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

[sufian123]

It goes through to Euston though so doesn't really fit WMR. Stone repainting and now rebranded too as a WMR station does seem to confuse matters somewhat.

Sunday’s only it’ll be solely starting at Birmingham and terminating. Rest of the week it’s showing to be from Euston with some from Birmingham.

 

[pt_mad]

Agreed - although Crewe has platforms 1 and 11/12 which aren't hugely used, and are long.

But 1tph to Liverpool (fast, which could skip Rugeley and Atherstone, and be 12 car) - and a second 8 car service per hour, making more local stops and via Northampton I imagine, might be the move.

Problem being afaik the DFT only allow LNR two return paths to Liverpool per hour in the off peak. Presumably the service requirement means those workings must link Birmingham and Liverpool. So can't see any other arrangements re Liverpool prior to HS2.

 

[pt_mad]

If the fares disparity on this service really is driving a 12 car level of demand, and that drives extra rolling stock, then, frankly, the fares on this service should be raised to manage demand and/or pay for the rolling stock.

Cheap fares should be filling otherwise spare capacity, not driving need for provision of extra capacity to meet the demand generated (or abstracted) by them

Whilst cheap fares are nice, there is a cost for them somewhere to somebody (probably the taxpayer, ultimately)

One thing which is questionable is why Crewe passengers would need to travel on a semi fast service to Euston when there are 3 X expresses in each direction per hour calling there.

If the price on the semi fast means that a substantial number of London passengers from Crewe choose that service instead, then that could, to some, seem flawed in principal really.

 

[bionic]

I did see an official map somewhere when the franchise started about separable business areas. The Stoke loop definitely was part of WMT rather than LNR. That map also showed Barlaston and Wedgewood as being open!

Edit: just found it again. It's on the WMR website.

Edit: the more I study this map the stranger it gets. Norton Bridge is still on it too!

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing which is questionable is why Crewe passengers would need to travel on a semi fast service to Euston when there are 3 X expresses in each direction per hour calling there.

If the price on the semi fast means that a substantial number of London passengers from Crewe choose that service instead, then that could, to some, seem flawed in principal really.

You're making the assumption that the vast amount of passengers doing that are switching from VT. If they are switching from the car because of better market segmentation meaning the LNR service appeals but the more expensive VT service doesn't, particularly if flexibility is required[1], providing it is economic to provide them additional capacity it is no bad thing.

[1] It's often assumed that Advances are the solution to price differentiation - but this is not completely true. Even a 500 quid old banger, provided it is reliable (and it's probably more reliable than Northern at present), is 100% flexible. You can go when you want at any amount of notice. So an Advance fare is not an adequate replacement.

 

[nw1]

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.

Though aren't variants for longer-distance, intercity-like and shorter-distance-commuter services common practice due to differing needs for comfort and density? Like down here for example, the 444/450 split (and before that, the similar CIG/VEP split) with the lower-density, more intercity-like 444s focused on longer distance and higher-density 450 on shorter distance, more commuter-heavy routes, with intermediate routes (such as the Portsmouth via Eastleigh) seeing both.

Likewise in the second-generation DMU world we have the whole 14x, 150, 156 and 158 range to choose from and each has different suitability for different routes, rather than an attempt at a one-size-fits-all which might be too low-density or too expensive to run for short distance journeys, and not comfortable enough for longer-distance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though aren't variants for longer-distance, intercity-like and shorter-distance-commuter services common practice due to differing needs for comfort and density? Like down here for example, the 444/450 split (and before that, the similar CIG/VEP split) with the lower-density, more intercity-like 444s focused on longer distance and higher-density 450 on shorter distance, more commuter-heavy routes, with intermediate routes (such as the Portsmouth via Eastleigh) seeing both.

There is that, but really 3+2 is unpopular on the south WCML, the middle seat is often not taken, so many people would rather all units had a 350/1 style layout. It would also offer WMT more flexibility if they had them all the same.

 

[Camden]

If the fares disparity on this service really is driving a 12 car level of demand, and that drives extra rolling stock, then, frankly, the fares on this service should be raised to manage demand and/or pay for the rolling stock.

