LNR new WCML timetable, May 2019 (in open data feeds)

[Bletchleyite]

Can 319s run all the way to Birmingham or local that will free up 350s on the local run? In worst case scenario 350/4s don’t arrive.

I don't see much sense in 319s to Brum, rather you could have them operate everything that doesn't venture north of Northampton such as the Tring stoppers.

 

[sufian123]

I don't see much sense in 319s to Brum, rather you could have them operate everything that doesn't venture north of Northampton such as the Tring stoppers.

That makes more sense. Thanks

 

[sd0733]

I don't see much sense in 319s to Brum, rather you could have them operate everything that doesn't venture north of Northampton such as the Tring stoppers.

The problem is the diagrams....looking on realtime trains the xx:34 tring off peak are generally formed off the 9yxx from Liverpool and the xx:04 tring is formed off the xx:50 1uxx arrival from Crewe.
That pattern is for at least the 1st couple of hours of the off peak timetable. There is the odd one that interworks with a Milton Keynes arrival so maybe some potential for a couple of all day 319 diagrams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is the diagrams....looking on realtime trains the xx:34 tring off peak are generally formed off the 9yxx from Liverpool and the xx:04 tring is formed off the xx:50 1uxx arrival from Crewe.
That pattern is for at least the 1st couple of hours of the off peak timetable. There is the odd one that interworks with a Milton Keynes arrival so maybe some potential for a couple of all day 319 diagrams.

Yes, they would need to do some rediagramming so you had basically three sets of routes:

1. Routes that stay south of Northampton (these could use any of the available units but would be planned to be mostly 319s)
2. Routes that go past Northampton but can be run with 100mph units (these would use primarily 350/2 but could also use /1, /3 and /4 if necessary)
3. Routes that require 110mph units (these can only use 350/1 and 350/3, and /4 when they arrive)

 

[sd0733]

Yes, they would need to do some rediagramming so you had basically three sets of routes:

1. Routes that stay south of Northampton
2. Routes that go past Northampton but can be run with 100mph units
3. Routes that require 110mph units

That should have been the case to begin with.. to interwork Trings with Liverpools and to head back out from Euston around 15 mins after booked arrival from a 4.5 hour trip just seems madness.
It'll be very interesting to see how it all pans out in reality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That should have been the case to begin with.. to interwork Trings with Liverpools and to head back out from Euston around 15 mins after booked arrival from a 4.5 hour trip just seems madness.
It'll be very interesting to see how it all pans out in reality.

Indeed. I do slightly fear an overcrowded mess (and some driving to Aylesbury to avoid it), but we shall see.

 

[sd0733]

Indeed. I do slightly fear an overcrowded mess (and some driving to Aylesbury to avoid it), but we shall see.

Yes i think we all foresee problems. There is also the issue of traincrew with some switching of route knowledge I.e Crewe working to Euston but nothing has been forthcoming as to how or when this takes place.
Unfortunately, I hope I'm wrong but myself and many other staff can foresee a Thameslink/Northern style melt down on this timetable change but it would be nice to be proved wrong as the potential is pretty good if it can come together.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

2. Routes that go past Northampton but can be run with 100mph units (these would use primarily 350/2 but could also use /1, /3 and /4 if necessary)
3. Routes that require 110mph units (these can only use 350/1 and 350/3, and /4 when they arrive)

AFAIK all the 350/2s have been upgraded for 110mph running? That obviously gives a fair amount of extra flexibility.

 

[sd0733]

AFAIK all the 350/2s have been upgraded for 110mph running? That obviously gives a fair amount of extra flexibility.

Yes all 77 in the current LNW 350 fleet are now 110mph capable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

AFAIK all the 350/2s have been upgraded for 110mph running? That obviously gives a fair amount of extra flexibility.

Ah, only 2 subsets needed, then - south of NMP only vs. everything else.

 

[Ianno87]

That should have been the case to begin with.. to interwork Trings with Liverpools and to head back out from Euston around 15 mins after booked arrival from a 4.5 hour trip just seems madness.
It'll be very interesting to see how it all pans out in reality.

They do have 5 minutes at Wolves and 11 minutes at Northampton (less the time needed for any attaching), that should help recover delay.

 

[Class 170101]

Main issue is that the Herefords call at University, so a southbound trip requires an awkward reversal across the entire west end station throat.

That, or an excursion via Soho/Perry Barr/Aston.

Probably not feasible, especially with no big wins in connectivity terms (University to/from Wolves being the biggie, for which loads of connections already exist)

Wasn't there a proposal to run one of the Shrewsbury services via Aston and Tame Bridge Parkway to serve a station or two between Tame Bridge and Wolverhampton?

 

[pt_mad]

Agreed - this is really quite competitive compared to Virgin in terms of journey time. Given the price differential, either Virgin will be seeing some reduced loadings on their Liverpool and Chester/N Wales services, or they will have to cut (Advance) prices. I suspect the former! I'd hope that Advance availability on the Trent Valley services is increased, as a doubling of the service is such a significant increase that it may, for the first time in a while, see some empty seats in the off-peak!


