suggested by other posters then the trains would not have been cut, surely? I suggest the market wasn't there.

However, the issue with the LM services is not, really, Nuneaton. It is travel to and from MK and the cheap tickets offered by LM on Euston to MK/Stoke/Stafford/Crewe runs coupled with an increase in travel between the TV stations because of a much better and more frequent service.

 

[A0]

Now whatever anyone says about the worthyness of the Trent Valley stations to have a regular fast service, stations such as (Lichfield, Tamworth, Nuneaton and possibly Rugeley?) went from having some sort of regular daytime fast service to London with 9 car trains, to a 4 car via Northampton slow line service which was supposed to accommodate the flows from all those towns in one train together without any overcrowding.

I think you're wrong claiming they had a 'regular' daytime fast service - somebody posted the VT timetable from 2001 on here which had Nuneaton departures to London at 6.25, 7.35, 9.15, 11.35, 13.35, 15.35, 17.35, 1935 and 21.35.

Compare that with today:

6.18 (VT), 6.31 (LNW), 7.08 7.35 (VT), 8.19 (LNW), 8.46 (VT), 9.16 (LNW), 9.45 (VT), 10.36 11.36 12.36 13.36 14.36 15.36 16.36 17.36 18.36 19.36 (LNW), 21.03 22.18 (VT) all to London plus 20.30 21.40 (LNW) to Northampton, where a change a Rugby or Northampton will get you to London.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Just to throw in my two-pence worth. I live in Stoke, my partner in Stafford, my Mother in Alsager, and my father is laid to rest in Nuneaton cemetery (adjacent to the Leicester line!) so I use all these stations and more! Personally, I remember trying to visit my dads grave in Nuneaton from Stoke in BR days was all but impossible. The service now is vastly improved.

I don't want to talk down Nuneaton, but isn't one train an hour enough really? There is only one stop (Milton Keynes) before London. Realistically, if Virgin stopped they too would probably call at Milton Keynes too, so what is the difference?

Alsager is set to loose its direct link to Nuneaton, and London. Whilst I concede it is probably only my family travelling to Nuneaton, there has been uproar in Alsager (I believe someone tutted!) about the loss of London services. But you have to view the bigger picture.

Stafford to Scotland services? Someone would use it, more useful and popular though are Stoke-Scotland services Stoke-North Wales would be a money-spinner too. But these won't happen again, but again, it is the price you have to pay for the greater good. Stoke has more London commuters than Stafford, thanks to its £1 houses. It is cheaper for people to buy a £1 house and a season ticket, than live in London (or Stafford) and yes, a lot use the LNW services, as they are so much cheaper. Nuneaton may moan about loosing Virgin services, Stoke moans about loosing the LNWR services.

Diverting the Euston-Chester/Holyheads via Stoke would be a winner for me, but they are popular enough without ramming more people on at Stoke. I remember the BR days when the Stoke-North Wales trains were 12 coaches rammed solid

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nuneaton is 97 miles from Euston.
The old BR pattern was to alternate stops at Rugby and Nuneaton, then Stafford, Crewe etc.
Virgin I think in the 2003 timetable had the hourly Liverpool stop at Nuneaton, Stafford and Crewe.
In 2008 the Liverpool went non-stop to Stafford, then Runcorn, and the Glasgow non-stop to Warrington, all to improve services to the biggest markets.
Two peak services stop in the Trent Valley, also a couple of evening Holyheads stop at Nuneaton.
More recently, the Liverpools have started stopping at Crewe off-peak.
Lichfield and Tamworth have never had a regular hourly fast service.
The old TV slow lines (Rugby-Amington) are still 75mph, while the new bit (Amington-Armitage) is 125mph.
Tamworth and Lichfield (and Rugeley, Atherstone) only have platforms on the "slow".

 

[A0]

I don't want to talk down Nuneaton, but isn't one train an hour enough really? There is only one stop (Milton Keynes) before London.

2 surely? Rugby and MK for the LNW services.

