More stops at Watford Junction

[Robin GX]

Why can't more Virgin services to and from the north stop at Watford Junction like they used to. Right now there is one service to Liverpool per day that stops, at 5.50 am! And to Manchester one also, at a more civilised 6.50 am.

I travel to Liverpool at least once a week, and it would be so much easier to cab across to Watford from Gerrards Cross than to train it into London, change terminals, and head north again. Even better, a Parkway station to the north of London with adequate parking would surely attract a lot of new traffic away from the car, who are currently put off by the time and expense of going in and out of London as part of their journey.

What do others think?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I agree, sadly VHF left Watford, Rugby and the Trent Valley stations much worse off.

 

[Zoe]

I agree, sadly VHF left Watford, Rugby and the Trent Valley stations much worse off.

However when I have suggested extra calls, the response has usually been that they are not needed and that people should just change. Extra calls would increase the headline journey times. The new West Coast bids though can contain stations calls additional to those listed in the minimum service specification.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I can kinda see their point to be honest. Once again it is the classic case of everybody wanting trains to be very fast and to stop on their doorstep. Do long distance/intercity services really need to stop twice inside the M25? Passenger flows are so dramatically skewed towards central London once you reach 50 miles/half an hour of the capital that it really is only a minority of people who gain while loads lose.

 

[Geezertronic]

I guess it is/was to stop many people using VT as a fast way of getting to/from WFJ and MKC and forcing them to use London Midland instead.

 

[Greeby]

MKC doesn't have it that great either. Only one to/from Liverpool at each end of the day. No real connection to Stafford except via LM slow train. Only one to Glasgow via the Trent Valley, and we've only just got the other two which go via Birmingham. Not to mention, Watford gets both sleepers.

And having more trains to a particular place can lead to problems in itself. As lately people have been treating RailSail to Ireland as something they can book twenty minutes before the train

 

[CosherB]

Watford and MKC both have a very good stopping service to Euston and even MKC isn't a long journey on non-Virgin services. Makes sense to minimise the stops of Inter City trains under those circumstances.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There are plans to accelerate the LM Crewe services , but planning headways through Watford are tight - I quite often sit and watch the VWC trains slamming through on bare green aspects clearing fron YY - I personally would like to see more calls , but it is difficult with present physical constraints etc.

 

[Pumbaa]

I would love more calls at Watford especially for the Liverpool and Manchester (as it suits me ) but it just isn't going to happen. No room for manouvre in the timetable, you can barely swing a cat as it stands without knocking out other services.

 

[xtradj]

Why can't more Virgin services to and from the north stop at Watford Junction like they used to. Right now there is one service to Liverpool per day that stops, at 5.50 am! And to Manchester one also, at a more civilised 6.50 am.

I travel to Liverpool at least once a week, and it would be so much easier to cab across to Watford from Gerrards Cross than to train it into London, change terminals, and head north again. Even better, a Parkway station to the north of London with adequate parking would surely attract a lot of new traffic away from the car, who are currently put off by the time and expense of going in and out of London as part of their journey.

What do others think?

watford to stafford on LM change there to liverpool? saves going into london for no reason

 

[Pumbaa]

Depends on the time saving really. If Gerrads > London > Liverpool is still quicker, no point buggering about on the LM donkey.

 

[xtradj]

i think one of the reasons (not just to save journey times) for not stopping at WJ is the fact Virgin wanted to get rid of Euston passengers who used Virgin to travel to Watford and back, therefore making the train too busy, and therefore forcing them to use LM and LU services

 

[Pumbaa]

It was never allowed anyway. I have no idea if it was under BR, but certainly since VT has existed, Watford was only ever pick-up going north, set-down going south.

 

[Penmorfa]

Once the Metropolitan line starts serving Watford Junction maybe then a rethink could be in order?

 

[43106]

From my studies of InterCity services, WFJ had just under 3tph in each direction before VHF. MKC hasn't changed much, but Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth & Lichfield have been seriously clobbered. The hourly Euston - Rugby - Stafford - Stoke - Crewe LM service helps, but there's no sobstitute for a VT service. IMHO, VHF is extravagent, as it absorbs too much resources, in terms of rolling stock and paths.

 

[The Planner]

Im slightly confused by that, how can it absorb too many paths ?? the very fact you are trying to run a 125mph railway with a high frequency and low journey time negates the ability to shove in a class 6 freight or trains that stop everywhere.

 

[bengolding]

Whilst the direct xx37 to Wolverhampton is some consolation, you can get the xx01 LM Crewe service with a 15 min wait at Milton Keynes for the xx40 Voyager to North Wales. Changing at Crewe gives a decent connection for Liverpool with LM - much quicker than going direct with painfully slow LM.

 

[cle]

I wonder if they could path in a Manchester service also, hourly. I think that would be a decent service, covering the two main destinations. As each are 3tph, I think each having one stopping at Watford and one at MK is reasonable.

I would think the service via Crewe would be best - so Euston - WJ - Crewe - Wilmslow - Stockport - Manchester. As it would also give Watford a fast service to Crewe and all of those connections.

MK has the North Wales for Crewe, so having a via Stoke service is fine.

Finally I wonder if only one can be pathed - might there be more merit in stopping a Manchester rather than a Birmingham at Watford. Birmingham is already served, albeit slowly, on LM and fast connections to MK/Rugby exist too.