I doubt that many people will stomach the 4.5 hour journey time from Liverpool to London on the direct services, compared to the 2 and a bit hour Virgin service. But I can foresee quite a number of people changing at Crewe for the Trent Valley services, as that will represent a more competitive journey time, if you take the xx:33 LIV-CRE (which arrives into CRE at xx:19 the following hour), and then the xx:33 CRE-EUS. Total journey time 3:17 vs 2:12 for the Virgin through service.

I would be surprised if anyone looking online or elsewhere is suggested the through service, given how slow it is, unless they manually input "via Birmingham" or "prefer direct trains".

I'm not sure whether that is what the DFT was aiming for by shortening the journey time (on the Trent Valley services). Being able to lengthen trains to 8 cars, only to have them half filled by passengers from either Liverpool/Runcorn, changing at Crewe, or from Crewe itself, I doubt has ever been the aim of this service, and kind of defeats the object of it being a Trent Valley services doesn't it?
If some of the off peak trains are already standing room, then straight away one could imagine that you will fill six coaches worth of seats on some services from day one of lengthening. Adding artificial demand from Crewe through to London because of prices at another operator is not going to be a good recipe for fair and spread out loadings going forward is it?

It had a collision with a horse and is likely to be written off due to almost irreparable (let alone economically) structural damage. On a fleet of 10, being 1 down is not insignificant.

Anyone know which 350/4 set unit number this was?

I just hope our Control have some good contingency planning in place as a problem somewhere like Stechford now could screw up the Liverpools, Chase Line and Eustons in one go. It would be interesting to see just how many diagrams are required to cover all these services, Rugeley will all be extras as will ant 8 cars on the Trent and also the Bhm-crewe services. If some or all of the 350/4s haven't arrived by May I can see a significant amount of Short forms. Hopefully I'm wrong and it all goes well as it does allow some significant connection improvements if it does. I just feel that the Crewe service especially, with the much reduced journey times, more capacity and later trains could do with a relaunch with an improved offer with Catering etc as the lack of that could put a lot of passengers off, the amount that complain already Is high and at the moment very few do the whole run from.Crewe.

Maybe extra 350/2s will be used during the day? People used to say some were stored at Northampton in the day time due to the/2 maintenance regime? Is this still the case?
Regards the Crewe service having a relaunch with possible catering. I suppose it's a nice idea but if it provides too much of a viable alternative from Crewe all the way to London, the sets could be nearly full leaving Crewe thus defeating the object for lengthening to increase capacity for Trent Valley customers?

 

[DavidGrain]

As has been said connecting the Shrewsbury and Hereford services would at present involve an awkward reversal at New Street but we are told that the Herefords will be re-routed via Camp Hill when the stations on that line are re-opened with University losing the service to and from south of Bromsgrove. Personally I think re-opening the Camp Hill line stations will require more than 2tph which will mean building the new chords into Moor Street. I know that I am talking a few years ahead not just the next timetable change.

 

[BucksBones]

This complex diagramming is going to make it very tricky for them to keep the sub-classes of Aventras on the appropriate routes when they arrive.....!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This complex diagramming is going to make it very tricky for them to keep the sub-classes of Aventras on the appropriate routes when they arrive.....!

I would have thought there might be some more wholesale changes to services before then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This complex diagramming is going to make it very tricky for them to keep the sub-classes of Aventras on the appropriate routes when they arrive.....!

Quite. I'm incredibly surprised they didn't do them all the same, with a relatively high density 2+2 layout, rather than just recreating the 350/1 and /2 split.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure whether that is what the DFT was aiming for by shortening the journey time (on the Trent Valley services). Being able to lengthen trains to 8 cars, only to have them half filled by passengers from either Liverpool/Runcorn, changing at Crewe, or from Crewe itself, I doubt has ever been the aim of this service, and kind of defeats the object of it being a Trent Valley services doesn't it?

It won't make any difference from Liverpool/Runcorn, they could previously miss the "wobble" out by changing at Stafford anyway, and at least some will choose the (very slow) through service anyway.

It'll be less convenient from Manchester than changing at Stoke.

Some people from Stoke and other stations around the "wobble" will give up on it and drive/switch to VT.

So I'm not sure it will make all that much difference. The sole reason for doing it is to be able to lengthen.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The new through EMU services from Rugeley via Birmingham New St all run via Soho (except a few early and late).
The Aston route to Walsall is picked up by Shrewsbury services in the morning peak (one of which serves Rugeley), so there will be some diesels under the wires.
Off-peak Walsall-Aston-Wolverhampton is an EMU.
Also off-peak the Shrewsbury-New St terminators alternate mainly between platforms 2B and 4C at New St, 4C being the previous haunt of the Liverpool service.
The new xx13 Shrewsbury-Birmingham semi-fast also ought to mean less crowding onto the following xx34 TfW service.
Overall, some really clever changes here, I hope it all works on the day!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Overall, some really clever changes here, I hope it all works on the day!