 

[A0]

more useful and popular though are Stoke-Scotland services Stoke-North Wales would be a money-spinner too. But these won't happen again

But given Stoke has a decent service to Crewe where the onward connection to both North Wales and Scotland can be made it's not like such journeys are difficult.

The problem with Stoke is, Manchester service aside, it's not a great place to terminate services owing to its layout, so logically any such services have to originate further afield - and the next challenge is the Potteries line is busy already, so to start sending services from the south via Stoke to then go onto Scotland or North Wales means disrupting something else, slowing down these journeys (as running via Stoke is slower than Stafford - Crewe direct). And the intermediate stations between Stoke and Crewe probably wouldn't benefit because their platform lengths are the reason there are only 4 car services on the London - Crewe at present.

 

[B&I]

There are two trains an hour from Stafford to Manchester and three from Stafford to Liverpool with further travel opportunity for Manchester available via a change at Crewe or Stoke. Why would the VT services north from Stafford need to alternate between Liverpool and Manchester? The whole point of a timetable like the one on the West Coast now is that the same services and connections are available every hour.

Liverpool has 1 direct train an hour from London for most of the day (the same number as Stafford), and the worst provision of direct long-distance trains of any large British city (except probably Bradford). I assume the Stafford stops are in part to enable connections to Cross-Country etc to be made at somewhere other (easier) than New St, as journey planners frequently suggest changing there. Now, it seems, some people want Liverpool to have less than that 1 London train an hour. Staggering.

Anyway, isn't Stafford due to be served by a new Birmingham-Manchester service via Stoke?

 

[pt_mad]

Just to throw in my two-pence worth. I live in Stoke, my partner in Stafford, my Mother in Alsager, and my father is laid to rest in Nuneaton cemetery (adjacent to the Leicester line!) so I use all these stations and more! Personally, I remember trying to visit my dads grave in Nuneaton from Stoke in BR days was all but impossible. The service now is vastly improved.

I don't want to talk down Nuneaton, but isn't one train an hour enough really? There is only one stop (Milton Keynes) before London. Realistically, if Virgin stopped they too would probably call at Milton Keynes too, so what is the difference?

Alsager is set to loose its direct link to Nuneaton, and London. Whilst I concede it is probably only my family travelling to Nuneaton, there has been uproar in Alsager (I believe someone tutted!) about the loss of London services. But you have to view the bigger picture.

Stafford to Scotland services? Someone would use it, more useful and popular though are Stoke-Scotland services Stoke-North Wales would be a money-spinner too. But these won't happen again, but again, it is the price you have to pay for the greater good. Stoke has more London commuters than Stafford, thanks to its £1 houses. It is cheaper for people to buy a £1 house and a season ticket, than live in London (or Stafford) and yes, a lot use the LNW services, as they are so much cheaper. Nuneaton may moan about loosing Virgin services, Stoke moans about loosing the LNWR services.

Diverting the Euston-Chester/Holyheads via Stoke would be a winner for me, but they are popular enough without ramming more people on at Stoke. I remember the BR days when the Stoke-North Wales trains were 12 coaches rammed solid

Alsager will now still be served by a London service. But it will be a London via Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Northampton.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Alsager will now still be served by a London service. But it will be a London via Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Northampton.

Yeah, that will take the best part of at day!

2 surely? Rugby and MK for the LNW services.

I was wondering when you'd spot that!

 

[A0]

Yeah, that will take the best part of at day!

Not sure that's entirely true - currently they take about 3h 20m.

Current Euston - Northampton - Birmingham NS service is about 2h 15.

Birmingham NS - Stafford (LNW Liverpool service) takes 35 mins.
Stafford - Alsager (LNW Crewe service) takes 40 mins.

So assuming similar journey times and no long stops you're looking at 3h 30m.

I was wondering when you'd spot that!

I was surprised you made that mistake.....

 

[B&I]

The problem with the WCML seems to be chronic lack of capacity, coupled with a string of relatively evenly-spaced towns from Rugby northward with fairly similar levels of demand (plus Milton Keynes and Watford south of there).