Cheap fares should be filling otherwise spare capacity, not driving need for provision of extra capacity to meet the demand generated (or abstracted) by them

Whilst cheap fares are nice, there is a cost for them somewhere to somebody (probably the taxpayer, ultimately)

Alternatively, maybe it's possible to run a decent train service at a reasonable price. Perhaps their much slower trains are so busy because the fast long distance trains are so obscenely expensive.

Somewhat busts the premise behind HS2.

But, just like the service decimations brought in to support hs1 were arrived at, there'll always be a subset, judgmental elite who support dealing with system failure by avoiding the issue and just making things worse for people at large.

Why not put prices up by a factor of 10? Then you won't have to run trains at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Somewhat busts the premise behind HS2.

Once again, the premise behind HS2 is capacity on the south WCML. That it will make existing trains a few minutes faster is a side benefit.

One thing that capacity will provide is the possibility of running more services like this one.

 

[DavidGrain]

A friend has told me that there are rumours that diesels will be back on the Birmingham Walsall services to allow the electrics from Rugeley to run to London.

I hope that there are sufficient crews passed out on both the different stock and the routes in time as that was the alleged problem with the Thameslink services

 

[Bletchleyite]

A friend has told me that there are rumours that diesels will be back on the Birmingham Walsall services to allow the electrics from Rugeley to run to London.

That's rather stupid, are all the 319s now spoken for?

 

[cle]

Problem being afaik the DFT only allow LNR two return paths to Liverpool per hour in the off peak. Presumably the service requirement means those workings must link Birmingham and Liverpool. So can't see any other arrangements re Liverpool prior to HS2.

The second Birmingham could terminate at Crewe, or Preston...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The second Birmingham could terminate at Crewe, or Preston...

Thus halving Liverpool's service? That would not go down well.

 

[BucksBones]

Though aren't variants for longer-distance, intercity-like and shorter-distance-commuter services common practice due to differing needs for comfort and density? Like down here for example, the 444/450 split (and before that, the similar CIG/VEP split) with the lower-density, more intercity-like 444s focused on longer distance and higher-density 450 on shorter distance, more commuter-heavy routes, with intermediate routes (such as the Portsmouth via Eastleigh) seeing both.

Likewise in the second-generation DMU world we have the whole 14x, 150, 156 and 158 range to choose from and each has different suitability for different routes, rather than an attempt at a one-size-fits-all which might be too low-density or too expensive to run for short distance journeys, and not comfortable enough for longer-distance.

That’s all very well if it’s possible to keep the sub-classes to the appropriate services; the point I was making (and that Bletchleyite was replying to) was that with these new diagrams (Tring stoppers interworking with Liverpools for example) it is difficult to see how that will be achieved.

Also these new longer services are reminiscent of TPE in that they have to be all things to all people, local commuters and inter-city customers alike. A compromise 2+2 layout like the 350/1s and 3s for all the Aventras would have been fine IMHO.

 

[Ianno87]

Alternatively, maybe it's possible to run a decent train service at a reasonable price. Perhaps their much slower trains are so busy because the fast long distance trains are so obscenely expensive.

Somewhat busts the premise behind HS2.

But, just like the service decimations brought in to support hs1 were arrived at, there'll always be a subset, judgmental elite who support dealing with system failure by avoiding the issue and just making things worse for people at large.

Why not put prices up by a factor of 10? Then you won't have to run trains at all.

No we're talking about one train per hour having spare capacity off peak to be filled up by cheap fares, not all 15tph from Euston in the peak.

Doesn't bust the premise at all.

 

[Ploughman]

I must have missed something in the last year.

What does LNR stand for and who did they replace?
Genuine question as I do not know.

 

[Muzer]

I must have missed something in the last year.

What does LNR stand for and who did they replace?
Genuine question as I do not know.

London Northwestern Railway. They're a brand of West Midlands Trains, the other brand being West Midlands Railway. They replaced London Midland.

 

[Ploughman]

London Northwestern Railway. They're a brand of West Midlands Trains, the other brand being West Midlands Railway. They replaced London Midland.

Thanks

 

[43096]

London Northwestern Railway. They're a brand of West Midlands Trains, the other brand being West Midlands Railway. They replaced London Midland.

Should be LNWR. Just because the TOC is incapable of spelling and capitalising correctly isn’t an excuse!