 

[MCR247]

But what do you then do with the xx:43 that has now caught up with the xx:40? Or do they both stop at WFJ, meaning you have 2 within 3 minutes and a 57 minute gap

 

[cle]

I'm thinking this is part of the timetable recast.

And if it's clockface, then surely two stops can be made at half hourly intervals.

Assuming they change Manchester and Birmingham trains to leave Euston at:
00, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50
where the 00 MAN and 30 BHM stop at WJ, and the 10 BHM and 40 MAN stop at MK, for example.

20 MAN would therefore be the Macclesfield call, and 50 BHM the Rugby.

And then timetable the Liverpool, Glasgow, Lancashire and North Wales around those.

 

[asylumxl]

How would a new service fit on the slows? What about putting it infront of the Southern stopper?

I'm not familiar with the WCML, could it change to fasts north of Watford or would it conflict?

I can't see it slowing the service too much, as Euston to Watford is not that large a distance.

 

[cle]

I think the LM service to Crewe might need to move to the slows, as that's Watford's other fast 'call'. I think a train to Manchester would be more important.

Has 110mph for the 350s been signed off yet? Might that have an impact?

 

[Ibex]

There are plans to accelerate the LM Crewe services , but planning headways through Watford are tight - I quite often sit and watch the VWC trains slamming through on bare green aspects clearing fron YY - I personally would like to see more calls , but it is difficult with present physical constraints etc.

The plans to speed up the LM Euston to Crewe services (Project 110) include the removal of the WFJ and Northampton call, so after Watford losing its long distance trains at the introduction of VHF, it will also lose the only alternative long distance service to Crewe. Watford will therefore only have a direct service to Nuneaton and Stafford at 05:45, and direct services to Crewe at 05:45, 06:02 and 06:51, then nothing until 21:25.

I've always thought the xx10 ex Euston services to Chester / Holyhead could make a Watford call as there are no Virgin departures after that until xx20 so it wouldn't be run down by another VT whilst it's stopped at Watford. The only problem would be the xx13 LM departure which runs on the fast line behind the xx10.

It's all very well Virgin saying "well people can just go into London" but it's not just people from Watford who board long distance services at Watford. Over this Christmas period I've assisted people who are making journeys from all over the south of England and changing for services much further north. I've also assisted people who have been driven to Watford from Stevenage, Hatfield, Gerrards Cross and Uxbridge to start their journey. This is what Virgin do not seem to be realising. Watford has a very large catchment area, the early morning trains which do stop are too early for people in the catchment areas to make it to WFJ in time for! Cramming all these people onto one 4 car 350 or one single Pendolino per hour is quite insufficient for Watford Junction.

It also makes sense to me to start calling a few extra Manchester or Liverpool trains at Watford during the day as it'll save people going to Birmingham for connections on the one VT per hour - something which could be beneficial during the rebuilding of Birmingham New St.

 

[radamfi]

It is still quicker for WFJ to MAN passengers to go via MKC rather than go via EUS. Despite the dwell time at MKC it is still only a 2 hour 27 minute journey time from WFJ to MAN, and 2 hour 15 minutes in the opposite direction, not to be sniffed at, and not very different to the direct trains during BR days! In the old days EUS to MAN trains used to alternate between MKC and WFJ calls, so WFJ was only served two hourly by EUS to MAN trains.

As I have written before, there is a peculiar and irrational British obsession with wanting direct trains, which doesn't exist on the continent.

 

[cle]

But Liverpool was also 2 hourly, and so was Glasgow. So the place was a proper local hub for Intercity trains.

And I take your point about direct services. The difference here is that Watford has had them before and well-established for a long tim, and has long been a railway town/focus - so it's about reinstating them rather than campaigning for something completely brand new or outlandish.

 

[Pumbaa]

I've always thought the xx10 ex Euston services to Chester / Holyhead could make a Watford call as there are no Virgin departures after that until xx20 so it wouldn't be run down by another VT whilst it's stopped at Watford. The only problem would be the xx13 LM departure which runs on the fast line behind the xx10.

You've answered your own query. It will foul up the LM fast to Leighton Buzzard. It comes over at Hanslope in between some cleverly pathed express workings. Delaying it at Watford will make it miss that gap.

It's for that reason during any West Coast disruption that service gets moved to the slows by Bourne End - the delay is self contained then, all it has to do is sit behind a stopper to Tring and wait for it to get out of the way.

 

[cle]

More on the 'Project 110' LM thing:

http://www.northamptonrug.org.uk/documents/pdf/111021 Project 110 SLC Consultation Documents.pdf

 

[ushawk]

If additional stops were to be made, i would of thought MKC would be better, maybe have an extra MK to Watford shuttle, although then its taking up a platform at Watford whilst it turns around, maybe extend it to Euston so theres an additional EUS to MKC stopper, possibly run it in the alternate hour so the Southern.

 

[PR1Berske]

When the battle is "faster trains" verses "more stops", something has to give

And when Watford Junction is connected already by train and tram to central London, any inter-city service additionally stopping there would be far too generous.

 

[Zoe]

VHF is extravagent, as it absorbs too much resources, in terms of rolling stock and paths.

Maybe now but it is needed long term if people are going to get out of their cars.