Assuming we cannot have direct trains from everywhere to everywhere, is the most effective solution, track capacity and train availability allowing (as ever), to target long-distance stops on the major connection points, and then have frequent, good quality stopping trains extended through to the major termini to supplement these?

The major connecting points would seem to me to be Crewe, Stafford (for Liverpool and all points north along the WCML in the absence of XC services north or west of Manchester), and (arguably) Nuneaton (particularly if local services in th Midlands improved to link to it). Couple this with Milton Keynes as a major apparent traffic source (though strip away the MK boosterism and I suspect most of this is London commuter traffic, rather than demand from further north).

Working on these assumptions, there could be something like Liverpool-Runcorn-Crewe-Stafford-Nuneaton-Euston (with an additional service per hour omitting Runcorn and Nuneaton, and adding MK): Manchester-(stops to Crewe)-Stafford-MK-Euston: and Manchester-(stops to Stoke)-Nuneaton-Euston. The gaps in this pattern would then be picked up by half-hourly trains starting at Liverpool / Manchester with first stop Crewe, then calling Trent Valley stops to Rugby (connecting there perhaps with extended Northampton services), then on to Euston with MK and / or Watford stops.

North of Crewe, assuming the imperative for Euston-Scotland services is speed, I'd suggest first stop Crewe, then Preston-Carlisle-stops in Scotland as appropriate. I'd supplement these with Euston-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston trains, carrying on to Blackpool or Lancaster (mayne some extending Windermere). A Birmingham to Blackpool / Lancaster would maintain connections north of Crewe.

As for the Euston-Birmingham-Scotland, it's always struck me as a train designed for operational rather than passenger convenience, but I suppose it maintains some necessary connections in the current situation. In an ideal world, I think the Euston-Wolves would be more use going to Shrewsbury once an hour if that line as electrified, and that, if Brum to the south coast ever followed suit, the Birmingham-Scotland would be better extending down that way.

All of this, I suppose, is difficult to envisage without HS2 shifting a lot of trains off the WCML. Still, post-HS2 I think it would still be important to maintain the sorts of levels of service I have suggested on the classic line, particularly because HS2's current extent is really only a way of linking London to a small number of cities, and providing very limited connections between those other cities. Reasonably fast services on the classic lines will still be needed for the myriad journeys HS2 won't facilitate at all.

 

[pt_mad]

Going off on a slight tangent. After December 2019 when the new LNR timetable is in place, and one of the hourly Liverpool - Birmingham services is combined with an hourly Birmingham - Northampton - London Euston to form a Liverpool - Birmingham - London, will the service be 8 car throughout the day all the way from Liverpool?

And also the Crewe - Stone - Stafford - Birmingham - London. Will these join up with another desiro at Northampton to form 8 cars? If not, it would still be a case of 4 car running on the WCML after Dec 19.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not sure that's entirely true - currently they take about 3h 20m.
Current Euston - Northampton - Birmingham NS service is about 2h 15.
Birmingham NS - Stafford (LNW Liverpool service) takes 35 mins.
Stafford - Alsager (LNW Crewe service) takes 40 mins.
So assuming similar journey times and no long stops you're looking at 3h 30m.

You evidently haven't realised the Alsager stopper will take over the Wolverhampton-Birmingham stopper.
So will stop at Dudley Port, Smethwick Rolfe St etc.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Confused147]

You evidently haven't realised the Alsager stopper will take over the Wolverhampton-Birmingham stopper.
So will stop at Dudley Port, Smethwick Rolfe St etc.

[/QUOTE]

It will be a Walsall to Crewe stopper then. Meaning Kidsgrove/Stoke will have hourly services to Walsall.

 

[tbtc]

A 125mph service, first stop Nuneaton would free up capacity, then it can use the slows (which are in fact pretty fast) to call at Tamworth and Lichfield then probably Stafford and Crewe. The solution of using 110mph stock is simply a fudge of a solution, it doesn't make sense. If you then add a stopping service via Northampton you cover all the requirements.

Basically "I want a non-stop 125mph service from my little town to London" every hour?