Indeed. They are all a bit reminiscent of the VT Euston-Brum-Scotland recast, which created a valuable new service and resolved an overcrowding problem with no extra resources added, and with the only thing lost being 1tph between Wolves and New St - but in this case nothing at all seems to be lost completely.

 

[87015]

Indeed. They are all a bit reminiscent of the VT Euston-Brum-Scotland recast, which created a valuable new service and resolved an overcrowding problem with no extra resources added, and with the only thing lost being 1tph between Wolves and New St - but in this case nothing at all seems to be lost completely.

The non-Euston PM peak for intermediate journies is wrecked. 90 min gap in LNR services for Watford to Leighton journies. This was pre-VHF a well spaced 4tph. Same applies for most other northbound because the reduced formations have silliness like the 1630 off Euston being non-stop to Tring.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The non-Euston PM peak for intermediate journies is wrecked. 90 min gap in LNR services for Watford to Leighton journies. This was pre-VHF a well spaced 4tph. Same applies for most other northbound because the reduced formations have silliness like the 1630 off Euston being non-stop to Tring.

Presumably the SN fills that gap?

 

[87015]

Presumably the SN fills that gap?

Yes (if it runs) but it’s still has a joke of an hours gap for a not insignificant market. People will be paying a lot more than those on advances too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes (if it runs) but it’s still has a joke of an hours gap for a not insignificant market. People will be paying a lot more than those on advances too.

Yes, an hour's gap is a bit bizarre. Some of the slows also seem to omit Leighton for no sensible reason. (Taking it out won't reduce loadings - people use the fasts for Leighton anyway), so what would be a good connection at Tring off the :54 isn't.

TBH, the biggest disappointment for me is that it is an inconsistent timetable - and this is one example of this. Maybe once they have the new stock they will lengthen trains and reinstate some of these missing stops?

 

[DarloRich]

TBH, the biggest disappointment for me is that it is an inconsistent timetable - and this is one example of this. Maybe once they have the new stock they will lengthen trains and reinstate some of these missing stops?

what is the impact on MKC and Bletchley?

If not stopping at the Buzzard speeds up my journey I wont complain

 

[Bletchleyite]

what is the impact on MKC and Bletchley?

If not stopping at the Buzzard speeds up my journey I wont complain

Don't know about MKC. For Bletchley there is little practical change I've noticed other than I guess potential short-forms (given as the reason for omission of stops above?) and less chance of my favourite seat on the 0713ish which will start back from Northampton.

 

[DarloRich]

Don't know about MKC. For Bletchley there is little practical change I've noticed other than I guess potential short-forms (given as the reason for omission of stops above?) and less chance of my favourite seat on the 0713ish which will start back from Northampton.

unacceptable. The 0713 is the best train to catch to Euston in the am peak. Always guaranteed a seat!

 

[E6007]

The non-Euston PM peak for intermediate journies is wrecked. 90 min gap in LNR services for Watford to Leighton journies. This was pre-VHF a well spaced 4tph. Same applies for most other northbound because the reduced formations have silliness like the 1630 off Euston being non-stop to Tring.

Worth a letter to LNR I would have thought!

Looks to me like the only change from today is the 16:30 ex Euston running non stop to Tring whereas today it stops at Watford Jn, Hemel Hempstead and Berkhamsted as well. Services from Watford Jn to Leighton Buzzard will be at 16:10, 16:19 (SN), 17:19 (SN), 17:43, 18:20 (SN), 18:26

17:05, 17:30 and 17:52 ex Euston all skip Leighton Buzzard today. The 17:30 is to keep out of the way of the 17:49 ex Euston, not sure about the others. Skipping Leighton Buzzard doesn't happen at other times, as far as I know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

unacceptable. The 0713 is the best train to catch to Euston in the am peak. Always guaranteed a seat!

I doubt many will use it from Northampton as it's so slow, so you will still be guaranteed a seat, but not the seat I want (priority window side airline seat in the back coach - it's mine I tell you).

To be fair, now our office has moved the 0730 is early enough to be in for 9 anyway. And it starts at MKC and is 12-car so no worries about seating or even desirable seating.

 

[pt_mad]

It would be interesting to see just how many diagrams are required to cover all these services, Rugeley will all be extras as will ant 8 cars on the Trent and also the Bhm-crewe services. If some or all of the 350/4s haven't arrived by May I can see a significant amount of Short forms. Hopefully I'm wrong and it all goes well as it does allow some significant connection improvements if it does.

Will the Rugeley to Birmingham International local service be class 350s or class 323? Would have thought 323s would save 350s for the mainline. Then again maybe there aren't enough 323s.

Presumably the SN fills that gap?

What is the SN??

Out of interest, is there currently a LNR only ticket between Euston and Crewe inclusive? Perhaps if that was withdrawn, and the only fare was the standard any operator price, it may help to prevent any future over loading of the 8 car Trent Valley services should any be encouraged purely by an improved through journey time and much cheaper price from Crewe than with the main West Coast operator?