 

[swt_passenger]

I think SWT used to have some planned 4-car out of 12 UDS (it's easy to forget just how rural some of their network is), but it has been replaced by proper "per vehicle" SDO.

They definitely did. A famous example back in the days before ASDO was the down direction at Fareham, which was fine for 8 car 450s, but in a 12 car the 9th cab was just off the ramp. So the guard had to work from the 5th cab and deselect two units. I’ve a list somewhere of the many stations that were 4 from 12, there were quite a few.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A friend has told me that there are rumours that diesels will be back on the Birmingham Walsall services to allow the electrics from Rugeley to run to London.
I hope that there are sufficient crews passed out on both the different stock and the routes in time as that was the alleged problem with the Thameslink services

RTT shows DMUs in the peak hours Birmingham-Aston-Walsall, some coming from Shrewsbury.
One also runs through from Rugeley to Shrewsbury.
All the Rugeley EMUs run via Soho so they can continue south from New St.
Off peak Walsall via Aston gets a local EMU (separate from the Rugeleys), and the Shrewsbury DMUs terminate at New St..

 

[Muzer]

They definitely did. A famous example back in the days before ASDO was the down direction at Fareham, which was fine for 8 car 450s, but in a 12 car the 9th cab was just off the ramp. So the guard had to work from the 5th cab and deselect two units. I’ve a list somewhere of the many stations that were 4 from 12, there were quite a few.

Swaythling was certainly one, that's why I knew about it as that used to be my local!

 

[pt_mad]

Should be LNWR. Just because the TOC is incapable of spelling and capitalising correctly isn’t an excuse!

Could they have used LNWR officially or is that either protected by historic means or protected by Network Rail who I believe use the term London North Western Route to define the WCML?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Could they have used LNWR officially or is that either protected by historic means or protected by Network Rail who I believe use the term London North Western Route to define the WCML?

The LNWR name (lnwr.com) was purloined by the maintenance company at Crewe owned by Pete Waterman.
Arriva then bought the operation and renamed it as Arriva Traincare, but I think they still own the rights to the LNWR name and web site (it redirects to arrivatc.com).
Ultimately, the DfT owned the rights to the old railway company names, as a result of buying out the Big 4.
Clearly names/brands like GWR and LNER have been reused by modern TOCs, but what the licensing terms are I wouldn't know.
NR's LNW Route isn't a company or brand (although it might well become one in the Route devolution process), so there's no commercial conflict.
The same with the LNE Route and the LNER TOC.
We'll have to see what the WCP franchise will be called when HS2 operation starts.
If we are being picky, VT/WCP has at least as much claim to the LNWR name as WMT does, which only operates over the southern half of the old LNWR route.

 

[sufian123]

I asked on Twitter when the 350/4s coming in service, they confirmed for Dec timetable change. I wonder how the new extensions are going to pan out.

 

[Idon'tKnow]

I asked on Twitter when the 350/4s coming in service, they confirmed for Dec timetable change. I wonder how the new extensions are going to pan out.

Hope we get our 8 carriage trains off peak on the Trent Valley, we've waited far too long

 

[sufian123]

Hope we get our 8 carriage trains off peak on the Trent Valley, we've waited far too long

here’s the proof

 

[causton]

Should be LNWR. Just because the TOC is incapable of spelling and capitalising correctly isn’t an excuse!

The TOC made a deliberate decision. That you disagree with that decision does not make them incapable at all! The decision is IMO clever as it avoids confusion with places e.g. Crewe LNWR and Network Rail terms as they use the acronym LNWR a lot.

The only downside is when LNER came along, they couldn't both be called LNR - so it is a bit inconsistent!

 

[DarloRich]

Should be LNWR. Just because the TOC is incapable of spelling and capitalising correctly isn’t an excuse!

But LNWR is owned by a different company.........................

 

[DavidGrain]

But LNWR is owned by a different company.........................

That might be what they tell you at the ticket offices when they are trying to avoid making any refunds BUT
London Northwetern Railway is a trading name of West Midlands Trains Ltd and
West Midlands Railways is a trading name of West Midlands Trains Ltd

and under the new timetable they will be mixing the services up even more. Even now before the new timetables come into effect many of the trains operating local services on the Walsall line are LNW liveried stock.