This would mean slower journeys on a number of services (e.g. Nuneaton would have slower journeys to Milton Keynes, Watford... Rugely would have slower journeys to Milton Keynes, Watford, London...), but it's all about giving your wee place a non-stop service to London that goes at 125mph, isn't it?

There's plenty of big cities that don't get non-stop London services (in fact, other than Leicester, there's not a lot of non-stop services from London to another city in a typical hour, but that's probably the subject for another thread), but Nuneaton's needs are greater than all of these larger places and they should have non-stop services to the capital every hour, and proper fast ones too. Great.

I think Nuneaton's bigger problem is the lack of capacity on the Birmingham - Leicester corridor - two relatively large cities that only have a half hourly Turbostar between them - which obviously has to deal with longer distance passengers too - that's a route that's ripe for improvement (but not far south enough to be of interest to "London" decision makers and not far north enough to be on the radar of TfN... not wholly inside the West Midlands so doesn't fit neatly into the priorities of decision makers).

 

[A0]

You evidently haven't realised the Alsager stopper will take over the Wolverhampton-Birmingham stopper.
So will stop at Dudley Port, Smethwick Rolfe St etc.

[/QUOTE]

The 'fast' LNW services take 18 mins, the stoppers take 25 mins between Wolverhampton and New Street - so OK, a further 7 mins on what I'd estimated.

 

[A0]

The major connecting points would seem to me to be Crewe, Stafford (for Liverpool and all points north along the WCML in the absence of XC services north or west of Manchester), and (arguably) Nuneaton (particularly if local services in th Midlands improved to link to it). Couple this with Milton Keynes as a major apparent traffic source (though strip away the MK boosterism and I suspect most of this is London commuter traffic, rather than demand from further north).

Working on these assumptions, there could be something like Liverpool-Runcorn-Crewe-Stafford-Nuneaton-Euston (with an additional service per hour omitting Runcorn and Nuneaton, and adding MK): Manchester-(stops to Crewe)-Stafford-MK-Euston: and Manchester-(stops to Stoke)-Nuneaton-Euston. The gaps in this pattern would then be picked up by half-hourly trains starting at Liverpool / Manchester with first stop Crewe, then calling Trent Valley stops to Rugby (connecting there perhaps with extended Northampton services), then on to Euston with MK and / or Watford stops.

North of Crewe, assuming the imperative for Euston-Scotland services is speed, I'd suggest first stop Crewe, then Preston-Carlisle-stops in Scotland as appropriate. I'd supplement these with Euston-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston trains, carrying on to Blackpool or Lancaster (mayne some extending Windermere). A Birmingham to Blackpool / Lancaster would maintain connections north of Crewe.

As for the Euston-Birmingham-Scotland, it's always struck me as a train designed for operational rather than passenger convenience, but I suppose it maintains some necessary connections in the current situation. In an ideal world, I think the Euston-Wolves would be more use going to Shrewsbury once an hour if that line as electrified, and that, if Brum to the south coast ever followed suit, the Birmingham-Scotland would be better extending down that way.

Somebody clearly got a new box of crayons from Father Christmas.....

 

[B&I]

Somebody clearly got a new box of crayons from Father Christmas.....

Why is envisaging a major modal shift to rail, and suggesting the sort of services which would be necessary to encourage and take advantage of this, such a thoughtcrime for some people on a forum about, um, railways?

 

[A0]

Why is envisaging a major modal shift to rail, and suggesting the sort of services which would be necessary to encourage and take advantage of this, such a thoughtcrime for some people on a forum about, um, railways?

Because there are people who are paid far more than I and have far more experience than you, have already done the work on how to maximise the utilisation of the rail network in terms of getting most trains around it and carrying the most number of passengers.

What your suggesting wouldn't achieve a 'major modal shift' - quite the opposite. You're looking at dropping stops at places like MK where use is growing and will grow and substituting it with non-places like Nuneaton.

The bulk of journeys to / from Nuneaton aren't to London - they're to Birmingham, Leicester, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Stafford, possibly Derby and Nottingham. Running non-stop services to / from London will make precisely no difference to those journeys, nor will it persuade people who make those journeys by road to change how they travel.